You're welcome - it's good to exchange info!

There is more info in the actual report which I will track down later. However, it doesn't have what you are looking for - it wasn't a scientific study but more of an impartial canvasing of a range of experts in the field. It certainly doesn't prove anything. As I've said, I have an open mind over this. If I thought there was proof either way I'd have already made my mind up!

As you say, just because someone claims to be an expert it doesn't make it so. And many people are indeed blind to the signals dogs give us. People tend to see what they want to see - on all sides! One thing most probably have in common is that they believe THEY are right and the other side is wrong (both of us included I'm sure!)

I would like to clarify that I'm not any particular 'side'. I'm not arguing in favour of the approach. Like you, I'm just suspicious of 'expert opinion' and the layperson's self-belief in their ability to read calming signals! The reason that I found the report (and this response from the government) interesting is simply that it makes it clear that the situation is unclear enough to prompt the government to spend a fortune on the study. It's not by any means clear cut that the collars are cruel.

I'd say at the moment that for me the arguments for and against pretty much balance each other out. I've felt the shock - it's nothing (Although I know some people do use collars that give a painful shock). I've seen with my own eyes how well it works for some people. I take on board some of the arguments against. I suspect it might very well be the case that it works well for some dogs when used the right way. I think it's possible that it could lead to much better quality of life for my two without causing any suffering. But I want to find out more - which means looking further than the 'uneducated' public opinion that you refer to. To many people jumping on the bandwaggon and that's clouding the issue and making it hard to get hold of available facts.

As you point out, the 'expert opinions' can't really be trusted. I agree completely that there is a certain amount of bias based upon a given trainers preferred approach and as you say ANYONE can be a trainer. And in my limmited experience one of the pre-requisites seems to be a willingness to slag off all other trainers

I'm pleased that the government saw fit to commission an indepth study before jumping in blind simply because people make a fuss. If you really want what's best for animals then surely a proper study is better than simply caving into public pressure (given as you say that the public generally aren't in a position to give an educated opinion).

Like the OP, I'm interested in finding out more. I'm simply sharing some of the info I've come across. It's not intended to be proof either way and it's up to each individual to make of it all what they will.

I'll welcome this 2010 study as that should provide us with some much needed impartial data that will allow us all to make informed decisions. And if they really are found to be cruel they'll probably be banned which will make the decision for us!

Out of interest, what do you make of the point made by the government that there have been no prosecutions in relation to these devices? Surely a way forward for those against them would be to prosecute people that use them? That would surely force people to come up with hard evidence either way which would be good for all of us?

There is no in depth government study - yet.

I know, because I've followed all of this for some years now. There is a study being done, but the results are not yet known as it is ongoing. I've been in touch with the people doing it


They always say that and there are times when that is what the dog experiences. They will also make sure the owner experiences the tickle - but for several reasons that is not always what the dog feels.

But sometimes it has to be turned up, because the mild tickle does not stop the dogs: and then you can get all sorts of problems, including territorial aggression, fear of going into the garden, general stress and nervousness, etc.
Batteries also run out and then the dog can get run over -this happened to someone's great dane - I won't say who, but it is someone quite well known in the world of lost dogs.

IMO they are very different. Stock fences are in one place and although not ideal, an animal can learn to avoid this naturally, as an animal would learn to avoid a thorny bush which hurt it previously.


Wys
x

Yes, I accept that - "in-depth study" was a misleading choice of words as many people take that to mean scientific study. But the point is that a panel of experts were given the task of looking at this in-depth. There was a study prior to the current scientific study where an impartial team canvassed experts in the field. Also available studies and evidence was considered. That is what I was referring to. And that study DID NOT back up popular belief that the devices were cruel. They found that there was no grounds for banning them and that a scientific study was required before any decision could be made.

So the point is, at this point in time the government believes that there is no evidence that the devices are cruel, no expert consensus that they are cruel and no worthwhile studies that conclude they are cruel. In other words, it's too soon to make an informed opinion.

Haven' t checked fully as not looked at this for several months and the info has been altered, but I believe the study is this one:

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.as...32#Description

Wys
x

I tend to look at everything I can get from as many experts as I can
But then I ask myself 'Why does this thing work?'
IF the shock is just a tickle then why would it work?? If the dog is so easily distracted from what it was doing that a wee tickle distracts it then wouldnt something else distract it?? Giving a yelp and running away arms flapping, then giving the dog a great fun chase game when it caught up with you - woulndt that distract just the same??

and is it always goign to be a tickle - even on the low setting - what if the dogs neck is wet?? (which mine are about all the time)

I think if there is any reasonable doubt that a method is cruel and there are other methods to use then why even consider it?? (and I say reasonable because I dont include Denisis idea that clicker training is cruel as something worth considering)

I walked into some when going to see a new horse, I had trendy ripped jeans on, the tape went right onto my bare leg, I have a very ott reaction to pain, a very rapid reaction as well, so my legs shot back and I bloody toppled over the whole thing zapping myself again, I can tell everyone, its not just a nip, its bloody agony

I would rather have a full on punch in the gob by a man that have to endure that again,.

HATE THE STUFF.

Yes, I was part of that Consultation, and sent in my views along with many other individuals and organisations
I have one cupboard here full of all of the info from the Scottish report I was sent in 2 huge bags

Remember we have the Scots governemnt and English one awaiting the info from the DEFRA study, though. Wales is already pledged to ban the collars:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8317456.stm
http://www.petplanet.co.uk/news_arti...rticle_id=1291

Wys
x

This is interesting. You're not alone in this way of looking at things as I've come across it a lot. A little while back we were looking to buy a field for exercising our dogs (Didn't get one but we're moving to a house by the beach with a 1/3 acre garden in a couple of weeks - yay!!!). Very many people volunteered the advice that we put electric stock wire above the sheep fencing as that would stop the dogs trying to jump over it. Some of those people were strongly against the use of electric fences designed for dogs.

As a child we used to play at 'dares' and often the dare was to touch the electric fence. It really hurt. I would hate my dog to be shocked like that on his nose or mouth. Yet the collar really is just a tickle - sure, you could ramp it up but that's down to appropriate usage.

I've spoken to quite a lot of people that use e-fences. Both on-line and a couple first hand. Most have told me that the company that fit the fence come along and train the dog. I get the impression that the first step is letting the dog know exactly where the boundaries are without using the collar - not sure how this is done. Then the collar is fitted. Almost all (if not all) told me that the dog only ever got one or two shocks and after that it simply knew not to go near the boundary.

But I'm guessing now you're talking about just using an e-collar and the dog not knowing when it's going to get zapped? This I expect is where it comes down to expertise. Knowing when and how to use it.

Ben - all reasonable questions that I too would ask. Yet I'm seeing that things don't work how I imagine they might. A lot of the people that tell me they've used the collars are strangers on websites. But I know two personally and it really does work. I believe them to be honest people and when they say the dog only needed to be shocked once - just a tickle - then I tend to believe them. More information is needed. Reliable, scientific study.

I thought the thread was about keeping dogs off the lawn? Couldn`t the OP take the dogs out on lead? My dad managed when he was in a flat. And he was 70.

Why bother when theres a possibly-not-cruel alternative that requires minimal effort?