Animal Commission’s Season Finale: It’s a Cliffhanger!

Our neighbor, Father Dan Scheid, and his dog Maggie. photo: Jane Tobin

The November meeting of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare - the last meeting for 2022 - was a doozy. I had hoped we'd wrap up the year with no unfinished business but instead, it turned out to be a real cliffhanger. And since the commission doesn't meet in December, we'll have to wait until 2023 to pick up where we left off.

I’ll explain why this meeting was such a doozy in a minute. But first, let me share a quick photo and confession, which explains why dog training is such a hot topic at our home and at commission meetings.

Pictured here is our neighbor, Father Dan Scheid, a kindly man of God, with his dog Maggie, a quiet, gentle soul of 14 years. My dog loathes her for no reason, no incident, nothing. Our #1 training goal for our dog: don't be a jerk to Maggie. Progress is slow. Thankfully Father Dan and Maggie are understanding.

Now back to the meeting…

Two Topics + Two Minutes Per Person = One Very Long Night

In hindsight, perhaps the commission was overly ambitious, taking on not just one but two fiery issues in a single night. But for purposes of this article, I'll limit my recap to just one of those topics: Shock Free San Francisco, the proposed ordinance to ban the use of shock collars in San Francisco.

In October, Ren Volpe, Founder and CEO of GoDogPro , and LT Taylor, Behaviorist at San Francisco Animal Care and Control, presented a compelling case and a draft city ordinance that would ban the use and sale of training shock collars in San Francisco (see Ren Volpe’s discussion of this topic in Bay Woof’s August issue).

Shock Collars: So Many Names for One Thing

Shock collars go by many names. These include: electric collar, e-collar, electronic collar, electronic training collar, remote training collar, electric pulse training aid, e-stimulus, e-stim, anti-bark or noise activated control collars. Excluding GPS-tracking collars, these are all the same thing.

Process and Policy

At our October meeting, commissioners approved sending the draft ordinance for Shock Free San Francisco to the Board of Supervisors, pending approval of an accompanying letter of support from the Animal Commission, which we wanted to include. Fast forward to November, and I was confident that approval of the letter of support would be swift and uncontentious. I was wrong. 

Passionate Public Commentary

Commission Chairperson Michael Angelo Torres opened the floor for public comment by first reading comments submitted in writing (the letters are available here). In summary, there were 11 letters supporting the ban of shock collars in San Francisco and 2 opposed to the ban. 

But when Chairperson Torres opened the phone lines for public comment, I saw we were in for a marathon meeting, with over 100 participants in attendance, many times the usual number. In the end, more than 30 callers were given two minutes each to share feedback. But, in a reversal of the written letters, callers who opposed the ban outweighed the callers in support. They had also created a petition voicing opposition to the proposed ban. 

Reasons given to oppose the ban included the following:

• Shock collars may offer protection for the public from aggressive dogs.

• They are an effective tool for dogs with recall issues.

• They may reduce the risk of euthanasia for some dogs where other training methods have failed. 

• Shock collars are not inhumane and don't hurt.

• Police and military use e-collars. 

• They are effective rattlesnake aversion training tools.

• The proposed ban is ableist and discriminatory.

• A ban could set a precedent for other cities or states where circumstances are different from San Francisco.

Instead of a ban, some callers suggested requiring regulations or permits for trainers who use shock collars and regulation standards for the devices to ensure their safety. 

Callers in support of the ban had their reasons as well, which are summarized as follows:

• There is a risk of a dog redirecting its pain from the collar onto the handler or other animals.

• Shock collars are inhumane, causing physical injuries such as burns, as well as increased anxiety, fear, and aggression.

• Alternative rattlesnake training techniques without force are currently available and effective.

• Shock collars don't address the underlying behavior issues or help heal the dog.

• San Francisco should be a leader in animal welfare. 

Outcome

After more discussion among commissioners, we voted to postpone sending the letter to the Board of Supervisors until each commissioner is able to more fully  explore opposing viewpoints. The December break will give us the time needed to do that.

In summary, commissioners listened, asked clarifying questions, and gave each caller time to voice their opinions. I'm confident we did our jobs that night and will continue to do so in 2023 as we address animal welfare and public safety issues. 

I thank the attendees and commissioners for a thoughtful doozy of a meeting. The commission will report back in January on this topic so please stay tuned.

And, as always, you may follow developments on this topic and others on the commission’s website . 

Please be aware that the views and opinions expressed in this column are those of Commissioner Tobin and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare.