Don’t ban e-collars for dogs; educate owners or regulate use instead

In response to a question by Member of Parliament Louis Ng on whether the Government would ban the use of electronic collars (e-collars) in animal training, National Development Minister Desmond Lee said last week that the issue is being studied.

This comes after the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Singapore said that it is renewing its call for the Government to ban e-collars “as the device has no place in animal training”.

When I was first introduced to the e-collar, I was sceptical about it.

However, if we were to examine how e-collars actually work, we can see that the visceral reactions are unfounded. 

Applying electricity to torture dogs should be prohibited. We already have animal cruelty laws to prevent this.

Why are we not banning newspapers and kettles, which might be used against dogs? Because there are other uses for them; likewise for e-collars.

E-collars, when used appropriately, do not inflict pain at all. SPCA’s campaign to ban e-collars is aimed at preventing animal training methods that cause "pain, injury, fear, distress and anxiety".

While high-voltage shock collars cause those things, e-collars applied in an appropriate manner do not.

I have used an e-collar on myself many times. At the levels I have used on my dog for the last 1.5 years, I have tried the same on myself. I do not feel pain at all. The feeling is akin to an ant crawling on my skin.

It will arguably feel less on a dog – given that dogs have fur that humans do not have.

I usually use the e-collar when my dog is distracted. When I use it and call its name, it turns to look at me.

It is akin to a tap on the shoulder. There are no visible signs of pain.

Interestingly, when I leash tug my dog, it is visibly more upset than if I just use the e-collar.

I hope that as a society, we will not be quick to pass judgments.

E-collars can be a force for good when used responsibly. Education is key. 

The writer's dog, Rino, with an e-collar. Photo courtesy of Gerald Tan Han Jie

Instead of a ban, it may be reasonable to consider some form of regulation instead. 

For example, there can be some form of certification regime with dog owners required to enlist the help of certified e-collar trainers if they wish to use e-collars on their dogs. 

I hope that the Government will not discount the many dog owners in Singapore who have used e-collars responsibly.

I understand that SPCA may have come across cases of abuse by e-collar users. Yet I also know of many other responsible e-collar users. 

A ban on e-collars will not stop abusers — they have a myriad of everyday things to use. Such a ban will hurt the responsible e-collar users more. 

Have views on this issue or a news topic you care about? Send your letter to voices [at] mediacorp.com.sg with your full name, address and phone number.