France closer to banning electric collars for pets

The National Assembly adopted the bill to prohibit the use and sale of electric training collars for cats and dogs on 16 January 2023.

Members of the lower house almost unanimously agreed and voted to pass the bill introduced by member Corinne Vignon on 29 November 2022, with the support of animal welfare entities.

In her proposal, she stated that the collars allow the owner to inflict an electrostatic shock “on demand” via remote control and induce “direct physical and psychological” pain on the animals.

The proposal received the support of most members on 10 January when it was presented to the Economic Affairs Committee. The results revealed that 110 members voted in favor of adopting the bill, and 5 voted against it.

Several European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, the UK, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland, have already banned pet training collars.

Use, sale, and purchase

The bill plans to restrict the use, sale, and purchase of training collars for pet dogs and cats, including anti-distancing, anti-barking, and training electric collars. The restriction also includes choke collars without stoppers and pointed collars with points that sink into the animal’s throat.

First-time users will be penalized with a fine of €750 and €3,750 for repeat offenders and dog trainers. In the case of a sale or purchase, offenders risk a penalty from €3,000 to €15,000.

Before being enforced, the French Senate must ratify the bill.

Harmless training tool?

Assemblymember Anne-Laurence Petel said that devices like the electric collars are considered a “relatively harmless training tool” by pet parents or dog trainers, and it is “necessary not to let such ideas subsist.”

She added that elevating the stress and aggressiveness of animals from using such collars is not only dangerous for those around the animal but “fear can lead them to seriously injure children.”

Representative Christine Engrand argued that “ease of access” creates the problem. She suggested that “alternatives that do not cause suffering should be preferred.”