Animal Welfare and Hidden Fences

Most viewpoints and charters of animal welfare organisations are very similar, if not identical, merely with different phraseology.

Overall, it is the preservation of an ideal that animals should not suffer unnecessarily, whether they are companions, used for work, food or research.

Canadian ethicist David Sztybel distinguishes six different types of animal welfare views from his perspective as an animal rightist and animal liberationist:

• animal exploiters' animal welfare: the reassurance from animal industry publicists that they treat animals "well" (e.g., spokespersons for the animal slaughter industry)
• commonsense animal welfare: the average person's concern to avoid cruelty and be kind to animals
• humane animal welfare: a more principled opposition to cruelty to animals, which does not reject most animal-using practices (except perhaps the use of animals for fur and sport)
• animal liberationist animal welfare: a viewpoint which strives to minimize suffering but accepts some animal use for the perceived greater good, such as the use of animals in some medical research
• new welfarism: a term coined by Gary Francione (animal rights activist) to refer to the belief that measures to improve the lot of animals used by humans will lead to the abolition of animal use

The general definition that animals “not suffer unnecessarily” should reference the word ”suffer” cannot be limited to physical abuse, neglect or cruelty, but psychological suffering is equally as important to recognise within the animal.  Physical harm or suffering is typically easier to identify and is obvious to most observers; however, psychological suffering isn’t nearly as recognisable to most observers or caretakers and many times requires a professional to make a proper diagnosis or assessment.

Most caretakers of companion animals would, in most cases, claim they do their very best to uphold a reasonable standard of animal welfare and would not intentionally harm or traumatise their pets.

So where does electronic pet containment fall into the equation? Initially the concept of an electronic collar worn by the pet, giving an aversive stimulus when attempting to breach its boundary would appear, on the surface, to be in contrast to animal welfare definition; however, the consequences and dangers the pet might experience outside its boundaries could be far more critical or terrifying.  If it’s assumed that the term “not suffer unnecessarily” was the preferred definition to follow, then it places electronic pet containment systems in a positive position, exhibiting the ability and means to prevent critical situations.

It could be argued that most caretakers of companion animals would go to great lengths to protect their animals from injury or danger, but will stop short of anything they believe to be cruel. Hidden fences are widely used throughout the world. Over 25 developed countries allow electronic pet containment systems to manage pets practically, affordably, and safely.  Caretakers, in great numbers throughout the world use hidden fences with confidence that they are safe and will contain there pet without sacrificing their welfare beliefs. Pet owner’s confidence and satisfaction after having the hidden fence solve their pet’s escaping problems have been extremely positive. The overall majority of pet caretakers consult with Hidden Fence distributors directly, taking responsibility of solving the problems of escaping pets without seeking outside consultation. This allows caretakers the right to choose one or more of the many options to solve their pets behavioural issues without product or method discrimination.

Most would agree that reward based training be the preferred option; yet aversive training balanced in combination with reward training would most likely be the more common method practiced by the everyday pet owner. Results would appear to be adequate in satisfying general behaviour issues.

Hidden Fence Company prides itself on its significant effort to excel in minimal aversive containment training. Although Hidden Fence is a business, it’s also a group of individuals with a strong love for animals and animal welfare.

Possible questions for determining if a containment system is warranted:

• Is there a solution of containment that can be successful without the use of a containment system? i.e.: fixing existing fence, erecting a fence, chaining pet, etc.
• Is the pet at risk of harming itself?, i.e.: hanging itself on fence, getting stuck under fence, inflicting individual harm through panic behaviour, escaping resulting in injury or death, etc.
• Does the pets escaping behaviour pose an imminent threat to its environment or ramifications thereto? I.e.: potential cause of motor vehicle accidents, attacking native wildlife, displays of aggression to humans or other domestic pets due to fear and anxiety.
• Will the Pet will be free to move about the property with relatively sizeable space, unchained or uninhibited from movement. If not, and the pet is chained or restricted from freedom of adequate movement, could this not be perceived as a welfare issue?
  
• Do local laws prohibit wandering pets? Fines could be too costly resulting in owner giving pet away or ending up at RSPCA, which the problem of escaping becomes habitual. Owner or Council may have pet euthanized.
• Does the owner have the financial means of properly containing their pet?
  If not, inadequate fencing may be installed, possibly hazardous or unsightly to neighbours.
  If not, Pet may continue to run loose or be given away.
  If not, pet may be chained or kennelled, possibly euthanized (although rare).
• Is the critical risk of harm greater than the e-stimulus?

This is ultimately a question of “do the ends justify the means”? Are we going to have a pet that is alive and unharmed versus a scared lost pet, dead, injured, stolen or viciously abused for psychotic thrills, being attacked by domestic pets or wildlife, catching disease, starvation or dehydration, poisoned or baited?

Countless research has be done through many publications regarding e-stimulus not causing physical damage, permanent or temporary, to the animals body  (Lindsay 2000); so the concern ultimately remains on the well-being of the pets.

Since Hidden Fence Company only distributes as a complete service, we are able to follow relatively closely to the Founding Delta Society (USA) principles of assessment (see below). Hidden Fence employs, and in many cases, executes a combination of these principles simultaneously.

Analysis of the Delta chart would appear that when behaviour is critical or poses significant risk to the pet’s safety, there are direct links to the use of an aversive. This demonstrates a level of truth that to maintain well-being and welfare of the animal in “life or death” situations (which many times is closely related to escaping behaviour), the “ends may justify the means”. This of course must still encompass the definition of “no unnecessary suffering”.

It could be argued that the term “ends justifying the means” could be used in many aspects of modern health care for pets. Everyday thousands of dogs around the globe are given microchips to help identify the pet if stolen or lost. The microchip is delivered into the dog’s body by way of needle injection. The injection pierces the skin and delivers the silicon microchip into the pet, where it is designed to remain for the rest of the pet’s life. Many dogs whimper or cry out in fright or pain when the needle is used. Hidden fence has many times witnessed less reaction when a pet receives the stimulus from a containment system.

General vaccines and heartworm medications are delivered in the same manner all designed for the benefit of the pet’s welfare, yet both are an invasive procedure which is causing a “level” of discomfort. This is justified in the same manner as a containment system. The containment system is designed to provide the aversive, and teach the pet to avoid the boundary completely. In a strange way, the containment system may in fact be more humane as the pet has been conditioned and trained on the hidden fence and has the choice to avoid the aversive correction. The same pets have no choice when it comes to medical procedures.

Animal welfare orgs and The Hidden Fence Company ultimately strive to achieve a similar goal…to minimize physical and psychological suffering and keep our pets alive. That’s the most responsible obligation we can provide.

References:
Steven R Lindsay (2000).  Applied dog behaviour and training, volume 2 (9,577)
Delta Society (2006). Electronic pet containment systems (Section 3.11)

COPYRIGHT
© 2002-2008 Canine Containment Company Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. DogWatch Hidden Fence Systems, The Hidden Fence Company and The Hidden Fence Company logos are all Registered trademarks of the Canine Containment Company Pty Ltd.

2000-2008 DogWatch Inc. All rights reserved. No photographs, illustrations or text can be reproduced in any form without the express written consent of DogWatch Inc.
DogWatch, DogWatch logos,Fast React tm, Automemory tm, Safelink tm, Performance tm, are all registered trademarks of DogWatch, inc.