Debate contribution: Aversive Training Tools for Domestic Animals
Debate contribution by Mr Tom Buchanan on .
- MLA
- Mr Tom Buchanan
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 5 October 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Aversive Training Tools for Domestic Animals
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5774094
Read the official Assembly record
Text
In rising to contribute to the debate, I am sure that it goes without saying that a dog is a man's best friend. All those who are dog lovers can testify to the welcome that they receive from their dog when they return home each day and how rewarding that is for them. They can also testify to the loyalty that their dog has towards them, and, for many, their pets become part of the family. Therefore, the treatment and welfare of our domestic animals must be a priority. While the training of dogs is essential for various parts of life, whether that be for the sheep farmer in gathering up his flock, the country sports personnel out to enjoy a day's shooting on land or water where the dog fetches the prey, or simply the family pet, all such training must be done in a humane manner. The aversive training tools used in today's training of our domestic animals, whether dogs or cats — shock collars, prong collars, choke chains and grot collars, as set out in the motion — are nothing short of barbaric and cruel means of training those animals by inflicting pain or discomfort on the animal to stop an unwanted action. It is clear from evidence from the Dogs Trust and the British Veterinary Association that, rather than teaching an animal how to behave, those tools have the opposite effect and create a profoundly negative impact on the animal's behaviour and well-being. That negative impact remains with that animal for the rest of its life. Over the years, as a dog lover, I have mainly kept Labradors and springer spaniels. My last two springer spaniels were dogs that were being trained for use in gun sport but, being gun-shy, were discharged. I then picked them up for use as family pets. They were dogs that had all the signs of being subjected to such training tools, which had a lasting negative impact on them. They were shy, they cowered away to their bed at the least little noise and, when you tried to put a lead on them and take them for a walk, they lay trembling. Those are only some of the lasting negative effects. With much love and care, it took almost 12 months to gain their full trust and remove some of that lasting fear. Therefore, it is important that the tools that are causing such adverse effects on our domestic animals by inflicting pain and discomfort are banned, both for sale and for use, as they should not and cannot have any place in modern animal care. Humane, reward-based training methods have proven to be very effective in strengthening trust between the animal and its owner, and that leads to much better outcomes. We appreciate that such methods may well take a little more patience and be a little slower, but the reward is there. We must ensure that we do not fall behind animal welfare legislation across the rest of the UK. We have seen Scotland and Wales take action. However, as legislation is introduced, it will require scrutiny so that it does not inadvertently restrict legitimate safe handling and emergency measures related to livestock protection. That may be where I have a wee bit of concern with the Alliance amendment. It would remove from the likes of vets, rescue workers, dog wardens and so forth all the measures that may be necessary in emergency situations. For legislation to be effective, it must be developed with sufficient safeguards. The motion will send a clear message that cruelty and fear-based training methods are no longer acceptable standards of care. We must ensure that animal welfare protections are robust in principle and workable in practice. I support the motion.
627 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Awaiting analysis
This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.