You did say you would think of using an ecollar for stopping them going out of a meadow where you walk them though.

Yes I am strongly against ecollars and efences.(That doesn't cover it). I have a rescue bitch here and if you had seen her when she arrived and experienced her reaction to the gentlest of training methods, I think you would feel the same way about them.

Excellent post again. Suffice to say, I agree with everything Wys has said on this thread (again), she puts things much better than I can.

Heck, no I do not!! Woman!!!

By the way, I agree with you about the money angle - this is very important to some.

Wys
x

Yep...there is a great deal of money to be made out of 'training aids' and dominance theories etc....not so much in being kind and consistent.

It was published by the government - on a government website I'm pretty sure. It was a report of the findings of the study/consultation/review/whatever. Surely they came back to you with the findings ? It didn't say an awful lot more than the government response that I've quoted. Just a bit more detail but not much.

And to confirm your suspicion. The report did not specifically say 50/50 - that's my way of saying the report said that was opinion was split and that it was not possible to make a decision either way based upon opinion. It's extremely likely that there were more 'for' or more 'against' but the majority wasn't considered big enough to be significant.

So from what you've said I don't think my recollection of the report is different from what you understand the findings to be. And I'm willing to take in good faith your claim that there were more against than for - I won't insist that you publish your cupboard full of info (or your inside information)! The significant thing for me is the government/defra's finding that expert opinion was divided and existing studies weren't conclusive. There wasn't enough information available to conclude whether the devices were cruel or beneficial to dogs.

Here we're in absolute agreement! There was no evidence of cruelty found - nor was there any evidence that they weren't cruel. I have made both statements in my posts, but the reason that I started out saying that there was no evidence of cruelty found was simply to counter the apparent 'statement of fact' that they are cruel. I was making the point that the government review/study/consultation (that you were involved in) did not back this up.

It's tricky because often we're not clear in discussion whether we're putting across our opinion or interpretation of something or whether it's actual hard fact. I'm sure none of us mean to misslead and it's good that we pick each other up on these things.

We both want clarity and facts. Opinion is good too but I agree it's important to be clear about which is which and I apologise for any lack of clarity on my part! I hope it's clear now.

Just wanted to go over this bit a bit

Wales is now committed to banning the collars completely. It has to be finalised but I believe this is firm, now.

Scots and English governments are awaiting DEFRA study results before doing anything. Personally, I believe this is due to pressure from those who would be financially upset if there was a ban, but anyway...

RE there being no prosecutions under an Act, in relation to shock collars - this is explained very well by David Ryan (police dog handler, police dog instructor, now retired and APBC chair) here (he refers to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 as that is the most relevant to this)

http://www.apbc.org.uk/sites/default...nsultation.pdf

see Question 4 and Question 5

".
Question 4: Do you believe that the provision prohibiting “unnecessary
suffering” in section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is sufficient to
protect animals who wear electric shock or static pulse collars or come
into contact with “scat mats”? If not, why not?

The legislation contained in Sec. 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (causing or
permitting unnecessary suffering to a protected animal) already pertains to
animals that are the subject of electric shock from collars or other devices.
However, it is unlikely that a person committing an offence by activating such
a device will be witnessed in the act, and therefore brought to court. The
offences are, by the nature of the environment in which they are committed,
hidden from public view. The current law therefore fails to protect animals that
are the victims of electric shock devices.
Although the problem of illegal use would still exist were a ban to be
introduced, the number of devices at large would diminish through natural
wastage and not be replaced at source, thus protecting animals by removing
the devices.

Question 5: In addition to question 4, under existing law each court case
involving the use of these devices would have to be considered on their
own merits. Do you think that is sufficient or do you believe that legal
certainty via Regulations should be introduced. If so, why?
Page 4
There are several reasons why prosecution of individual cases of causing or
permitting unnecessary suffering through the use of electric shock devices is
insufficient and that regulations to ban them should be introduced.
The first, as stated in question 4, is that the use of electric shock devices is
rarely witnessed by a third party.
Even if the offence is witnessed by an informed third party, the pain caused by
electric shock devices is transient. It may be highly significant at the time it is
administered, but have no lasting observable effects such as trauma injuries.
It is one of the reasons that electric shock is a preferred method of torturing
human beings around the world.

“Suffering” is notoriously difficult to define; Sec 62 of the Act interprets it as:
‘“suffering” means physical or mental suffering and related expressions shall
be construed accordingly”, otherwise put: “suffering means suffering”. It is a
state that we all recognise when we see it, but can be very difficult to describe
in real terms.

Because suffering is subjective, what is inconsequential to one animal may be
devastating to another. The degree of pain felt through each shock is also
variable, dependent upon factors such as skin sensitivity and thickness,
individual pain thresholds, the dog’s motivation at the time, hair length,
contact with skin and wetness of electrical contacts.

Therefore, when a case is prosecuted these uncertainties introduce a
minefield of legal arguments. For example, the only direct evidence is likely to
be that of adversarial witnesses; it may be impossible to establish intensity
settings on devices and what they mean to individual animals; there may be
no observable after-effects to the animal. By producing an apparently loving
owner and a healthy unmarked dog, an offence under Sec 4 of the Animal
Welfare Act 2006 may be almost impossible to prove beyond reasonable
doubt. The legal certainty of regulations to prohibit the devices would clarify
the issues.

( I should also mention that shock equipment is recommended for cats and also for horses who are cribbing, in spite of much evidence that horses may suffer from various health problems and husbandry which does not take their ethology into account (ie high grain, no grazing, ulcers etc).


Wys
x

This is why I'm keeping an open mind. I come across so many people that say getting an e-fence was the best thing they ever did for their dogs.

Rather than just be black and white about it I prefer to look deeper and find out WHY it's working so well for some - is it possible it could work for me? Are they using something that's different from the devices that deliver pain and cause stress?

E-collar/e-fence covers quite a range of devices. Strictly speaking we already use an e-collar - a GPS tracking collar!

I believe that his lady's vibration collar was electronically controlled. It WAS an e-collar - just one that vibrated rather than shocked. Of course, we can't take it as gospel that she's right, but doesn't it worry you a bit that so many people are talking in absolutes about "all e-collars are cruel" when really very many people aren't up-to-date on what's available nowadays? It's possible that a lot of the disagreement simply comes down to lack of information about what's really available.

I hope this study throws light on all of these grey areas!

If this collar/fence set-up worked purely on vibration, I very much doubt the study will take it into account. I'm pretty sure vibration doesn't hurt, and as far as animal welfare is concerned, I doubt DEFRA would be interested in people who train just using a vibrating collar. If this would work, then that's brilliant (and I'm sure I wouldn't have a problem in using something like that) but are you absolutely sure that there wasn't shocking in training? I know some people shock in the initial 'training' then use a noise or a vibration that accompanied the shocking as a 'reminder' as it was associated with the shock.

There isn't really any grey area though.
Most ecollars have a vibration setting/beep alert on them.
A GPS collar cannot be compared to an ecollar.

Sounds like the lawn will need to be re-layed anyway, have they thought of artificial grass.

http://www.evergreensuk.com/?gclid=C...FUYA4wodgC64pA