Dog training - use of handheld remote-controlled training devices (e-collars): report

4. Background

Dog training in the UK

Whilst there is no universally applied terminology for those who train dogs, the main distinction is between dog trainers and dog behaviourists. Dog trainers primarily teach dogs to carry out specific tasks, such as recall and general obedience. Trainers may apply behaviour modification practices to some limited extent, but it is generally dog behaviourists who work with dogs that display unwanted behaviours/behavioural problems. Such behaviours may include predation and aggression.

In practice the difference between the two types of practitioner may be indistinct. Whilst trainers modify behaviours when training a dog, it is generally accepted that behaviourists apply behaviour modification plans, and trainers apply training plans.

Various terms are used to describe those who provide dog behavioural or training services to the public. For example, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC) website defines standards for roles such as Animal Trainer, Animal Training Instructor, Accredited Animal Behaviourist, Animal Behavioural Technician, Clinical Animal Behaviourist and Veterinary Behaviourist (ABTC 2021), see Table 1:

Table 1. The table shows the definitions of the terms used for people who provide dog behavioural or training services to the public, as defined by the ABTC, source: https://abtc.org.uk/owners/types-of-practitioners/

In the UK there are several training paths available to aspirant dog trainers and behaviourists including: National Occupational Standards; ABTC Standards for Animal Trainer, Animal Training Instructor, Animal Behaviour Technician and Clinical Animal Behaviourist; Kennel Club Accredited Instructors, and the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) Clinical Animal Behaviourist Certification.

There is no legal requirement for those who train dogs commercially to have received formal training or to undertake Continuing Professional Development in the subject, and many experienced dog trainers and dog behaviourists have no formal training.

The scale of the dog behaviourist and training industry has not been quantified. Although some practitioners (and organisations) are members of umbrella bodies that have Codes of Conduct and detailed practitioner standards, many are independent. As identified in the 2015 All-party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) Sub-Group for Dogs 'Dog strategy', it is not clear to members of the public how to access training and behaviourist advice. In the Dog strategy document, DEFRA were recommended urgently to "identify and endorse a suitable industry standard and independent regulatory body" for dog behaviourists and trainers (APGAW, 2015, p.10).

The Animal Behaviour and Training Council was formed in response to the call from the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) for the self-regulation of the dog training and behaviour therapy sector (ABTC, 2022).

Unwanted behaviour and veterinary assessment

Several unwanted behaviours, including aggression, fear reactions and inappropriate urination/defaecation can result from pathology that requires veterinary attention (Camps, 2019). In cases such as neuropathology, endocrine disease, and pain, behavioural changes may respond to prescribed medication, with or without behavioural adaptation. Therefore, because veterinary assessment may be required to identify whether a dog is suffering from a pathophysiological condition rather than a primary behavioural change, the role of veterinary surgeons in referral of a dog by an owner to a behaviourist requires clarification. Veterinary surgeons do not currently have a formal role or responsibility in the process that results in the evaluation and treatment by trainers or behaviourists of abnormal behaviour in dogs.

Furthermore, in circumstances where veterinary surgeons decide that it is appropriate to recommend the use of a trainer or behaviourist, the nature of their professional responsibility in making such a recommendation is unclear. In the case of referral to another member of the veterinary profession, the referring veterinary surgeon is required to satisfy themselves that the colleague, organisation or institution to whom they are referring the case, 'is competent to carry out the investigations or treatment involved.' (RCVS, 2022). Similarly, where a veterinary surgeon decides that it is appropriate to delegate a case to a physiotherapist, they 'should ensure, before delegation, that they are confident that the musculoskeletal therapist is appropriately qualified and competent; indicators can include membership of a voluntary register with associated standards of education and conduct, supported by a disciplinary process' (RCVS, 2022). While there is no equivalent duty formally imposed on a veterinary surgeon recommending a behaviourist, a client may reasonably assume that any such recommendation is based on the veterinarian's professional judgement. Yet, in the absence of a regulatory framework for standards and competence in the dog behaviourist profession, it is unclear on what due diligence basis veterinarians can make appropriately informed recommendations for the benefit of clients.

Dog trainer and behaviourist methods and aids in Scotland

There is no formal public regulation of dog training or dog behaviourist activities in Scotland by Scottish Government (SG) or other statutory bodies. Regulation of other activities that impact animals have been prioritised by SG, for example in areas such as animal welfare establishments, dog breeding, and kennelling (Gov.scot, 2021). A Code of Practice has been published to assist those who own and manage dogs. This refers to 'pet care specialists', which are described as 'people who, through qualification or experience, can provide expert advice on welfare and some aspects of health for one or more types of pet animal. Examples are clinical animal behaviourists, veterinary nurses and dedicated welfare organisations'. (Gov.Scot, 2010). However, to equate the term animal behaviourist – clinical or otherwise – with that of a veterinary nurse is inappropriate. The latter practise within a legislative framework and are regulated by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, as amended; RCVS (ND), Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses and Supporting Guidance).

Whilst regulation regarding animal welfare generally does impact animal behaviour and training practices ^[1] , there is no specific legislation that controls the provision of animal training and behaviourist services in Scotland or elsewhere in the UK.

Neither is there any legal control of e-collar use, supply, or possession in Scotland. Scottish Government guidance is that dog training should be conducted with the assistance of a qualified dog trainer, and that the most effective methods of dog training are reward-based (positive) training techniques. Further, training that includes unpleasant (aversive) techniques or physical punishment may cause unacceptable pain, suffering and distress (Gov.scot, 2018). With respect to training devices, the Scottish Government does not condone aversive devices/training aids, including electronic shock collars (e-collars), electronic anti-bark collars, electronic containment systems, or any other method used 'to inflict physical punishment or negative reinforcement.' (Gov.scot, 2018, p.2).

Scottish public opinion and e-collars

Public opinion on the merits and demerits of e-collars was consulted by Scottish Government in both 2007 and 2015-16. In 2007 the Scottish Government issued a consultation paper on the sale, use, distribution, and possession of 'Electronic Training Aids' (i.e., including electronic shock collars (e-collars), sonic and spray collars). In 2015-16 it consulted on the potential controls or prohibition of electronic training aids, including e-collars, anti-bark collars, and boundary fences (again including shock, sonic and spray collars), in relation to both dogs and cats (Gov.scot, 2016). Respondents were evenly divided between those who supported, and those who opposed electronic training aids. Self-identified animal-care- and animal-welfare-focussed respondents tended to be opposed to the use of electronic training aids. Respondents self-identified as providing pet supplies, and owners of working dogs tended to be supportive of their use. The largest single category of respondents - pet owners - was relatively evenly divided on the issue (Gov.scot, 2016).

Scottish Government published, 'Guidance on Dog Training Aids' (Gov.scot, 2018), to fulfil a commitment made to the Scottish Parliament in January 2018 to issue guidance on electronic training aids under Section 38 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. The guidance states that causing unnecessary suffering using any type of aversive training aid, including electronic training aids, may be an offence under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. That said, it is probably only in the most extreme circumstances that a court would be satisfied the offence had been committed, not least because the considerations, which are to be taken into account in determining if any suffering inflicted on an animal is unnecessary, include whether the conduct concerned was for a legitimate purpose, including benefitting the animal or protecting a person, property, or another animal. While the use of electronic training aids remains legal, it is assumed that a court would consider their (proper) use to be legitimate. To secure a conviction, the onus would be on the prosecution to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt either that the degree of suffering caused to the animal was disproportionate to the purpose for which it was inflicted, or the use of the aid was inconsistent with that of a reasonably competent and humane person (Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, s 19(4)).

The Scottish Government committed to review the effectiveness of the 2018 guidance after 12 months to consider the practical experience of Scottish enforcement bodies. Work was delayed during the COVID pandemic; and the report was published in June 2021 (Gov.scot, 2021).

The review confirmed what previous studies had found (Gov.scot, 2018): that two polar views exist. On one side, respondents believed that only reward-based training should be used and that aversive training techniques, including e-collars, should be banned, and on the other, that e-collars should be strictly regulated and used, where appropriate and with supervision, as one element of a mainly reward-based training programme. Those respondents holding 'either of the polar views' thought that the Guidance on Dog Training Aids (Gov.scot, 2018, p.2) was of little use, although others believed that it was acceptable as it was. Those local authorities which responded to the call for evidence found the guidance useful on the rare occasion that they had to speak to dog owners about training aids. Public awareness of the guidance appears to have been very limited, and the authors noted that it was difficult to assess whether the guidance had had any impact on the casual use of aversive training aids. There do not appear to have been many welfare complaints involving aversive training aids in Scotland among those enforcement agencies which responded. Three of the nine reported complaints involving dog training aids (there were 80 complaints reported over four years), none of which warranted written warning on investigation, or prosecution (Gov.scot, 2021).

UK Government

DEFRA conducted a consultation regarding 'Electronic training collars for dogs and cats in England' in 2018 (DEFRA, 2018). As a result of the consultation, DEFRA proposed to ban the use of hand-held remote-controlled e-collar devices under the authority of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. In 2019 The Electronic Collar Manufacturer's Association^TM (ECMA) challenged the lawfulness of this decision by way of judicial review. The claimant's application was dismissed at first instance by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal, which held that the Secretary of State's decision was not irrational in law and did not breach the appellant's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (on the application of Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association and another) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2019] EWHC 2813 (Admin); [2021] EWCA Civ 666 (CA)). DEFRA reiterated its intention to ban e-collars in its Action Plan for Animal Welfare (DEFRA, 2021), 'given their scope to harm cats and dogs' (DEFRA, 2021, p 16). To date the policy has not been pursued and e-collars remain legal training aids in England.

Wales

Under the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010, it is prohibited to attach any type of e-collar using a static-pulse (shock) stimulus to a cat or dog or be responsible for a cat or dog to which an e-collar is attached. The sale of e-collars is not banned under this regulation. There has been one prosecution under the regulations – in 2010 a dog was found to be wearing an electronic collar activated by a containment fence and the owner was fined (BBC, 2011).

The ban in Wales has been challenged and was subject to judicial review at the instigation of the ECMA, which was unsuccessful (Sinclair, 2011). Despite this, a number of media reports continue to call on Welsh ministers to review the ban, largely due to the unsubstantiated assertion that the e-collar ban has caused an increase in sheep worrying/attacks in Wales; see further below). The Welsh Government is reported to have no plans to review the regulations (Dixon, 2022). In response to the reported increase in livestock attacks, the Farmer's Union of Wales has advised the public to keep dogs on a lead when visiting the countryside (FUW, 2021).

Proponents vs. critics of e-collar use

A recent survey (PDSA, 2022) found that 86% of dog owners used training devices for their dogs, and 20% of owners have used aversive training devices ^[2]; of these, water pistol or spray were most widely used (7%), and prong collar and electric shock collars (e-collar) were least used (1%). An earlier survey (PDSA, 2019) found that 25% of owners reported aversive device use, and the PDSA noted that on extrapolation, aversive and negative training methods are used in two million dogs (PDSA, 2022).

Proponents of e-collar use state that the devices may offer a complementary or alternative training method to positive reinforcement methods, and whilst opinions vary between proponents, many espouse the view that whilst abuse or misuse is a potential risk, e-collar use may also be effective with limited risk of harm. Some proponents oppose regulation, some support regulation (see stakeholder written responses, Appendix II).

Proponents for e-collars include the ECMA, the Association of Balanced Dog Trainers, the Scottish Countryside Alliance, and the Association of Responsible Dog Owners.

Critics of e-collars support a ban on their use. They argue that positive reinforcement methods are effective and non-harmful whereas aversive methods are unnecessary, no more effective than positive reinforcement methods, and carry a significant risk of adverse welfare. Critics of e-collars include organisations such SSPCA, RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and British Small Animal Veterinary Association, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council, the Deaf Dog Network and the PDSA.

Predation

When e-collar use is discussed, debate frequently refers to their use in dogs at risk of chasing livestock and other animals – i.e., predation, also termed 'predatory behaviour', or 'predatory aggression'. Other uses to which e-collars are put include obedience training, treatment of other forms of aggression, and in daily use to enhance compliance with previously taught owner instructions.

Predatory aggression is distinct to other forms - for example, pain-related aggression- in that it is motivated by the desire to capture, kill, and consume a species viewed as prey (Martin, 2022). The treatment and prevention of predatory behaviour is contentious. Some authors observe that because reward centres in the brain are activated by the behaviour 'it is difficult to treat by systematic desensitization and counterconditioning techniques, and punishment does not extinguish this behaviour' (Chavez, 2012, p.1), implying that other forms of control, such as lead exercise in the vicinity of livestock and secure containment, may play a significant role in preventing predation. Proponents of e-collar usage point to their success in prevention of predation using the device.

Livestock predation is a distressing and potentially costly behaviour. Allowing or being responsible for a dog that predates livestock may result in statutory punishment. Keeping dogs under proper control, i.e., at heel and obeying commands (CrombieWilkinson, 2022), or on a lead and not allowing them to 'worry' livestock, is a requirement of the Scottish Outdoor Access Code (SOAC, 2018). An owner or person in charge of a dog that attacks or worries livestock commits an offence under the Control of Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, as amended by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 2021. In this context, the term 'worrying' relates to a dog chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury, suffering or abortion, or being loose in a field or enclosure containing sheep. By virtue of the 2021 Act, the maximum penalty has been increased to a term of imprisonment for up to 12 months, or a fine of up to £40,000, or both, and the court may impose orders on the convicted person concerning the owning, keeping and responsibility for dogs. Under the Animals Act 1971, in certain circumstances ^[3], a farmer or landowner has the right to shoot a dog found attacking or worrying their livestock, in order to protect the welfare of the livestock and their livelihood. Further offences may result under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 through causing damage or disturbance to both protected species and other animals, e.g., badgers and wild birds.

Environmental management, or 'restrictive practices' (CAWC, 2012), such as lead exercise, secure fencing, etc., may enable control of dogs at risk of predatory behaviour and prevention of predation. Data to assess the impact of these methods, compared to methods of control such as training, have not been published in the scientific literature, but a police-led pilot study has produced encouraging results (see below).

In Wales, where e-collar use is banned, statistics regarding cases of livestock worrying have been used both to argue for greater penalties, and to defend the use of e-collars.

Recent press reports have linked the Welsh Government ban on e-collar sales to increased livestock deaths (Sunday Telegraph, 2022). The number of recorded livestock worrying cases between 01 September 2013 to 31 August 2017 was 449, (National Police Chiefs Council, 2017), an average of 112 attacks/year, and in 2020 was 72, a slight reduction (North Wales Police, 2022). The Home Office does not require the police to formally record livestock attacks, and so there is no national uniformly recorded statistical picture of the true scale and economic loss to the rural community and of the impact on the UK's food supply.

In a trial period between 01 March and 31 August 2017 five police forces (four in England, and the North Wales Police) conducted a trial that aimed to:

i. Establish a better understanding of the extent of the livestock-worrying problem.

ii. Improve education for police investigations and force control rooms and improve the recording of this crime.

iii. Improve education for farmers to explain legislation, e.g., shooting of dogs.

iv. Raise local and national public awareness through traditional and social media.

v. Enhance partnership working with key stakeholders including National Sheep Association, Sheep Watch UK and Animal Health and Welfare Board for England.

Following the trial, reported incidents of livestock worrying in the Welsh area were significantly reduced when compared to the same period in the previous four years, i.e., 45 cases (National Police Chiefs Council, 2017).

The National Sheep Association (NSA) has said that 'while in Scotland the legislation has been strengthened, NSA feels there is an increased need for dog owner education to reinforce the unpredictable behaviour of even a well-trained dog' (National Sheep Association, 2022). Other livestock-sector bodies have called for continued access to e-collars as an aid to prevent predation, but a recent statement by NFU Mutual regarding livestock attacks advocates that dogs should be kept on leads and does not mention the use of e-collars (NFU Mutual, 2023).

In Scotland, livestock predation has fluctuated, but the 10-year trend has seen significant increases. The table below shows the number of offences under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, recorded by Police Scotland in each year from 2008-09 to 2017-18:

There was a considerable increase in reporting between 2014-15 and 2015-16, which has been maintained in subsequent years. This may partly reflect the impact of efforts to raise awareness of livestock worrying, leading to an increase in reporting. Further, it may be noted that there was a rise in the number of prosecutions and convictions in 2015-16 and 2016-17, which is not reflected in the most recent year (2017-18), despite the overall number of recorded offences having remained at an approximately similar level. It is not clear why this apparent fall in successful prosecutions took place in 2017-18.

Relinquishment and euthanasia of dogs due to unwanted behaviour

Unwanted behaviour in dogs has a significant impact on owners and dogs, but application of reward-based training can reduce this impact.

Dogs' behavioural problems are a leading cause for relinquishment of dogs to dog shelters, and relinquishment can exacerbate the unwanted behaviour (Powdrill-Wells, 2021). Unwanted dog behaviour can adversely affect the human-animal bond, upsetting daily activities and cause owner frustration (Verga, 2009). In both the UK and Australia, the most common cause of death in young dogs (< 3-years old) ^[4] was euthanasia due to unwanted behaviour (Yu, 2021). When owners were offered behavioural advice at the point of relinquishment, 24.4% accepted the offer (Powdrill-Wells, 2021), and Vandergraff (2017) found that the application of reward-based training improved dogs' behaviour, increased the likelihood of being adopted, and decreased the likelihood of euthanasia.

Section Summary

Currently, there is no legal requirement for those who train dogs to complete formal training, or continuing professional development, and many experienced dog trainers and dog behaviourists have no formal training. Scottish Government guidance is that dog training should be conducted with the assistance of a qualified dog trainer. However, there is no universally applied industry standard of competence or conduct for dog trainers or behaviourists.

Although the use of aversive training techniques, such as e-collars, is not condoned by the Scottish Government, in Scotland there is no legal control of e-collar use, supply or possession, nor is there reliable data on how many e-collars are currently in use. While the uses for e-collars include daily use to reinforce learned behaviour, and treatment of many unwanted behaviours, the application of the device to prevent livestock predation is commonly cited by those in favour of their use.

In Wales, where e-collar use is banned, statistics regarding cases of livestock worrying have been used both to argue for greater penalties, and to defend the use of e-collars. A trial by Welsh police to reduce sheep predation by dogs through stakeholder education was successful.