Memorandum submitted by Petsafe Ltd and
Electronic Pet Training Systems
Even in the pet world, microchip technology
is creating safer, happier lives for pets and their owners. This
technology has enabled the development of electronic training
devices which protect pets from death, injury or having to go
into an animal sanctuary because their owner, or several consecutive
owners, cannot persuade the pet to behave. The continuous evolution
of the products has reached the stage where a lightweight device
attached to a collar makes it possible to train the pet not to
bark, to stay within the garden or not to chase cars, joggers,
passers by, livestock or other pets; or incessantly. This will
save the pet's life because a dog chasing sheep is liable to be
shot. A pet loose on the road can cause accidents in which humans
and the animal itself can be injured or killed.
There are many types of electronic pet training
device. Some use an aversive noise or ultrasound, others a noxious
spray or static pulse. In this report when we use the term "electronic
training product" we are solely referring to the static pulse
products.
There are three basic types of these training
system: containment, bark control and remote training. In each
case, the pet wears a collar with a lightweight battery powered
unit and two contact points. The bark control system has another
contact to pick up the vibration of the dog barking.
Electronic collars have been available for over
20 years. Since the early days the products have become much smaller,
easier to operate and more reliable. The strength of the pulse
is adjusted to the minimum necessary for effect in a particular
dog. The pet within the containment system or the dog wearing
the bark control collar, controls the device itself. The remote
training systems consists of the collar and also a hand held transmitter.
With all three systems, an audible or sensory warning is given
before a static pulse.
CONTAINMENT
Electronic boundary systems save the lives of
pets that would otherwise be killed on the road and they save
the lives of drivers when runaway pets dash into the road and
cause an accident.
We recently asked customers of Freedom Fence
Ltd, a subsidiary of Petsafe Ltd, to comment on their experience
with the boundary fence product. Their consistent view was that
without their boundary fence their pet would be dead or missing.
REMOTE TRAINING
There is a wide range of experienced professionals
who believe that the average dog owner with basic knowledge of
training techniques can responsibly and effectively use an electronic
training device to help him train his dog.
The collar surely comes within the scope of
the old saying: abusus non tollit usum—abuse does
not do away with use—that something can be abused is no
reason to put an end to its legitimate use.
People bent on abuse of an animal are much more
like to reach for the nearest thing they can find, be it a rolled-up
newspaper, stiock or the boot on the end of their leg. Are we
going to ban newspapers and boots?
For the safety of the dog and the peace of mind
of the owner it essential for the owner to be able to control
the dog at a distance. This is not a practice session. This is
real life with real life consequences. If your dog is hit by a
car you cannot turn the clock back and try something else.
The electronic training collar offers four advantages
over other distance training aids:
1. Accurate timing of impulse whether dog
is close by or up to 300 yards away
2. The distance between dog and handler does
not affect the strength of the impulse, nor does the handler become
involved other than to push a button and, importantly, the dog
does not necessarily have to know that the correction is caused
by the handler, avoiding thereby any association of intimidation.
3. Dependability is assured by exactly the
same quality and intensity of impulse.
4. Ease of operation means that anyone who
has the necessary training abilities is not precluded by any physical
shortcomings. (Truman op. cit.)
THE "SCIENCE":
TWO STUDIES
FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF
UTRECHT, THE
NETHERLANDS
"Training dogs with help of the shock
collar: short and long term behavioural effects" by Matthijs
B. H. Schilder and Joanna A. M. van der Borg stated that reactions
"only lasted fractions of a second" to a shock
and "The durations of most reactions to shocks were immeasurably
short". (Materials & Methods) The trainers had to
be asked how many shocks had been administered as the observers
were not able to determine this.
We have carefully studied this report and note
that the authors accept that:
1. Shocks do not cause physical damage.
"Although shocks may be painful, this does not imply
that there is physical damage. A recent report on possible damage
by the use of shock collars provides no evidence for physical
damage and states that this is even unlikely (Klein 2000)"
(p331)
2. "We have not proven that the long-term
welfare of the shocked dogs was hampered . . ."
3. There are appropriate uses for remote
trainers for which its use should be saved (ie not withdrawn or
banned) "for suppressing hunting and killing sheep
4. The direct reaction to stimulation
was very brief "lasted only a fraction of a second",
"the duration of most reactions to shocks were immeasurably
short,. ."
5. The behavioural "differences
that we found between shocked and control dogs were small . .
."
"Behavioural, saliva cortisol and heart
rate responses to different types of stimuli in dogs" by
Bonne Beerda, Matthijs B H Schilder, Jan A R A M van Hooff, Hans
W de Vries and Jan A Mol.
It was observed with regard to the "electric
shock" stimulus in this study that:
— Heart rate is a key behavioural measure
in this experiment but no use was made of it since only "before"
rates were possible.
— Much is made in the report of the
simultaneous measurements of saliva cortisol and heart rate but
this is invalidated by the omission of "during" and
"after" heart rate data for the "electric shock"
stimulus.
— The test dog population was composed
of 10 pre-conditioned test animals rather than pet-animals.
— This maximum of 10 possible results
was diluted to seven by the dismissal of two animals for "dirty"
saliva and one for above the norm results.
We therefore conclude that neither of these
studies is useful in evaluating electronic training products.
August 2004
| 
