|
Location: UK
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,065
|
12-04-2010, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by MichaelM 
I'm suggesting that the publicty gained by the KC from this detracts from other equally if not more important issues.
From the BBC site: Communications Director Caroline Kisko said: "Electric shock collars train dogs through pain and through fear - they are a cruel, outdated and unsuitable method of training dogs. "
Strong emotional language, the KC are now able to claim they are making a real difference regarding dog welfare. I'm saying that is a bad thing as the issues I previously raised can be put aside (at least for the time being). It is my opinion that this outweighs any good that has been achieved by the welsh ban.
The step in the right direction is the ban in Wales. From 2010 Animal Welfare (electonic collars) (Wales): it is prohibited for a person to:
(a) attach an electronic collar to a cat or dog:
(b) cause an electronic collar to be attached to a cat or dog: or
(c) be responsible for a cat or dog to which an electronic collar is attached.
The collar itself has not been banned, and it is not an offence to be in possesion of an electronic collar, and so policing of this act is at best difficult, if not totally impractical.
According to the E-collars manufacturers's association, there are roughly 500 000 collars in the UK, 20 000 in Wales. I've never actually seen anyone using an e-collar so I suspect that most are lying dormant somewhere - but I'll leave the estimate of how many are in regular use in Wales to someone else.
So just how much good has really been done through the enactment of this ban?
I'm suggesting that any good which comes from it may well be outweighed by the the harm that is allowed to continue (due to the points I've allready raised).
The fact that the ban does not include being in possession of one has already been discussed further back in the thread - which is obviously a loophole which certain people will flout
However - I still believe that any step that a) helps to educate people towards better training practices and b) works towards the welfare of dogs is going to be a good thing - whether the KC/Blue X/Dogs trust etc are involved....and as I stated in the bit that you did not reply to....people are not going to magically forget the other issues and will continue to keep pressing the KC on these things.
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,497
|
12-04-2010, 08:49 PM
The anti's repeating the same questions and me answer (in a way I feel gets the info across).
I would suggest that instead of continueing the debate as it has been done people ask me (if they want to of course) training questions related to the use of thee collar. I feel this will be alot more informative than a continued discussion on ethics.
Adam
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
12-04-2010, 10:21 PM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
From my perspective this thread has become circular.
The anti's repeating the same questions and me answer (in a way I feel gets the info across).
I would suggest that instead of continueing the debate as it has been done people ask me (if they want to of course) training questions related to the use of thee collar. I feel this will be alot more informative than a continued discussion on ethics.
Adam
rune
|
|
|
Location: Australia
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,032
|
13-04-2010, 01:09 AM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
From my perspective this thread has become circular.
The anti's repeating the same questions and me answer (in a way I feel gets the info across).
I would suggest that instead of continueing the debate as it has been done people ask me (if they want to of course) training questions related to the use of thee collar. I feel this will be alot more informative than a continued discussion on ethics.
Adam
At the end of the day, you won't change my mind and nor I to yours.
Unfortunately I find ethics a primary reason to discuss the issue and any further discussion is not necessary as the reasons you have already given give me no desire to ask you questions on how, where, why you use them, as I don't believe they have a use in the context you have described and again find it flawed thinking on your behalf.
They are banned in Wales, they are banned in other countries, and hopefully they continue to get banned, then there will be no more need for discussion as it simply comes down to law and whether you are willing to break the law or not.
|
|
|
Location: Essex, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,147
|
13-04-2010, 06:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex UK
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,044
|
13-04-2010, 06:33 AM
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
From my perspective this thread has become circular.
The anti's repeating the same questions and me answer (in a way I feel gets the info across).
I would suggest that instead of continueing the debate as it has been done people ask me (if they want to of course) training questions related to the use of thee collar. I feel this will be alot more informative than a continued discussion on ethics.
Adam
On a slightly different topic, I didn't know that the use of ecollars in Wales had only been banned on dogs & cats ~ what about other animals, horses being a prime example? I was under the misguided impression that their use had been banned on all animals. And I'm very worried about how effective the legislation is going to be, bearing in mind the probably insurmountable problems of policing it. I have a horrible feeling that whilst it may stop SOME so called professional dog trainers & behaviourists from using them, especially if this is their livelihood & the adverse publicity that they would attract if caught, but if ecollars are owned & used by members of the public, how on earth can they be stopped, other than someone reporting them?
|
|
|
|
Location: cornwall uk
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,132
|
13-04-2010, 09:58 PM
Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy
Yes, Adam, you`re getting your point across - that you are an inexperienced young trainer that doesn`t know how to use modern methods.
Very strange uni course it seems!
rune
|
|
|
Location: Dogsey and Worcestershire
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 49,483
|
13-04-2010, 11:20 PM
Originally Posted by Wilbar
With this in mind, I would be glad to hear your views on my comments in Post 214, which seems to have been lost somewhere back in this thread!
Originally Posted by Adam Palmer
Wilbar.
What was your question?
I can't seem to find it lol.
Originally Posted by wilbar
I've been having a rummage round t'internet for info on the use of punishment in general & the pros & cons of +ve pun/-ve reinf vs +reinf/-ve pun.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behaviour (AVSAB) has position statements on these points (plus references to various studies if you want to read the full version but these extracts are relevant:
"Even when punishment seems mild, in order for it to be effective it must elicit a strong fear response, and this fear can generalise to things that sound or look similar. Punishment has also been shown to elicit aggressive behaviour in many species of animals. Thus, using punishment can put the person administering it or any person near the animal at risk of being bitten or attacked."
"Positive punishment and negative reinforcement involve aversives, force, coercion or physical corrections. Many companies refer to their products as negative reinforcement products when they are actually punishment products because the goal is to stop a behaviour by adding something the animal dislikes, e.g. ultrasonic anti-bark devises are punishment because their goal is to stop barking. Whether a technique is punishment or reinforcement depends on whether the predominant goal of the technique is to stop a behaviour (punishment) or increase it (reinforcement). In the case of negative reinforcement, it's important that the aversive should stop as soon as the animal starts behaving appropriately."
Adam ~ in the light of the above, do you agree that ecollars are punishment because, in the context you use them, their goal is to stop sheep chasing (or even looking at sheep). You are not using them to increase the behaviour of looking at you, or looking at the sky, or looking at their feet, you are using them to STOP them looking at sheep, therefore, using operant conditioning principles, ecollars are instruments of punishment because they are used to stop a behaviour.
Secondly, using the same principles of operant conditioning & punishment in the form of ecollars, "even when the punishment seems mild, in order for it to be effective, it must elicit a strong fear response". So regardless of your opinion that the dog only gets a "mild" shock, or that in your opinion, the outward behavioural signs are not that of a normal strong fear response (because the dog is not yelping, screaming, cowering or whatever) ~ you must now agree that if the ecollar IS working because the sheep chasing or sheep looking behaviour is stopping, then the ecollar MUST be working as positive punishment.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,497
|
14-04-2010, 08:29 PM
1. Anytime you use an aversive you will use positive punishment (when you apply it) and negative reinforcment when you remove it. It's the timing of both that's important for sheep chasing.
Interestingly anytime you use pr you also ue negative punishment.
2, no punishment doesn't (and shouldn't) create a fear response. To do so would reduce the dogs capacity to learn. Punishment (or aversive) simply create avoidance behaviour.
To use the analogy of people. You don't fear bright sunlight you simply avoid it when it gets too hot.
Adam
|
|