Wys, although I know what your view is on collars (you've consistently spoken out against them, and in favour of a U.K. wide ban), I'm not sure I know what you're reasoning is behind this view (e.g. I don't think you've ever claimed they cause burns, or that using one is equivalent to plugging an animal into the mains supply, etc).

Whilst I find it wholly acceptable/right that your individual opinion is against e-collars, what I don't find acceptable, is that you wish to impose your view on others (who may not agree) without backing it up with good evidence.

Which brings me onto the first point. If, as some have claimed, e-collars in themselves cause burns etc, then it doesn't matter who's being used in the study - the collars will cause damage regardless.

Second point, so it's not that e-collars are themself the problem, it's the pet owner. I've said on this thread (784), and elsewhere that the biggest risk is the potential for misuse, but is that in itself a good enough reason to enact a U.K. wide ban? I happen to think not, I've written more fully on it elsewhere (to be trained in their use etc).

If it makes it easier for you to process my views by thinking I cannot be serious, therefore I must be playing a game instead of expressing a serious, genuine, and committed personal belief, then thats fair enough

Dont forget though, that would also let Adam off the hook

PS - i always give this reply when this line is thrown my way
I dont do 'code speak'

E collars or 'shock' collars do exactly what it says on the description. They give an animal an electric shock which is at best uncomfortable and at worst very painful.

The people who call it a 'stim' or describe them as 'remote training collars' know this.

The reason they use a different description is because they know that it is considered unacceptable to go around giving animals electric shocks.

The fact that they are not willing to be guinea pigs for their method says that it is painful.

What I find hardest to understand is WHY anyone would want to do it? I know from my own experiences with many dogs of my own and lots of dogs in rescue --over 50 years-- that it simply isn't needed. It is medieval in concept (although I do know electricity wasn't around then!) and we as a race should be moving forwards not backwards.

I agree with wys and her stand, it isn't just about trying to get everyone round to a point of view, it is about basic human decency regarding the treatment of animals. It is just a small part of animal welfare and there are many other things which need to move on as well. Full marks to anyone trying to change any of it.

rune

If e-collar abusers refers to people of the mentality of Arthur Kent, I'm not sure what the way ahead is .

If it refers to people who might be using an e-collar incorrectly through ignorance, then I believe education and training is the way forward. Implementing a ban when the user can see with their own eyes that their e-collar "works" will (in my opinion) be of little, if any benefit - especially a ban such as that enacted in Wales (it's not illegal to buy or to own an e-collar, it's the fitting/causing a collar to be fitted/being in charge of an animal fitted with the collar to that is the offence).

If by e-collar abusers, you mean anyone that uses one.... that's not what you meant is it?

Hope you don't mind me jumping in on this. I don't think it's a matter of imposing personal views, rather that the whole thing is the wrong way round. E-collars have the potential to cause significant physical and psychological damage to their intended victim (doubt anyone, even a collar user would argue with that). With that in mind, surely they should never have been allowed onto the market in the first place until it was proved (evidenced) that the potential harm could be eliminated.

The things are marketed in a 'quick fix' way so will appeal to many owners who are unaware of the potential damage they can cause. Misleading? You betcha. Also, and I'm sure even Adam will back this up, there are many different models of e-collars that are readily available. Some of the cheaper versions are painful on the lowest setting, let alone the highest.

The debate on this is not so different to the other debates that have led to the improvement of welfare standards for other animals - recently battery hens, pig pens etc. Whilst still not ideal, it's the campaigns of those who could be said to wish to 'impose their personal view' who won the day giving some improvement to the lives of these creatures.

that would hold if the test subjects were randomly chosen from a list of e-collar purchasers. However, this would not have been possible. Volunteers were needed and my guess is that participants were obtained from training organisations, clubs and individual trainers - do you think a trainer would put forward a candidate where the training had gone wrong to the extent that an animal had been injured?

Pet owner and pet come as a team with the one making the decisions playing a vital part. If it was possible to get true statistics on how many collars were misused against used correctly then possibly strong evidence as to the risks associated with this line of thinking would show a truer picture. There is, of course, the very strong argument that deliberately inflicting physical pain and discomfort to an animal to train it is not acceptable.

i mean people that use electricity to train dogs.
granted their is some grey area re settings and pain levels (although this begs into question the need for up to 127 settings....im not buying the some dogs have a drive blocker excuse), but their is definite emotional abuse.
e collars are a dampener that reduces expression and messes with cognition.
they shouldnt also be anywhere near the average dog trainer whom typically trains with bad timing and annoyance/frustration.

i dont really have an issue with a ban.

who is arhur kent?

lots of things work, doesnt mean they are good.
most pet dog owners i know wouldnt like the idea of e collars anyway, so wouldnt be bothered to rationalise it the way you say anyway.

E-collars do indeed work on the principle of electric shock -I'm not claiming otherwise. However:

Although electronic training devices can produce significant pain and distress, the subjective effects of low to medium ES do not warrant the term pain as defined by....... (IASP). Ref: Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training (Sreven R Lindsay).


Positive reinforcement isn't 100% in all situations, I don't think there's an argument against that, and there is evidence to suggest that e-collars are an effective training tool.

I'm open to the idea of change - I don't have a closed mind. But the more I look into it, I'm finding more evidence in support than against - and maybe that should be of some concern. The emotionally charged responses and mocking analogies do nothing to covince me otherwise.

Not at all, thanks for the reply. I'll get back to you later, have to go for now.

Michael, hope you dont mind me answering here too, of course I am not speaking to wys here

The fact they may cause burns or can be abused by the GP I think is terrible - but it is not my only reason for wishing them banned

They hurt - if they didnt hurt they wouldnt work

- yes the people who like them say they dont, but I think we have seen enough in the videos on this thread to see that these people also do not read dogs very well and so are not able to see the pain and distress

So we are using pain to train - yes it works - after a fashion

Punishment supresses behaviour, it STOPS dogs doing things - not only the thing that you are trying to stop but all things, the dogs do less doggy things. To the uneducated this looks like a well trained dog - he dosent jump up, he dosent chase cars, he dosent ask for walks, food, pets, attention, dosent pull on lead
But this is not a happy healthy way to be, its depressive and introverted, they are not not doing these things because they have been trained what is expected of them, they are not doing these things because they dont want to try things for fear of more punishment

There are always people asking for the proof these things are cruel, I dont think WE need to prove it

E collars are not needed, there are alternatives
electricity hurts
so before someone uses one they should see proper studies showing that the dogs are NOT hurt and are not in any mental or physical discomfort, that there are no long term negative effects on the dog

Just because something appears to work is not a good enough reason to justify it

if yor dog chases sheep a 100% cure would be to amputate the dogs legs - but is that the best solution?

<<<Although electronic training devices can produce significant pain and distress, the subjective effects of low to medium ES do not warrant the term pain as defined by....... (IASP). Ref: Handbook of Applied Dog Behaviour and Training (Sreven R Lindsay).>>.

As defined by what? What on earth does 'subjective effect' mean?

rune