The Scottish Government has banned electric training collars. Having previously decided to allow their use under the supervision of qualified professionals, Scottish environment secretary Roseanna Cunningham, changed her mind following consultations with animal welfare charities who, not surprisingly, claimed that the collars cause dogs unnecessary suffering. Whilst there is evidence to support those claims, there is also a significant body of testimony to show how effective the use of these devices can be in controlling those dogs dining, as it were, in the last chance saloon.
The British Association for Shooting and Conservation has it right when it described a total ban as “disproportionate”. Its Director for Scotland, Colin Sneddon said: “Without the restricted but effective use of these devices, many otherwise well-behaved family pets and working dogs would probably have had to be put down.” Contrast this reasoned response to that of Caroline Kisko, Secretary of the Kennel Club: “This sends the clearest possible message to dog owners that, far from being a harmless quick-fix training solution, shock collars cause long-term physical and psychological harm to dogs and that training them in this manner is unacceptable”. In the space of a few short words Ms. Kisko illustrates a characteristic common to many of the those claiming to represent the welfare of animals – highly selective outrage. Here’s why. The psychological harm to which she was referring was evidenced by two reports, separately produced five years ago by scientists at the Universities of Bristol and Lincoln, and the Food and Environment Research Agency. They concluded that the use of e–collars “can lead to a negative impact on welfare at least in a proportionate (number) of animals trained using this technique’. It also found that many owners used the devices without adhering to the instructions.
Whilst it is clearly undeniable that to misuse these collars may well cause psychological harm to the animal, one should note that their use is far from widespread unlike, for example, the habit of hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of dog owners, who daily leave their animals in the home alone for long periods, sometimes all day. Last year another Bristol University team looked at this issue. “Excessive salivation, self-mutilation, repetitive behaviour and vomiting.” These were just some of the behaviours observed by the team in dogs left in this way. And from this it is reasonable to conclude that the outcome will be (to use, Ms Kisko’s words), “physical and psychological harm”. It’s surprising then that at the time the report was produced and during the intervening period, neither the Kennel Club nor the RSPCA, (which has long campaigned for a ban on training collars on the grounds of cruelty), had anything to say by way of condemnation of the practice of owners going out to work and leaving their dog to fend for themselves.
This is not a trade-off. If the training collars are demonstrably likely to cause harm, long or short term, then a ban or restriction is justifiable. Similarly, where there is clear evidence that behaviour, this time that of dog owners in leaving their charges regularly for long periods, also causes harm, then those organisations which purport to represent the interests of animals should be lobbying Government vigorously for action to stop the practice. Will we see this happen? Of course not. The use of training collars was only ever marginal and in this way a perfect opportunity for animal welfare bodies and ineffective governments to look like they are doing something. No charitable donations, subscriptions or votes are threatened. Chests, can be inflated with indignation and then puffed up with pride. “Look at what we have achieved”, they say, whilst rattling the collection tin. That’s the way of world. But it does offer a glimmer of hope to the suppliers of dog training collars, who must now look elsewhere for custom. And there is an undeniable case for having them fitted around the necks of politicians, PR people and spokespersons like Ms.Kisko, so that every time they demonstrate a certain selectivity over the cruelties they condemn, then the rest of us can deliver to them a bit of a jolt and in that way help them become better trained people.