Examination of Witnesses (Questions 200-209)
MR DUNCAN
DAVIDSON AND
MR ANDREW
CONSTANT
8 SEPTEMBER 2004
Q200 Chairman: Mr Davidson?
Mr Davidson: Mr Constant has mentioned
three of my behavioural colleagues and we certainly do have cases
that have been to see some of these behavioural colleagues that
he has mentioned, and have not been successful and we have eventually
ended up having to use these methods. So it does not always work
at the end of the day. The other thing we would mention also is
that if we did go towards a full ban, as Mr Constant was suggesting,
and, as he rightly says, these collars are manufactured all over
the world and are very easily available in America and some other
European countries, okay, all the good guys that do know how to
use them, and hopefully use them in a very limited way, are probably
not going to use them because they have their own reputations
to consider and they are not going to use them illegally. But
there is a possibility that we are opening up a situation where
people that maybe should not be using them are going to get them
anyway, bring them in from America and over the Internet—and
this happens already—so it is possible we might end up with
an increase in the level of inappropriate use rather than appropriate
use, whereas if we were to limit the sale in this country perhaps
to, in my opinion, e-numbered equipment, we could determine that
these were good pieces of equipment that were not going to cause
danger. Two of these [batteries] is actually the power
that is used for a standard electric collar, a well manufactured
one, and these are the same sort of batteries as you put into
pacemakers and things like that—six volts. It does not cause
serious problems; it does cause an interesting little muscle twitch
and it is that which the dog responds to. We in veterinary practice
use a technique called Faradism, which is a physiotherapy technique—you
may have heard of it in humans as well—where you exercise
various muscles by using electric currents across the muscles.
In fact the current that is used for Faradism in horses is actually
higher than the current that is used for electric collars and
it does the same sort of thing, it moves the muscle, and that
has not been called for a ban. Cattle prods use somewhere in the
region of 60 times the amount of current that is used for electric
collars on dogs. So nothing has been shown in the literature or
papers and research that indicates that there is any physical
damage happens to the dogs. It may well be that Animals in
Mind are going to show you a picture of a Labrador, which
I have as well, which has a large area of moist eczema, and that
is where it is clearly stated that something has gone wrong with
the collar and the battery has leaked and corrosion has got on
to the skin and the dog has received acid burns from the batteries
which have caused the problem. But there are no pictures anywhere
of well designed properly manufactured electric collars that actually
cause burns.
Q201 Mr Drew: Just an observation to
start with. It is an interesting debate about the electric shock
treatment on dogs, but of course we have electric shock treatment
on human beings, so there is a parallel there.
Mr Davidson: I think it is quite
different.
Q202 Mr Drew: We do. If you are mentally
ill you have ECT. So there are all sorts of issues there how we
treat people in certain conditions. What I am struggling with
here is this: I want to know about the scale of this, I want to
know how often is this the way in which some people see as inevitable
to try and train their dogs. I would be interested to know how
they go about doing this. Clearly they can at the moment buy a
collar, so they can presumably abuse the way in which they use
that collar. I accept what you say about the possibility of being
able to obtain these devices from elsewhere if they are banned
in this country, but I suppose it is about what would be the standard
practice for dealing with difficult animals and, more particularly,
the worry I would have is if it was seen as inevitable if you
have an unruly dog that you have to have that dog put down. Are
there numbers kept and who does the work on this?
Mr Davidson: Numbers are not kept
and in fact in the UK at the present moment it would be quite
exceptional for your average dog owner to even consider using
something like that. Your average dog owner loves his dog; your
average dog owner is not going to use anything that they will
perceive to be particularly nasty for their own dog. There are
not many dog owners who would take an opposite view to that. There
might be that there are some but to my mind that would be the
exception—we do not meet them.
Mr Constant: I do not think that
is the danger. I think one of the dangers is that the market in
the States is shrinking, and that is from the American Humane
Society and one large organisation in America called San Francisco
Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals. They state that
the market is shrinking. Could I pass round some of these? [Leaflets
distributed][8]
The worry for us is not that experienced people are going to use
them occasionally; the worry for us is that they become generally
available. This is one advertisement of thousands taken from the
Internet on the front of here. I would be quite happy to say that
I do not think any behaviourist is going to agree with this first
line statement—and the yellow bits I have highlighted—"Stop
your pup barking in three days." This is the road down which
shock collars are going. I can already see people wincing at what
it says in here. People are being told that your first line of
attack with dog training should be a shock collar and then you
will have no more problems. What the manufacturers are advocating
generally at the moment is that why wait until your dog has a
serious behaviour problem? Stop the behaviour in the first place
by not allowing any of these problems. In contrast to what Mr
Davidson was saying, if you look at the very last highlighted
paragraph, this device is capable of what they claim as giving—bad
grammar I appreciate—"Seriously attention getting jolt".
That is what they claim their device is capable of.
Q203 Chairman: Would I be right, Mr Constant,
in assuming, particularly in the light of what Mr Davidson said,
that this is not his territory, he is dealing with dogs who have
extreme behavioural problems which he would argue have not been
capable of being dealt with by the techniques in which you clearly
have an expertise. So we make a differentiation between this kind
of stuff and the work that Mr Davidson does?
Mr Constant: Yes, I think so;
I think there is a differentiation. My personal belief is that
if there were a general ban on the sale and use then the general
public would stop using them. Already the number of behaviourists
who use them and advocate them is declining. We did a survey of
about 20 behaviourists last year and most of them said that, yes,
in quite a few circumstances they would use one. I phoned six
behaviourists yesterday and, like Mr Davidson, they say in very
extreme cases. Already the behaviourists are realising the problems
they cause and are shrinking their own use. I think this is for
two reasons. I think it is primarily because of the problems they
cause but, secondly, it is because positive reward is being understood
and promoted better and getting across to people better and people
are understanding the positive methods much better and they are
being much more effective.
Q204 Mr Mitchell: I take it that the
choice between you is a total ban on sale and use and a restricted
access; is that right?
Mr Davidson: I believe so, yes.
Mr Constant: Yes, I would accept
a restricted access; I would not argue with that. I would then
go on to argue with Mr Davidson that he should not be doing it,
but if you said, yes, we will do a restricted ban I would say
fine. I am not going to argue on that.
Q205 Mr Mitchell: But it is difficult
to see how a restricted access would work in the sense that if
it is going to be available on the Internet, to get it from the
States or whatever, if it is going to be available to old ladies
in Brighton who are putting it on three dogs which go out and
kill little dogs, or me to training the wife or something like
that—do not react to that!
Mr Constant: Or children, where
that has been used.
Q206 Mr Mitchell: There is not going
to be an effective restriction of access because you cannot restrict
access to vets and registered users.
Mr Davidson: At the moment of
course there is no restriction of access. Albeit that there is
apparently a problem it is a very, very small problem in the UK.
There have not been any prosecutions taken by the RSPCA at all,
to my knowledge, for cruelty as a result of using an electric
collar. So it is not a huge deal at the moment. Obviously there
are various possibilities that you could do it; you could have
a licensing scheme where people were approved as appropriate operatives
and they were people who have a working and qualified knowledge
of behaviour and can use them in exceptional circumstances, almost
like gun licensing, but, then again, who is going to control it?
There are other ways that you could perhaps go. Certainly one
of my main contentions is that there should be licensed sales
of these in the UK whereby the only things that are actually sold
are ones that are approved as being of suitable quality and that
limits the possibility of serious problems from bad manufacture,
for example. It could then be that there might be a chain of responsibility
coming down from the people who have the licence to sell them
to ensure that the people that they are selling them to are using
them responsibly, and that might well be that they would only
be able to sell them to people who were known to be qualified
and trained in the use of these and able to use them proficiently,
and then these people in turn—the next point down the chain—ensure
that the only people who are actually using them are people that
they know. So you have got a fairly short chain of responsibility,
but it would be then that perhaps some of the responsibility would
revert back to the licensee, to the people who are actually manufacturing
and selling them in the first place.
Q207 Mr Mitchell: You included in that
a possible restriction by type. I see from this literature that
you start presumably with a low voltage shock, or whatever, and
if the animal does not respond you can build it up. Can you just
restrict the power of it?
Mr Davidson: Yes, absolutely;
there are some that you can work on low power and some that you
can increase to higher power, and it might be that one of the
things you would want to look at would be a maximum power that
you can suitably use in these devices. In actual fact it depends
on the dog. You have some dogs that have a very, very high threshold
of response, where you can give a fairly high jolt and they hardly
respond at all. The vast majority of dogs need an exceptionally
low jolt and I think a lot of it is to do with their own endorphins
at the time and what they are actually doing at the time when
they feel discomfort.
Mr Constant: The question I would
ask is, if this shock collar device has been used on children
by some parents would we be debating the level at which we are
allowed to shock children, if this debate was about children?
Mr Davidson: It depends on how
you bring up children.
Chairman: It could lead to debate almost
anything that is put in front of us. I want to bring David Lepper
in for our final question on this session.
Q208 Mr Lepper: For my information, because
I am not clear about the distinction here, I know that the Kennel
Club in their evidence make a distinction between the kind of
collars you have been talking about and freedom fences, and I
see that there is reference in Mr Constant's literature here to
an invisible fence system. Do either of your organisations or
you as individuals make that same distinction?
Mr Davidson: I do not because
I really cannot see that there is any difference between freedom
fences and electronic training collars; they both work in the
same way, they both work with an electric collar. A dog has to
be trained with a freedom fence to understand the limit beyond
which it can go. To do that you have to start by training the
dog on an electric collar, in exactly the same way as you would
train a dog not to chase sheep. So to me there is no distinction
whatsoever.
Mr Constant: If you can train
a dog using that then you can train a dog using reward and using
positive methods, which is better for animal welfare. This is
what we are looking at. This is not good for animal welfare because
we are advocating negative punishment and negative stimulation
and that is our point. What we should be promoting is positive
and that is what an Animal Welfare Bill should do. There are lots
of problems with fences; dogs have been known to run at them,
just take the shock and then they are outside and they cannot
get back in. Other dogs have been known, because they give a warning
bleep before they give a shock, to sit at the side of the fence,
wait until the bleeps stop and then they have a signal that they
can cross. It is like a green crossing for the dog. They sit there,
wait for the beeps to stop—"Oh, right, the power has
gone off now, I can walk out." They have done this; these
are reports from the States where they are used quite a lot. The
other thing it does not do, if you use the perimeter fence, is
to stop other animals coming on to the property and possibly entering
into a territorial problem with the dogs that are there, and it
does not stop people either goading or enticing the dogs towards
the fence to watch them have a shock. We would like to believe
that that would not happen but I think everybody knows that it
would; if people have a chance to have a bit of a laugh at a dog's
expense—not everybody obviously, but there are people who
would do that.
Q209 Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very
much indeed. It has been a very interesting debate and we will
reflect carefully not only what you have said but also the information
you have kindly sent us. If on reflection there is anything else
that you want to communicate to the Committee we would be happy
to receive that in writing. Thank you both very much for coming.
Mr Constant: I do have some other
stuff to give out, which could I ask for people to read later?
The only other thing, which may interest you anyway, it is a leaflet
that we produce about positive training. So maybe you would like
to have one of those and read it at your leisure?
Mr Davidson: I have a couple of
things here. One of them is the Dutch paper that the Kennel Club
may have referred to yesterday, which they have been using in
their anti training collar campaign. It needs to be read and you
will actually find that the conclusions that the Dutch people
come to is that they should still be used for exactly these events
that I have mentioned, these exceptions. It does not say that
they should be banned, it says they should be restricted.
Chairman: Thank you very much for the
instant response and further information! We are very grateful.
8 Not printed. Back
| 
