Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020: provisions and requirements for additional animal welfare, animal health and wildlife offences - review

3. Special parliamentary interest

Under Section 16 of the 2020 Act, Scottish Ministers are required to consider whether (legal) provision should be made (a) for a specific offence of theft of a pet, and (b) to prohibit the attaching, or causing or permitting the attaching, to a dog or other animal of a collar or other wearable device designed to administer an electric shock. Scottish Ministers are also required to consider the appropriate penalties to be available for any such offences, the action, if any, the Scottish Ministers intend to take as a result of the review, and, where the Scottish Ministers do not intend to take steps to make provisions, their reasons for this.

This section addresses these obligations.

3.1 Specific offence of theft of a pet

3.1.1 Introduction

Section 16(1) of the 2020 Act provides that the Scottish Government must conduct a review of whether the provisions of the 2020 Act are sufficient to ensure appropriate standards of animal welfare, animal health and protection of wildlife. In so doing, the Scottish Government review must consider, under section 16(2) of the 2020 Act, whether provision should be made for a specific offence of theft of a pet.

Within this context, in August 2024 we sought views from a number of stakeholders (Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, Police Scotland, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust and the Scottish Sentencing Council) in respect of the following questions:

1. Current approach:

a. What law (or laws) are used to respond to incidents of pet theft?

b. What data do you have which provides information on the use of these law (or laws)? If you do have data, please provide it when responding.

c. What is your view on the effectiveness of these law (or laws) in terms of ensuring appropriate standards of:

i. Animal welfare

ii. Animal health

iii. Protection of wildlife

d. What is your view on the effectiveness of these law (or laws) in general terms?

2. What is your view on any proposal to introduce a new statutory offence of pet theft?

3. Please offer any other views you would like to offer not covered by questions 1(a-d) and 2.

3.1.2 Feedback received

Relevant laws used to respond to incidents of pet theft

The Crown Office and Procurator Service (COPFS) are the independent prosecution service in Scotland. They advised they use the common law of theft and various implied alternatives in circumstances where a report has been made of theft of a pet.

Police Scotland advised they would investigate incidents of theft of a pet under the common law of theft. They noted that where a stolen pet had suffered unnecessarily, separate offences under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 could be considered.

The SSPCA referred to theft too as the relevant offence. The Dogs Trust did not offer a specific view on this question.

Data - the use of relevant laws

In their response, the COPFS advised they had used their internal operational database to assess the nature of general offences of theft so as to seek to identity when theft related to pets. The information they provided is not guaranteed to be completely accurate given the limitations of their ability to search using certain key words (e.g. dog, cat etc.). However, the data does give a broad indication of level of relevant offences over a considerable period.

Within this context, COPFS advise that 335 “pet theft” charges were reported to them during the eleven year period April 2014 to March 2024. This equates to an average of 30 charges a year or less than one a week over this period for all of Scotland.

For these charges, 200 were prosecuted in a summary court, 45 were prosecuted in a solemn court, 64 were marked no action (e.g. due to insufficient evidence) and 26 were marked for a COPFS direct measure (e.g. a fiscal fine).

Police Scotland and the SSPCA were not able or did not provide any data.

The Dogs Trust referred to estimates from the Kennel Club that there were 193 suspected dog thefts in Scotland in 2020. They also referred to Police Scotland data previously published which indicates 48 dog thefts in 2019-20 and 60 in 2020-21.

Effectiveness of relevant laws in terms of ensuring appropriate standards of: a) animal welfare, b) animal health and c) protection of wildlife

The COPFS noted there were specific offences in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 which relate to animal welfare and health. As such, common law theft does not directly affect these matters except in the situation where the theft involves other conduct which amounts to, for example, cruelty to animals. Police Scotland indicated similar views to COPFS.

The SSPCA indicated they wished for the welfare of a stolen pet to be taken into account. They suggested this was not recognised under the common law of theft with pets treated as inanimate objects.

The Dogs Trust referred to the harm that can arise with dog theft for the individual dogs involved and this was an important element to be considered. The Dogs Trust suggested the strength of the human-animal bond was a primary consideration for the court to be consider when sentencing in relevant cases.

The Scottish Sentencing Council referred to work undertaken by the English and Welsh Sentencing Council on theft offences under English and Welsh law. In particular, they noted the following comments made by English and Welsh Council:

“… The Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance proposed that guidelines should be introduced for theft of pets. The Council considered this request but concluded that the general theft guideline adequately deals with this type of theft. The harm caused by the theft of a much-loved pet can be taken into account as part the assessment of harm, in which the factor of ‘emotional distress’ would enable the court to reflect any significant additional harm caused by the theft.”

The Scottish Sentencing Council went on to note that under Scottish sentencing guidelines which relate to assessment of harm which apply generally to offences, it is open to a court to consider this specific aspect of harm that may be caused by theft of a pet.

There was little specific feedback offered in terms of wildlife (which reflects that pets are, by definition, not considered as wildlife). However, the SSPCA did highlight current law relating to the rules that need to be adhered to in terms of how wild animals/exotics can be kept within a domestic setting. They noted a lack of data on such matters in terms of where relevant animals were kept as “pets”.

Effectiveness of relevant laws generally and merits of a new statutory offence

The COPFS indicated the current law is effective and provides recourse for criminal behaviour that involves an allegation of pet theft. As such, they did not consider any particular merit in a new statutory offence of pet theft given the effectiveness of existing general law.

Police Scotland noted a new offence may acknowledge and account for the unique emotional impact of this crime (of theft of a pet). They did note any new offence was unlikely to have a significant impact on how Police Scotland investigated such crimes. They noted in addition better monitoring through improved data may result from a new offence.

The SSPCA supports a new offence of theft of a pet. This is based on a need in their view for pets to be seen as family members and a new offence would more effectively allow this to be reflected.

The Dogs Trust also supports a specific offence including on the basis this will result in “tougher sentences”. Reference was made to the new offence of abduction of a dog or a cat which came into force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in August 2024. Dogs Trust also indicated a specific offence would improve recording of such incidents.

3.1.3 Scottish Government position

Section 16(5) of the 2020 Act requires the Scottish Ministers to include a statement of the action, if any, that is intended to be taken as a result of this review and where the Scottish Ministers do not intend to take steps to make provision for the offence of theft of a pet, their reasons for this.

It is clear from this review that there are a range of views on the merits of having a specific offence of theft of a pet. Some see merit in creating a new specific offence as meaning, amongst other matters, greater recognition of the effect on pet owners where a pet is stolen. Set against this, some highlighted the approach under current law and sentencing guidelines means the effect on pet owners of theft of a pet is an aspect that is taken into account through the criminal courts when conduct amounting to theft of a pet arises.

While the Scottish Government keeps criminal law under review, there are no current plans to seek to legislate to create a new offence of theft of a pet. This is on the basis that there is no consensus on whether there should be a specific offence of theft of a pet. It is noted at the time of writing that Maurice Golden MSP has a Member’s Bill proposal in relation to a new offence of dog abduction where it is likely the issues discussed in this review will be relevant including whether there is clear evidence of a gap in the operation of the law.

3.2 Static pulse collars

3.2.1 Introduction

Remote control dog training collars that use a static pulse as a stimulus, otherwise known as shock collars, have been a controversial topic for a number of years. Indeed, there was consideration by the Scottish Parliament of whether this type of device should and could be banned as far back as the passage of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Bill itself, due to concerns about the potential for their mis-use to cause pain and distress. The conclusion at that time was not to; however calls for a ban on these devices have continued ever since. Other types of collars using static pulse as a stimulus, for example anti-bark collars or those associated with invisible fencing, have received less attention over the years, but are included in our considerations here, as per the requirements set out in the 2020 Act.

The Scottish Government has been considering this matter for a number of years. We present here a summary of our findings to date.

3.2.2 Information gathered

2007 - Consultation

In 2007 the Scottish Government consulted on the use, sale, distribution and possession of electronic training aids to obtain information and evidence about how these devices were used, their benefits and the problems that can arise from their use.

Organisations supporting a ban on the use some types of electronic training aids, including sonic or spray collars were some animal welfare organisations; the Kennel Club; the Scottish Kennel Club; the majority of dog breeding and training clubs; two of the three veterinary practices that responded; the British Small Animal Veterinary Association; pet training and pet advisory organisations; and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.

This was balanced by strong opposition to a ban from other organisations including the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland; the Scottish Countryside Alliance; and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association.

Responses from private individuals were split in their views but, of those who expressed a clear view, 36 were in favour of a ban and 37 were against.

The analysis of the responses to the consultation can be found here:

Consultation on potential controls or prohibition of electronic training aids in Scotland - Analysis of Consultation Responses

Those against the use of electronic training aids believed that the most effective way of training an animal was by rewarding the animal for good behaviour, rather than punishing it for unwanted behaviour. They also considered that when using an electronic training device an animal only responded out of fear or pain, and may associate the stimulus with something in the area rather than with unwanted behaviour.

In contrast, some individuals felt that the use of electronic training aids had saved their pets from being destroyed. The devices were said to be used as a last resort to teach their pets to remain within a garden or stop them from chasing other animals (including livestock). Many respondents believed that after the initial training using static electric pulses, only the audio or vibrate function would be required as animals learn quickly.

There was no clear consensus from respondents to the consultation as to whether some or all electronic training aids should be banned.

2012 – Companion Animal Welfare Council report

In June 2012 the Companion Animal Welfare Council (CAWC) published its report on The Use of Electric Pulse Training Aids (EPTAs) in Companion Animals. This set out the findings from a systematic review of peer-reviewed scientific publications and a call for evidence. It revealed only ten publications of direct relevance to the specific use of electronic training aids in dogs and none in other companion animal species. It was noted that there were significant limitations in the quality of reporting and conclusions that could be drawn.

The report noted that there are sound animal welfare-based arguments both for and against the use of electronic training aids in theory, but there is also a lack of relevant research to inform the debate. It suggested that there is a need for further research into the use of electronic training aids to generate good scientific evidence about their effects on companion animals.

CAWC considered that the lack of conclusive scientific research concerning the welfare implications means that, at present, decisions on whether or not to legally permit the use of electronic training aids would need to be informed by broader ethical analyses. They noted that widespread free use of manual electronic training aids does not appear to be compatible with the moral climate underpinning the spirit of animal welfare legislation, but that regulated use of manual devices may be acceptable if sufficient safeguards can be put in place to prevent deliberate or unintentional harm or misuse. The report made recommendations on the design and use of electronic aids.

2013 – Defra-funded research

In 2013 Defra commissioned research from the Universities of Lincoln and Bristol. Project AW1402 was commissioned to assess the effect of pet training devices, specifically remote-controlled static pulse systems, on the welfare of domestic dogs.

The research found that there are differences in stimulus strength/duration between brands of electronic collars, and that while manuals were clear on the operation and fit of the collar, there were varying levels of information on their use in training and such advice was not always taken up by users. The majority of owners in the study used electronic collars for specific problem behaviours: recall problems and livestock chasing being most commonly reported. Some dogs did react to being trained with electronic collars, with levels of stress hormones and behavioural indicators of tenseness increasing between testing without a collar and testing with a dummy collar for some dogs using collars compared with those dogs subject to positive reinforcement measures.

The report concludes that “it seems reasonable to conclude that the previous use of e-collars in training is associated with behavioural and physiological responses that are consistent with negative emotional states, suggesting that the use of e-collars in training pet dogs leads to a negative impact on welfare, at least in a proportion of animals trained using this technique”.

The second project, AW1402a, was a field study of dogs in training. Physiological and behavioural measurements were taken in 3 groups of 21 dogs in twice daily training sessions dealing with animal chasing/recall problems by experienced trainers over 4/5 days, with one group using static electric pulse collars in accordance with manufacturers guidelines, the other two groups without electronic collars

The study found behavioural evidence that use of e-collars negatively impacted on the welfare of some dogs during training even when training was conducted by professional trainers using relatively benign training programmes advised by e-collar advocates. However, for most dogs, the use of an e-collar appeared to have no obvious negative welfare impact. Both the trainers’ general approach and the tools they use in training affect the dog’s emotional responses to training and other training including positive reinforcement was as effective.

2015 - Consultation

In 2015 the Scottish Government issued a consultation on Potential Controls or Prohibition of Electronic Training Aids in Scotland. The consultation covered the use of electronic training devices for cats and dogs. It included remote control training collars, anti-bark collars and pet containment fences (also known as electric boundary or freedom fences) using either a static electric pulse, sound, vibration or water or citronella spray.

Responses were received from 1032 respondents. The majority of responses came from pet owners (64%) and animal trainers (13%). Responses were also received from the general public, animal behaviourists, animal welfare organisations, veterinary professionals, owners of working dogs, local government and pet supply companies.

Respondents tended to approach the issue from one of two viewpoints – either that electronic training aids are effective and can allow some animals to lead happier lives or that they are harmful if not cruel and far better training approaches are available. Certain categories of respondent very clearly tended to one side of the argument or the other. In particular, animal care and animal welfare respondents clearly tended to be opposed to the use of electronic training aids. Pet supplies respondents and owners of working dogs clearly tended to be supportive of their use. The largest individual category of respondents - pet owners - was relatively evenly divided on the issue.

Both those that opposed and those that broadly supported the use of electronic training aids very often drew on personal experience of using electronic training aids, either with their own pets or when working with other people’s animals. The majority of these respondents appeared to be referring to using remote training collars, although there were also references to anti-bark collars and boundary fence systems. Those who opposed the use of some or all electronic training aids tended to voice very particular concerns about the use of static pulse devices.

Thirty nine percent of the respondents felt that the current provisions within the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 were sufficient; 53% thought that they were not. Just over half of respondents (51%) felt that Scottish Government Guidance or a Statutory Welfare Code was required, however a proportion of those respondents would prefer that the Scottish Government introduce legislation to ban the use of devices.

Given choice between a ban on certain devices or stricter regulations 44% thought a ban on certain devices was required, with 5% seeking stricter regulations. Ten percent of the respondents thought that the Scottish Government could introduce a ban on certain devices and put in force stricter regulations for the others; 9% favoured guidance or a statutory welfare code and 28% felt that current legislation was sufficient.

When asked which devices should be banned, 51% favoured a ban on remote training and anti-bark collars using static pulse, 41% of respondents were in favour of spray and sonic remote training and anti-bark collars being banned, and 40% were in favour of a ban on boundary fence systems using static pulse. Thirty percent of respondents wished to see a ban on remote training vibration collars and 33% for anti-bark vibration collars however many respondents did see the benefit on using a vibration collar on a hearing or sight impaired animal.

Respondents who supported the use of electronic training aids were likely to make one or more of the following points:

• Electronic training aids can bring very real benefits to animals that might otherwise have led very restricted lives, or for which euthanasia would have been a likely option. This may include animals for which other training methods had not worked.
• They may be particularly effective for specific types of dogs, including some working dog breeds, which have a very strong instinct to chase other animals and which may not respond to other training cues. Deaf or blind dogs may benefit from the use of vibration collars. Those making this latter point included some respondents who were otherwise very strongly opposed to the use of electronic training aids.
• Based on their personal experience, they have seen no evidence that animals suffer when electronic training aids are used correctly. Anything can be open to misuse; there is no particular association with electronic training aids.
• The existing legislation is sufficient to protect animals. It is clear that causing unnecessary suffering to an animal - whether with an electronic training aid or by any other means - is against the law. Enforcing the existing law would be more effective in protecting animals than adding further legislation or regulations. Any statutory controls should be focused on the quality and specification of the devices available.
• The most effective way to address any issues would be through further education. Training or licensing could be either encouraged or required. One option could be devices only being available under supervision and/or after training from a licensed or regulated practitioner. There may also be a case for some form of code or guidance.

Respondents who opposed the use of electronic training aids were likely to make one or more of the following points:

• Using electronic training aids is harmful and/or cruel. In addition to immediate pain or distress, they may cause anxiety-related behaviours, lead to dogs shutting down psychologically, lead to dogs re-directing any aggression at other dogs or people and can cause physical injuries.
• There is no need to use training methods which are punishment-based and dependent on inflicting pain or creating fear. This approach suppresses behaviour without addressing its underlying cause or the motivation behind it. The electronic training aids themselves are very difficult to use correctly. There are much more effective and humane positive reinforcement training methods available.
• The existing animal welfare legislation is not sufficient to protect animals, not least because it does not prevent the use of static pulse collars. The 'unnecessary' suffering referenced in the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 is a subjective concept which is potentially difficult to prove.
• Electronic training aids should be banned, and in particular any devices with a static pulse function should be banned. Any regulations would be very difficult, if not impossible, to enforce and only a ban would offer sufficient protection to animals. If the Scottish Government does not introduce a ban then strict regulations might at least offer some protection to animals.
• There may be occasions when vibration collars could be permitted for use. Suggestions included all vibration collars being acceptable if regulated, through to vibration collars only being acceptable under certain circumstances, such as if all other approaches have failed and euthanasia is the only alternative, or for deaf dogs.

Overall, respondents to this consultation were divided on whether the Scottish Government should take action in this area. Broadly speaking, one group thought that little, if any, change is required. Others called for a ban of the use of electronic training aids in Scotland and of static pulse devices in particular.

2021 - Review of Guidance on Dog Training Aids

In 2018 The Scottish Government published guidance on dog training aids, including devices using a static pulse. The Guidance on Dog Training Aids was developed in discussion with animal welfare organisations including the Scottish SPCA, Dogs Trust, Kennel Club and BVA. It provides important advice on any and all aversive training techniques for both dog owners and those enforcing the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. It makes it very clear that causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal is a criminal offence, and that this may include unnecessary suffering caused by inappropriate training methods. It also notes that the Guidance may be considered relevant in a prosecution under the 2006 Act, and, although guidance is advisory, a court may, at their discretion, take into account compliance or non-compliance with guidance in establishing liability in a prosecution under Section 19 or Section 24 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006.

The usefulness of this guidance was reviewed via survey targeted at organisations including animal welfare organisations, dog trainers, animal behaviourists, those involved in the manufacture or supply of electronic collars, Local Authorities and the veterinary profession.

Although not the topic of the survey, the responses received clearly demonstrated the continued polarisation of viewpoints regarding aversive dog training in general and in particular, the use of static pulse collars. Both view-points are based on wanting to ensure the safety and welfare of the dogs concerned, and of any people or animals around them and clearly influenced what many respondents thought about the Scottish Government's guidance. Those holding either of the polar viewpoints generally thought the guidance was of little use. There were some respondents that thought the guidance was fine as it is, and enforcement agencies in particular seem to have found it useful where they have had occasion to speak to dog owners about dog training aids. However, this in itself appears to be a rare occurrence for most Local Authorities that responded.

Only 3 of the 33 enforcement agencies surveyed (of which 9 responded) reported any complaints involving dog training aids, and there were only 80 complaints reported over 4 years, none of which warranted even a written warning on investigation, much less prosecution.

2023 - Consideration by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) published their report on the use of handheld remote-controlled training devices in dog training in April 2023. The report specifically considered the welfare impact of remote-controlled training devices using static pulse as a stimulus. In producing the report, the Commission consulted with stakeholders on both sides of the debate regarding e-collar use, gathered written and verbal evidence from both proponents and opponents of e-collar use, and conducted a review of relevant published literature.

The Commission consider that their literature review demonstrated multiple scenarios where reward-based training methods were at least as effective or more effective than aversive techniques, though they acknowledge that some studies were ambiguous, and some commentators defended the use of e-collars. They did find evidence in the literature that there can be welfare harms to dogs trained with e-collars, such as stress-related behaviours, pain, physical harm, behavioural problems, and damage to the human-animal bond between owner and dog.

However, they also acknowledge that high-quality research regarding the beneficial or adverse effects of e-collar use was limited. Most of the research evidence relating to e-collars falls into the categories of background information, anecdote, expert opinion, and questionnaire responses. The evidence resulting from higher quality research, such as observational studies, comparative studies, and meta studies, was more limited and questionnaire data from users of e-collars provide mixed results.

SAWC consider that, given the risk of misuse and abuse of e-collars, the absence of published, peer-reviewed evidence that e-collars are necessary, and the availability of alternatives, there is insufficient ethical justification to permit their use. As such, in the view of the Commission, these devices should be assumed to be a potential cause of unjustified harm and unnecessary suffering. They consider that, whatever the skill of the user, e-collars have the potential to cause harm and that that risk is disproportionate to the perceived training benefit. Reward-based training methods appear to be at least as effective, and environmental controls have the potential significantly to reduce livestock predation. The Commission recommended that the use of e-collars for the training of animals in Scotland should be prohibited in Scotland.

2025 – Consideration by the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) published their report on the use of devices other than handheld remote-controlled electronic devices (e-collars/shock collars) in the training of dogs in March 2025. The report considered the animal welfare impact of alternative aversive training devices on dogs. In producing their report, SAWC approached relevant stakeholders for their views regarding the use of dog training devices and undertook a literature review.

With regard to the literature review, SAWC found the number of studies assessing the use of the training tools considered in this report limited. Studies often used small populations of dogs and, in reference to anti-bark collars, did not reach a consensus on efficacy. SAWC cited a number of instances of physical injuries in studies on anti-bark collars, including burns, with citronella spray causing freezing and sneezing in a number of dogs and great distress in one particular dog. The risk of physical injury from a prong collar or choke chain is considered significant. Incidences of neck injuries and infections due to tight choke chains have been reported in the UK. The death of a dog was reported in 2013 where the owner suspended the animal by a choke chain during training for approximately 60 seconds. The probability and impact of injury risk has not been examined, however.

The report notes that the majority of aversive devices are used to reduce/prevent unwanted behaviour such as lead pulling or barking/howling. Feedback from stakeholders demonstrated the use of a wide range of devices for a range of purposes, with lead pulling being the most prevalent behavioural challenge for which aversive devices were used. Responses were divided between those who believe there are welfare risks to dogs and others from the use of aversive training devices and those who believe there are welfare risks to dogs and others from not using aversive training devices. Both users and opponents of aversive devices recognise that improper use of aversive devices may result in welfare harms.

SAWC found limited peer reviewed literature to evidence that the aversive training devices considered were beneficial. They suggest that where aversive training methods are proposed the onus should be on the advocate of such methods to evidence their positive impact on welfare, efficacy and utility rather than on critics of such methods, or advocates of non-aversive methods to establish the harm that may result from their application.

SAWC note that aversive devices are readily available to the public from both online and high street retailers and it is likely that some dog owners are using them without consulting a veterinary or dog training professional. They do not recommend any legislation or guidance for the devices considered in this report as they do not consider the evidence sufficiently robust. However, they do recommend that Scottish Ministers introduce legislation that require dog trainers/behaviourists to follow a regulatory framework.

Current status of evidence on static pulse collars

It is clear from the above that evidence on the topics of both static pulse collars and the use of aversive training methods indicates contradictory and opposing positions. To summarise, those are:

1. Training should be reward only:

• Reward-based training always works if the owner/trainer does it correctly and sticks with it long enough.
• Aversive training methods can cause pain and suffering.
• Aversive methods may cause further behavioural problems.
• Aversive methods should never be used.
• Static pulse collars should be banned as they could be used to cause pain.

2. Training should balance reward with targeted aversion if necessary:

• Reward-based training is preferred; however, it does not always work. Dogs naturally learn from consequences, which may be rewarding or aversive.
• Aversive training methods do not need to be painful to work and should always use the lowest level of stimulus that stops the problem behaviour.
• Problem behaviour that could potentially cause harm to the dog, its owner, or other people/animals must be addressed. Where reward-only training fails, this leaves only continuous management of the behaviour/risk indefinitely, for example by keeping the dog on the lead or by putting a muzzle on. This would compromise of the dog’s quality of life in the long-term.
• Aversive methods should be employed in such situations. These should be appropriate for the behavioural problem and dog temperament concerned and often only need to be used in the short term.
• Remote controlled training collars using static pulse as a stimulus can provide short, well-timed stimuli at the lowest level required to stop a problem behaviour. They are a more nuanced and much safer tool than many other aversive training devices in more frequent use by dog owners. Prevention of mis-use should be by regulation.

It seems unlikely that this impasse in conflicting approaches to dog training, which lies within the dog training industry and the dog-owning populations themselves, will be resolved anytime soon.

As SAWC found in their report, high-quality research regarding the beneficial or adverse effects of remote-controlled static pulse collars was limited. Most of the research evidence they considered was collections of background information, anecdotes, expert opinions, and questionnaire responses. Evidence from higher quality research, such as observational studies and comparative studies remains limited. The Defra-sponsored research by Lincoln and Bristol Universities found evidence that remote-controlled training collars using static pulse had adverse impacts (yelping and tenseness) in some, but not all, of the dogs in their studies although both concluded that there were welfare concerns from their misuse. Research by Arizona State University published after the SAWC report has shown experimentally that this same type of collar was effective at stopping dogs chasing a lure and that food rewards failed to do so^[2]. Yet others have confidently stated their opinions or referenced studies that suggest food rewards are always as or more effective at preventing unwanted behaviours as aversive methods.

The evidence, in summary, is sparse, conflicting, and mainly concentrated on the use of remote-controlled static pulse collars in dogs. Little attention has been paid to other types of static pulse collars, such as freedom fencing or anti-bark collars, or to other animals such as cats.

3.2.3 UK Government Position

In 2018, Defra consulted on a proposed ban on the use of any electronic training collars (e-collars) on dogs and cats in England. They concluded that the use of remote controlled e-collars was too easily subject to abuse, potentially leading to welfare problems, and that secondary legislation would be introduced under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to ban the use of remote controlled hand held e-collars, but not invisible fencing containment systems.

To date this proposed ban has not been introduced and the use of e-collars is still legal in England.

3.2.4 Welsh Government Position

Attaching a collar designed to administer an electric shock to a cat or dog was prohibited in Wales by the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010. The justification for the ban seems to have been largely precautionary rather than evidence based. The Welsh regulations were made under sections 12 and 62 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which has effect in England and Wales. Section 12 provides that the appropriate national authority may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of promoting the welfare of animals.

3.2.5 Criteria for legislating

As noted at the beginning of this review, the Scottish Government has a responsibility to ensure that any legislation that it produces is necessary, fair, and proportionate, and to ensure that there are no negative unintended consequences from legislation. In addition, the Scottish Government can only legislate within its legislative powers.

Necessary

There is some evidence that the use of remote-control static pulse collars may have a negative impact (yelping, tenseness) on some (not all) dogs during the normal course of training. There are concerns that this type of collar could be used to cause significant pain and distress, either purposefully or through misunderstanding how the collar should be used. These concerns are valid; however, it is not clear that they have been borne out in practice or that a ban is necessary to resolve them.

Fair

Although attention has been firmly focussed over the years on remote-control static pulse collars, these are only one of a wide range of aversive training devices, which include multiple other types of electronic collars, some that spray noxious citronella oil, a variety of designs of head collars, various versions of choke leads, and prong collars. The mis-use of any of these devices could also cause significant harm to the dogs concerned, and it is unclear whether static pulse devices are any ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than any of these other devices in terms of either actual or potential negative impact on dog welfare. It is therefore not clear whether singling out static pulse collars for a ban, and therefore impacting only those that manufacture or use that precise aversive tool, could be considered fair.

Proportionate

There are three main options for dealing with static pulse collars: Guidance, regulation, and prohibiting use. Having published our Guidance on Dog Training Aids in 2018 and reviewed it in 2020, the Scottish Government recognises that for those holding either of the polarised viewpoints on dog training, guidance on aversive devices will never be enough. Depending on their viewpoint, they either want these devices clearly legitimised and used safely and responsibly, or they want them banned. The Scottish Government had previously announced plans for tough new laws on the use of electronic training collars in 2016, in light of the results of the 2015 consultation. This commitment was later published in our Programme for Government 2017/18, the intention being to tightly control the use of electronic dog training collars to allow responsible use under properly accredited supervision while minimising the potential for misuse and preventing the use of low-quality devices. However these proposals were not taken forward. It was judged that as it appeared clear that all those opposing the use of any aversive devices plus at least some of those supportive of using them were not going to support regulation, there seemed little point in pursuing it. However, it remains unclear why concerns surrounding the potential for harm to be inflicted using static pulse collars could not be mitigated through regulation, and a ban might therefore be considered disproportionate.

Potential unintended consequences

It is clear that those supporting the use of e-collars are concerned about the long-term risks to people and other animals of leaving problem behaviours that have not resolved through reward-based training unaddressed. It is clear that they are also concerned about the long-term impact on the quality of life for dogs where behaviour management techniques such as keeping dogs permanently on leads or using muzzles must be employed indefinitely. Static pulse collars are not the only aversive tool available for consideration within a balanced training approach, but there are some that consider them to be the most effective and safest aversive tool. It is not clear whether prohibiting the use of static pulse collars might inadvertently encourage the use of less effective tools with a greater potential risk of harm to the dog.

Legislative powers

Section 26 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 provides that Scottish Ministers may, by regulations, make provision for the purposes of and in connection with securing the welfare of animals, and which may in particular include provision prescribing general or specific requirements or prohibitions.

3.2.6 Scottish Government position

Static pulse collars, and the wider context of aversive training methods, raise emotive and concerning issues, with those on both sides of the debate considering that they have the welfare of dogs firmly in mind and that the other side is wrong.

The Scottish Government has spent nearly twenty years considering the matter of static pulse collars and other aversive devices. We have consulted with dog owners, dog trainers, industry, animal welfare organisations. Opinions were polarised. We have considered the outputs of research and commissioned opinions from animal welfare experts. Yet there remains no conclusive evidence that the proper use of a modern static pulse collar is inherently harmful to dogs, or that it is more harmful than leaving the problem behaviour unresolved if reward-based training has failed. There also remains no clear evidence that the harm that can potentially be inflicted by mis-using a static pulse collar is any greater than the harm that can be caused by mis-using other aversive devices. In the absence of this, we cannot rule out the potential for harmful unintended consequences from a ban on static pulse devices and it remains unclear whether prohibiting the use of static pulse collars would meet the requirement for necessary, fair, or proportionate regulation,

While the Scottish Government have long accepted that concerns around the potential for harm to befall pets through the mis-use of static pulse collars, whether through ignorance or malice, are entirely valid, there have been no reported written warnings, prosecutions or convictions arising from the misuse of, and harm caused by use of a static pulse collar in Scotland. It remains unclear whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that a ban on such devices would secure animal welfare.

However, given the clear recommendation by SAWC in 2023, and the fact that the last relevant Scottish Government consultation undertaken was 10 years ago, we will consult on a proposal to ban remote controlled training collars using static pulse as a stimulus. We will also carefully consider the recently completed SAWC report on the welfare impact of a wider range of aversive training devices, but note that this report does not recommend the prohibition of any devices other than remote controlled static pulse collars.