ECMA Speaks Out on Delayed Dog Collar Ban
Electronic dog collars and fences: "enhance the five freedoms rather than the opposite." Lord Duncan McNair and the Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association, (ECMA) have responded to the news that the Scottish Parliament is to delay its decision on the use of electronic training aids.
ECMA welcomed the postponement which is expected to last until after publication of the results of further Defra research, (possibly as late as 2011). The Association said last week:
"Evaluation of these products must look at the results achieved by the overwhelming majority of the pet owners who use the products and must assess the cost and benefit to animal welfare in light of the greater good."
ECMA claims there are 350,000 pet owners in the UK using electronic products. It says these pet owners fear putting their pets at risk of road traffic accidents and shooting by farmers if the products are banned.
Last week the Association even went so far as to say that if an owner uses an electronic containment fence or a remote trainer, the chances of the dog being killed on the road are virtually zero. In light of the fact that the ECMA wants to see clear, evidence based research prior to the consideration of any ban on the use of electronic collars, we asked Lord McNair, as spokesperson for the ECMA, how he supported the 'virtually zero' claim.
In his response this week, Duncan McNair did not give a clear answer to that question. He did however point to a recent ECMA survey in which
70% of respondents had said that the fact of using the remote trainer or fence containment system had saved the life of their pet.
This 70% included pet owners who were mostly or also concerned about their pet being euthanased for intractable bad behaviour or shot by a farmer for worrying sheep, as opposed to being involved in a road accident.
Lord McNair said:
"My impression is that the majority of the 70% were concerned about road accidents, and, given the 1 in 60 figure, [of dogs killed on UK roads each year] it is not surprising that this concern looms large for pet owners."
He went on to ask, and then point out:
"Where are all the traumatised pets among the tens or hundreds of thousands of collar wearers? If there was a general problem with the collars, based on the 350,000 collar owners, vet surgeries would be filled with them, but they are not.
"What has flagrantly been missing is a careful look at how the products work out in practice and this has not been done, except in our owner survey and one or two other similar and even less formal sureys which have not been published. The great majority of dogs have far better, healthier and freer lives because they either have the freedom of the garden or the freedom to walk off the lead. A dog that is off the lead on walks travels three times as far (and therefore gets three times as much exercise) as a dog which is kept on the lead, a win win situation if there ever was one.
"The products enhance the five freedoms rather than the opposite."
Five Freedoms
Freedom from hunger and thirst
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to express normal behaviour
Freedom from fear and distress
Dear Steve,
Your email has been passed to me for answer. If you need further information please contact me at the numbers below or email me.
The statistics on number of pets killed on the roads come from the RSPCA and the link to the report in the Sun newspaper follows. The RSPCA estimated that 100,000 dogs are killed on UK roads every year and, from the RSPCA presentation we quoted in our responses to the Scottish and Welsh consultations, there are approx 6 million dogs in the UK. Simple arithmetic gives a figure of 1 in 60 dogs killed on the road every year. If an owner uses a containment/fence system, what are the chances of the dog being killed on the road? If an owner uses a remote trainer, what are the chances of the dog being killed on the road? In both cases it must be near zero. 70% of our survey responders said the fact of using the remote trainer or fence containment system had saved the life of their pet. That includes those who were mostly or also concerned about their pet being euthanased for intractable bad behaviour or shot by a farmer for worrying sheep, as opposed to being involved in a road accident, but my impression is that the majority of the 70% were concerned about road accidents, and, given the 1 in 60 figure, it is not surprising that this concern looms large for pet owners.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/motors/emma_parker_bowles/article72524.ece
There are occasions when an electronic training collar is not the right solution for a particular dog but our owner survey indicates that the overwhelming majority of the owners found that the collar solved the problem with no ill effects on the dog. In fact the figures were 95% and 96% of total responders so the remaining 5% and 4% include all those who did not respond to one or other question as well as those few who gave negative answers. Taking account of all the very real hazards that can befall pets it is clear from these statistics that electronic training collars make an important contribution to the greater good of pets whose owners have invested in one of the products.
The case against the collars has largely been built upon theoretical inferences from behavioural research of which very little actually relates to electronic training collars and some even has nothing to do with dogs. Where are all the traumatised pets among the tens or hundreds of thousands of collar wearers? If there was a general problem with the collars, based on the 350,000 collar owners vet surgeries would be filled with them, but they are not.
What has flagrantly been missing is a careful look at how the products work out in practice and this has not been done, except in our owner survey and one or two other similar and even less formal sureys which have not been published. The great majority of dogs have far better, healthier and freer lives because they either have the freedom of the garden or the freedom to walk off the lead. A dog that is off the lead on walks travels three times as far (and therefore gets three times as much exercise) as a dog which is kept on the lead, a win win situation if there ever was one. The products enhance the five freedoms rather than the opposite.
Regards,
Duncan McNair.
Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association
Suite 7, Bulrushes Business Park
Coombe Hill Road
East Grinstead
West Sussex, UK
RH19 4LZ
T: +44 1342 323049
F: +44 870 123 6450
M: +44 7941 082694
E: duncan.mcnair@btinternet.com
ECMA welcomes Scottish decision on electronic training collars for dogs
Press release
Date: November 2008.
The Electronic Collar Manufacturers Association (ECMA) has welcomed the decision by the Scottish Parliament to wait before making a decision on any policy changes regarding electronic training collars.
In a move deemed "common sense" by ECMA, it announced that it will wait for the publication of Defra research into the welfare implications of these products is published in 2010 or 2011, before any decisions are made.
Electronic training devices have been widely used for many years to improve an owner's ability to train their animals and thus improve relationships between the owner and the pet. From a survey of training collar owners, 95% reported that the problem for which they bought the collar was completely solved with no ill effect on the dog. With an estimated 350,000 collars in use in the UK, as many as 332,500 pet owners know their pet is safer and has more freedom, and that they, the pet owner, have peace of mind.
The Defra study involves looking at hard scientific fact and research into the welfare of animals trained by the collars. The UK Government recently stated of the study:
"While we are aware of a number of scientific studies on electric shock collars, Defra considers that to date those studies published in this area are not sufficiently robust and that the evidence base needs to be built on before consideration can be given to either banning or regulating their use. The government is not prepared to do this unless there is clear evidence that these devices in themselves are harmful to welfare".
As many as 350,000 highly responsible owners are alarmed that the well being of their pets and the peace of mind they have had while using electronic training collars could be compromised, putting their pets at risk of road traffic accidents and shooting by farmers for worrying sheep.
Duncan McNair, spokesman for ECMA said:
"ECMA are delighted that common sense has prevailed in this decision by the Scottish Parliament.
"The unscientific, emotional, tabloid campaign against the products has had the effect of diverting attention from other issues which certain organisations would rather were swept under the carpet.
"It is now time for a bona fide scientific approach to evaluating the products, an approach based on reason, not emotion."
ECMA believe that any sensible evaluation of these products must look at the results achieved by the overwhelming majority of the pet owners who use the products and must assess the cost and benefit to animal welfare in light of the greater good. 100,000 dogs are killed on the roads every year in the United Kingdom (RSPCA figures). With 6,000,000 dogs in total, 1 in 60 of the UK's dog population is killed on the roads every year. The chances of this happening to a dog whose owner is using an electronic containment fence or remote training product are virtually zero. Training collars save lives.
Ends.
Contact: Duncan McNair, ECMA Spokesperson on 07941 082694