Abstract - Beattie

Virtual fencing – the good, the bad and the ugly

In 2024, VAWA wascommenced contractedthe indevelopment 2024 to developof a Code of Ethical Practice for Virtual Fencing Technology (VFT). This followed engagement with the industry and aalignment sharing ofin concerns about the almost complete lack of animal welfare regulation for VFT use in New Zealand, and other jurisdictions, for use of VFT.jurisdictions.

While thereVFT are certainlyposes some potential benefits from an animal and environmental health perspective, there are also costs to both. Some aspects of VFT development and use are well regulated and transparenttransparent, (such as the safety of electrical devices),devices. while otherOther aspects are highly variable and extremelyconcealed, secretive. Forfor example, the amount of electricity used on animals, the animal welfare expertise in development teams, and the use of devices for herding and drafting,drafting. andThere perhapsis underpinningalso ituncertainty all,on whether there is independent research tosufficiently backsupports upVFT deployment to alternate applications (e.g., dairy to beef), and how strong the evidence is for other statements commonly made (about its benefits e.g., environmental claims).claims.

As VFT is taken upadopted more widely, ideally, manufacturer’smanufacturers would abide by the voluntary Code of Ethical Conduct,Practice, thusto ensuringensure that animals getare atreated fairconsistently dealby fromboth new comers to,established and thoseemerging alreadyVFT in,products to the market, and farmers are clear about robustness of welfare,welfare and financialother claims.

Dr Helen Beattie
Veterinarians for Animal Welfare Aotearoa (VAWA)