PAGE MENU click to expandcollapse

ANIMAL WELFARE PETITION RESPONSE

Animal Welfare Petition Response

Click here for full report.

start of page

OUR RESPONSE TO THE MINISTER'S COMMENTS
RE: PETITION TO BAN ELECTRIC SHOCK

We have finally received an official response from the government of Canada to our petition presented on June 6th/11. They state they have noted our concern regarding the availability and use of shock devices on animals. Yet the response stayed away from the use of shock collars and fencing used for training and controlling animals and instead focused on the use of stun guns for the slaughter of food animals. This was not our focus. It was suggested that a complete ban, in some cases, could result in less humane conditions as when rendering animals unconscious for slaughter. No mention is made of the electric shocks via collars imposed on companion animals, circus animals, racing, sporting, service and work animals, that are definitely not humane in nature. The readily available shock collar used to train and control animals, the original reason for the petition, was sidestepped. The wealth of information from world-renowned experts proclaiming electric shock collars as potentially damaging to an animal's physical and psychological well-being, was also not addressed.

FOR FULL RESPONSE CLICK HERE

start of page

HANSARD FROM LIBBY DAVIES

House of Commons

LIBBY DAVIES, MP

Vancouver East

EXCERPTS FROM HANSARD (June 6, 2011)

SPEAKING OUT ON: Animal Cruelty

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the first day back to present a petition in the 41st Parliament with over 1,400 signatures on an issue that is of grave concern to many Canadians concerning animal safety and well-being.

The petition calls upon Parliament to protect sentient beings in our care from needless cruelty and suffering; to ban the sale and use of electric shock devices on any animal to ensure that in that future no person will be able to purchase these kinds of tools in Canada; to recognize that the use of electric shocks as a teaching tool is barbaric and unnecessary; and to heed the advice of credible, world-renowned experts, documented evidence and scientific studies that explicitly affirm that the use of electric shock is abusive and damaging to an animal's physical and psychological well-being.

House of Commons, Ottawa K1A 0A6 Tel (613) 992-6030 Fax: (613) 995-7412 Email: daviel@parl.gc.ca
2412 Main Street, Vancouver, V5T 3E2 Tel (604) 775-5800 Fax (604) 775-5811

start of page

ALERT TO ALL SHOCK COLLAR USERS

This is a very disturbing & sad report sent to us by a new supporter . She wants her story posted so no one else will ever have to experience a tragedy like this.

I hope this gets information out there that prevents the same tragedy for someone else with multiple dogs and gets these things banned. I have had complaints about barking from a previous neighbor and because I rent and foster dogs, I didn't want to possibly lose my place to live or my dogs. I had tried several ways of deterring the barking but nothing seemed to work for long. The shock collar was the last resort to solving the problem and seemed to be working. I only put it on the one dog when I have to leave and take it off as soon as I get home. I haven't seen any issues with the collar or her behavior so figured the problem was solved, as best as it could be.

Last week I was just finishing up at work when my neighbor called and said that she had heard a dog fight in my house and that I needed to get home as soon as possible. I was about 20 minutes away, so hurried home as fast as I could. When I pulled up, two of my neighbors said they heard a fight and screaming and the one neighbor said she went in the house and broke it up and covered up the one dog. Thank goodness I don't lock my doors.

When I walked in three of the little dogs were outside and my dog wearing the collar was inside along with the injured dog and a foster I was caring for. Blood covered the whole floor and the bottom cupboard cabinets. There was a carpet askew and covered in blood and my injured dog was laying in a pool of blood on the doggie bed and whimpering. I tried to look at her injuries but she screamed, so I just covered her with another blanket and got her to the vet as soon as I could.

Without going into the grisly details, the vet said it was the worst injuries he'd ever seen. He did surgery and thought she was going to survive, but she succumbed to her injuries by the second night and passed away.

In assessing her injuries, I could tell it was the dog wearing the collar because she is the biggest one I have and she was covered in blood when I walked in. This is a dog that was best buddies with the dog she killed. After cleaning up the mess and assessing her slight injuries, I figure that the dog that was killed, my alpha Italian Greyhound, gave a warning to another dog and the bigger female that was wearing the collar, she is the peace keeper, probably tried to intervene and got shocked when she growled. This probably triggered her becoming aggressive toward her buddy and with the growling and barking only increased the shock and escalated the fight to having fatal consequences.

I work with dogs and am not a fan of pinch collars or ecollar training, but was desperate to get the barking issue under control. I have since started crating the dogs while I am gone. Had I known the risks to my babies, I never would have used the shock collar. Even when talking to the pet store employees about my options, the risk of a shock collar never came up. I went down there yesterday and talked to them and they never were told that during the recent training they had from the manufacturer.

Now I have lost my precious Ruka and Joy doesn't understand what she did. The pack is hurting and my ability to foster dogs is under question. This was such a senseless tragedy. I hope somehow my story helps. Let me know if I can help in any other way.

Ms. S, California, USA

start of page

PETITION HANSARD

House of Commons

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

PETITIONS

Ban Electric Shock Devices
March 21, 2011

Mr. Bill Siksay (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Mr. Speaker,

I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 550 Canadians from British Columbia and Ontario, including organizers Mr. & Mrs.Williams of Burnaby.

The petitioners point out that we are obliged to protect other sentient beings from needless cruelty and suffering. Their particular concern is the use of electric shock as an animal training tool, a practice which they name as barbaric and unnecessary.

They also point out that many experts have documented the use of electric shock as abusive and damaging to an animal's physical and psychological well-being.

The petitioners, therefore, call for a ban on the sale of electric shock devices for use on animals.

* * *

BILL SIKSAY, MP
BURNABY-DOUGLAS
124 Confederation Building
House of Commons, Ottawa, ON KIA 0A6
613-996-5597 siksay.b@parl.gc.ca

start of page

Nanaimo Daily News
PETITION AGAINST SHOCK COLLARS HITS OTTAWA

News Services

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A B.C. couple are calling on pet lovers to unite against the use of electric shock training collars on dogs and other animals -- a cry that was heard all the way in Ottawa this week.

NDP MP Bill Siksay tabled on Monday a 500-name petition in the House of Commons.

"Animals wearing shock collars can suffer physical pain and psychological stress," said Siksay, noting that positive training methods should be encouraged.

© The Daily News (Nanaimo) 2011

start of page

SIKSAY TABLES PETITIONS TO BAN USE OF SHOCK COLLARS ON ANIMALS

Siksay tabled a petition

OTTAWA – Today Bill Siksay (Burnaby Douglas) tabled a petition in the House of Commons that calls for a ban on the sale and use of electric shock devices on animals. The petition was signed by over 500 people.

"Animals wearing shock collars can suffer from physical pain and psychological stress. Positive training methods which are kinder and more effective should be encouraged. Shock collars hurt, and they shouldn't be used on any animal for any reason," stated Siksay.

"Electrically shocking any sentient being for the purpose of control or training is abusive and unethical. It is that simple," stated Mr. & Mrs. Williams of Ban Shock Collars.

start of page

THE SLED DOG COALITION REPORTS SHOCK COLLARS ARE ONE OF THE ABUSES SLED DOGS ARE FORCED TO ENDURE

It is that time of year for the Iditarod sled dog race in Alaska. So why is banshockcollars.ca talking about the Iditarod? The use of shock collars are just one of the abuses sled dogs are forced to suffer during training for this race. Dogs are kicked, beaten, whipped, shocked, forced to run sick and injured and in some cases dragged to their deaths. The people that support and participate in the brutalizing of these dogs meet the definition of 'evil'. Evil has no boundaries so it is likely that sled dogs will not be the only casualties. The Sled Dog Coalition is fighting hard to stop this cruelty. HOW YOU CAN HELP.

Electric collars used on dogs:

"Due to my heavy involvement in this "sport," I've been able to witness atrocities that many will never hear of or see - nor would they want to. These include: Dogs shocked with electric collars to prevent them from fighting while running in harness."

Ashley Keith, former musher and Iditarod kennel employee who now rescues and rehabilitates abused sled dogs. Email to the Sled Dog Action Coalition, April 30, 2008

Electric shock to terrorize dogs is very detrimental:

"The use of electrical shock to terrorize a dog is very detrimental on many levels. It will force a dog to exceed his reasonable physical limitations and predispose him to painful injuries. And psychologically it creates fear and apprehension which degrades his quality of life. The shock stimulus itself, if inaccurately calibrated, can cause localized burns or sudden cardiac arrest."

Dr. Paula Kislak, President of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, September 7, 2004. Email to the Sled Dog Action Coalition

start of page

HIGH COURT BACKS BAN ON PET SHOCK COLLARS IN WALES

BBC NEWS

A ban on the use of electric shock collars to train cats and dogs in Wales has been upheld by the High Court.

The legislation was passed in March but challenged by Petsafe Ltd, which makes pet products, and the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association.

Sitting at the High Court in London, the judge dismissed the challenge and ruled the ban lawful.

The assembly government's ban had attracted support from animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA.

"A number of groups, including the Kennel Club, have been campaigning for some time to ban them because they have the potential to have adverse consequences for animals, and are cruel and unnecessary."

"Others maintain the scientific evidence does not support a ban or regulation, and that the devices help to avoid injury to animals on roads or at the hands of farmers protecting their stock."

"In Wales, reward-based training and control of animals is acceptable... the use of collars which deliver an electric shock to a dog or cat is not"

Elin JonesRural Affairs Minister

The legislation prohibits the use on cats or dogs of any electronic collar designed to administer an electric shock.

Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones said: "The decision to ban the use of these shock collars came after three separate public consultations and notification to the European Commission.

"Legislation to implement the ban was passed unanimously by the National Assembly for Wales on 23 March, 2010 and came into effect the following day."

"Today's decision vindicates our careful approach in making these regulations."

"In Wales, reward-based training and control of animals is acceptable. The use of collars which deliver an electric shock to a dog or cat is not."

start of page

WELSH MP'S MAKE CLEAR THIER POSITIONS ON ELECTRIC SHOCK DEVICES

Welsh Assembly's motion to ban electric shock devices

start of page

BRITISH MP AGREES TO BE SHOCKED

start of page

THE KENNEL CLUB

Electrifying Announcement for Welsh Dogs

After many years of campaigning the Kennel Club is delighted with the announcement made by the Rural Affairs Minister Elin Jones to ban electric shock collars in Wales.

Said Elin Jones "After giving due consideration to the arguments, I propose to introduce a ban on the use of electric shock collars in Wales." She further commented that Wales was "leading the way" with this ban now in place.

Elin went on to explain that the ban would stand on any product that induces a shock from which a dog cannot escape.

This is the first ban of its kind in the UK with Ministers praising the Kennel Club for their relentless pursuit of this subject. Speaking this afternoon Trish Law (AM for Blaenau Gwent) commented "I must just pay tribute to those individuals and groups who have successfully lobbied for a ban, in particular the Kennel Club which has diligently and tirelessly relayed with clarity to AMs its inarguable case for a ban."

Said Caroline Kisko "We are extremely pleased to hear of the announcement made today. Electric shock collars are a cruel, outdated and unsuitable method of training dogs and we applaud Wales for leading the way on this issue and hope others will follow."

Publisher: The Kennel Club
Published Date: June 25, 2008

www.thekennelclub.org.uk

start of page

KAREN OVERALL, VMD, PHD, DIPLOMATE ACVB ABRIONLINE.ORG

Karen L. Overall is a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Behavior (ACVB) and is certified by the Animal Behavior Society (ABS) as an Applied Animal Behaviorist.

An open letter from Dr Karen Overall Regarding the use of shock collars.

Tue Dec 6, 2005

No, I have not changed my opinion and it is that there is never any reason for pets to be shocked as a part of therapy or treatment. If anything, I have strengthened this opinion. There are now terrific scientific and research data that show the harm that shock collars can do behaviorally. At the July 2005 International Veterinary Behavior Meeting, held in conjunction with the AVSAB and ACVB research meetings, data were presented by E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, and R. Jones-Baade that documented these damaging effects (Stress symptoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in everyday life situations. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine, Papers presented at the 5th Int'l IVBM. Purdue University Press, 2005:139-145. [ISBN 987-1-55752-409-5; 1-558753-409- 8]).

This follows on the excellent work done by Dutch researchers, in cooperation with their working dog groups and trainers, that showed that working / patrol dogs were adversely affected by their 'training' with shock, long after the shock occurred (Schilder MBH, van der Borg JAM. Training dogs with the help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2003;85:319-334).

Research meetings can be attended by anyone paying the fee, and most published work is available either in the public domain, from an organization, or from someone with a university library connection.

There is no longer a reason for people to remain misinformed. Let me make my opinion perfectly clear: Shock is not training - in the vast majority of cases it meets the criteria for abuse. In my patient population, dogs who have been 'treated' with shock have a much higher risk of an undesirable outcome (e.g., euthanasia) than dogs not subjected to shock, and I never recommend euthanasia. In all situations where shock has been used there is some damage done, even if we cannot easily see it. No pet owner needs to use this technique to achieve their goal. Dogs who cease to exhibit a problem behavior usually also cease to exhibit normal behaviors. The only data available support the idea that shock is neither an effective nor suitable training tool.

That said, it's time we replaced everyone's personal mythologies and opinions with data and scientific thinking. Such opportunities are now available, but are often not exploited.

For example, the statement: " Major veterinary universities have tested E- collars since the mid 60's when they were invented. No evidence of any damage, Physiological or psychological has ever been found." is patently and wholly false. For the evidence re: data - see above. As for the initial statement - it's WRONG. It's a MYTH. The specialty college (ACVB) even conducted a census a few years ago to see if we could find ANY truth to this and there was NONE. We couldn't get anyone to say that they had - or knew someone who had - participated in such tests and studies. This pattern of behavioral repetition is representative of the danger of myth, and also of the power of the scientific method. Science tells you when you are wrong. Myth allows you to steal credibility where none is earned. That particular myth has damaged universities too long, and it has traded on the reputations of people who neither endorsed that decision, nor supported the finding, and it must stop.

I hope this helps. I have never thought we could get via electricity what we couldn't get by advanced training and hard work.

Karen L. Overall, MA,VMD, PhD
Diplomate ACVB
ABS Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist
Center for Neurobiology and Behavior
Psychiatry Department
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine

start of page

THE ASSOCIATION OF PET BEHAVIOUR COUNSELLORS

Shock Collars - the Shocking Truth
From an APBC press release

The Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors condemns the widespread use of devices which deliver electric shocks to dogs for the purpose of training or curing behaviour problems. Their potential for accidental misuse is high and they could easily cause considerable and unnecessary pain and distress to the animal.

A dog experiencing an unpleasant shock to the neck 'out of the blue' will associate the sensation with whatever the dog happens to be focusing on at the time. Used incorrectly, this could be an area, object, another dog, the owner or even a child. Unwanted side effects could easily occur when the dog being shocked becomes afraid of being in that area, or it could become afraid of, and as a result, potentially aggressive towards owners, children, other dogs or strangers.

In inexperienced hands, it may take many repetitions of administrations of the shock before the punishment is finally associated with the unwanted behaviour, and several more before the dog learns how to avoid the shock by performing the 'correct' action. Not only is this inhumane, but can set up a series of fears which can cause associated behaviour problems in future.

In addition, it is possible that the device may be triggered by external influences, or malfunction, which may result in delivery of repeated shocks, particularly in those devices which are designed to be triggered by barking and are put onto dogs left alone for long periods.

Sophisticated methods of punishing dogs are not necessary in order to train them to behave appropriately. Such methods are often used as a quick fix by the inexperienced. Humane methods which rely on a sound understanding of the dog's mind are more effective for training or bringing about a lasting cure for behaviour problems. Results may take slightly longer to achieve, but the process benefits from being less stressful for the dog, free from the risk of side effects, and improves rather than spoils the relationship between dog and owner. In the long run, they will result in a happy, confident dog and satisfied owner.

Only in a handful of cases, where all else has been tried and failed, and when the condition is potentially life-threatening, can the use of such devices ever be justified, and, only then, in the hands of an experienced behavioural specialist who is capable of accurate timing.

Owners of problem pets need to be made aware that the unwanted behaviour can be altered with understanding and advice and that a 'quick fix' approach which involves inhumane methods of punishment can do more harm than good.

© APBC 2004

start of page

VETS ON BEHAVIOR PROCLAIM, NEVER USE SHOCK COLLAR

How to Choose A Dog Trainer – Steve Dale

Orlando, FL. Never, under any circumstances, choose a dog trainer who uses an electronic collar (shock collar). "You wouldn't send your kid off to a school where they use shock," says veterinary behaviorist Dr. Karen Overall. "So, why would you send your dog there?"

After falling out of favor, the electronic collars are making a comeback. "We're so concerned about keeping sharp knives or anything that may be poisonous away from our pets because we love them so much; yet, it's acceptable to give our best friends a jolt," says Dr. Kersti Seksel, who is a board certified veterinary behaviorist in both Australia and in the United States. "It's appalling!" … full story here

start of page

'DOG WHISPERER' ROW AS TRAINER ACCUSED OVER ELECTRIC SHOCK COLLARS TOURS BRITAIN

By FIONA MACRAE 6th March 2010

A dog trainer to Hollywood stars begins a UK tour tonight amid warnings from animal welfare groups that his techniques can cause unnecessary pain and suffering. Cesar Millan, also known as the Dog Whisperer, is credited with turning tens of thousands of disobedient and aggressive animals into perfect pets.
He has a string of bestselling books and a successful TV show to his name and satisfied clients include Oprah Winfrey, Nicolas Cage and Scarlett Johansson.

His philosophy is that the owner, not the pampered pooch, is 'leader of the pack'. But the RSPCA claims he has advocated using electric shock collars and restricting dogs' air supply with nooses and leads, as well as pinning them down to the floor. Mr Millan, who denies the electric shock claims, teaches that dogs should be treated as dogs, not substitute children. He believes that if the owner shows he is a strong, calm leader, the dog will become passive, loyal and obedient.

Be the pack leader. As the human pack leader, you must set rules, boundaries, and limitations and always project calm-assertive energy in order to maintain a balanced, harmonious pack.

Master the walk. Set aside at least 30 to 45 minutes every morning for a walk – you should be the first one out the door and the first one in and your dog should be beside or behind you during your walk, which allows you to be seen as the pack leader.

n order to achieve balance with your dog you need exercise, discipline and affection and the one activity that will achieve all three is to master the walk. Methods likely to be demonstrated on his 12-date tour, which begins at London's O2 Arena, include repeatedly jabbing the animals in the ribs or face at the first sign of trouble, to teach them who is the boss.

Owners whose dogs can't help but jump up on guests will be told to establish dominance by avoiding showering their pet with affection on returning home from work.
Begging for food should be ignored, says Mr Millan, 40, who lives in Los Angeles, where his Dog Psychology Centre and business empire are based.
But animal welfare organisations say some of his more extreme techniques – which are claimed to include using electric shock collars to tame wayward dogs – leave the animals in pain or fear.

Twenty-six charities, including the RSPCA and the Dogs Trust, have signed an open letter ahead of the Dog Whisperer Tour, condemning 'aversive dog training techniques'.

The letter states: 'This kind of training technique can include the use of prong collars, electric shock collars and restricting dogs' air supply using nooses/leads or pinning them to the ground, which can cause pain and distress.'
Mr Millan said he did not endorse the use of electric collars but did believe they were useful in 'very extreme cases' where the dog was in danger of being put down if its behaviour did not improve.
He added: 'However, the live show is not about these kinds of emergency situations. It's really about training people to reconnect to their dog.'

start of page

CESAR MILAN SHOCKING A GERMAN SHEPHARD

start of page

'DOG WHISPERER' CESAR MILLAN SUED BY TV PRODUCER

Cesar Milan sued by TV Producer claiming his dog sustained serious injuries and distress during training at Milan's Dog Psychology facility. The story published by USA TODAY HERE.

start of page

'DOG WHISPERER' TRAINING APPROACH MORE HARMFUL THAN HELPFUL

Denver (September 6, 2006)

The training tactics featured on Cesar Millan's "Dog Whisperer" program are inhumane, outdated and improper, according to a letter sent yesterday to the National Geographic Channel by American Humane, the oldest national organization protecting children and animals.

In the letter, American Humane, which works to raise public awareness about responsible pet ownership and reduce the euthanasia of unwanted pets, expressed dismay over the "numerous inhumane training techniques" advocated by Cesar Millan on "Dog Whisperer."

Several instances of cruel and dangerous treatment -- promoted by Millan as acceptable training methods -- were documented by American Humane, including one in which a dog was partially asphyxiated in an episode. In this instance, the fractious dog was pinned to the ground by its neck after first being "hung" by a collar incrementally tightened by Millan. Millan's goal -- of subduing a fractious animal -- was accomplished by partially cutting off the blood supply to its brain.

The letter requests that National Geographic stop airing the program immediately and issue a statement explaining that the tactics featured on the program are inhumane, and it encourages National Geographic to begin developing programming that sets a positive example by featuring proper, humane animal training. In its letter, American Humane said: "We believe that achieving the goal of improving the way people interact with their pets would be far more successful and beneficial for the National Geographic Channel if it ceased sending the contradictory message that violent treatment of animals is acceptable."

"As a forerunner in the movement towards humane dog training, we find the excessively rough handling of animals on the show and inhumane training methods to be potentially harmful for the animals and the people on the show," said the letter's author, Bill Torgerson, DVM, MBA, who is vice president of Animal Protection Services for American Humane. "It also does a disservice to all the show's viewers by espousing an inaccurate message about what constitutes effective training and appropriate treatment of animals."

Torgerson noted that the safety of a woman and her German shepherd were jeopardized in one episode by the use of an electric shock collar, which forced the tormented dog to redirect its aggression at its owner, biting her arm. "Furthermore, the television audience was never told that Mr. Millan was attempting to modify the dog's behavior by causing pain with the shock collar," he said.

For more information about humane training techniques, please click here.

About American Humane

Founded in 1877, the American Humane Association is the only national organization dedicated to protecting both children and animals. Through a network of child and animal protection agencies and individuals.

Visit www.americanhumane.org to learn more.

start of page

UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR; NOT THE DOG, THE TRAINER !!!

How do we protect our pets and ourselves from those willing to harm us for profit? In a world always looking for the quick fix, we have to be diligent. It takes fortitude and a strong ethical foundation to resist the temptation quick fixes offer. Otherwise, we are deceived into believing in false miracles. Electric shock collars are a perfect example.

Don't shock my friends

Shock collars have two protruding electrodes that penetrate an animal's fur under the neck where it's sensitive. The trainer delivers a shock of varying intensities and duration via remote control. For decades, it was mostly hunting dogs that have had to endure electric shocks but now shock collars and electronic containment systems are available in most pet stores for anyone to purchase.

Why would trainers use electric shock to train? Simply put it produces immediate behaviour changes, without ever addressing the reason for the behaviour, enabling a higher turnover and more income. Many pet owners buy into the authority figure of the trainer and don't ask 'at what cost to the dog?' Studies show that dogs who suffer shocks often develop deep-seated behavioural problems and are more prone to attacking people and other animals. Shocked dogs often take on submissive behaviours in an attempt to stop being hurt, withdraw, or shut down altogether. This new subdued behaviour is construed as well behaved enabling the trainer to claim success. The damage can be severe, both physical and psychological. Many positive based trainers have a list of 'ruined' dogs they've tried to rehabilitate, their spirit battered by a trainer using shock collars.

Trading on our desire for quick results, profit motivated trainers will use a number of ruses to hide the fact they are using shock collars or use semantics to mask the truth. Insisting they need to work with the dog alone for a few days is a sure sign you wouldn't approve the methods used. Claiming they use training collars that 'tap', 'tingle' or 'just get the dogs attention' are electric shocks rebranded. The most popular trick is to have you try it on yourself, at a low setting on the arm knowing what's about to happen. This in no way replicates the pain, fear and anxiety the dog experiences. Sadly, many pet owners fall for the trainer's propaganda that this is a safe and humane way to teach their dog.
There is no need to use pain to train as there are countless professional trainers who have the skills to successfully train your dog in a humane and respectful manner.

Renowned animal organizations including; SPCA's, Humane Societies, Veterinary Associations, The Kennel Club, The Association Of Pet Behaviour Counsellors, WSPA Canada and many others are opposed to the use of shock collars.

Please sign the petitions to ban the sale and use of shock devices on all animals.

G. Williams
Ban Shock Collars Advocate

start of page

SIMPLY SHOCKING

Pat Miller - Dog Trainer

Rufus is a typical adolescent Labrador Retriever: Large, full of energy, and eager to explore beyond the boundaries of his Richmond , Utah , yard when released from the confinement of his pen. The Ashbys, his owners, are a typical Lab family: Dad, mom, and several kids, all of whom possess a strong desire to be responsible pet owners.

As often happens, Rufus' energy was a bit too much for the younger children. Despite several attempts to train him not to jump up, he was still knocking the little Ashbys flat. And despite the family's best intentions, Rufus was not cooperating with their efforts to keep him within the limits of his own unfenced yard.

Imagine the Ashbys' delight one day when, shopping at their local "big box" pet supply store, they came across a product that promised to solve both problems with the push of a button. The product combines an underground electronic containment system with an additional remote control unit for use with supervised training. In other words, a shock collar. The family bought the unit, took it home, and started training Rufus.

They used the product for a few days and were quite pleased. Their dog was quickly learning not to jump on the kids, and life with Rufus was already becoming easier. The Ashbys made plans to lay the underground wire for the containment system over the upcoming weekend. Meanwhile, Rufus was confined to his pen, wearing his collar, while the family was gone all day.

Upon arriving home one rainy day afternoon that week, Darren Ashby, an electronic engineer, sent his oldest son out to the pen to take Rufus for a walk. The boy came back in and said Rufus wouldn't let anyone get near him. Dad went out to help, and was horrified by what he found.

"What I saw made me sick," says Ashby. "Rufus had this sickly green color around his neck, under the training collar. There was this nasty wet/burnt hair and flesh smell. Something was obviously wrong. I carefully removed the collar to find a huge gaping hole in Rufus' neck, right under one of the training collar prongs."

Dr. Susan Benson, of the Animal Medical Clinic in Preston , Idaho , treated Rufus' injuries.

Dr. Benson says the incident has made her much more wary of the fence systems. She feels the collars should never be left on dogs who are unsupervised – which, of course, defeats the purpose for most dog owners, who want to use the systems to give the dogs free access to their yards while the owners are away at work all day.

What's Not to Like?

There is no question that underground electronic containment systems are immensely popular. They are readily available in pet stores, on-line, and from most pet-supply catalogs. They have become as common as fleas, and no wonder – for as little as $125, the responsible pet owner can let Fido play on up to five acres – an area that would cost thousands of dollars to fence otherwise. For just another $100, an owner can purchase a system that promises to fence up to 25 acres – extension kits cost $50 per half-acre, for a total of $1500 for the full 25 acre capacity. Other options include a solar-powered system, or a collar that also promises to shock the dog for barking while it keeps him in the invisibly fenced area.

In addition, the electronic containment systems can be used in communities that prohibit visible fences, a growing and unfortunate trend. They can be installed in terrain where a physical fence would be difficult or impossible to erect. From the average dog owner's perspective, what's not to like?

Unfortunately, from Fido's point of view, plenty, including but not limited to the potential for ugly green electrical burns around the neck. Unfortunately for the Fidos of the world who are living behind electronic fences, none of the companies that produce the fences are very forthcoming about the negative aspects of electronic containment systems. And there are many.

As a professional trainer and behavior consultant, I have had ample opportunities to deal with the fallout from shock fences that have caused problems with clients' dogs. I also regularly hear electronic fence horror stories from my peers within the professional dog training community. I am admittedly biased against using shock collars in training to start with, so I undoubtedly seize upon every new report of a shock collar-related problem to support my position.

My philosophy of training is firmly grounded in gentle methods that encourage a relationship between dog and human based on mutual trust and respect. The idea of deliberately shocking a beloved family member around the neck (or anywhere else, for that matter) is so repugnant to me that I cannot conceive of a training situation in which I would be willing to use a shock collar for my dogs, or for anyone else's. But malfunctioning units and emotional argument aside, there are many other reasons why I vehemently steer clients far away from non-visible fences.

Dogs Are Vulnerable

One of those reasons has been hanging around our house for three days now. A black Labrador with a fence collar on visits us from time to time – mute testimony to the fact that the collars don't always work.

Shelter workers from around the country tell of the numbers of stray dogs who are brought in wearing electronic fence collars. When their owners retrieve the dogs, some will nonchalantly admit that they neglected to replace the batteries. Others explain that their dogs will run through the fence to chase a squirrel, or to follow another dog, or to visit an alluring female in season.

When for the umpteenth time I return our visiting Lab to his home a half-mile away, the owner tells me that the fence is out (again!) because of a recent electrical storm. He asks me how he is supposed to keep his dog home in the meantime – as if there is no other rational alternative but to let him run loose. Bring him in the house, I answer – but I know my suggestion falls on deaf ears.

Not only does the system give a dog's owner a false sense of security about the reliability of the containment, it also fails to protect the dog from intruders. Marauding canines, the dog thieves, neighborhood bullies, the angry service persons, rabid skunks – all have easy access to the dog who lives inside a fenceless fence.

A Biting Commentary

In addition to leaving the dog vulnerable to attacks, electronic containment systems sometimes fail to provide any physical barrier to protect unwary passers-by from the dog. The list of documented cases of non-visible fence-related aggression grows longer by the day.

The stimulus of fully visible passing cars, kids on bikes, people walking their dogs, squirrels running up trees, etc., tends to goad some dogs into a state of angry arousal. If the dog is aroused enough to test the limits of the fence he gets shocked, which conditions him to associate the pain of the shock with whatever he was focused on when he got shocked.

Further, any unsuspecting visitor who crosses the invisible barrier into the dog's reach can be the unwitting victim of the dog's pent-up frustration. Worse, if the dog's arousal reaches a high enough peak that he runs through the fence, the immediacy of that shock is likely to add to the intensity of the dog's aggressive behavior in that moment of attack

I just got off the phone an hour ago with a family that is looking for a new home for their 8-year-old Schnauzer, Max, who has lived in his backyard within a nonvisible shock fence since he was a youngster. About two years ago, Max began exhibiting some disturbing aggressive behavior.

His owners believe that a serviceperson who was intolerant of dogs may have kicked Max, setting off an escalating spiral of aggression that just recently resulted in a Level 3 bite to the leg of a visiting child. (See Box – Ian Dunbar's Bite Level Classifications). Without a physical fence, they could neither protect Max from the serviceperson, nor, more recently, protect the child from Max.

Compounding the problem, their homeowner's association rules prohibit physical fences, so, even recognizing the drawbacks, they continue to use the electronic fence to keep Max contained. In addition to the ongoing danger this presents both to the dog and to anyone who crosses the fence line, any additional shocks to Max's neck – even the triggering of the warning tone – are likely to add to his level of stress, arousal and aggression, increasing the risk of more bites.

The first critical step to modifying aggression requires eliminating the conditions that contribute to it; in this case, the totality of environmental circumstances created by the fence.

Max has always been a backyard dog and the parents are reluctant to try to bring him in the house. They realize that putting Max in a small chain-link pen for the rest of his life is not a reasonable solution. The children are devastated at the thought of losing their canine pal, and I had to deliver the bad news that finding a lifelong loving home – or any good home - for an eight-year-old dog who bites, is not a very realistic option. Their choices are to significantly alter Max's (and their own) lifestyle to better protect him and manage his behavior, or euthanasia.

Three months ago, I did a private consultation with a woman whose Airedale had started running through the electronic fence and biting. When Andy was a pup, he was allowed to run loose in his laid-back mountain community just outside Chattanooga . As more families moved into the neighborhood, Andy's wandering started to draw complaints, so his owner had an electronic fence installed. This particular system included training as part of the installation package, so a man came out to the house to teach Andy that if he ignored the tone that warned him he was approaching the fence boundary, he would get a shock. The system had appeared to work well for several years. But recently, for no reason that his owner could discern, Andy had started going through his fence.

The first incident involved a Golden Retriever passing by outside the fence on a leash. Andy rolled the dog, but no injuries resulted. The owner wrote the incident off as a one-time thing, and life went on as usual. A couple of months later, Andy ran through the fence again, this time after a small dog. The canine victim suffered injuries serious enough to require veterinary attention, and Andy's owner realized something needed to be done. She called the fence company, and they sent someone out to "retrain" Andy to the fence.

The "trainer" put a shock collar around Andy's neck and one around his groin. He led Andy to the fence and shocked him repeatedly. According to his owner, Andy screamed and bit at his flanks; the sight was so gruesome that his owner couldn't watch – she went inside and the torture continued without her. When the trainer was done he came in and told her that Andy had bitten him in the leg – but there was no harm done –he announced somewhat proudly that he was protected by the leather chaps he had begun wearing because so many dogs tried to bite him during the training.

Two weeks later Andy charged through the fence again, knocked a young girl into a ditch and inflicted Level 4 bites. Andy was ultimately euthanized.

Other negative reactions, while not as extreme, give us clues to how very traumatic the shock collars can be. Some dogs refuse to go into their yards at all after being introduced to the system. Others must be loaded into the family car and driven across the fence line – even when not wearing the collar - just to be taken for a walk around the block.

Being Responsible

One of the leading underground fence companies proudly states: "Our mission is to keep your pets safe. We believe in Safe Pets and Happy People." You might think that companies whose ads tend to emphasize the advantages of keeping your dog safely confined in your yard would be sure to provide consumer warnings about the potential hazards related to their use, and would bend over backwards to make amends for any inadvertent malfunction of the product.

Not so, according to Darren Ashby, the owner of Rufus, the burned dog I mentioned at the beginning of this article. Ashby sent the company a letter of complaint – complete with graphic photographs of his dog's wounds – and after a delay, got a response. The company offered to pay the vet bill, but only if Ashby signed a document stating that the company was not at fault. The letter stated that Ashby had two days to decide whether he would sign the statement.

When Ashby called the company to voice his complaint, the contact person told him that the company's lawyers said it was Ashby's fault for leaving the collar on his dog in the rain. She told him his only alternative to signing the document was to sue. Ashby read the product manual from front to back, and is adamant that there were no warnings about using the collar in inclement weather. He is undecided about whether to pursue legal action.

Rufus was lucky – he survived the trauma of his collar experience. Andy was not so lucky. The jury is still out on Max. There are countless other dogs out there struggling with the sometimes lethal uncertainties of the non-visible electronic shock collar fence. Some of those dogs will lose the struggle. Don't even take the chance that your dog might be one of them.

SIDEBAR
IAN DUNBAR'S BITE LEVEL CLASSIFICATIONS

Ian Dunbar, noted trainer, behaviorist, author, creator of "Sirius Puppy Training" and founder of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, has classified the severity of bite damage in order to enable trainers to discuss them using a common vocabulary. His classifications are as follows:

Level 1- dog was scary but no wound pathology. No skin contact. Obnoxious behavior but no contact.

Level 2 - Skin contact by teeth but no skin puncture. May be nicks and slight bleeding caused by movement of teeth but no punctures.

Most incidents are level one and two and are easily workable.

Level 3 - One to four punctures from a single bite with no punctures deeper than half-length of the dog's canine teeth. May be lacerations in single direction due to movement being pulled away. Level 3 can be bad due to tear of one puncture into a laceration. There is a huge transition between 2 and 3. There are severities within the level. We are now talking about what is appropriate vs. what is inappropriate. Dog punctures are inappropriate. Really look at the level three bites.

A puncture is a little hole. A laceration is a triangle shaped wound but not a puncture.

Level 4 bites - One to four punctures from single bite with at least one puncture deeper than half the length of dog's canine teeth. May be deep bruising around the wound (dog held on for x seconds and bore down) or lacerations in both directions (Dog held on and shook its head from side to side)

Level 5 - multiple bite incidents with at least two level 4 bites

Level 6 - Flesh consumed or victim dead

www.peaceablepaws.com

Pat Miller is a Certified Dog and Horse Behavior Consultant and Certified Professional Dog Trainer. She offers classes, behavior modification services, training clinics and academies for trainers at her Peaceable Paws training facility in Fairplay , Maryland , and presents seminars worldwide. She has authored "The Power of Positive Dog Training," "Positive Perspectives," "Positive Perspectives 2," and "Play With Your Dog." Miller is training editor for The Whole Dog Journal, writes for Tuft's University's Your Dog, and several other publications. She shares her home with husband Paul, five dogs, three cats, five horses and a donkey.

© 2003; Pat Miller/Peaceable Paws LLC

All Rights Reserved

start of page
Rufus Vet Report start of page

THE DOG DISH Wicked Local: SERVING EASTERN MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES

A shocking way to walk your dog

Posted on March 21, 2010 by Lori Gwyr

I hate shock collars. I have several reasons, but the main one is that I don't believe in willfully causing a dog pain. I also know (through scientific research, not personal experience) that shocking a dog may temporarily arrest the behavior, but teaches the animal nothing about what it should be doing instead. I bring up the subject of shock collars because I got an e-mailed press release for a frightening new product recently: a collar/leash combo called SimpleLeash that shocks the dog when it pulls too hard on leash. The company bills this product as "the quickest and safest way to stop dogs pulling on their leash." That's just a flat-out lie. There are much safer methods than sending electricity into your dog's neck. The company was hoping I would look upon the product favorably and share its benefits with Dog Dish readers. They even offered me a sample collar so I could shock my own dogs. Had they read even a little of the blog, they would have seen how fruitless the pitch was. Shock collars themselves are bad enough. The idea of attaching them directly to a leash and shocking the dog every time it pulls is downright sickening. Companies who make shock collars like to set aside the fact that they cause the dog pain. They come up with many euphemistic words to try to convince people otherwise: "negative stimulus," "correction" and "harmless static charge." Let's call a spade a spade, though: with every "correction," you are sending a jolt of electricity into the dogs neck. Full story here.

start of page

SHOCKING NEWS

Posted by Dana Campbell, ALDF Attorney on July 13th, 2009
Posted in ALDF Blog

Dog

A recent news story caught my eye and I haven't been able to stop considering its implications. Here's the story: A man in Salem, Oregon was arrested and charged with four counts First Degree Criminal Mistreatment for "putting an electric dog collar on each of his four children and shocking them," according to the Salem Statesman Journal newspaper. The paper claimed the father told police that he would chase the 3-year-old boy around with the collar, making him cry at the thought of being shocked, and that because of the boy's reaction, it was likely the children were shocked more than once. The children ranged in age from 3 to 9 and have been removed to their mother's custody. The case is still pending.

You know where I'm going with this, right? If it's so outrageous and incomprehensible that a man would put a shock collar on his children and later use it to taunt them – and it is without a doubt all of that – why is the public not similarly outraged by its use on family dogs? We may not all agree, yet, that bugs or crustaceans feel pain, but we are well past the point where we all agree that dogs feel pain, otherwise the whole premise of a shock collar – using pain avoidance to stay within a certain perimeter – would fail. So why is it a crime to inflict most types of pain onto companion animals, but shock collars get a pass?

Maybe it's because the pain caused by the shock is perceived to be insignificant enough to warrant condemnation. A shock collar manufacturer quoted in the article was not reassuring. He claimed the 9-volt battery used in most collars would not have hurt the children to the point of damaging organs(!) or causing them to be hospitalized, saying it was less powerful than a police Taser (which have been known to kill people from time to time). So that's the threshold for acceptability? He claims the collars "made today" would not burn a dog or human; however, here at ALDF, I have seen many photos of dogs burned by shock collars. Perhaps they have improved since I saw those photos, but I remain skeptical. The manufacturer then concluded by stating that the collars are not to be used on humans. Yet they are very widely sold for use on dogs, most of whom weigh the same or less than small children.

Curious, but not brave enough to try it myself, I surveyed my more adventurous male friends thinking one of them must have tried a shock collar on themselves on a dare or out of their own curiosity, and I was right. One fellow, a stocky former wrestler well over 6-feet-tall described the shock from the collar as: "painful, definitely uncomfortable, and not something I'd ever want to do again."

I'd like to see that inhumane father punished by electroshock, and then I'd like to see these collars shunned by the public as an outrage and outlawed in violation of every state's animal cruelty laws. Pain is pain, and it's illegal to hurt any of our loved ones. Or rather, it should be. Posted in ALDF Blog

start of page

ANIMAL DEFENDERS INTERNATIONAL WELCOMES A BILL TO OUTLAW THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF ELEPHANTS

Posted: 18 March 2009

A bill has been passed in the state of Connecticut to outlaw the use of elephant hooks and electric shock devices on elephants in circuses and traveling shows.

The move comes as the trial of Ringling Brothers Circus over allegations of elephant abuse nears its conclusion, and a media storm surrounds the resurgence of using performing elephants in circuses in the UK .

Under the new legislation, anyone who works with circus elephants would also be guilty of a criminal offence if found to possess an electric shock device or elephant hook.

Animal Defenders International found a catalogue of elephant abuse in the U.S during investigations for the international "Stop Circus Suffering" campaign.

Among the physical abuse was the universal use of elephant hooks to control and punish elephants, electric shocks given during training sessions and as elephants walked to the big top, bare chains used on elephants' legs, and elephants being beaten and kicked.

Bill HB 6555 ("An act concerning the humane treatment of elephants"), was debated and passed by the Joint Environment Committee of Connecticut's General Assembly. It was introduced by Representative Diana Urban (Dem) with the purpose of prohibiting the inhumane treatment of elephants.

The bill has now been referred to the Judiciary Committee, and will take effect in October.

For further information, contact ADI Public Relations Officer, Ally MacDonald Office Tel: 020 7630 3344. Email: pr@ad-international.org

Click to read the Executive Summary of Animals in Traveling Circuses: The Science on Suffering U.S

start of page

TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences

Mission Statement: We, the faculty and staff of the College of Veterinary Medicine, are a community of scholars committed to:Caring about animals and people; curing and preventing animal disease; creating new knowledge, new therapies, and new learning opportunities; and communicating with students, veterinarians, scientists, and the public.

Risks of Shock Collars and Fences

There are many options available for new pet owners when it comes to training the new member of the family. The most controversial method of training is the use of shock collars or shock fences. Many stories and photos have surfaced in the media recently showing animals who have been harmed by these devices.

The main reason some pet owners have chosen to use shock collars is to stop their dog from barking. There are two types of shock collars commercially available. One type is remotely controlled by the owner and the other is activated by a bark. Shock fences are a little more technical and are used to keep the dog inside a designated boundary. The pet owner buries wires in the yard that mark the boundary the pet can encompass. If the pet crosses this boundary, the collar located on its neck will deliver a shock.

According to Dr. Bonnie Beaver, veterinarian at Texas A&M University College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, "In theory, they provide an instant punishment for a bark (the bark activated shock collars) or for a wrong move (remote controlled ones) when training a dog." However, the potential for over use and abuse of these devices far outweighs the benefit.

There are many instances where shock collars and fences do not work. Beaver offers this example in reference to shock fences, "Strong instincts to chase (a running deer, a jogger, a stray dog) may cause a trained dog to chase through the boundary. Some dogs do not respect the shock and will run through the 'boundary' suffering the shock as they do." This has been found in many cases, rendering the shock to be unsuccessful.

Many people have found shock collars and fences to be not only ineffective but also inhumane. "These devices [shock collars and fences] can provide an excessive punishment to the point that the dog is terrorized," said Beaver. "They can be ineffective because the amount of shock is too little (poor contact, too much hair, weak battery). They can be used out of context (remote control) because the owner is mad at the dog and 'zaps' at an inappropriate time out of anger. It can also do significant psychological damage to a dog that does not connect the shock with the reason for the shock. The shock is generally considered to be inhumane."

There are many more humane methods for training that have been found to be more effective. Beaver suggests, "collars for barking dogs that squirt a citrus smell and make a hissing sound that have actually been proven to be more effective than the shock collars. And of course there are real fences for yards that are safer and more effective than the shock fences."

start of page

SHOCK ADS

The following are quotes and statements taken from advertisements by various manufacturers, retailers and animal trainers promoting and selling shock collars on the internet. Their comments are so telling that they often offer some of the best evidence why shock devices should be banned.

start of page

THE "LAST RESORT" ARGUMENT FOR SHOCKING ANIMALS

As inflicting pain on animals becomes increasingly difficult to justify, proponents of shock devices steadfastly stand by the "last resort" defence, claiming that shock devices are necessary when an animal cannot be trained in any other way. So the first questions that beg to be answered are who, how and what determines when all other training alternatives have been fully exhausted? The next, but not least important question is what convoluted thinking would conclude inflicting pain is an alternative form of teaching. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence people refuse to acknowledge the obvious, that shocking animals is damaging to their physical and emotional well-being. People who call an animal, not responding to training, a candidate for electric shocks should not be making the call.

The notion that shock collars should be used in last resort cases is in itself testament to the fact that shocking any sentient being is an extreme measure, dangerous and risky. The "last resort" excuse is a weak effort to defend the indefensible. This argument is flimsy, and conveniently ignores the fact that shock collars are regularly sold to anybody with no questions asked. This is reckless indifference at best. It is a sad fact that shock collars are used on every breed of dog regardless of temperament, for reasons as trivial as teaching a dog tricks to teaching a pup to sit on command. If your mother had punched you in the stomach every time you did something she didn't approve of the probability is high your behaviour would change. However, this would significantly alter your feelings towards your mother and how you reacted to anyone who approached you. This brings to mind a little pup I ran across while walking my dog at a local park. It was a four-month-old beagle with a shock collar fixed around its neck and a 13-year-old boy in command of the control. When I reached down to pat the pup he submissively sank into the ground while curling up in a ball. Last resort situation? The boy said his father bought the collar so he wouldn't lose the dog.

How unfounded would the use of shock be if a dog had a learning disability such as difficulty concentrating or processing language? How would these difficulties be distinguished from what a trainer labels as a stubborn headstrong dog? Who is qualified to determine this? Most self-proclaimed professional trainers just don’t have the knowledge to do complex diagnosis. Some dogs hear a command but their brains process slowly due to age or other factors. Injury, disease or birth defects could also be contributing factors as to why a dog is slow or has difficulty grasping commands. There are many reasons a dog may not respond as quickly as one would want. In such cases, impatient owners would discharge a shock before a dog had time to react. The surprise and pain causes further delays as confusion and anxiety overwhelms the dog. I know of a dog equipped with a shock collar that has to wear a diaper indoors. The neighbours tell me the dog is so on edge it wets itself at the drop of a hat. Let’s face it, torture is not a teaching method. It is torture. Any behaviour change resulting from torture is not healthy change. It also needs to be recognized that the behaviour issues of a so called "last resort" dog, if indeed that is what he is, is probably the result of neglect and abuse in the first place. Further harsh treatment will do nothing positive to rectify the unwanted behaviour. To inflict painful shocks on an animal so he reacts the way his owner wants is barbaric.

The argument if shock training is not permitted then euthanasia is the only option left, is a scare tactic used by shock enthusiasts to play on people's conscience. Countless, beautiful healthy animals are put down everyday, all over the world, because there is nobody to take care of them. There are injured dogs put down because nobody wants to pay their vet bills. There are well-behaved animals put down because shelters are full and they have to make room for more unwanted animals. There are animals put down so we can have meat on our dinner plate everyday. So, how sincere is this concern by shock profiteers for the life of the "last resort" dog? Sad to say, but sometimes the only mercy or relief for an animal abused by humans is to die. No, it is not concern for an animal's well being that leads to the use of shock. It is viewing animals as products.

start of page

Together we can protect the most vulnerable among us by disabling the abuser. Ban outright the sale and use of shock collars on all animals. Please sign Petition

If you witness animal abuse with or without the use of a shock device, please do not delay in calling the police or an animal organization in your area. If by reporting the abuse you feel your safety is at risk tell the authorities you wish to remain anonymous

Designed by Olmacan Technology

A dog can,t say 'STOP.'