Electric Collars to be Debated by Vets and Pet Industry Professionals
Posted By Freelance Writers Date: 2/05 Posted Under: Animal Welfare, Dog EventsThe latest in the increasingly popular BVA Animal Welfare Foundation discussion forums takes place this year at the Royal College of Physicians on Tuesday 20 May. As part of the Foundation’s aim of improving animal welfare through debate, it holds an annual Discussion Forum which brings fellow vets, animal welfare and government organisations together in order to identify and discuss important welfare-related issues.
The morning sessions are devoted to debating whether people can actually afford high animal welfare standards in food production and will include presentations from Richard Bennett of the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, Heather Jenkins, Waitrose’s Director of Meat, Poultry, Dairy and Fish as well as speakers from Freedom Food and the Quality Food winning company Moy Park.
The afternoon sessions have been split into two: the first will address two companion animal issues, designer animals or breeding for welfare with presentations by Emma Milne, the frequently outspoken ‘TV Vet’ and Julia May of the UK Governing Council of the Cat Fancy (GCCF) and Electrical aid or shock collar? with presentations by Carolyn Mentieth of the Kennel Club and Lord Duncan McNair of the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association.
The final session of the day is sponsored by the Norman Hayward Fund - earmarked for research into the diseases and welfare of sheep, cattle and horses - and will include presentations on both the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) and Edinburgh University laminitis studies and the casualty slaughter of sheep.
Aimed primarily at its network of representatives from each of the BVA’s specialist and territorial divisions a number of organisations and individuals with an animal welfare remit or interest have also been invited to participate in the discussion forum and the evening reception that will follow at the House of Commons, hosted by The Rt Hon Dr Gavin Strang MP
What are YOUR Views on Electric Collars?
What do YOU Think About Animal Welfare Standards in Food Production?
The Pet Owners Parliament is a new organisation set up to give pet owners a voice on the major issues affecting domestic animals. You can join here. It’s free.
Author DetailsK9 Magazine welcomes submissions from freelance contributors. If you would like information on submitting dog related articles for publication see our webpage - See this author's webpage
Popularity: 9% [?]
Friday, May 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 am and is filed under Animal Welfare, Dog Events. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
If these collars can stop a dog from:
Chasing livestock
Straying from its owners property and potentially causing accident or injury to people, property or the dog itself
Possibly running in to attack another dog when out with its owner (off the lead)
What is so bad about that?
Some dog owners (including the majority who are responsible or claim they are) may think that because they clear up after their dog when it fouls they are responsible, but also believe that it is their god given right to let their dog run off the lead anywhere they want. Some major dog charities and organisations support this as they say dogs should be allowed to run off the lead, (sure but perhaps not near to or even in a field with sheep in it for example?)
I am all for dogs being allowed to exercise off the lead but only where it is appropriate and this is where the problems arise.
Due to the ‘informed’ opinions of some self interest groups that it is almost a constitutional right (if the UK did have a constitution) for their dog to run free wherever they want it to, you do get situations where a dog owner who knows that their dog may become distracted by livestock or even other dogs will still let it run off the lead.
In a case like that where it is obviously (to the dog owner) affecting their human rights to not have the choice of whether or not they let their dog run next to a field of sheep or horses or whatever livestock, what is wrong with having an electric collar that will ‘correct’ the actions of a dog that may either attack livestock or as usually happens happily chase sheep round and round a field.
What happens is that even though the dog may not physically attack the sheep, with sheep being sheep they end up getting caught up in fences, fall down ditches or fall and injury themselves.
What right has any dog owner to inflict that kind of suffering on other animals by acting irresponsibly when they may have known that their dog would chase after livestock when let off a lead near to them?
If an E collar would prevent such an incident how is that cruel when it is preventing cruelty to other animals?
A freedom fence that keeps a dog inside its owners property because for whatever reason they may not be able to fence a large area is surely a better solution that letting a dog ‘wander’ off and get run over or cause accident or injury to itself or others?
The Kennel Club is lobbying the Welsh Assembly about these devices and there is a very self congratulatory article doing the rounds in the dog press, does this mean that every member of the Kennel Club agrees with the secretariat (or whatever it is called?)
Not every dog responds to training and whilst a person may have a cute pooch that is brilliant round the house and garden, it may be a complete nutcase when it gets out and about and sees other dogs or livestock and becomes a Jeykl & Hyde character when it is off the lead.
Surely the solution would be to ensure this particular dog is never allowed off the lead because no amount of training has worked, but sadly there are still organisations that think the brief correction of a dog by the use of an E collar is far more evil than a flock of sheep being terrorised to death or fatal injury by an uncontrolled dog.
Additionally when such an incident occurs, if the dog is not shot on sight by the farmer or landowner during such an attack, any subsequent prosecution for livestock worrying by the police leaves the dog owner with a criminal record.
The choices are easy, but since people will never adhere 100% to rules there will always be situations where an E collar can prevent a dog from livestock worrying or getting itself and its owner into hot water or worse.
There must be some members or officers of some of these lobbying organisations that oppose E collars that have dogs and perhaps use such a collar? If there are, have they explained to their organisations that whilst they oppose them, they in fact have a member or officer that uses one on their own dogs?
If there are any and their organisations are opposing these collars, then those organisations are being hypocrites!