Aust Vet J Vol 77, No 6, June 1999 409

News Extra

plete agreement with Dr Ke r-sti Seksel. The AVA shouldmaintain its strong objectionto these devices (electric anti-b a rking collars).

Dr Diane Fr a n k ,School of Ve t e ri n a r y

Me d i c i n e ,Un i versity of Pe n n s y l vania

Collars “c a n’t burn”

Iam writing in response tothe comments made in

your Fe b ru a ry issue about theAVA Draft Policy on the useof electronic collars on dogs.Our company is theA s i a / Pacific distributor for arange of these products. I wasp a rticularly concerned aboutthe comment from Dr Ke r s t iSeksel* that she had treated adog with burn marks suppos-edly caused by one of thesecollars. Knowing this to be aphysical impossibility, I faxe dyour article to our Americans u p p l i e r, In n o t e kPet Products Innotek is them a rket leader in the supply ofe l e c t ronic training aids, theyh a ve been in business for 15years and they make over onemillion electronic collarse ve ry ye a r. Fo l l owing is partof In n o t e k’s reply: “I haveh e a rd this complaint a num-ber of times through the ye a r s(as have all of our competi-tors) and many times thecomplaint is supported by thediagnosis of a ve t e r i n a r i a n .The collars do produce re l a-t i vely high voltage, howe ve rno more than 2 milliamps inc u r rent. The amps pro d u c e da re totally insufficient to pro-duce a burn - or ignite eve nthe most volatile of sub-stances. Two years ago, theRoyal Canadian Mo u n t e dPolice believed that one ofour collars was used as a deto-nation device in a bomb.After extensive study by theirl a b, it was determined that in

no way could our collar gen-erate the current, arc or heatn e c e s s a ry to detonate any-thing. The injury is caused bye x t e n s i ve wear of the collar.O ver time the collar willw o rk its way back and fort hover the dog’s skin. As itbegins to itch, the dog pro b a-bly will start to rub andscratch the area re p e a t e d l y. Asthe skin breaks, bacteria set inand the problem worsens.The hair under the collar is ap e rfect breeding ground forthe infection and the soft tis-sue starts to rot. When thecollar is finally re m oved theskin smells and looks like ithas been burned. I appre c i a t ew h e re the confusion comesf rom, but it is the lack ofattention to the animal andd i s re g a rd of the instru c t i o n sthat cause the problem.” It isall ve ry well for the AVA toobject to the use of electro n i ccollars, but the fact is they arebecoming ve ry widely used inAustralia. Our experiences h ows that the ve t e r i n a ry pro-fession is poorly informedabout the use of electro n i ccollars and the benefits whichthey can offer.

A. John Ho l l i d a yManaging Di re c t o r

Innotek Australia Pty Ltd

* Ed i t o r’s note: Dr Seksel is cur -rently overseas for seve r a lmonths. She could not be con -tacted for an immediate re s p o n s eto this letter but will be offered aright of reply upon her re t u rn.

Drugs debate - or confusion

The recent release ofChlomicalm, an anxiety

relieving drug for dogs, hasbeen re p o rted on television,on radio and in the new s p a-pers. When I heard this, Iw o n d e red why? Why is therelease of this drug new s w o r-thy? Why wasn’t the release ofEn ro f l oxacin, an antibiotic,deemed new s w o rthy? W h ydo we get excited about the

release of Chlomicalm? He reis a behaviour-modifyingd rug for your dog. If yo u rdog is feeling anxious orupset, give it drugs to make itfeel better! Re g a rdless of whatthe drug is - or how it is sup-posed to be used - the adve r-tising of it suggests it is nor-mal to take drugs to makeyou feel better. It doesn’t mat-ter that this is a drug for dogs- and for dogs with specificp roblems to be treated underve t e r i n a ry supervision. Itd o e s n’t matter that it is a use-ful drug for dogs with suchp roblems. Ad ve rtising dru g sto re l i e ve your anxieties - andto make you feel better -tends, in my opinion, toimplant or confirm the ideathat it is an acceptable prac-tice. On the one hand, weh a ve a drugs debate in thisc o u n t ry. On the other hand,we say isn’t it great that wecan take drugs to make our-s e l ves feel good.

Dr T. Ha ye s ,Me l b o u rne, V i c

In defence of herbs

Iam writing about seve r a lrecent comments fro m

vets, both personally and ina rticles, which suggest thats e veral commonly used herbsmay have caused seve re andgeneralised toxicities in cattleand sheep. It appears thatruminants, due to their ve rye f f e c t i ve ability to fermentand digest plant material, canabsorb many times theamount of active constituentf rom such herbs, thus re s u l t-ing in tox i c i t y. T h e re is, how-e ve r, appropriate re s e a rc hs h owing that monogastricspecies do not “ove r - d i g e s t”these herbs. The re s e a rch alsos h ows that these animals canbe dosed with those herbssafely as effective medicinesfor various conditions forwhich there may not be a safeor effective conventional dru ga vailable. (Examples of thisinclude marshmallow and

s l i p p e ry elm for chronic gas-tric ulceration despite antibi-otics; St Ma ry’s Thistle foridiopathic hepatasoses;hypericum for anxiety ands t ress where non-addictivet reatment is re q u i red. So m er a re side effects to some herbsexist and, obv i o u s l y, a quali-fied herbalist should be con-sulted when prescribing or ifp roblems occur. Ge n e r a l l y,the side-effects to herbs are farless seve re than some encoun-t e red to several antibiotic,c o rticosteriod and NSAIDSp roducts commonly used. Agood text for re f e re n c i n gre s e a rch articles is: “T h eHealing Power of He r b s”, byM. T. Mu r r a y, Prima, 1995.

Dr Clare Mi d d l e ,Pre s i d e n t ,

Australian Association ofHolistic Ve t e ri n a ri a n s

Docking policy “u n i n-f o rm e d”

From AVA emanates acampaign against tail

docking. A leaflet on this canbe picked-up from vet surg-eries. I did - and I read it. Iwas surprised and embar-rassed that a professional asso-ciation could issue such dog-matic and emotional state-ments. Not only that, in part sit was directly wrong. I took am a rker and couloured thematters I believe are emotion-al and incorrect. T h ec o l o u red areas now cove rmost of the leaflet. I don’th a ve space here to commentin full. I will concentrate onthe most serious matters, butif the AVA would like to havea long comment it is we l c o m eto ask for one. “The opera-tion is comparable to ampu-tating a baby’s thumb, . . . ” .What unqualified emotionalrubbish. It is outrageous.Only a distorted mind couldh a ve set that in print. “Do e sdocking pre vent tailinjuries?”. This is anotheroutrageous statement. Pre-vention of injuries is the ve ry

L e t t e r s