×

Shock collars.

‘Shock’ collars to control pets AREN’T cruel. Banning them will kill our furry friends… a controversial but passionately held view by QUENTIN LETTS who’s sure electric collars help keep his beloved dogs alive

Part Bedlington terrier, part Heinz, Cinders (pictured) loved to run. She would pin back her ears and chase the breeze

Part Bedlington terrier, part Heinz, Cinders (pictured) loved to run. She would pin back her ears and chase the breeze

When I heard Conservative politicians talk of ‘freedom’ this week at an event to promote individual liberty, I thought of our late dog Cinders.

Part Bedlington terrier, part Heinz, Cinders loved to run. She would pin back her ears and chase the breeze. To see that darling dog sprint from side to side of our Herefordshire field, a flat, grey, galloping streak of speed, was to see freedom.

One winter morning 12 years ago, Cinders was hit by a car on the road outside our house. The motorist, brutishly, did not stop.

Although her two back legs were wrecked, Cinders somehow managed to crawl to our front door in a pitiable state and we rushed her to the vet. After more than £1,000 worth of treatment, she survived.

But she never ran again, poor love, and I have never been sure we did the right thing in keeping her alive for another couple of years. Without running, life had lost its zest for her and eventually we had to have her put to sleep.

When we gave a home to a new dog (Flip, an adult Patterdale terrier), we were worried when she kept exploring the road. How could we keep her safe? A friend suggested a freedom collar. This device has a watch-style battery which gives the dog a warning vibration when it crosses a wire buried round the perimeter of your garden.

The vibration, comparable to an electric charge (think static carpet), is preceded by a beeping noise. After a couple of ‘shocks’ the dog learns to stop advancing as soon as it hears that beeping. Although they are called ‘shock collars’ they should really be called ‘beeping collars’, for that is what works as the deterrent.

It’s a clever system and works brilliantly. I only wish we had known about it before Cinders had her accident. Flip, and more recently her daughter Bonnie, have worn their collars for years.

Like most terriers they are frisky souls — a polite way of saying they are exuberantly disobedient, particularly if they spot a rabbit — but thanks to that collar both dogs have kept away from the road.

The collar has also stopped them terrorising the public right of way that cuts through our garden. It has stopped them yapping round the ankles of ramblers and the hooves of horses.

Meanwhile, Flip and Bonnie are free to roam our field. They may not run as elegantly as Cinders but they love the freedom. And if you think they are scared of their collars, please explain why they happily sit at my feet while I fix them in place.

All that is now imperilled thanks to our interfering political class. Officials at the Environment Department propose to ban freedom collars, having been got at by professional animal-rights lobbyists who claim the collars are cruel.

Thousands of dog and cat owners in England thus face a dilemma (it’s estimated there are around half a million electric dog collars in use in Britain).

If a ban comes into force, should they disobey the law? Or should they remove their pets’ collars and put them at risk of being run over?

Supporters of the proposed ban want to outlaw both the sort of electric containment fences that we use for Flip and Bonnie, and handheld devices which allow dog trainers to give their animals shocks at the press of a button.

I have never used such a machine, but some dog owners say they can be useful in controlling their pets in the street or in fields with livestock. Maybe they can but my concern, as I have described, is for the beeping collars which keep a dog inside its familiar territory. Both systems may soon be outlawed.

The way some animal-rights fanatics talk, anyone who uses such a containment fence for their cat or dog is worse than Hannibal Lecter. When I debated the matter on BBC1’s Daily Politics this week with Scots Nationalist MP Deidre Brock, she claimed that the collars administered electric shocks of 6,000 volts. From one tiny little battery? The word for that claim is ‘barking’.

Pictured: One of the shock collars modelled on a dog 

Pictured: One of the shock collars modelled on a dog

On social media, those of us who support freedom collars are denounced as fascists and animal torturers and worse. ‘Wear one yourself and see how you like it!’ scream anonymous online commentators. My answer to this is: ‘I did.’ Before we ever used the collar on Flip, I tested it on myself to make sure she would not be hurt by the vibration. ‘Build a real fence, mate!’ say others.

Had they ever met a Patterdale terrier, they would know they will dig under a fence within minutes. One of my wife’s first pets, a sausage dog called Emma, did just that and was duly squashed by a lorry.

As for people who claim that Patterdales can be trained by positive food rewards, I can only say that I admire their optimism.

The bile spouted by some animal-rights fanatics is odd. If they were really interested in animal welfare, would they not consider the freedom of movement these collars afford our animals?

Pet insurers Petplan claim 250,000 cats are hit by cars every year in Britain. Is that not far more cruel than a system which gives them one or two vibrations when they are young, and then keeps them off the road for the rest of their lives?

Owners of containment fences have included a former chief vet of the RSPCA — hardly someone who was horrible to animals. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, most mild-mannered of men, uses one for his cat. Grayling the cat torturer? Come off it.

As a long-term admirer of Environment Secretary Michael Gove, I am baffled. Why on earth is he thinking of banning collars which allow people to take the initiative and let their cats and dogs enjoy the open air and freedom of gardens without having to worry about their safety?

These collars are entirely good for animal welfare. Mr Gove supposedly believes in a small state. He is opposed to ‘nanny government’ making our lives worse. But here is his department set to ruin the pet-care arrangements of thousands of citizens just trying to do the responsible thing.

Why is he now siding with that very blob, after a cynical political campaign by big-shot charities whose lobbyists are forever seeking new laws to justify their existences? Ban, ban, ban. That’s always the blob’s way.

In 2014, Mr Gove’s Environment Department fellow minister George Eustice said there was no evidence that containment fences caused unnecessary suffering.

Bristol University has found ‘enormous welfare benefits’ and ‘an irrefutable case for the benefits of’ containment fences. Lincoln University has found ‘no evidence of long-term welfare problems’ for pets from these collars.

Yet now a Tory Government — a Tory Government! — is caving in to ill-founded lobbying.

Why? I’m afraid the answer is itself horribly cynical. The Conservative Party, having stupidly promised in its 2017 election manifesto to give MPs another vote on fox-hunting, is now bending too far in the other direction to show itself pro-animals.

A Tory backbencher I know was one of a group of MPs recently given a briefing by Downing Street and told that ‘animal rights is polling well so we’re going to be doing more of that’.

As a dog owner — correction, we dog owners know that the dogs really own us — I am all in favour of preventing unnecessary animal suffering. That is why, like thousands of other pet lovers, I use a containment fence.

Please, Mr Gove, put a stop to the electoral games and short-term propaganda tactics. Put animal freedoms first. Have nothing to do with this illiberal, life-shortening, counter-productive ban.

After what happened to our lovely Cinders, I never again want a dog of mine to crawl, whimpering, to my front door after being run over in the road.

But that is the likely upshot of this dreadful proposal.

  View all

The comments below have not been moderated.

Wtf is wrong with all you idiots! if you can’t have control over your dog when it is off the lead KEEP IT ON THE LEAD!! there are long training leads, extendable leads, the dog can still trot off for a sniff and you still have control! If it goes into what you like to call hunt mode you can pull it back.

1
1

Click to rate

I can tell you categorically, if you need a shock collar you shouldn’t own a dog! Dogs will learn with love and attention but if you cant be bothered then they wont learn, if you use shock collars you aren’t teaching a dog through enjoyment and interaction, you are training them with pain and fear, they will not live a happy life and you really should be locked up for animal cruelty!!!

11
16

Click to rate

ignorance is equally dangerous

0
2

Click to rate

darren85, I can categorically state that you are ignorant about e-collars and should keep your uninformed ideas to yourself. People who use an electronic remote training collar do so precisely because they are bothered to train their dog properly Often they want to ensure that a dog that was inadequately trained nott using an e-collar is safe with people, especially children, and with livestock and other dogs and safe with traffic. The collars are adjusted so that they do NOT cause pain. They are NOT barbaric torture devices and are not used in isolation for training and behavior modification. They will be used with rewards and love and attention. Training still takes time and care but will almost certainly be more effective for many dogs. Not every owner will want to use one, and yes some may use them in a cruel fashion, but then many dogs which never see an e-collar are abused with sticks and leads, often causing much worse injuries than is possible with an e-collar .

0
2

Click to rate

Train the dogs properly and you won’t need to use an electric collar.

8
11

Click to rate

lets FIT ONE on him and then see if he is happy with it but use 240 volt

6
4

Click to rate

Sounds like the SNP MP has discovered the secret for power generation. If the 1000’s of windmills in Scotland don’t turn, she can ensure every household must have 6000volts discharging 6 volt batteries on standby instead of all the diesel generating farms they have.

0
1

Click to rate

Better a collar than a dead dog !

3
17

Click to rate

You silly silly man. Shock collars should NEVER be used. Only bad owners contemplate using them. As for your dog running into the road and around people’s feet why not keep it on an lead – and not an extendable one! Go to training classes and learn how to have a socialised dog.

15
13

Click to rate

Our dog is a rescue dog, he’d been in rescue kennels for over two years having been adopted and returned three times because he couldn’t be controlled, would runaway and attack pheasants, sheep, cats etc. Being experienced we felt we could make a difference; however, we and two professional trainers failed to make any real difference. We faced the difficult choice of either returning him to kennels or accepting that he would always need to be tethered so I took advice from a friend and decided to get a ‘shock’ collar. We set the collar to a level where he could feel the pulse without it being painful, i.e. sufficient to get his attention. We began his training again using the collar together with voice commands. He quickly associated the collar with his walks and became excited when it was picked up. After three months he had been transformed. We stopped using the collar as he now responded to the voice commands. I think the collar saved him from a miserable fate or worse.

4
24

Click to rate

i am pleased to read this as i too have a rescue dog and despite paying for trainers and `positive` rewards he reacts full on when we met other dogs when on a walk; i am thinking what else i can do to control his behaviour so may indeed try a shock collar; he is a lovely boy indoors but a manic beast outside

1
15

Click to rate

mimi, please do not do it on your own, seek out a trainer who knows how to use it properly. In the wrong hands they can make situations worse

0
1

Click to rate

ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS! One of the WORST misnomers ever! These people are NOT interested in the animals rights, only in THEIR INTERESTS to be ¿professional¿ complainers! When you consider how FEW they are, compared to the PUBLICITY they are given by the media, it beggars belief that Gove is actually going to act in keeping with their warped ideology!

6
16

Click to rate

Well said Quentin! I agree that no harm is done. Indeed we use the collar on our children and it has been so efficient at keeping them out of mischief that as a member of neighbourhood watch I have written to the Home Secretary to suggest that they be used, with a higher voltage of course, for these young serial burglars causing havoc on England’s streets, (see DM passim). Sarah Vine may find it efficacious at home too.

8
26

Click to rate

It is quite obvious that the people commenting on here have never tried to take on a dog that has been beyond his previous owners ability to control. I was speaking to a man not long ago who was talking about his dogs behaviour when off the lead. His answer was never to let it off. I consider that a far worse cruelty than using an electric collar as for most dogs running free is their greatest joy.

11
30

Click to rate

  View all

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

 What’s This?

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Bing
 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5529809/Shock-collars-control-pets-ARENT-cruel.html#ixzz5AVALMUYt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

When I heard Conservative politicians talk of ‘freedom’ this week at an event to promote individual liberty, I thought of our late dog Cinders.

Part Bedlington terrier, part Heinz, Cinders loved to run. She would pin back her ears and chase the breeze. To see that darling dog sprint from side to side of our Herefordshire field, a flat, grey, galloping streak of speed, was to see freedom.

One winter morning 12 years ago, Cinders was hit by a car on the road outside our house. The motorist, brutishly, did not stop.

Although her two back legs were wrecked, Cinders somehow managed to crawl to our front door in a pitiable state and we rushed her to the vet. After more than £1,000 worth of treatment, she survived.

But she never ran again, poor love, and I have never been sure we did the right thing in keeping her alive for another couple of years. Without running, life had lost its zest for her and eventually we had to have her put to sleep.

When we gave a home to a new dog (Flip, an adult Patterdale terrier), we were worried when she kept exploring the road. How could we keep her safe? A friend suggested a freedom collar. This device has a watch-style battery which gives the dog a warning vibration when it crosses a wire buried round the perimeter of your garden.

The vibration, comparable to an electric charge (think static carpet), is preceded by a beeping noise. After a couple of ‘shocks’ the dog learns to stop advancing as soon as it hears that beeping. Although they are called ‘shock collars’ they should really be called ‘beeping collars’, for that is what works as the deterrent.

It’s a clever system and works brilliantly. I only wish we had known about it before Cinders had her accident. Flip, and more recently her daughter Bonnie, have worn their collars for years.

Like most terriers they are frisky souls — a polite way of saying they are exuberantly disobedient, particularly if they spot a rabbit — but thanks to that collar both dogs have kept away from the road.

The collar has also stopped them terrorising the public right of way that cuts through our garden. It has stopped them yapping round the ankles of ramblers and the hooves of horses.

Meanwhile, Flip and Bonnie are free to roam our field. They may not run as elegantly as Cinders but they love the freedom. And if you think they are scared of their collars, please explain why they happily sit at my feet while I fix them in place.

All that is now imperilled thanks to our interfering political class. Officials at the Environment Department propose to ban freedom collars, having been got at by professional animal-rights lobbyists who claim the collars are cruel.

Thousands of dog and cat owners in England thus face a dilemma (it’s estimated there are around half a million electric dog collars in use in Britain).

If a ban comes into force, should they disobey the law? Or should they remove their pets’ collars and put them at risk of being run over?

Supporters of the proposed ban want to outlaw both the sort of electric containment fences that we use for Flip and Bonnie, and handheld devices which allow dog trainers to give their animals shocks at the press of a button.

I have never used such a machine, but some dog owners say they can be useful in controlling their pets in the street or in fields with livestock. Maybe they can but my concern, as I have described, is for the beeping collars which keep a dog inside its familiar territory. Both systems may soon be outlawed.

The way some animal-rights fanatics talk, anyone who uses such a containment fence for their cat or dog is worse than Hannibal Lecter. When I debated the matter on BBC1’s Daily Politics this week with Scots Nationalist MP Deidre Brock, she claimed that the collars administered electric shocks of 6,000 volts. From one tiny little battery? The word for that claim is ‘barking’.

Pictured: One of the shock collars modelled on a dog 

Pictured: One of the shock collars modelled on a dog

On social media, those of us who support freedom collars are denounced as fascists and animal torturers and worse. ‘Wear one yourself and see how you like it!’ scream anonymous online commentators. My answer to this is: ‘I did.’ Before we ever used the collar on Flip, I tested it on myself to make sure she would not be hurt by the vibration. ‘Build a real fence, mate!’ say others.

Had they ever met a Patterdale terrier, they would know they will dig under a fence within minutes. One of my wife’s first pets, a sausage dog called Emma, did just that and was duly squashed by a lorry.

As for people who claim that Patterdales can be trained by positive food rewards, I can only say that I admire their optimism.

The bile spouted by some animal-rights fanatics is odd. If they were really interested in animal welfare, would they not consider the freedom of movement these collars afford our animals?

Pet insurers Petplan claim 250,000 cats are hit by cars every year in Britain. Is that not far more cruel than a system which gives them one or two vibrations when they are young, and then keeps them off the road for the rest of their lives?

Owners of containment fences have included a former chief vet of the RSPCA — hardly someone who was horrible to animals. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, most mild-mannered of men, uses one for his cat. Grayling the cat torturer? Come off it.

As a long-term admirer of Environment Secretary Michael Gove, I am baffled. Why on earth is he thinking of banning collars which allow people to take the initiative and let their cats and dogs enjoy the open air and freedom of gardens without having to worry about their safety?

These collars are entirely good for animal welfare. Mr Gove supposedly believes in a small state. He is opposed to ‘nanny government’ making our lives worse. But here is his department set to ruin the pet-care arrangements of thousands of citizens just trying to do the responsible thing.

Only this week the minister attended the relaunch of the Tory Party’s youth movement, which has been rebranded ‘Freer’. The idea behind that new name is a good one. Party strategists believe there is a growing public desire for individual liberty.

Voters are fed up being told what not to do by a patronising elite. In areas such as data protection, careers, pensions, the EU, freedom of expression and others, many of us are fed up with being lectured by the Establishment ‘blob’ (as Mr Gove has himself called it).

Video playing bottom right…

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
0:39
Play
Unmute
Current Time0:39
/
Duration Time0:39
Fullscreen
ExpandClose

UP NEXT

Crazy moment car drives 40mph on motorway with THREE wheels

f
Cancel

Why is he now siding with that very blob, after a cynical political campaign by big-shot charities whose lobbyists are forever seeking new laws to justify their existences? Ban, ban, ban. That’s always the blob’s way.

In 2014, Mr Gove’s Environment Department fellow minister George Eustice said there was no evidence that containment fences caused unnecessary suffering.

Bristol University has found ‘enormous welfare benefits’ and ‘an irrefutable case for the benefits of’ containment fences. Lincoln University has found ‘no evidence of long-term welfare problems’ for pets from these collars.

Yet now a Tory Government — a Tory Government! — is caving in to ill-founded lobbying.

Why? I’m afraid the answer is itself horribly cynical. The Conservative Party, having stupidly promised in its 2017 election manifesto to give MPs another vote on fox-hunting, is now bending too far in the other direction to show itself pro-animals.

A Tory backbencher I know was one of a group of MPs recently given a briefing by Downing Street and told that ‘animal rights is polling well so we’re going to be doing more of that’.

As a dog owner — correction, we dog owners know that the dogs really own us — I am all in favour of preventing unnecessary animal suffering. That is why, like thousands of other pet lovers, I use a containment fence.

Please, Mr Gove, put a stop to the electoral games and short-term propaganda tactics. Put animal freedoms first. Have nothing to do with this illiberal, life-shortening, counter-productive ban.

After what happened to our lovely Cinders, I never again want a dog of mine to crawl, whimpering, to my front door after being run over in the road.

But that is the likely upshot of this dreadful proposal.

  View all

The comments below have not been moderated.

Wtf is wrong with all you idiots! if you can’t have control over your dog when it is off the lead KEEP IT ON THE LEAD!! there are long training leads, extendable leads, the dog can still trot off for a sniff and you still have control! If it goes into what you like to call hunt mode you can pull it back.

1
1

Click to rate

I can tell you categorically, if you need a shock collar you shouldn’t own a dog! Dogs will learn with love and attention but if you cant be bothered then they wont learn, if you use shock collars you aren’t teaching a dog through enjoyment and interaction, you are training them with pain and fear, they will not live a happy life and you really should be locked up for animal cruelty!!!

11
16

Click to rate

ignorance is equally dangerous

0
2

Click to rate

darren85, I can categorically state that you are ignorant about e-collars and should keep your uninformed ideas to yourself. People who use an electronic remote training collar do so precisely because they are bothered to train their dog properly Often they want to ensure that a dog that was inadequately trained nott using an e-collar is safe with people, especially children, and with livestock and other dogs and safe with traffic. The collars are adjusted so that they do NOT cause pain. They are NOT barbaric torture devices and are not used in isolation for training and behavior modification. They will be used with rewards and love and attention. Training still takes time and care but will almost certainly be more effective for many dogs. Not every owner will want to use one, and yes some may use them in a cruel fashion, but then many dogs which never see an e-collar are abused with sticks and leads, often causing much worse injuries than is possible with an e-collar .

0
2

Click to rate

Train the dogs properly and you won’t need to use an electric collar.

8
11

Click to rate

lets FIT ONE on him and then see if he is happy with it but use 240 volt

6
4

Click to rate

Sounds like the SNP MP has discovered the secret for power generation. If the 1000’s of windmills in Scotland don’t turn, she can ensure every household must have 6000volts discharging 6 volt batteries on standby instead of all the diesel generating farms they have.

0
1

Click to rate

Better a collar than a dead dog !

3
17

Click to rate

You silly silly man. Shock collars should NEVER be used. Only bad owners contemplate using them. As for your dog running into the road and around people’s feet why not keep it on an lead – and not an extendable one! Go to training classes and learn how to have a socialised dog.

15
13

Click to rate

Our dog is a rescue dog, he’d been in rescue kennels for over two years having been adopted and returned three times because he couldn’t be controlled, would runaway and attack pheasants, sheep, cats etc. Being experienced we felt we could make a difference; however, we and two professional trainers failed to make any real difference. We faced the difficult choice of either returning him to kennels or accepting that he would always need to be tethered so I took advice from a friend and decided to get a ‘shock’ collar. We set the collar to a level where he could feel the pulse without it being painful, i.e. sufficient to get his attention. We began his training again using the collar together with voice commands. He quickly associated the collar with his walks and became excited when it was picked up. After three months he had been transformed. We stopped using the collar as he now responded to the voice commands. I think the collar saved him from a miserable fate or worse.

4
24

Click to rate

i am pleased to read this as i too have a rescue dog and despite paying for trainers and `positive` rewards he reacts full on when we met other dogs when on a walk; i am thinking what else i can do to control his behaviour so may indeed try a shock collar; he is a lovely boy indoors but a manic beast outside

1
15

Click to rate

mimi, please do not do it on your own, seek out a trainer who knows how to use it properly. In the wrong hands they can make situations worse

0
1

Click to rate

ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS! One of the WORST misnomers ever! These people are NOT interested in the animals rights, only in THEIR INTERESTS to be ¿professional¿ complainers! When you consider how FEW they are, compared to the PUBLICITY they are given by the media, it beggars belief that Gove is actually going to act in keeping with their warped ideology!

6
16

Click to rate

Well said Quentin! I agree that no harm is done. Indeed we use the collar on our children and it has been so efficient at keeping them out of mischief that as a member of neighbourhood watch I have written to the Home Secretary to suggest that they be used, with a higher voltage of course, for these young serial burglars causing havoc on England’s streets, (see DM passim). Sarah Vine may find it efficacious at home too.

8
26

Click to rate

It is quite obvious that the people commenting on here have never tried to take on a dog that has been beyond his previous owners ability to control. I was speaking to a man not long ago who was talking about his dogs behaviour when off the lead. His answer was never to let it off. I consider that a far worse cruelty than using an electric collar as for most dogs running free is their greatest joy.

11
30

Click to rate

  View all

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

 What’s This?

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5529809/Shock-collars-control-pets-ARENT-cruel.html#ixzz5AV9nrqH0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Leave a reply