The position statements of organisations such as the RSPCA, AVA, PPGA, and similar internationally, are based on cherry-picked and flawed research.
Most research being cited is owner surveys, opinion pieces or flawed studies that don’t even remotely represent what professional trainers do.
Weak research is cited, and then literature reviews including that weak research appear to give more credibility to it.
This is what’s known as ‘garbage in/garbage out’ – making unreliable conclusions from unreliable research.
In Australia and internationally the loudest industry voices are attempting to ban tools and recommend which training approaches should or shouldn’t be used based on a lie. While that may seem to be an extreme statement I can assure you it’s not, and this video demonstrates that.
It’s time we look deeper into the statements made by these organisations rather than seeing a reference list and assuming it must be sound.
Electronic training collars and prong collars are being banned in numerous states and countries based on this lie; a lie that few are questioning.
The PDTA will be contacting these organisations directly and requesting they review these statements and remove false claims and citations.
We will also keep them on topic as whenever they are questioned they invariably move the goal posts.
T𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐨, 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐫𝐛 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭.
All over the world, dog owners are being told that the “𝒎𝒐𝒅𝒆𝒓𝒏, 𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒘𝒂𝒚” to train dogs is the only way.
𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 “𝐣𝐮𝐧𝐤 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞”?
Real science doesn’t mind being questioned, it comes from transparency and open-minded discussion, research, practice and results.
Junk science comes from people who 𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌 𝒂 𝒍𝒐𝒕 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒉𝒐𝒘 𝒏𝒐𝒕𝒉𝒊𝒏𝒈.
Who attack others who don’t agree with them and form 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 only validated by 𝑪𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒓𝒚 𝑷𝒊𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒕𝒍𝒆 𝒑𝒊𝒆𝒄𝒆𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒍𝒐𝒕𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒕𝒖𝒅𝒊𝒆𝒔.
Yes, their opinion, because unless they have real science, evidence and or experience in this field, their opinion is no more valid than yours.
Do you know that in the latest bid to ban the prong collar in Queensland and Tasmania, the scientific studies the ban is being based on, 𝒅𝒐 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒏 𝒊𝒏𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒅𝒆 𝑨𝑵𝒀 𝒕𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒓.
We have emailed a vet that has been very outspoken about the “harms” a prong collar can cause, and asked them for evidence, research, studies, or citations to support their claims, and look at the answers give!
VET Behaviourist “𝑰 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒑𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒓𝒆 𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒅𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒐 𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒐𝒓 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒄𝒓𝒖𝒆𝒍 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒔𝒄𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒚 𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒇𝒖𝒍 𝒎𝒆𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒅𝒔 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈, 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝑰 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒃𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒔𝒘𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒒𝒖𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔, 𝒎𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒍𝒚 𝒃𝒆𝒄𝒂𝒖𝒔𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒔 𝒂𝒍𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒅𝒚 𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒕𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒆”
Now, our thinking is this, if someone asks why we support the use of the tool, 𝐰𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐡𝐢𝐝𝐞?
That can’t be true you might say, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝟭𝟬𝟬% 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲.
Does Australia make laws on Junk Science?
Do you support junk science?
In conclusion, the RSPCA is a well-respected organisation that does valuable work in the area of animal welfare.
However, their use of junk science in order to further their own agenda is deeply concerning.
It is important that we as consumers are aware of this and make sure we do our own research before supporting the RSPCA.