Minihaha
Originally Posted by the memorandum
2. Tim Yeo MP has entered an early day motion:

Clob
Oh good heavens Minihaha your really digging in sludge, that was a long a time ago, I think at least 18 months, and an EDM means very little anyway, it gives an MP the chance to write a ‘I looked into it letter’ in response to a constituent. Tony Baldry tried the same but no one takes them seriously for this past couple of years, to many users for one thing.

The Early Day Motion still stands, amendments can always be made to the bill, now you have drawn my attention to the subject of these collars Clob I shall approach my MP and raise the whole subject I am indebted to you Clob for raising the whole subject ..

Minihaha
I shall approach my MP and raise the whole subject I am indebted to you Clob for raising the whole subject

Clob
I am very surprised you have left it this late, below is copied from another site, someone asked for support for people to fill KCs postcard and send it to his MP, one member of the site did and the reply he got from his MP is below, its quite typical these days, after the initial concerns around 2002.

From another site.
dannie_kl-May 9 2006, 12:18 PM
i already filled it in posted it back and had a reply back to which the mp said she understands my concwern but are not going to try and do anything about it.

My MP was very helpful and supportive (and I wrote my own letter as i feel they count for more)

It is late, yes, but better late than never.

Clod where is your info please on what you wrote, supplied to DEFRA and where can we see it?

And thank you for the calm, reasoned, logical response. Believe me it's a rarity when this discussion gets wound up.

Snakeproofing is very precise work. I don't advocate that anyone who is not very familiair with the Ecollar attempt it. I don't like doing that training, I spend all day hurting dogs. I realize in the long run I'm saving their lives but it still isn't fun.

Yep that's why its one of the places that I recommend that beginners with the tool, even well accomplished users, let a pro handle it. The person also needs to be an accomplished snake handler too or at least have such a person around.

I only know Steve via email. But he sounds like a very good trainer. I wouldn't suggest that anyone try snakeproofing without professional help either. There are two dangers. The snake, and the high stim level. All sorts of fallout (unexpected, undesired behaviors) can occur with high level stim. Since it's possible to get lifetime learning with just one press of the button with some dogs, if the training isn't set up "just right" you can have serious problems.

I do like to have the last word but that has nothing to do with the fact that I didn't miss your point. Several of your statements were fairly common myths that exist about Ecollars.


We're talking about simple OB and minor problems here. (I realize that those problems are not minor to their owners.) For those I use nothing but low level stim.

I DON'T recommend it to others except for a very few situations. In those life saving is the long term goal.

I didn't omit anything that we're talking about. This conversation is not about poison-proofing or snakeproofing. It's about basic OB and minor problems. As soon as those topics were brought in, I responded.

I understand that there's no need to snakeproof. But some people may feel the need to do food refusal training. The article on snakeproofing was written for anyone who is interested in the topic, not just folks in the UK.

Snakeproofing is usually only done with high risk dogs. That would include dogs that frequently find themselves off leash in areas where snakes are prevalent. That's usually limited to SAR dogs or dogs that live in the heart of snake country. In this part of the world, Southern California there are many poisonous snakes. It's not even "snake season" yet (they're not fully active) and the news has reported three people bitten. (Stats on dogs being bitten aren't kept.)

I agree.

I don't justify it. In fact I say that it's almost never really necessary. That doesn't stop people from wanting the information.

I don't think so. Doing this kind of work on low levels just means that the dog will "tend" to avoid food in his environment. It's not sure enough to give lasting positive results. There aren't many people who really need this kind of training. But those who do need it need it to be 100%.

I disagree. If the long term result is saving the dog's life, I don't think it's abusive. Many cures are very unpleasant, both in the medical field and life in general. The result of a dog eating poisoned food, either intentionally given to him or just left lying about is an agonizing, excruciating death. I'd much prefer that he suffer 15 seconds or less of pain.

Actually I get more inquiries from people who are concerned about nutty neighbors who have threatened to kill their dogs with poison. I usually talk them out of it and if they insist I recommend that they use a professional as I always do when high levels of stim are involved.

No, never.

I don't. It's not necessary. All that is necessary once a dog is trained (Yes, I know that training really never stops) is an occasional tap on the shoulder (low level stim) when a dog is distracted.

I mentioned Simon because he's a good example of a highly aggressive dog that was saved by proper use of an Ecollar. Citing misuse of the Ecollar is a bit like railing against hammers because one was (mis)used to commit a murder. The vast majority of hammers are used for productive work.

Simon's story is also interesting because the fella who did the work, Larry Tillack, had never before used an Ecollar for anything but to stop game chasing. He'd read threads like this one (where people were arguing against the Ecollar and I was responding) and thought that it might help in this situation. At that time I didn't have the articles written so I talked Larry through the training on the phone! He took notes and did the work from those notes. It's an example of how simple proper use of the tool really is!

Of course. LOL

I agree. Some people will misuse whatever tool you put into their hands. It's the nature of the beast that most people will use it properly but some users will misuse it. But the fact is that Ecollars exist and at this stage of the game the best response is education. When you see misuse tell those folks, "You know there really is a better way of training your dog that doesn't involve hurting him." People who misuse the tool (unless they're abusers and few pet owners are) don't like hurting their dogs they just don't know any better. Give them the link to my website. It's free! Lol.

I disagree that the tool is "more than any other open to severe abuse." They're expensive so very few abusers bother. Sometimes they get bitten for their abuse with an Ecollar too.

There are a few others who do the work as I do but relatively few. Many people in bitework just use the tool for punishment training at fairly high stim levels. Most of the dogs that I train that bite are in LE (law enforcement) and the main reason they exist is for their scent work. High level stim can distract the dog from that scentwork and so I use low level stim with those dogs. It just takes another way of looking at the work. Basically I teach a dog to release a bite by teaching him to recall at low levels of stim away from the bitework. When he's got the habit the bite is introduced and then the dog is recalled. He can't recall to the handler and keep biting so the decoy (the guy taking the bite) is released. This usually takes 20-30 minutes.

The reality is that Ecollars are available and efforts to ban them have failed repeatedly in the UK. This is a message that at this time the best response is to report abuse whenever you see it and educate those who are misusing.

The same can be said of any tool. But the fact is that far more dogs will be properly trained and they will enjoy full rewarding lives with their owners.

I'm sorry, I lost your meaning here. I'm too tired to go back through the posts and find it. Can you restate it please? I don't know much about gundog work, it's not what I do. I know a bit but I'm not an expert there.

More than likely if you'd actually seen it you'd change this opinion. I wrote earlier that when I work in front of a group they can't tell when I'm pressing the button. How horrendous can it be if even "expert" onlookers can't tell when it's happening. If dogs were yelping in pain or flipping over backwards or even exhibiting the fear you mention frequently it would be some quite different. But people can't even tell when the work is occurring. The only change in the dog is that he starts doing what I want.

You've pointed out that there aren't any "advanced trainers" on this list. The people here need tools that give them results that don't require an advanced trainer's attention. Not everyone can afford the expert and many people don't learn well in that fashion.

It failed last legislative session and I think it's also failed this time. But even if they are it will just make possible the existence of a black market that will be selling the same tool at an inflated price. Banning an object has never eliminated its use. If someone wants to commit abuse with the tool they'll still be able to get it. The sad fact is that if people can't get training done with your methods because they aren't competent enough or they simply aren't working on their dog, that dog will wind up being put to sleep rather than the possibility of having an Ecollar used properly on him.

They've been banned because of political correctness, not for any other reason.

It's via email and phone alike. Sorry but since the political climate in your country has banned the tool for use by police they'd be disciplined if their identities were revealed. You don’t have to believe me, my feelings won't be hurt. (no sarcasm is intended and I understand your position perfectly).

It's interesting and an example of political correctness that sometimes runs governments that the Ecollar was banned for LE in the UK in an incident that had nothing to do with them at all. It came about when some police in Essex kicked a dog named Acer to death. (Note that they used boots, not the Ecollar.) When those officers were disciplined they banned several tools. Interestingly, the Ecollar is the only one that can't cause physical injury to the dog.

You may be right. Politicians often respond to pressure from extremists rather than bow to common sense.

Your statements about health problems are wrong. Ecollars don't interfere with a dog's heart beat. They only travel through the surface layers of skin, a few millimeters deep at most. The rest is just opinion and everyone has one of those.

Well let me be direct. Have you seen any dogs that either of us have trained? If so, where and when. I'd bet a paycheck that you haven't and so my statement is true and accurate.

That's not my meaning and apparently it wasn't written correctly for you. I apologize if you got that meaning. No one else has that I know of. In any case, food refusal training is probably done less often than snakeproofing and that's pretty rare. I'd suppose that less than .05% of the dogs in the US are snake proofed and that the figure for food refusal training is even less.

Thanks for staying polite. Sometimes these discussion go south and that sidetracks from the conversation.

If you're taking about me (as one of them) thank you VERY much.

Dawn I can't prove a negative but I'd think that if even one had occurred the anti-Ecollar folks would be shouting it to the heavens and they'd soon be banned by every country. Ecollars are one of those inventions that sprang up in a couple of places at about the same time. In the US it was in the early 1960's. Since then many millions of dogs have had Ecollars used on them. I don't know of one case of a dog's death that can be attributed to the Ecollar.

Ailsa I must congratulate you and most of the rest of the members of this forum. I've had many conversations about the Ecollar on forums that originate in the UK. This one has been the most enjoyable because most people are polite and reasonable. It's very refreshing!

Ecollars aren't necessary.

I agree. But just judging by posts on this forum it's not a perfect world. Many dogs get into trouble for doing this. And once a dog has had success at doing it, it's even harder to stop.

I'll agree that this may be able to be done with many dogs. It will take loads of time. Some people simply refuse to keep their dogs on leash all the time and so this problem will continue. I've never had a failure using my method of stopping a dog from chasing game. I know of many failures using other methods.

Can you tell us how you do this and make sure that it's 100%? I've never come across anyone who says this.

Shooting makes noise that attracts attention and that means that someone is liable to see the offender. They don't want that. Let's not forget that a gun will leave no doubt that the dog was killed intentionally. Few people will go to the expense of a necropsy. And a gun often leaves evidence that can be traced back to and can identify the shooter. Poisoning is much easier and there's much less chance of being caught to simply put some poison into a ball of meat, toss it into the yard during the night and wait for the dog to find it. Most people who think that their dogs are at risk for this simply don't have the means to keep dogs contained all the time.

I agree. There's also no need for ice cream but I had some last night and probably will tonight too! Sorry to say, but I'm an ice cream abuser. Just ask my waistline. LOL. (Not to make light of your comments, just lightening up a bit.)

Earlier I wrote: How long would you "persevere?" One year? Two? Four? How long do you think it's reasonable to persevere?

Since I mentioned "four years" I have to say that I think this is unconscionable. Training at this rate dogs don't live long enough for them to learn more than a few behaviors. For life threatening situations, not recalling, running into the street, chasing cars, dashing out the door I think that training to stop these behaviors needs to be as quick as possible. Taking four years to get that done means that there's a good chance of a dog doing one, or more, of them and being killed.

Simon was "deemed unrehomeable" because of being "person aggressive" and was rehabilitated with the Ecollar using low level stim methods by someone who never before had done this kind of work. It took three days! I'm gong to have to disagree strongly here.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this last part. Was the link removed by the mods?

Simon was an abused dog, Larry thought that he'd been beaten in an effort to make him bite. Just as you mention, he'd lost it's trust in humans. Simon wouldn't let anyone touch him without biting, or trying to bite them. He inflicted a very hard bite on the animal control officer who brought him in. fortunately she was partially protected by a very heavy jacket she was wearing. The Ecollar was used with great success with him.

I may have some video showing this stuff and the video software but I don't know how to post it. Let me see if I can figure this out.

Understandable.

Earlier I wrote: TENS units emit an electrical shock too. They're used in physical therapy to help people recover from injuries. They're not cruel either. If you stick two knives into an electrical outlet you'll get a severe shock, perhaps enough to kill you, but electricity isn't cruel. Cruelty, like abuse is in how it's used.


I'm sorry but you're quite wrong about it being "ineffectual as a training aid." The "tingling" sensation on the dog's skin is uncomfortable to him. He wants it to stop. I guide him into the proper behavior and then turn off the stim. He learns to comply in order to make the tingle stop.

I've said this repeatedly.

Please stop using the word "pain." Pain is a continuum that ranges from the highest level "I can't stand that for another second." To "It's cold I think I need a sweater." Proper Ecollar work is done at the latter level.

Now as to the horror of inflicting this on a dog. Often those "alternative ways to train" don't work. Sometimes they're not applied properly, sometimes the dog just doesn't respond to them. Often it's a combination of the two. Either way, people aren't getting the results they want. The Ecollar is an option they might want to consider.

Who are you writing this for? Do you imagine that the readers of this forum are among the ranks of the abusers? I think far worse than an Ecollar in the hands of the wrong person is that same person with a stick! That will hurt just as much AND cause physical injury. Why is it that you folks always talk about potential abuse when the rest of us are talking about training.

Folks look at the extremes that some people will go to, to try and scare you out of using an Ecollar. No one has suggested that this is an acceptable form of training. I wouldn't use an Ecollar to get a dog out of a chair in any case. I too would train him not to get on it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Clob
I have never said an e-collar could not be painful,

no one has said in this thread or anywhere else that I can think of that an Ecollar can't be painful. What has been said is that this is not the only way to use the tool. Nothing has changed; there has been no revelation.

I know that's fine with me and I'd bet that Clob feels the same way. But some forum members may think that it's exactly their cup of tea.

Oops too late. LOL.

I certainly don't think so. Those folks are all animal rights extremists with an agenda to protect established trainers. The fact that they've failed twice now in their efforts to ban them, says plenty.

I don't think that Clob is an American.

I don't sell guns and really don't want to get into this discussion but if I didn't carry a gun my children would be fatherless and my wife husbandless. I'm here today only because I was able to use my gun to save my life when I was attacked by a homeless, drug and alcohol intoxicated, armed man who wanted to kill me.

Every time I respond to this thread the message box is topped by this message. I trust that it's the same with you.

Please abide by this request from the moderators. Such comments as the last two of yours that I quoted are clearly not pertinent to this discussion. They serve only to distract from it. I understand that you don't like Ecollars but please don't interfere with the ability of others to gather information.

Me too.

What studies of what claims are you looking for? I haven't said anything that needs scientific support. It's always been your side of this discussion that's cited so-called scientific studies to support your side of the discussion.

You have this backwards. One can't prove a negative, that something doesn't happen. The argument against this is "next time it might." Rather the burden lies with those folks who claim that dogs ARE harmed by Ecollars. Please show us those studies. When you do I'll point out how and where their flaws are so deep as to make them worthless.

I haven't cited any studies. What are you talking about?

I'm sorry but this is soooooo wrong. I don't have to have ever written a single paper to be able to find fault with a so-called scientific study done by someone else.

That would be tillytails.

I think you're being a bit silly. The article available to anyone who know how to spell my name and has access to a search engine. It's been available for about eight years. I haven't hidden anything. Never do. Never will. I've also never denied that an Ecollar can be painful if high levels of stim are used.

I don't think that you can logically speak for all "pet owners in the UK." If only one of them decided that they wanted to do it you'd be wrong.

Gonna disagree. Sometimes it is a matter of life and death. The fact that you disagree so strongly just shows that it's beyond your imagination.

Here's what you wrote then, "And that dogs can suffer not only from burns or uncontrolled shocks from malfunctioning collars but cardiac fibrillation plus psychological stress." And " I also understand that repeated shocks can lead to changes in the heart and respiration rate or gastrointestinal disorders."

These are phenomena that are easily proved with a scientific study. When you make such a statement you should be prepared to back it up with facts. You didn't and you still haven't. If I were to say, "Eating kidney pie causes cancer of the throat." It would be up to me to provide evidence to support that opinion. It's illogical that I'd demand that you provide evidence that it doesn't happen.

The burden of proof is on you. If you think that the things occur that you say, then show us.

Neither of us have stated or inferred that our opinion is based on anything but our experience. In my case that's over 1,000 dogs.

That will happen just as soon as you stop making claims that Ecollar can cause any of the problems that you mention.

Since the article has been available on the web for eight years it's obvious that I've never denied using high level stim for these two purposes. However we're not discussing poison proofing or snakeproofing here. We're discussing basic Ob and the solving of minor problems. I don't use high level stim for either of those.

For the purposes of this discussion, that's the case.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

It's not the topic of discussion here. Why would I mention it?

Minihaha] quote from evidence and this was the finding of the legislature.

There ya go!

Me too.

And that was enough. I guess all the others who presented did not show a very good case if all it took to overcome them was one vet and one behaviorist.

Willing to bet that neither the vet nor the behaviorist had even heard of low level use. Even knowing that virtually only high level stim use was the case, the legislature wasn't persuaded. When they learn of low level stim use, it will be over.

Look folks if you believe that high levels stim use is abuse, there are tons of laws already on the books outlawing it. Use those laws and punish the abusers.

I've never started one of these discussion. I've only responded when and if (almost all the time) people start making false statements or discussing myths as if they were fact. If you don't want us here then I'd suggest that when someone asks about the tool that you present only what you know to be facts. Otherwise expect us, well, at least me, to respond if I hear about it.

I'm not advocating the Ecollar as a "last resort." I use one on almost every dog that I train.

Here are some things that some have claimed occur, "burns, cardiac fibrillation, psychological stress, changes in the heart and respiration rate or gastrointestinal disorders." If they occurred it can easily be shown in a scientific study. But they haven't been. Wondering why that is?

i think diffrent things work 4 diffrent dog's and people and as long as you and your dog are happy and no1 is getting hurt then it is ok.

Wysiwig
Clod where is your info please on what you wrote, supplied to DEFRA and where can we see it?

Clob
With DEFRA - there were videos as well including the Master Plus and including files of pet owners cases from the net forums showing the misery many are suffering from the competing product 'Positive Training'.

There were/are 1 case of a dog being PTS at the hands of an APDT member, a case of an APDT originotor telling a client to PTS a dog, although she wrote a furious letter herself, a case of a Positive Trainer who told someone to 'consider' a 6 month old Staff bitch was PTS because it had developed aggression as the result of her training - lots of things people I had trained went in later in 2004 only a couple had not been to 'positive Training/ers'.

A few independant trainers have got their clients to write to their MP's because APDT trainers had told them to PTS their dogs, the independent trainers trained the people no problem at all.

Two years ago someone said that the membership of that organisation (apdt) was only 500, no trainer can or should tell any pet onwer to PTS their dog, let alone such a high KNOWN % (we know its the tip of an iceberg) for such a low number of trainers. The most any trainer can a pet owner is "I cannot train you and your dog". I think APDT should be renamed 'The Death Squad'.

As I have pointed out, the official sales figueres of e-collars sold in the UK by companies trading within the UK was 750,000 by last July, the imports from US would be posasibly double that and not one single case of anything.

- I suppose you would have to write into DEFRA and ask them for any papers I submit/ed, presumably giving reasons why you want them, maybe you could ask your MP to ask them what he is allowed.

I can't read all that, my eyes hurt, I'm surprised you can manage to type it all unclllou!

I did try to read the bits pertaining to me, as usual I stand by what I've written.

RE the scientific study, it all has to be set up correctly or it wouldn't be accepted, I'd think that would be very hard to do.

Just would mention though unclllou that you appear to have attributed something to me that I didn't mention at all, about the heart and electric collars ... it may have been Leo rather than me I think.

OK I will ask if they are available to me.

Not sure what an APDT originator is, can you tell me? Do you mean someone who started up the organisation?
RE the staffie, that rings a bell, can you explain the circumstances a bit more?

Something of course that happens is that trainers get those who badmouth others (often because they as owners haven't put in the required work and so the "quick fix" is what they prefer). I've met many people who have badmouthed both good and bad trainers, it's not even always who is good or bad, but whether owner and trainer get on -personality wise.

I've never heard of any trainer getting people to put their dogs to sleep, it would be unusual. Sometimes they will say "this needs to be worked on or the alternative may be put to sleep" or similar, but it's not the same as actually being told to put to sleep.

Have to add as well that I d0n't agree positive training is responsibe for problems - dogs have problems and have always had them.The main problem is modern life, owners often both at work with not time for training, affection and stimulation.

I use postive training and it's great, but one must understand how to give consequences. If using extinction and also negative punishment on rare occasions you can have a very well trained dog indeed. I've got one.

I wish this had been reported better, as I'm not clear how the original shock occurred, but a court decided the dogs' aggression was due to the electric collars they were wearing (and presumably were used on a relatively high level although were also presumably modern collars).

Sadly a small dog died and another was attacked later.

http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/.../NEWS80ZM.html

It's an old report but interesting nevertheless.