DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Shock collar

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Editing this page

[edit]

Shock collars are an emotive subject. It is frustrating for all concerned if editing this page simply becomes tit-for-tat deletion and vandalism. It would be sensible to regard the current page (12:19 GMT, 30th July 2011) as containing most of the information needed as a basis for a good page, which could then be refined as a result of discussion on this talk page. Is it possible that from now on, major changes are discussed here before being implemented?

I removed the comments here because this seems like a place for more positive comments. Hope nobody minds. The page generally looks good, but do you think it would be sensible to take the part titled "frame of reference" and put at least some of it into the technical considerations section? I don't want to make a big change like this without asking someone, but it just doesn't seem necessary to have two sections that are essentially talking about the same thing. Also, without wishing to be argumentative, the opening statement says "Some professional dog trainers and their organizations oppose their use and some support them". I think this statement needs to be better supported; I don't think its a good idea to have links to specific dog trainers, because that just becomes advertising, but we should have some references to dog training organizations that support the use of electronic training aids (and ones that don't). The WUSD and its members (BAGSD & GSDL) have sided with KC ban, but I am not familiar with these organizations so I don't know whether they classify as dog training organizations?Harrumpher (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the current page content was in 2011. It needs to be recognised that the past 14 years have seen developments in the physical technology of the electronic remote training collar and even bigger developments and lessons learnt in ways of using it. Nycclive (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, professional dog trainer and academic here (www.k9contact.co.uk). This wiki entry was just flagged to a leading Scottish training and wellfare advocay group (Scottish Canine Traininers Alliance) for multiple issues. Essentially boiling down to the artical that's supposed to be about an object, actually being an emotional arguement about it. The risk possed to dog welfare by mantaining the artical in its current state is serious, and I would propose we work together to remove all content relating to misuse or arguements against (perhaps have a "social discourse" section). And update the massive gaps in information. 90.254.49.182 (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have added a warning banner to reflect the ongoing conversation. K9 Contact (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the banner, we don't have meta-commentary in the text of the article, there are 'dispute' templates, but first you really need to articulate what it is about the article that you disagree with. You're welcome to edit the article but if your changes will be deleting existing, well-sourced, content, then it would be better to start a new section on this talk page explaining what you intend to change. Working together is always very welcome! JeffUK 16:11, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the info, I'll update to the template. As for updates that'd be a long list. First major thing is the article content doesn't match the article name. Shock collars and e-collars are different device, and unrelated in function. I'd suggest a connected article discussing shock collars such as the old Tri-tronics capacitor ones. A seperate article should be created discussing e-collars (ideally under the tree of Remote Training Collars, and then pages for Citrinol/scent, vinration only, sonic, shock, and then e-collar). K9 Contact (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • vibration
K9 Contact (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The common name for these is indeed 'shock collar' (see WP:COMMONNAME), and that is also the term widely used in academic sources. And since those academic sources don't draw the distinctions you are making here, the article should remain at its present title. We can't split or create a second article, either, that would be a WP:POVFORK, and Wikipedia doesn't allow those. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the links to WP practice, thank you. As for name distinction no, shock collar and e-collar are separate. This actually is worth being specifically addressed in the article. This distinction is now clearly evidenced by:
1) Manufacturer terminology (see PDF guide for Ecollar Technologies product 'Mini-educator')
2) Academic use of primarily "e-collar" with accompanying information to the effect of "sometimes referred to as shock collar". See this leading 2024 study (https://iacpdogs.org/2025/08/18/%F0%9F%8C%8D-tracking-legislation-worldwide/?no-cache) which opens with "electronic shock collar (e-collars)" before then committing to "e-collar" throughout.
3) Government distinction on terms, often "Electronic remote training collar". (example, see: https://www.gov.scot/publications/report-use-handheld-remote-controlled-training-devices-e-collars-dog-training-scottish-animal-welfare-commission/pages/4/)
4) Expert and professional use. Common language amoung international trainers is e-collars, specifically to distinguish from old style shock collars. An easy reference here would be International Association of Canine Professionals (https://iacpdogs.org/2025/08/18/%F0%9F%8C%8D-tracking-legislation-worldwide/?no-cache), but generally we can refer to the topic-expert members of the professional community.
Further issues arise with trying to use Shock collar and e-collar interchangeablly.
A) No common name is then available for the distinct devices of prior decades which were true shock collars (see https://www.retrievertraining.net/threads/can-someone-tell-me-what-this-is.88259/)
B) A point that even stand alone is significant: Shock Collar is used as a term of political attack. I don't think wiki lets us use politically charged nicknames?
I want to emphasise that my interest is in creating an objective description of e-collars. Discussions on methodolgy are for some other pages K9 Contact (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to MrOllie: K9 Contact makes good points why the term Shock collar is wrong for some of the content in this article which refers to and uses sources that refer to E-collars. The conflation of the two terms is in itself effectively an emotionally charged often deliberately political decision. Nycclive (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK, @MrOllie, @K9 Contact, The very first sentence of the article "A shock collar or remote training collar, also known as an e-collar, Ecollar, or electronic collar, is a type of collar that delivers electrical current to the neck of it's wearer (usually a dog), in an effort to control behaviour by the use of discomfort, pain and fear, as a form of aversive training."is contentious because of confusion between the two terms. It would quite possibly be considered accurate if talking just about SHOCK COLLARS, but modern E-collars are not exclusively used "in an effort to control behaviour by the use of discomfort, pain and fear, as a form of aversive training." The source, Polsky, Richard H.(1994). Says that shock collars must cause pain to be effective but he was talking about collars that he also says were approximately 4 inches by 2 inches by an inch, and weighed at least 10 ounces and needed to have resistors replaced in the collar to change shock intensity. In other words devices so far removed from modern e-collars as to be deserving of a completely different name and encyclopedia entry. With the technological developments of the physical device there have also been great strides made in the ways of using the modern tool to communicate with the dog both for training and management when pain and correction are not required. Modern devices may still also be used to give higher intensity stimulation which may be painful in the same way as the old shock collars but even Polsky in that source says of those crude tools, shock collars, "In general a shock collar may be an effective training tool to solve certain kinds of behavioral problems." "For some situations the use of a shock collar would be prudent when it becomes apparent that a problem cannot be solved through conventional methods of behavioral modification." "Shock collars are simply tools. If used correctly, benefits may result" Nycclive (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The existing line in Remote SHOCK collars section is fine for SHOCK collars and has the appropriate source from Polsky over 30 years old contemporaneous with SHOCK collars. Maybe if the article cannot be split there should be another section for e-collars saying, "Modern Electronic Remote Collars can be activated by a handheld device to give the dog an electrical stimulation that can be used to communicate with the dog even at distance" If an article on a manufacturers website is an acceptable source there is this https://www.ecollar.com/the-ecollar-a-communication-device/ Nycclive (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think e-collar is just a euphemism. Are you saying that 'e-collars' that do not 'deliver an electric current to the wearer'? If there are collars that ONLY buzz, or beep etc. then that's a different question. I think e-collars, looking at the sources, match the current definition in the lead. JeffUK 08:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK The definition in the lead and the sources, in as much as they include by the use of discomfort, pain and fear, as a form of aversive training matches Shock collar and the way they were used 30 years ago and more. I am not saying, nor anywhere is it implied in what I have said, that an e-0collar does not cause an electric current to pass through the skin of a wearer. Many people recognise the distinction and do not accept that e-collar is an euphemism for shock collar. They are different, there is a need to distinguish between those devices that because of their physical specification could only be used in the way described and modern electronic remote training collars, which although they may be used in that way, can also be used differently. This is why there is a case for seperate articles. Nycclive (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, if nothing else it's a bit of a run-on-sentence for the lead; how about: "A shock collar or remote training collar, also known as an e-collar, Ecollar, or electronic collar, is a type of collar that delivers electrical current to the neck of it's wearer as a form of aversive training" - Then move the pain/discomfort bit to the sentence explaining why they are controversial? I've made that change now, how does that look to you? JeffUK 14:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK Sorry multitasking and having difficulty navigating this page,Responded to this near end of this page at 17:05. Gist was your rewrite is much better but you will still want to tidy abit. Nycclive (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK Why did you remove the quote from IACP? Your edit summary note says it was not a reliable source if so how does it differ from cites to policy statements from HSUS (now Humane World for Animals), The cite for Pet Professional Guild which anyway goes to a not found web page, the policy page for Professional Association of Canine Trainers, or the cite for International Association of Animal behaviour consultants - another not found page. Nycclive (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK Looking more closely the HSUS page cited does not currently even contain the quote included in the entry, at least the IACP quote was consistent with the cite. Any reason why I should not summarily delete the HSUS criticism as you did the IACP praise?
and the sections with cites to non existent pages? Nycclive (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the IACP source because they don't seem to be an actual association, it's just a blog effectively. That whole 'criticism' section is just a load of random quotes and doesn't hold together at all, no complaints from me about pruning it! JeffUK 14:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that is about as ridiculous and ignorant as saying e-collars are banned in England. I don't think you can just say they don't SEEM to be an actual association to you and dismiss them as a source any more than PETA. There are a great number of organisations that have sprung up to try to dominate and regulate dog training with no more authority than their own sayso. The IACP is a genuine organisation that has been around for over a quarter of a century. It has policy statements on a number of issues and a code of ethics for its members (canine professionals including trainers) - just like many other organisations. Policies are not individual whim, they are the result of deliberation by committee and input from members and external experts and a more transparent process than almost any of the other organisations with policies on e-collars. Professional members have rights to vote on issues and policies - unlike most of those other organisations. They have professional exams. They have a journal and although based in Chicago hold meetings at venues around the world. Members include Ian Dunbar a renowned spokesman for force free training and Cesar Milan renowned for not exactly being force free, and Ivan Balbanov, Robert Cabral,Tyler Muto.... Past members include Barbara Woodhouse and hundreds of other well known and respected trainers. Unlike the other organisations you can actually find a (slightly out of date) list of members by country and by state in USA so you can see about 130 members by name in California alone. Not sure what you considered to say IACP is just a blog? Maybe you were looking at their list of articles on Canine Industry Legislation? At least the source for the quote from IACP existed and had the wording, unlike some of those, as you say random quotes (or not even quotes) that were in the Criticism section. Nycclive (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those sources do not draw the distinction because when they were created the modern devices which deserve a different name did not exist. The world has moved on and that needs to be reflected. Nycclive (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some way of addressing the view that Shock collars and e-collars are different devices, maybe with a linked new entry would be a way forward. Nycclive (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK It's looking better with your improvement Jeff. I'd still recommend a new article specifically for e-collars, instead of trying to rewrite the entire shock collar article.
Below is my rewrite of the current first section (obviously sans referrenced for the sake of this draft). Whoever wrote that orignal one seems to have mistaken wikipedia for their personal blog on things they don't like. My draft is written as i'd write a dissertation, and each sentence can be referrenced. That said, I have tried to keep the spirit of the existing article specifically in terms of structure. I have avoided discussion on training methods, and only discussed the e-collar as a device. Further, as you read it you can see there is the possibility for multiple links to related articles, better integrating this article into the link tree it should be familed with.
Draft suggestion for first section:
An E-Collar, or Electronic Remote Training Collar, is a remote training tool that delivers targeted electrical current to the neck of its wearer (usually a dog), so as to provide wireless non-directional communication with the wearer. They are discrete from Shock Collars. E-Collars are also often employed as positive punishment as part of a training programme. E-collars can be triggered automatically as in the case of bark control collars, or electronic fence systems (see geo-fencing for livestock). Or may be triggered via a handheld remote control. E-Collars are required for Livestock/Wildlife Avoidance Training, the participation in which is a requirement in certain regions with wildlife at threat of disruption or harm by dogs (most notably New Zealand). E-Collars have been the subject of restricted use in some countries and regions following campaigns by a number of public facing companies and organisations. E-collars are notable for being the only available method of reliable off-leash communication between handler and dog in demanding situations where current trained ability is insuffecient (or when training is taking place), owing to the novel sensation, adjustable intensity, and precise timing possible by the electric stimulation. This applies to both balanced and non-aversive training methods, for example, the use of low-level stimulation as a command or cue to perform a recall.
All E-collars feature adjustable levels of stimulation, commonly expressed in levels (such as the Dogtra brand's levels 1-127), where lowest levels are nearly undetectable, and the highest levels acutely uncomfortable. This dull electrical stimulation works by twitching muscles beneath the surface of the skin, sometimes accompanied by a nipping sensation at medium to higher intensities. The reliable operation of an E-collar is important to ensure consistently predictable output of that stimulation, and so quality E-Collars range in price from hundreds to thousands of GBP/USD. Some models of E-Collar offer additional features such as a tone or vibrational settings that can be used as an alternative or in combination with the electric stimulation, and may incorporate GPS functionality to track the collar's location, or lights for identification in low-light conditions. K9 Contact (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This rewrite would be a substantial neutrality problem - both because it removes the current article title / common name of these devices, and because it excises or waters down the very well sourced objections based on concerns about animal cruelty. Wikipedia policy expressly requires that we do not 'whitewash', use euphemistic language or seek false balance (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Policy requires us to accurately reflect the sources, especially when the sources are critical of a subject. MrOllie (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a rewrite would be a step towards correcting a substantial neutrality problem arising out of descriptions and sources which are predominantly outdated. Nycclive (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie I think K9 Contact did not suggest removing the current article title. He initially says that he 'would still recommend NEW article specifically for e-collars, instead of trying to rewrite the entire shock collar article'. Since E-collars are not all Shock collars, and shock collar is not an accurate name, it is a dysphemism, with negative implications for modern remotely adjustable electronic training collars, a separate article for each would solve a lot of problems. Supporters of modern E-collars should be quite happy for all the criticisms to remain as long as they only apply to the devices with different characteristics that might more correctly be known as Shock collars. Nycclive (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shock Collar - does not meet the criteria Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects, if it covers both older collars not remotely adjustable and also modern E-collars. Nycclive (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay i've been busy training dogs. The draft I provided is for an introduction. You can then go on to discuss the points you raise in sections of the full article. K9 Contact (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page title ( Which term? )

[edit]

Since the term "Ecollar" (or "E-collar") is more common in professional use among established dog trainers both for and against them, should the article title be changed?

(*Ecollar is not my preferred term either, to be clear, but it is the most typical one in specialist sources. I know this topic can become very heated.)

In addition, possibly a note should be added that "remote collar" can refer to multiple types of collar - e.g. vibrating or tone as well as shock. (While all of these are electronic, "electronic collar" is used specifically for shock and "remote collar" is used broadly.) SkrikerandTrash (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturers of shock collars and dog trainers who use shock collars both have financial incentive to use new terms, but “shock collar” is the term most used in peer-reviewed scholarly studies. Zipster969 (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced non-commercial dog trainers, e.g. sports competitors and service dog handlers, also do not typically use "shock collar", but I agree that we should defer to the term used by peer-reviewed studies. SkrikerandTrash (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a cursory review of the citations for this article it does not seem that "shock collar" is the term most used. A variety of terms such as electronic remote training aid, e-collar, and electronic pulse device are used and more recent studies are even less likely to use "shock collar". Nycclive (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can add to this, as I've just spoken with E-collar Technologies (US and UK), and Martin Systems. I also asked Dogtra but haven't heard back yet, I'll ask next time I'm talking with them. Their responses to the question terms are as follows:
1: E-collar Tech (US)
Please see below some useful information and terminology when referring to the E-Collar System and sensation it provides.
Clarifying the Terminology and Misconceptions Around E-Collars
The term “shock collar” often carries a negative connotation, leading many to mistakenly believe these tools are intended to inflict pain or serve as a form of punishment. In reality, this perception is both outdated and inaccurate.
Modern E-Collars, particularly those developed by E-Collar Technologies, are designed with the dog’s safety and well-being in mind. Unlike traditional “shock collars,” our E-Collars use a wide-pulse stimulation that targets the dog’s neck muscles, not their nerves or skin. This type of stimulation is not painful—it is designed to gently capture the dog’s attention.
With stimulation levels adjustable from 1 to 100, handlers can find and lock in the optimal level for their individual dog—ensuring effective communication without the risk of over-stimulation. These settings can also be adjusted when needed, such as in high-distraction environments or emergency situations.
When used properly and in conjunction with positive reinforcement, E-Collars serve as a reliable communication tool. They provide consistent, clear feedback that helps dogs understand when to focus on their handler, improving training outcomes and strengthening the handler-dog relationship.
E-Collars do not cause burns, physical harm, or lasting damage. Instead, they offer a safe, humane, and effective way to reinforce desired behaviors and improve responsiveness.
In the hands of responsible handlers, E-Collars can be a powerful asset in building trust, enhancing communication, and achieving balanced behavior.
2: Martin Systems
Terminology in dog training can vary, and there isn’t a single universally accepted definition.
For us, the term “shock collar” is typically associated with older training systems, where the primary emphasis was on aversive stimulation. That said, many trainers historically used these devices thoughtfully and responsibly.
By contrast, e-collars represent a more modern, technologically advanced approach. They are designed for balanced training methods that combine both negative and positive reinforcement, enabling more precise and humane communication with the dog.
We hope this clarifies the distinction we make
3: E-collar Tech (UK)
[in response o my asking is 'e-collars' is the appropriate term, vs shock collar]
We would agree with your terminology. Most trainers use as you mentioned below: also remote training collars, invisible leash. K9 Contact (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Shock Collars

[edit]

Does anyone disagree the cite to Schalke should be removed and a better, more relevant citation is needed and possibly this section of the article could be re-written to reflect the capabilities of modern electronic remote training collars? If so why?

Under the heading 'Remote Shock collars' the article says 'Better quality remote trainers have a large variety of levels and functions, can give varying duration of pain, and have a beep or vibration option useful for getting the dog's attention'. I would disagree with the word pain, but what I want to point out here is that the citation that comes after the word pain is the article in Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 'Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations, by Schalke ... , which is entirely inappropriate. It is almost as if nobody read most of these citations before they are accepted? Or is it another leftover from careless editing? In the study covered only one model of e-collar was used. It had only 5 settings for electrical stimulation - so hardly better quality as referred to in the article. Better quality e-collars currently probably have 100 or 132 different levels with small increments allowing precise levels to be used. Also although this statement in the wikipedia article talks about variety of levels and duration of pain, in the Schalke study there is no mention of the duration of 'shocks' given or variation in that duration, and the collars were used EXCLUSIVELY at the highest level. Despite the level of shock being chosen in order to investigate the dogs’ reactions under the highest electric pulse and as such the worst condition possible.” the findings led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators.” Nycclive (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think we need a massive debate on sourcing "some shock collars have multiple settings", it's practically You don't need to cite that the sky is blue territory. I'm not sure calling something that would be illegal in many countries ''Better quality' because it can shock dogs at different intensities is WP:NPOV compliant though. JeffUK 16:21, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited in a new version, I think it's pretty obvious that remote control devices are controlled remotely so removed the 'but it needs a human' section. Tried to make it more neutral. Any thoughts? You're welcome to add more citations if you have them, i don't see any reason to remove the existing one. JeffUK 16:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends what source you mean by the existing one. Absolutely agree we don't need a massive debate on some collars have multiple settings and no source is necessary for stating the obvious, but MrOllie might have a problem with that given some of his recent edits. The point is that the source given (Schalke) is irrelevant and should be removed / replaced. As said above "although this statement in the wikipedia article talks about variety of levels and duration of pain, in the Schalke study there is no mention of the duration of 'shocks' given or variation in that duration, and the collars were used EXCLUSIVELY at the highest level.
Will you remove that cite? currently [20] here. I think it is the only place it is used in the entry. Nycclive (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" to give the dog an electric shock which causes pain" is contentious. First problem is the word "shock" - see what Lindsay is reported as saying in the section under "Opinions about the amount of pain caused by shock collars". Secondly those modern "better quality" collars, whether they may be illegal in a relatively few countries or not, might reasonably be considered capable of emitting electrical pulses at a level that cannot possibly be considered painful and maybe not necessarily aversive, as well as higher level stimulation which may also be painful. Certainly a reference to an article from 1994 (Polsky) when collars with the features available today, and which does not recognise all the ways in which modern e-collars are used, not just to issue aversive consequences remotely either as positive punishment, is not constructive.
One thing Polsky did get right, at the beginning of his introduction, is still all too valid. He says "In recent years, electronic shock collars have been increasingly used as training tools for dogs. Nevertheless, there still remains a lack of understanding and confusion about how shock collars work .. Nycclive (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUKThanks for cleaning up the containment systems section as well. I had only added the figures for UK and France to show that the previous statement was not true but MrOllie replaced the false information when I removed it, even though I had told him those figures. Wonder why he has not replaced it now you have removed it? Nycclive (talk) 22:51, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see either being relevant now that the systems are banned entirely in france and most of the UK; they also read more like OR or primary sources (talking about the mechanics of the surveys rather than what reliable sources concluded). I see e-fences being increasingly more prevalent in livestock management than in dogs, certainly outside the US. As an aside; you've been asked to disengage with MrOllie, so bringing him up when discussing the article with someone else is not helpful, please drop the stick and try to move on collaboratively. JeffUK 22:59, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK Yes, considering uses of the use of e-collars to contain livestock certainly might have changed the relative prevalence but there was no source. The systems are NOT banned in most of the UK. Nycclive (talk) 12:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having stared at this article for quite a while now, the fact I didn't actually know that suggests it needs a lot more work! "The UK Kennel Club has won a ten-year campaign to achieve a ban on the sale and use of shock collars." is clearly wrong in that case. JeffUK 13:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're banned in England and in Wales - that is easily sourced. That is indeed 'most of the UK' both by population and by area. Scotland says the government 'does not condone' their use and regulates them under existing law. MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was he impression I got too, but I think the legislation was written for England but never came into force. (Showing in draft state The Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023) and only 'will be re-introduced on a revised timetable' Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023: 15 Feb 2024: Hansard Written Answers - TheyWorkForYou - RSPCA agree. Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations (1).pdf I've updated the article to reflect this JeffUK 14:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK The edit to update state of legislation in England does not seem accurate. Legislation is neither delayed nor stalled. There is no proposed legislation by the current government. The SI proposed by the previous government FAILED to pass and so has ended its life. The source cited refers to farmed animals and there is no proposed legislation on e-collars for farmed animals. I am surprised to see adding contentious (very questionable) content when you have removed so much that was in the entry previously. Will you remove it as it adds nothing useful. The change concerning The Kennel Club in Criticism section does make it more accurate but really the first part about 'proposed legislation' which has now failed seems pointless. The source was a press release which spawned numerous inaccurate articles claiming e-collars would be banned in England on 1 Feb 2024. We now know they were not. The part about TKC campaign is correct and source good
as far as I can see. Nycclive (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on moving that all together into a UK section, the detail on campaigns by TKC etc doesn't really fit 'criticism', can you try finding a good source for the current state of the UK legislation? It does seem dead in the water, but I think the attempt to legislate is interesting, it would be good for the article to answer the "I thought it was banned in the UK!" assumption JeffUK 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will try to find a source. That Kennel Club press release (joint with RSPCA, Battersea, BVA, and others shows their propensity for inacurate propaganda. The many press articles that used it often practically word for word still pop up on searches about legality in England and explain why so many people do not know, like you did not. and often will not readily accept, like MrOllie being told the truth. Wikipedia must not add to that. I wrote a response to the article with false data that appeared in Parliament Home. They ignored it and declined to make a correction. I have no problem with reporting the attempt at legislation as long as the outcome is made clear. A UK section is a good idea as we tend to default to am insular view. Similar misinformation in Scotland led to a spike in reports to the Scottish SPCA by people wanting to get their neighbours prosecuted for having an e-collar on their dog, even if it was well behave, well looked after and perfectly happy. In a response to consultation for a review of the 2020 Animal Act. SSPCA had to report that none of the reports required so much as a written warning and had posed significant resourcing problems for their officers. My AI has just responded that England has banned the use of electronic shock collars for dogs, effective February 1, 2024,while I was writing this and quoted Wikipedia as a source HaHa. Will come back... Nycclive (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK This says Public bills – legislation which applies to the general public and are the most common type of bill passed by parliament – cannot be carried over if parliament is dissolved, as occurs before a general election. This reflects the constitutional principle that one parliament cannot bind its successor.The timeline for the Statutory Instrument shows that the motion to approve the instrument lapsed on 24th May 2024. There has been no mention of it by the current government - I think they have bigger issues. It will not stop lobbying by well resourced campaigners for a ban. Nycclive (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK Sorry, The links https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/prorogation-parliament-what-happens-legislation and https://statutoryinstruments.parliament.uk/instrument/vUkNBtTH/timeline/JTqCGOUW# Nycclive (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for something independent that specifically says that it is either stalled, failed, withdrawn etc. I think TKC saying 'there currently is no law' might be the closest I can find, that whole part of the article is a mess, I might start again! JeffUK 20:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joinardo.com have a page that is a thanks to their supporters for defeating the proposed legislation I am sure Dogtra UK will have reported it. If there is no ban in England then nothing need be said on a list of places where there is a ban. That list should be put in context though as it is fewer than 10% of UN recognised countries. I see you got rid of the odd and unsourced reference to South American countries in the lead. Nycclive (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie E-collars are NOT banned in England or Scotland. Whilst I appreciate your rejoining discussion your comment is inaccurate about England, Scotland 'regulates' the use of e-collars for use in training dogs by about as much as the old argument that since they use radio communication and that is reglated they regulate use. Nycclive (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lazily sourced do you mean? Nycclive (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JeffUK The rewrite of the lead is another improvement, although I think you will want to tidy up the way it reads when you look again. When you do, please note that not all use of e-collars is for training and when it is used for training it is not always 'aversive training'. Better sources surely can be found to replace those after the word fear. You could use statements from The Kennel Club, Dogs Trust, RSPCA to show 'Many object ...' Several countries should start a new sentence. There is awkward repitition of the word models and you could replace shock with current for consistency. I do not want to edit your edit without giving you chance but happy to do so if you do not. Nycclive (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JeffUK: A better source to cite for variation of durability and intensity of stimulation might be https://www.gobobby.be/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/The-electrical-signal-in-e-collars.pdf , but do you think it would be accepted as a source for WK ? It is the report of the experimenter on characteristics of e-collar stimulation from a selection of different models of e-collars. Nycclive (talk) 23:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page has multiple issues

[edit]

You can clearly observe the POV in the whole page, which reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedic article on a type of (controversial) animal training device. There are entire sections dedicated to pain, which doesn't really explain anything except dump some numbers, and not much in the operation of the device (How does a dog get conditioned with this thing?; How does it compare to positive reinforcement?). Also, there are three sections for references (§§ References, Sources, and External references): one is clearly the footnotes, the other has just two papers from the same author and the other is called "External references", whatever that means. This needs a lot of rewriting. —Opecuted (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]