House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Animals in Mind

1. SUMMARY

We would like to see an amendment to the proposed Animal Welfare Bill, preventing the use of painful aversive stimulus, in particular electric shock devices. Apart from the pain and suffering they cause, there are more effective and humane ways to teach animals.

2. INTRODUCTION

1. The proposed Animal Welfare Bill 2004 is a step forward, especially in the provision for future regulation. However, it does not actually make it an offence to cause suffering to animals by beating or shocking them.

2. If this bill is to re-establish England and Wales as leaders in animal welfare, it should include an offence of beating or shocking an animal, as both cause unquestionable pain and suffering.

3. Several court cases have heard witness accounts of the violent and terrified reactions of dogs while shock collars were being used on them. [1]A police dog trainer giving evidence, said: "I have seen a dog react to an electric collar by jumping off the ground with all four legs, looking round to see where the pain had come from, then lying down on the floor and yelping".

4. Many Police and other working dog units have voluntarily stopped using shock collars for dog training, after assessing that they are cruel devices.

5. As with arguments that surround most cruel practice, a few will claim a need for pain as an aversive stimulus. In most cases, the need comes from a lack of understanding, frustration, anger or a belief in violence and intimidation.

6. There are trainers who still believe beating, scruffing, kicking and stringing up, are acceptable. As long as shock collars are acceptable, other forms of abuse are being condoned. Uninformed owners will continue to accept these trainers as experts.

7. A specific offence to beat or shock an animal, would show that we choose to show humanity and compassion rather than tyranny and complacency, towards the animals in our care.

8. This amendment would simply be a natural extension to all humane legislation that seeks to promote a more compassionate world by preventing cruelty and potentially damaging practice.

9. As there are many facets and questions around the use of shock collars, we would very much appreciate the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee.

3. PROMOTION OF SHOCK DEVICES

1. Vulnerable owners are misled by manufacturers and advocates of shock devices into believing they are humane. With names like "Petsafe" and "Pro dog trainer", they imply that these devices are cruelty free. The effect of the advertising is to condone the use of pain and punishment as a way to control animals.

2. Many advertisements include phrases such as "high tech" "easy to use" and "no training necessary", encouraging people to think that the devices are not painful or that violence is an acceptable way to cope with unwanted behaviour.

3. Advertisements for shock collars also state that they can be used to inhibit and control any behaviour. One advertisement claims a list of uses, ending with "and any other unacceptable habit". This would contravene proposed regulation 3.4.c (the need to be able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns).

4. One common use for shock collars is for the control of barking in dogs. Directly contravening proposed regulation 6.2.g (make provision for prohibiting or regulating any method of interfering with the capacity for animals to smell, see, hear, emit sound or exercise any other faculty).

4. DEVICES CLAIMED TO BE HUMANE

1. Manufacturers rarely refer to their devices as shock collars, they use alternative names such as "static collar" or "training aid". They usually cite their device as giving a "static shock" or "intense stimulus", implying that it is not painful or harmful.

2. Advertisers only speak in terms of success for the user. We have never seen any concern, understanding or information about the psychological damage or effects that can result from the use of a shock device.

3. Many owners report ulcerations after using a shock collar. Studies suggest that this is more likely to be a result of physical contact from the prongs on the collar, rather than electrical burns. [2]This means the collars alone, have the potential to cause painful injury.

4. In at least one documented case, [3]a dog wearing a shock collar within a perimeter fence, was seriously injured after being left alone in the rain. Photographic evidence shows the dog with extremely painful injuries to his neck and throat caused by the device.

5. Other devices available include shock mats, sensors that trigger a shock when an animal approaches a boundary and devices to shock dogs when they bark.

6. As these devices are sold legally, laws that ensure the sale of safe devices, help to legitimise these products, making them acceptable to frustrated and vulnerable owners.

7. There are claims that shock devices are not painful. Observations from a study of shock collars in use, cites lowering of body posture, high pitched yelps, barks and squeals, avoidance and aggression as reactions to a shock. [4]The study is very clear that these are all reactions to fear and pain.

5. TRAINING AND BEHAVIOUR USE

1. There is a perception that an aversive shock changes unwanted behaviour. In reality the behaviour is rarely changed, it is simply suppressed or masked by fear. In our work with animals that have been abused, we know that it can take years for the fear of abuse to subside, in some cases it never goes away.

2. Apart from the physical and psychological cruelty of shock devices, they have the potential to worsen behaviour problems and cause new ones. Their biggest potential is to leave animals stressed, confused and demoralised with depressed natural behaviour.

3. A shock from an unknown origin can cause an animal to be afraid of, or aggressive towards, the person or object they were focusing on at the time. A court case cites this as the cause of three dogs attacking another dog. [5]

4. People have a tendency to try and eliminate problem behaviour with punishment. Anger, frustration and lack of understanding, cloud their judgement. Ideally we should promote positive behaviour change, rather than continue allowing people to vent their anger on vulnerable and defenceless animals.

5. Violence is neither needed nor warranted for training animals. There are thousands of trainers and behaviourists with the knowledge and understanding to provide alternatives to any training method that uses aversive stimuli.

6. PERIMETER FENCES

1. The potential for dangerous situations is increased with perimeter fences. Dogs that receive a shock from an unknown source are extremely likely to think that it comes from whatever they can see at the time. If this is a child, the potential for an attack is enormous.

2. Dogs with a strong personality or in a chase, could easily ignore the pain and continue through the barrier. A very common cause would be where a dog is chasing a cat. They would be across the barrier before they could stop in response to the shock.

3. Once they have experienced a shock from the collar, many dogs are afraid to venture outside. The effect is similar to post traumatic stress in humans. Having experienced an attack from an undetermined source, dogs can react from fear and stay fixed where they are.

4. Perimeter fences increase the potential for cruel behaviour towards animals. The simplest form would be people trying to entice or frighten a dog onto the perimeter. It would be nice to think this wouldn't happen, but in reality everyone knows that it would.

7. SHOCK DEVICES ARE OPPRESSIVE

1. In the eyes of an owner, the use of a shock collar is reinforced when an animal submits to the pain. In reality the process is about oppression, giving a stark choice to the animal of compliance or violence.

2. Dogs that regularly experience punishment or harsh treatment will show signs of stress and fear. These signs are significantly increased in dogs that also experience shocks. [6]

3. Many owners who have used shock devices, report their animals becoming lethargic, depressed and non-communicative. This certainly can't be in the animal's best interest.

4. A recent comparison of shocked and non-shocked guard dogs in Holland, reported that the shocked dogs continued to exhibit submissive and/or aggressive behaviour up to 18 months after shocks were discontinued. [7]

5. The same study concluded that the use of shocks is painful to dogs and that their welfare was at risk when the collars were used. In particular, the dogs continued to associate commands from their handlers as being a precursor to a shock.

8. SUPPORTERS

1. In our campaigning against shock collars, we have collected 2,300 local and over 1,200 electronic signatures in favour of a ban. We have also distributed on request, over 3,000 leaflets and car stickers. In a fax poll carried out by an independent company, 88% said they were in favour of a ban.

2. Tim Yeo MP has entered an early day motion: "That this House notes the continuing availability and use of remote control electric shock collars to train and control dogs; shares the view of the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA that these devices are unnecessary and cruel, with considerable potential for abuse; believes that there are alternative training methods which are more effective, as are employed by the police, prison services and armed forces; regrets that the draft Animal Welfare Bill contains no provisions to ban the sale and use of electric shock training collars; and calls on the Government to include such provisions in the Bill". To date this motion has 34 supporters.

3. All the organisations below would like to see the animal welfare bill include a ban on the sale and use of shock collars. This list is not exhaustive, it has only been compiled in the last three weeks.

Animal rescue advisory service

A dog's life

Advocates for animals

Animal concern advice line

Animal concern Bristol

Animal concern limited

Animal concern today

Animals in Mind

Animalsvoice.com

AnthonyDacko.net

Arcnews

Association of pet behaviour counsellors