Electric Collars are Not The Biggest Issue Facing Canine Welfare Today
Posted By Ryan O'Meara Date: 7/01 Posted Under: Animal Welfare, Canine Columns, View From The EditorAccording to the Kennel Club
The consultation for a proposed ban on electric shock collars in Wales is nearing its end. Elin Jones, the Rural Affairs Minister, opened the consultation on 15 November inviting opinions for and against a ban. So far the Kennel Club has met with, and had an excellent response from, AMs across the political spectrum. However, in order to maintain momentum the Assembly needs to have the demonstrable support of the people in Wales to bring about a ban.
The Kennel Club therefore urges all Welsh residents to fill in the consultation form which can be found at http://new.wales.gov.uk/consultations/currentconsultation/envandcouncurrcons/1878945/?lang=en and to write to their Assembly Member to encourage active support of the ban.
Anyone in the rest of the UK who wants to support the Kennel Club’s call for a ban is encouraged to write to their local MP/MSP. The Kennel Club has produced a template letter, available by request, and on its website under the press office/campaigns section.
Anyone else in the rest of the United Kingdom who thinks the Kennel Club should, rather than campaigning in its own self interest against something which conflicts with its own agenda, get its own house in order in terms of its abject failure to stop the horrific and unforgivable decline in the health and wellbeing of many pedigree dogs who are DYING daily as a result of horrendous breeding practices, breed standards ratified and endorsed by them and a complete inability to stop many breeds from spiraling into an inherited disease ridden abyss, a problem far, far more serious than the sale of electric dog training collars, should consider the current priorities of the problems affecting man’s best friend. It’s a simple enough question to ask:
Why should anyone be prepared to allow the Kennel Club to take the moral high ground on ANYTHING canine welfare related?
Let’s look at the facts:
The Kennel Club have presided over a decline in health of many breeds who are now lucky to live past the age of 7 or 8 years of age.
The Kennel Club endorses registrations of pedigree dogs from breeders who have fraudulently manipulated facts. Any pedigree dog you buy stands a possibility of coming with a pedigree which has been easily faked. The system is a sham, ripe for abuse.
Today, in veterinary surgeries up and down the UK dogs will be facing the vet’s needle as they need to put out of their suffering for a huge, unforgivable range of hereditary problems which have been crippling breeds for years and years and years. The Kennel Club has presided over them all.
The Kennel Club gives us Crufts each year. The world’s largest dog show they boast. But the question has to be posed, is it a showcase of breeds who are suffering year after year?
When public opinion as well as medical supported a ban on the docking of puppies tails for dogs who were not at risk of damaging their tails from working, which large, un-elected body objected to the ban? Even in the face of overwhelming public support (something which has not yet been demonstrated for electric dog training collars) as well as wide ranging medical evidence indicating the physical effects (something which has not been widely demonstrated for electric collars) the Kennel Club stood opposed to a ban on tail docking.
Why did the Kennel Club initially support the now widely condemned revision to the Dangerous Dogs Act when they now proudly tub-thump about how shockingly ill conceived the legislation is? Why do they use PR to try and spin dog lovers into believing they are doing more than they are on this most serious of issues?
Why do some argue that the KC is more interested in cash than it is responsible dog ownership?
Why have some, honest, passionate dog lovers discovered first hand all about breed discrimination and pedigree politics at the ‘world’s biggest dog show’?
Make no mistake, the Kennel Club ‘campaigns’ for issues which serve its own interests and agendas and it takes up animal welfare positions depending on whether they suit the views and opinions of its members Not you, I, or the dogs of Britain.
The Kennel Club is lead by its members, it does not lead. The Kennel Club supports issues that serve its own agendas. The Kennel Club, on the one hand, blames its own members for the decline in standards of many pedigree dog breeds who are suffering horrific hereditary health problems, and is on the other hand being lead by those members in terms of breed standards and ‘policy’ issues.
Dog owners of the UK have a right to know who it is who stands atop of their soap box campaigning in the name of canine welfare.
Support a ban on electric collars should you choose to do so according to your values, conscience and ethical beliefs.
But please don’t be coerced into doing it because the Kennel Club, of all people, tell you to. Remember this, when you go to sleep tonight not one dog will have died as a result of an electric collar, not one. But who knows how many dogs will not get to see tomorrow as their owners have had to take the agonising decision to have them put out of their misery due to joint problems, breathing problems, heart problems or more.
Ask yourself this - what ARE the priorities affecting the dogs we live with and love in 2008, and who is or is not best served to lecture us on the issue?
Ask yourself why certain dog magazines (K9 Magazine and Dogs Today) as well as other prominent animal health professionals have rounded on the Kennel Club and called them to account over the white elephant in the room which too many in the pet media are afraid to discuss? The fact that our dogs are dying and they’re suffering as a result of bad breeding endorsed by the Kennel Club.
If dogs are to get better. If we as a nation of animal lovers are to accept that our dogs are in decline, we need to face up to reality. We need to ask questions of those who have callously perpetrated the problems and of those who have overseen them for decades and decades. We need to accept that things have to be different. We need to accept that electric dog training collars are NOT the biggest threat to dogs in Britain right now. We need to accept that change has to happen and a stand has to be taken. If nobody asks the questions, if nobody is called to account, if nobody is passionate enough to say out loud “this is WRONG”, will things ever get better?
K9 Magazine, as a publication supported and read by a large population of ‘ordinary’ pet dog lovers, has taken the decision to distance itself from the Kennel Club and Kennel Club campaigns for many of the reasons outlined above. We felt we should be open and honest enough to let you know.
Author DetailsRyan O'Meara is editor-in-chief of K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers. He lives in the East Midlands with his own two dogs, Mia and Chloe. - See this author's webpage
Popularity: 18% [?]
Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 9:01 am and is filed under Animal Welfare, Canine Columns, View From The Editor. 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.
I totally agree with the stand you are taking.
To really understand how many dog breeds have been breed with little or no regard for their health, a visit to the Rothchild museum in Tring, Hertfordshire is a must.
Dog owners from the past hundred years have donated their pets bodies to be sensitively preserved. It is amazingly sad to see what changes have been forced upon our ‘best friends’ over the years. In the museum you can see bull dogs with longer legs, slimmer bodies and - vitally- un squashed muzzles. Pekinese dogs, again with ‘normal’ legs who didn’t suffer the terrible back problems afflicting their modern day counter parts, nor their breathing problems.
I believe some enlightened breeders are trying to breed back some breeds to their natural state. I hope they succeed.
Well done K9 Magazine for taking a stand against an elitist, self serving organisation. They are totally unelected and have no statutory powers, so why for one thing are they currently telling/’advising’ councils how to do their jobs (in relation to dog control orders?) If all dog owners acted responsibly all the time, be it clearing up after their dogs, ensuring that their dogs do not stray and also ensuring that their dogs are properly trained (and the owners know what they are doing too!) there would be no need for councils to have to use this legislation. What is irritating is that the Kennel Club through its political lobbying probably had some say in various legislation that is now seen to be unpopular, the Dangerous Dogs Act being the most unpopular! So what do they do, they simply go with the flow and end up criticising something they more than likely had input to.
The frightening thing is that there are a lot of unelected ‘experts’ be it ‘one person bands’ or those working for unelected organisations that seem to think it is their god given right to tell the government how dog owners should be legislated against. One minute they merrily follow the government line, then when the tide turns, they all scurry to be at the front of the queue to denounce the latest government decision.
Fiona is dead right regarding the changing look of dogs, an example being Bassett Hounds, there are two types, the KC type that seems to be an exact copy of the cartoon ‘Fred Bassett’ with low slung body and stubby legs, then there is the hunting Bassett Hound, that looks like a dog, is well built and seems to have different legs? In fact the hunting version look like Foxhounds with their legs chopped off but they can shift across country and they look like a dog that is not bogged down with future medical problems.
I totally agree with K9 Magazine that the Kennel Club needs to get its own house in order before it ‘lobbies’ for various changes elsewhere, also if the various types of E-collar are so bad, why are they on sale all over the world?
The time for self serving, elitist ‘establishment’ type organisations is well over, concentrate on restoring dogs to their original breed standards and not to some cosmetic type pleasing to the eye before wasting time and resources on campaigns that half a dozen similar organisations are simultaneously wasting their money on!
Would the Kennel Club have stood up for American Pit Bull Terriers pre 1990 if their owners had been seen as ‘KC types’ or the dogs were included in the KC breed register? It would have been an interesting time if more middle class people had owned them, maybe they would not have been banned?
As I understand from information received from Australia, deaths have resulted from using electric shock collars when the collar has not been removed. The collars it seems have been activated by electrical equipment such as drills. They are not recommended for use on dogs with likely breathing problems or of thin skeletal shape such as Greyhounds which must be an indication that they are not totally safe.
Regarding health of pedigree dogs I would concur that in the past century cosmetics have overtaken form and have overlooked health issues. I don’t think it can be said that earlier dogs were healthier than those of today as no statistics are available; they certainly may have looked different and anatomically improved in the case of breeds such as Bassets and the Pekinese where the muzzle was definitely extended into a snout. Many breeds were seriously depleted as a result of World War II and stocks had to be re-built by sometimes mixing breeds or inter-breeding.
There is no proof that mongrels are healthier as the breeds they have been crossed from may be carriers of genetic health disorders. Statistics are not available whereas they are for many of the “pedigree” breeds. RESPONSIBLE breeders will be aware of the health issues in their breeds and will be endeavouring to eradicate the problems (e.g. the excellent Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier Health Initiative). However the KC are unable to control all breeders and there are many who seem to perpetuate the myth that a bitch should have at least one litter but have no idea about the genetics of their breed nor what they should be achieving to keep it looking close to the breed standard (which in many cases -not all - was derived decades ago by the original breed clubs. Neither are they concerned about the homes to which they sell their litter(s) or the health tests their breeds should have undergone before mating (these latter being slowly introduced voluntarily by the KC or made compulsory gradually for KC accredited breeders.
There are so many controversial issues together with those that are treated by apathy within dog ownership and breeding fraternity. There will be a long hard road ahead if consensus is to be achieved by all dog owners on the way to go forward; more likely legislation will overtake the predicted procrastination!
I agree with the thrust of the article. Is the KC just a pedigree dog register run by it’s members or is it an animal welfare organisation - they really need to decide.
If they are campaignig for animal welfare then they need to sort out the issues with pedigree breed health first. Other pressing issues include the DDA, puppy farms, inadequate sentencing guidelines for animal abuse etc.
If they are just a register, even then they need to toughen up their criteria for what they will register. They need to insist on health clearances and breed suitability tests before breeding.
As for e-collars, like them or not, many myths are perpetuated. They have not caused death by being left on or due to EMF. Additionally, they can be used on any size or shape of dog - if a dog is not able to wear an e-collar, it is not able to wear any collar.
Wow. Say what you really think!!!
As it happens I agree with just about every word. I’m certainly no great fan of electric collars but I totally and utterly agree that the kennel club is in no position at all to be preaching about animal welfare. I’ve written letters to the BBC before about Crufts and why it promotes such a mediocre view of what dog ownership is all about. Health, health, health. That’s all that should matter. Health and function to be more honest. How many breeds have not only lost on semblance of health as well as a complete breakdown in being able to perform even basic functions?
I am surprised but highly delighted that a mainstream pet magazine has been bold enough to raise this issue. Big congratulations
Just seen a link to this article. What can I say, brilliant. Many of us dog lovers have known for years that dogs are in a state of decline. You only have to spend some time in a vets to see it with your own eyes. If we’re talking about animal welfare priorities how about we START by looking at those who’ve allowed dogs to get into the state they’re in now?
Your comments on the KC, and its grand delusions, could not have been better, nor more eloquently stated. It is a self-serving organisation and clearly run by bigots for bigots… and for others who are foolish enough to believe the KC is the de facto UK authority on dogs. Whereas, in reality, it is no more than a register of breeds and ever degenerating bloodlines for the self-professed ‘elite’ of mutilating breeders. What else does it do for mankind, animal-kind or even canine-kind? Even some of its own ‘thinking’ members are embarrassed by its high-minded antics. Do its Articles of Association encompass these newly assumed interests?
As regards the KC’s quest to ban the Remote Trainer, it is using a very small number of so called dissenters (including MPs whose motivation has nothing to do with animal welfare if it does not translate into votes) to dash the hopes of over a hundred thousand, well-informed, actual users. I hold a file of over 500 genuine user letters (all necessarily coded for security purposes), the contents of which would be available to you on request. They make very interesting reading.
One can only believe the KC’s main purpose in this area is to create a smoke-screen to disguise its own significant failures and misdemeanours.
I have read some of the comments on your site with interest. I have been supplying and using electronic collars in Australia for 13 years and have well over 100,000 customers. All of our products are sold on a money back guarantee and the returns are less than 2% so they are definitely working.
I notice that the opinions in the UK reflect the same nonsense that was put about in Australia some years back. It got so bad here that our company took action in the Federal Court of Australia against the RSPCA for statements which we maintained were false and which harmed our business. After two years of preparation and a two week hearing, the Court convicted the RSPCA of defamation and awarded our company damages.
With two years to prepare their case and two weeks for the hearing, the RSPCA could present no evidence to show that harm could be caused from the correct use of an electronic collar. If anyone is interested they can read the Court’s Judgement at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/860.html?query=orion%20pet
We operate our business with the confidence that we do not harm dogs, but in fact we save dog’s lives. During the course of our business we have saved thousands of dogs from euthanasia and worse.
Regards
John Holliday
Innotek Australia Pty Ltd