San Francisco could become the first city in the country to ban stun collars for dogs

English

San Francisco may be the first city in the country to ban stun collars for dogs, but the news has divided the local canine community.

Last fall, San Francisco dog trainers and animal advocates proposed a ban on the shock collar in the city of San Francisco, the first of its kind in a major metropolitan area. These e-collars use what is known as “static correction” to eliminate negative dog behavior and are often referred to as “shock collars” because they train dogs by shocking them with varying levels of electrical shock or vibration.

The proposed ban has already received widespread support from local animal advocates, including the local SPCA, SF Animal Care and Control, and the city’s professional dog breeders’ guild, many of whom argue that e-collars may actually be contrary to intuitive training goals and could cause irreparable psychological damage. to your pet.

Support prohibit mounting

Local dog trainers have launched a massive Shock-Free SF campaign aimed at banning the sale and distribution of electronic collars in the city, as well as banning their use by both trainers and dog owners. Founders Ren Volpe and LT Taylor, animal behavior experts and trainers, are committed to educating the people of San Francisco in the safest way to train their pets according to the latest scientific advances.

“San Francisco has often been at the forefront of animal welfare reform, from launching the anti-murder movement in San Francisco in 1994 to becoming the first major U.S. city to ban cat declawing in 2009,” Wolpe wrote. . “This is not some extremist animal rights stance: many well-known and respected organizations, from the Humane Society of the United States to the American Veterinary Medical Association, agree that shock collars have no place in modern dog training.”

According to the draft Shock-Free SF regulation, veterinarians and behaviorists largely condemn these “repulsive” training methods, which they say can cause dogs to “repress or mask their outward signs of fear”, reversing the intended purposes of their use and often causing dogs that fight aggression to become more dangerous in appearance.

Instead, prohibitionists insist that positive reinforcement can solve any dog’s behavioral problems, no matter how serious.

“The SFACC does not regulate dog training, however there is a wealth of scientific evidence supporting our belief that positive reinforcement is the best way to create a safe and happy relationship with your pet,” said Virginia Donoghue, Executive Director of SFACC.

If San Francisco legislators decide to push this movement forward, it will be the first city in the country to do so, despite countless nationwide efforts by animal rights activists to introduce more restrictions and regulations on static correction.

In 2020, Petco announced that it would ban the sale of electronic shock collars, positioning itself as a “pet health and welfare company” that advocates positive reinforcement training. New York state legislators have also proposed a similar law that promises to ban the sale or distribution of stun collars. Wolpe says many countries banned stun collars after Germany started the trend in 2006.

And it’s not just animal welfare that’s at stake; Organizers see their movement as a continuation of San Francisco’s famous social justice undercurrents, as well as its reputation as a city obsessed with its canine pals.

“St. Francis of Assisi, patron saint of San Francisco and all animals, believed that animals should not be dominated, exploited or abused,” Shock-Free SF supporters wrote in their draft ruling. “As the first city in the nation to ban e-collars, San Francisco lives up to our tradition of frontier justice, rights for all, and progressive causes.”

Shock Collar Proponents Disagree

While lifeguards, animal welfare organizations, and dog walkers in San Francisco support the law, others believe that Shock Collars are safe when used properly.

Critics of the ban on e-collars say that ECT advocates fundamentally misunderstand how static correction works and that a ban would deprive owners of dogs with particularly stubborn pets an invaluable educational resource.

“We support correct static correction,” said Jennifer Joyce, president of SpotOn, a static correction company. “Under the guidance of trained people who know how to use it for positive purposes, it can be an effective training tool and an effective way to train dogs with behavioral problems.”

Joyce says there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how stun collars should and should be used, which has led to a total ban law like the one proposed in SF. Rather, proponents of static correction say that careful training is required with these electronic collars, and that they should not be used frequently to severely shock or frighten a dog.

see also

“The point is not to cause pain, but to have the collar cause a slight discomfort that really stops the fixation on what lures them, what distracts them or makes them react,” Joyce said.

Proponents of e-collars say that painful shocks are rarely used, and that there are other, milder static correction methods, such as collar vibration, to make it easier for a dog to use these training aids.

However, proponents of electrodeless collars vehemently refute these claims, and both proponents and critics of stun collars acknowledge that there are virtually no regulations associated with them, such as mandatory training or quality control, that could reduce the likelihood that the wearer will misbehave. or abuse static electricity. correction tools.

Next Steps for Shock Collars in San Francisco

Despite some opposition from local e-collar advocates, the no-electroshock movement has already gained momentum in San Francisco.

In October, the San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission voted in favor of a proposed ban on the Shock Collar after meeting with representatives from Shock-Free. Local pet stores also decided to stop selling stun collars long before the potential ban was in place, and in line with Petco’s stance on static correction.

“The Commission agrees with [Shock-Free SF representatives] that the practice of managing animal training through pain is inconsistent with our city’s values ​​of treating all living things with kindness,” San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commissioners wrote in a letter to District 5 Chief Dean Preston.

Shock-Free co-leads Wolpe and Taylor say further legislative efforts are on the horizon, including support for a nationwide bill requiring dog trainers to provide “client informed consent” or clear communication about the risks and benefits of training methods.

The next step? The organizers need to find a city observer who will support the bill and vote for its passage.

English