Cruel or useful? Dog owners, trainers and vets offer varying views as calls to ban electronic collars grow louder

• The Government has commissioned a study on electronic collars
• This was after MP Louis Ng asked if a ban would be imposed
• Proponents of the collars said they are not used to inflict pain on dogs as many might think
• However, vets said that there is no evidence to show that even lower levels of stimulation will not harm the dog

SINGAPORE — One year after sending his five-year-old German Shepherd for weekly training sessions using an electronic collar (e-collar), 35-year-old Ng Yi Xian said that his dog now sticks closer to him on walks, and is less anxious around other canines.

However, the use of e-collars, also referred to as shock collars, has been met with vehement opposition from animal rights advocates, who have renewed a call for the device to be banned — setting off an intense debate over whether e-collars are cruel or useful.

The devices transmit a form of electronic stimulus, of varying intensities, to nerves and sensory receptors but do not deliver an electric shock. At high levels, however, this can cause pain to the animal. Critics said that even at low levels, dogs find it distressing.

In response to a question by Mr Louis Ng, Member of Parliament for Nee Soon Group Representation Constituency, on whether the Government would consider a ban of e-collars for animal training, National Development Minister Desmond Lee said last week that the issue is being studied.

In the meantime, Mr Ng Yi Xian, the German Shepherd owner, who is the executive director at an international school, is among a growing band of dog owners arguing that the proper use of e-collars can correct the behaviour of their dogs or help them become more responsive.

They are saying that the collars are not used to inflict pain on the animals as many might think. When used appropriately, it will merely “nudge” a dog to get its attention.

Still, these dog owners acknowledge that e-collars can be easily abused by people to punish their pets.

A number of vets and dog trainers accept that the proper use of e-collars may not harm a dog, but they believe that there are other training methods based on reward that will not place the animal at risk.

Animal welfare groups such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and Exclusively Mongrels have been backing the proposal that e-collars be banned.

This debate is not a recent one. The use of shock collars dates back to the late 1960s. As early as 1999, SPCA was supporting a proposal to ban these collars here.

As to how many dog owners use the collar now, SPCA’s executive director Jaipal Singh Gill told TODAY that it is “difficult to track as they are available on multiple e-commerce platforms”.

In his response in Parliament, Mr Desmond Lee said that the Rehoming and Adoption Work Group (Rawg) — which has been recently established to review practices related to the rehoming and adoption of dogs — will study this issue.

Responding to queries from TODAY, the National Parks Board (NParks), which oversees Rawg, said the work group will study the issue using a science-based approach, and that this review is expected to conclude in the third quarter next year. 

“(Rawg) will also develop community-based standards and guidelines on rehoming and adoption practices, and the rehabilitation of dogs,” said NParks’ group director of animal and veterinary service, Dr Chang Siow Foong.

This will include developing the best practices for the rehabilitation of dogs, such as whether devices like electric shock collars and prong collars should be used in animal training, Dr Chang added.

'NOT NECESSARILY A DEVICE FOR PUNISHMENT'

Dog owners and trainers who are proponents of the e-collar said that it is an invaluable training tool that causes no harm to the animal if used safely.

Dog owner Alan Soh, 32, who works in sports retail and who uses an e-collar on his two-year-old mongrel for obedience training, even tried to apply the voltage from the collar on himself. He said that the e-collar’s electric stimulation feels akin to light pressure on the skin.

Shiba Inu owner Gerald Tan, 36, who is a lawyer, said that he pairs the use of an e-collar on his dog with positive stimulation such as dog treats and praise.

In a letter to TODAY, Mr Tan said that he had used the e-collar on himself and that the sensation is similar to that of ants crawling on his skin.

“Over time, when there’s the light touch (from the e-collar) on (the dog's) neck and she hears her name, she will know that I want her attention,” he said, adding that he uses the collar only for reward-based training, and that his dog prefers it to the tugging of a leash.

However, some dog owners recognise the potential for abuse.

Mr Soh said that he only ever sets the stimulation level at two to four, out of a maximum of 20.

Mr Tan said that out of a maximum level of over 100 on his model of the e-collar, he sets the level somewhere between six and 12.

Both pet owners said that setting the stimulation at a higher level would be painful for the dogs and is therefore out of the question for them.

“Many people view e-collars as a shortcut to training... If somebody doesn’t know how to train using level two or three, they start using (higher levels) and those are painful,” Mr Soh said. “I think there needs to be more education there.”

A dog behaviourist who uses e-collars as a training tool for some dogs and who wants to be known only as Teng as he fears being doxxed, said that there could be more stringent regulation on the use of the collars to prevent abuse rather than a ban.

“I will be more than happy to go and take a licence (to use e-collars),” he said. “If it’s regulated, it’s best for everyone.”

'DEBATE SHOULD BE BASED ON SCIENCE'

Veterinary surgeons interviewed by TODAY disagreed with any use of e-collars, saying that there is no evidence to show that even lower levels of stimulation will not harm the dog.

In a letter to TODAY, veterinarian Liang Xutian said that while humans may not be able to feel pain from the e-collar, among dogs, there are “different levels of reaction to the same level of shock”.

The unpredictability of when the shock will be delivered is also a welfare issue, she added.

Agreeing, Dr Chua Hui Li, who is with Housecall Vet SG, a call-in veterinary service provider, said that it is not only the level of stimulation but also the duration and frequency of the shocks that will determine the dog’s welfare.

“This can cause physical pain, startle or shock them, and induces fear in them when used,” she said.

Ultimately, Dr Chua said, the use of reward-based training should be considered over the use of e-collars, which the vets said is punishment-based.

Dr Michelle Loh, who is a vet with Polaris Veterinary Services, said: “Positive reinforcement training produces increased attentiveness (in dogs) without signs of stress responses.

“Dogs responding to positive reinforcement rewards are more self-motivated to participate in the activity.

“Using the ‘stick’ method (of the e-collar) creates an overall negative association with the tasks, and it can cause more confusion, frustration and fear.”

Speaking to TODAY, Mr Louis Ng, who raised the issue in Parliament, said that the authorities will base their policy decision on e-collars on “science rather than emotion”.

He referred to several independent scientific papers that illustrate the negative effects of using e-collars for training, and how alternative forms of training can prove more effective.

Mr Ng added that he is “open to listening to both sides” and has asked proponents of the e-collar to show him scientific evidence in favour of the device.

While some dog owners have said that regulating the use of e-collars is preferred to a ban, Dr Jaipal, SPCA’s executive director, said that regulations may not be practical.

“We fully agree that animal trainers should be better regulated,” he said, “(But) we need to consider that it will not be easy to regulate the use of the shock collar and take action when a trainer or pet guardian is found to have abused it.”