Keep the choice.
Protect more lives.

Danger does not only happen on a walk.

Predatory pursuit can reward a dog directly. Food offered by a handler does not automatically outweigh it. Training needs to change behaviour under the conditions that trigger the danger, including situations when the handler is distant or absent.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council reported 1,705 livestock incidents across five police forces between September 2013 and August 2017. Owners were absent in the majority. The Welsh Government also reports that most sheep-worrying incidents occur on land inaccessible to the public. [1][2]

These findings show why walk-time lead advice cannot address the entire problem. Secure containment and supervision remain essential. Durable learned avoidance is an additional outcome worth considering; owner absence is not itself a measured escape rate.

Demonstrated capability deserves a place.

Published research records interruption of predation, rapid inhibition of pursuit, retained avoidance and successful treatment of specified aggression within a structured programme. The studies differ, but their benefits cannot be dismissed as an absence of evidence. [3][4][5][6][7]

An electronic collar delivers a precisely timed aversive consequence at a distance. It can be combined with teaching and rewarding alternative responses. SPEC’s case concerns what the complete programme achieves, its proportionality and the risk of leaving the behaviour unresolved.

A ban removes a capability. Its welfare case must account for the consequences of losing it.

Research favouring one approach for a particular obedience task does not establish an equally reliable substitute for every dangerous pursuit case. Physical management and learned avoidance are different outcomes; policy must consider what owners can obtain and sustain.

Our request to government

Preserve lawful civilian access.

This is SPEC’s policy position: retain an effective option and hold people accountable for how they use it.

Existing law addresses mistreatment.

The publication brief records lawful civilian access in England, subject to existing welfare law, as at 16 October 2026. The government’s May 2026 answer and September taskforce report describe consultation on whether to ban use. [25]

The Animal Welfare Act 2006 prohibits unnecessary suffering and imposes welfare duties. Its relevant considerations include avoidability, legitimate protective purposes, proportionality and competent, humane conduct. Protecting a person, property or another animal is one factor, not permission for abuse. [26]

A defined enforcement record

In Scotland’s 2021 review, nine of 33 contacted enforcement bodies responded about January 2016–October 2019. They reported no prosecutions or convictions concerning training aids, although investigations and verbal warnings occurred. These are identifiable, limited records—not UK-wide twenty-year data or a guarantee of safety. [27]

What government and the courts recognised

Historical Defra correspondence reproduced in a 2019 High Court judgment distinguished finding no added efficacy in a comparison from establishing grounds to restrict access. The court upheld the later policy change; it did not certify safety. [28]

The unmade 2023 English draft included a defined armed-forces exception for necessary defence purposes. The Netherlands retains conditional exceptions for specified police and military functions. SPEC argues that civilian needs to prevent serious harm also deserve assessment. [29][30]

Show the welfare benefit of prohibition.

Scotland’s 2025 statutory review identified insufficient conclusive evidence that proper use of a modern static-pulse collar is inherently harmful or more harmful than unresolved problem behaviour after reward-based training has failed. It also identified uncertainty about unintended harmful consequences of prohibition and announced further consultation. This is an official policy assessment, not a safety experiment. [31]

Wales: distinguish financial losses from attack counts.

The publication brief reports these NFU Mutual estimates for livestock-worrying losses in Wales:

These figures document a continuing problem long after the 2010 ban. The 2022–2023 doubling concerns cost, not numbers of attacks. The later fall and rise do not establish that the ban caused any of these changes. [32]