Memorandum submitted by Duncan Leslie
Davidson, BVMS, MRCVS
Electronic Training Collars—A submission
in favour of these remaining legally available for suitably experienced
dog behaviourists and trainers, as a last resort for certain problem
behavioural traits in dogs.
1. I am Duncan Leslie Davidson, Bachelor
of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery (Glasgow), Member of the Royal
College of Veterinary Surgeons. I have been in veterinary general
practice since graduation, and Principal of Mitcham Veterinary
Clinic since 1985. This is a general first-opinion practice, and
also a behavioural referral practice for problem behaviour in
dogs, cats and other small animals. I have had a particular interest
in dog behaviour throughout my career and I am a member of the
American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior. I am also a Standing
Committee Chair and full Council member of the British Small Animal
Veterinary Association, and a founder member of the Veterinary
Association for Arbitration and Jurisprudence.
2. In this short paper I discuss my own
observations on the use of Electronic Training Collars, recognise
some risks of misuse, but also present arguments in support of
controlled, safety-approved manufacture and sale of such devices,
possibly under licence, to individuals shown to be knowledgeable
and experienced in canine behaviour and training in general and
the use of Electronic Training Collars in particular, for use
as a last resort in training dogs which might otherwise require
to be euthanased as a result of certain types of problem behaviour.
I also discuss some of the contentious points presented by the
Kennel Club in their submissions on this subject to the veterinary
profession.
3. It is my understanding that there have
been calls to completely ban Electronic Training Devices for dogs
("electric collars"), and for this to be encapsulated
in the Animal Welfare Bill (2004).
4. I have personally observed such devices
in use on several occasions, in cases where conventional training
methods have failed, or would fail, to prevent situations where
the dogs in question would have prove to be a danger to themselves,
or to members of the public, or to other animals, unless their
behaviour could be rapidly corrected by remote means.
5. This is typically in cases where dogs
will chase sheep, horses or other animals, will chase joggers
or cyclists, or will fail to re-call and run out into traffic
endangering themselves and road-users, and where other training
methods have been used unsuccessfully.
6. It is fair to say that these would be
cases where either the dogs would continue to be a major hazard
to the community, or would require to be euthanased.
7. In all of the cases I have observed,
the use of the collar proved to be successful in training the
dogs to behave appropriately.
8. The collars used were in every case manufactured
to a very high standard, with safety of both dog and operator
a priority, and the welfare of the dog paramount. The collars
therefore had carefully controlled bursts of current, which would
not harm the dog, and various settings for the strength and duration
of the stimulus. My own experience of the current indicates that
in well-manufactured units the stimulus is not particularly uncomfortable,
but simply focuses attention.
9. Nonetheless, it is my view that such
devices have the capacity for misuse, not necessarily intentional,
but due to inexperience or inability to understand canine behaviour,
and consequent mis-appliance of the electronic stimuli. Even poor
timing on the part of the operator could result in this.
10. Having said that, I do still strongly
believe that there is a place for such devices, but in the hands
of qualified and experienced animal behaviourists as a very occasional
last resort in the training of dogs that may otherwise have to
be destroyed, or have their quality of life seriously impaired
due to necessary highly restrictive physical control as a result
of their behaviour.
11. There would therefore be a serious disadvantage
to those behaviourists already successfully employing these collars
in specific circumstances in the management of severe behavioural
problems should these devices become legally unavailable.
12. I am also of the opinion that they should
be manufactured in accordance with a suitable standard of safety
and welfare, and sold under licence.
13. I am not, however, convinced that it
is wise to provide them unlicensed and unsupervised to the public
at large, since there is a danger of them being used inappropriately.
14. I have seen some representations made
to the veterinary profession and others by the Kennel Club, which
is essentially opposed to electronic training collars, but is,
oddly in my view, still in favour of the sale of electronic containment
fences which incorporate an electric collar.
15. The Kennel Club, in its campaign, attempts
to differentiate between those electric collars which are used
as part of invisible containment fencing, which it says are acceptable,
and those used as remote training collars, which it wants to ban.
Essentially, these are the same device, and are manufactured by
the same companies.
16. When used with invisible fences, in
the same way as with training collars, dogs need appropriate introductory
training by a suitably experienced person to teach the dog how
to avoid correction. This gives exactly the same type of shock
as with the remote training collar, and is equally capable of
either deliberate or accidental abuse, for example by leading
or driving a dog with a "live" collar over the buried
fence.
17. If remote training collars are used
properly, there should be little need to repeatedly use them once
the training problem has been addressed, and reward based training
can then be substituted. So, used properly, there is no difference
between the functions of either type of collar, and there is just
as much scope for abuse. The Kennel Club is therefore grossly
inconsistent in its arguments.
18. The Kennel Club have made repeated claims
made of "scientific evidence" of welfare problems with
electronic collars. To date, nothing has been published to substantially
prove this proposition in any of the scientific literature. So
far, everything has been purely anecdotal. Until there is suitably
evaluated scientific evidence, it is difficult to take a strong
negative position on the use of electronic collars.
19. The behavioural problems addressed by
electronic collars are likely to constitute welfare problems in
themselves, if not dealt with suitably; eg dogs can become bored
and frustrated if not allowed to exercise off lead, and this can
lead to other problems such as aggression and destructive behaviour.
This can, in turn, lead to re-homing of dogs, which may in itself
lead to stressful situations for the dogs involved, especially
if the dog is repeatedly rehomed due to its behavioural problems.
20. Obviously the welfare of other dogs,
livestock, cats and people is at risk from dogs which are uncontrolled
off lead, and this can lead to legal action or euthanasia. Electric
collars, used properly and occasionally, under the guidance of
experts, may be the last resort when all other motivations to
correct unwanted behaviour of this type have failed to overcome
these problems. This is why one has to balance their use with
the more direct alleged welfare implications of their use.
21. The Kennel Club, in its submissions,
refers to dogs' "natural willingness to obey". Many
of the behavioural problems that we have to address are the result
of a dog's unwillingness to obey! These are the more assertive
individuals that have a greater desire to take command than to
obey. This can be a particular problem when taking on an adult
dog from a rescue centre.
22. Judicious and correct use of a training
collar can reduce the self-reward factor of running off, or livestock
chasing, and can give a "window of opportunity" for
an owner to introduce positive reinforcement to encourage the
continuation of appropriate responses. This type of effect cannot
really be achieved in any other way, and can often lead to dogs
being continually returned to rescue centres.
23. The Kennel Club, in its submissions,
refers to "training dogs to respond out of fear of further
punishment"; with this statement, the Kennel Club does then
appear to accept that dogs will not always have this "natural
willingness to obey", and accepts that electric training
collars can work.
24. Behaviourists obviously accept that
positive methods of training will work for the vast majority of
dogs, and that electronic collars will be unnecessary for them,
but "problem dogs" are the exceptions that behaviourists
do have to work with occasionally, and of these problem dogs,
a very small number will fall into the category of needing remote
correction.
25. If people use electronic collars to
abuse dogs, this has always been covered by the Protection of
Animals Act (1911). To date, there is, as far as we are aware,
no record of any prosecution under this Act for the use of an
electric collar. Of course there are thousands of prosecutions
for abuse using sticks, stones, boots, hosepipes, leather leads,
chain leads and heavy metal objects, all of which are far more
accessible and readily usable than electric collars.
26. A call to vets by the Kennel Club last
year to report injuries caused by electric collars, which was
published in all the most popular UK veterinary journals, seemed
to yield little or no adverse response to collars, and considerably
more response from those in the veterinary profession who are
in favour of their controlled use.
27. If a person intends to abuse a dog,
it is far more likely that they will use an object close to hand
than an electric collar. The operation of electric collars by,
or under the supervision of persons trained in their use, seems
an important pre-requisite to their use, but no more so than the
use of check chains and the like.
28. The possible effect of a UK ban on collars
would be to prevent their legal use by responsible, experienced
law-abiding persons, but encourage their "underground"
use by dog-owners who are prepared to break the law by importing
collars from overseas, where they will still be readily obtainable.
This could lead to an increased likelihood of welfare problems
in dogs, and would also reduce the control over quality and safety
of such devices that might be possible if they remained available
for sale under licence and safety approval, which would be an
alternative to an outright ban.
29. In the experience of those who properly
use electronic training collars, where all else has failed, they
can achieve very good results, and thus improve owner and dog's
welfare and quality of life. They also increase safety and welfare
for the general public and other animals when dogs recognise they
can no longer ignore re-calls without stimulation, thus preventing
running into the road, chasing joggers, chasing horses, attacking
cyclists or other dogs.
30. The dog's recognition that those opportunities
are checked means the collar should very rarely require to be
activated after the short time it takes to learn about it. (This
is exactly the same argument in favour of electronic containment
fencing).
25 August 2004
| 
