... 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.

Sorry, me again, just rushing to post this before I go down for dinner as this is really relevant to the topic and questions asked.

This is part of the Consultation Scarter referred to, and is the contribution of the APBC (Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors)

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

It is all an interesting read, very informative - however, scroll down to the Case Studies at the very end, and find 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3

All examples of electronic boundary fencing causing behaviour problems

Wys
x

scarter

For what it's worth, the government conducted a study into this and their finding was that there was no evidence to suggest they were cruel and that many people were using them successfully to improve the lives of their dogs (make them safer, give them more freedom etc).

It's perfectly reasonable to ask for a link to a study and I will track it down. I know I've posted the link on these forums more than once so the worst case scenario is I need to search through my own posts to find it. And find it I will as I know it opened my mind on the subject and made me decide to research further before ruling out the approach. But please be patient as it may take a little while to track it down.

But in the meantime to clarify...

Yes, a further, more in-depth review has since been commissioned. If I remember correctly this was recommended in the report that I am referring to.

The study that I am referring to (if I remember correctly) obtained opinions from a wide range of experts in the field rather than actually carrying out tests and studies. The finding was that there was no grounds to ban the collars as whilst one group claimed they were harmful or cruel, an equally large and equally qualified group claimed that they were a useful tool that helped some dogs to lead fuller, happier lives and even saved many lives. Further research was recommended - and the result was the study that is now ongoing.

I will track down the report in question and post it up for those that are interested.

I agree wholeheartedly with those that say that opinions shouldn't be passed off as fact. That certainly wasn't my intention - in fact I don't have a firm opinion. The point I was trying to make is that I am open minded as I've seen lots of sound arguments and demonstrations in favour that in my mind at least countered the arguments I've heard against. As others have pointed out, the current situation is that there is no consensus amongst experts and as a result of this and the pressure to ban from certain groups, the government has seen fit to invest a large amount of money on a study. None of us can do more than offer opinions until that study is complete and the findings published.

I wasn't aware that the independent study will be complete in 2010. I'll await the results of that with interest.

Someone mentioned (implied) that certain opinions shouldn't be allowed to be expressed on this forum if they fly in the face of what the majority believe to be true. This is very often the case on discussion forums. You find that a certain viewpoint is passed of as fact and dissenting views are shouted down. This is why I'm reluctant to form opinions based upon such information sources without further research. A lot (certainly not all) of what you read on discussion forums is reactionary and emotive. I haven't done any serious research into this but I make a point of picking peoples brains when I get the chance and what those that use the method tell and show me is frequently not matching up with what you read in the popular press, websites and discussion forums. It happens both ways - some forums will be 'for' others 'anti'. But it's rare to find a forum where people freely exchange opinions as hostility and mob rule tends to put a stop to that fast!

But you're absolutely right - I really need to find and post the link to that report. I really did find it put things in perspective and gave an unbiased summary of expert opinion and current research. Useful for people like the OP who have an open mind and want to find out more.

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree that it's all just opinion until we see the results of the study that's currently taking place. That's why I'm still open minded about it

scarter

For what it's worth, the government conducted a study into this and their finding was that there was no evidence to suggest they were cruel and that many people were using them successfully to improve the lives of their dogs (make them safer, give them more freedom etc).

I haven't yet found the link to the actual report, but here's the governments standpoint in August 2007 - given in response to a petition. This reads very much like the report I'm referring to and this is the jyst of what the report said.

Will still track down the report though as that outlines the methods used to obtain the information and draw their conclusions.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page12967

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?

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.

There is, by the same token, absolutely no evidence to suggest they are NOT cruel.

It is not too soon to make an informed decision as the information is out there. What isn't out there is scientific research...but there soon will be.

Hi,

Just ut of curiosity - have you done any research at all on what tyres of fencing is available?

You've had a lot of suggestions but seem to be insisting on the eleectric fence/collar. I get the impression you've already decided to go ahead with this anyway.

Laura xx

But those who use TENS machines (myself included) have CHOSEN to use them.
It doesn't feel like an electric shock, just a vibration.
I don't use mine on the most sensitive part of my neck - and I also know when the sensation is going to happen and why!

Last week on another thread the OP stated that she doesn't walk her dogs on a daily basis and instead plays games in the garden, then this week stated that she works sometimes from 7.30-6pm. Clearly the garden games aren't happening much, and she isn't there tp play anyway. Maybe if the OP were to walk her dogs rather than dumping them in the garden, there wouldn't be an issue? But then I'm sure they look perfectly happy.

Just a thought...

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.

http://www.johnknowsdogs.com/in-kenn...artraining.htm
.

Polsky discusses the effect of shock collar-based fencing on the behaviour of dogs, citing five incidents in which dogs exposed to this type of containment then went on to become aggressive (Polsky 2000). The implication was that in each case the dog had received a shock when approaching people in the perimeter zone and were then shocked. As suggested by other research, dogs may make inappropriate associations between shock and other experiences. In all cases, the dog was positioned directly within the signal field and therefore must have received a shock.

Well worth a read

Wys
x

Ramble, yes, to clarify again - it was not a scientific study but rather an in-depth study of expert opinion and existing evidence.

And the conclusion of that (a large group of people were consulted according to wysiwyg) was that there was no consensus. Those that were consulted were split 50/50. There was no EVIDENCE to suggest the devices were cruel and many people reported they used them to improve the quality of life of some dogs and even save lives.



Absolutely!!! Which is why I keep an open mind until we have enough evidence to make an informed decision.



Ahhh...but that's what both sides say!!!

The bottom line is that the governments in-depth study into the results of a large consultation and available evidence found no grounds to consider the devices unsafe or ban them or control their use. This doesn't mean they are considered safe - it just means that the independent group that evaluated the available evidence and viewpoints concluded that there was not yet enough information to decide either way.

I am not suggesting that the devices are safe. I don't have an opinion either way. I guess I'm just hinting that those that state as fact that they are dangerous or cruel are perhaps missleading people a little?

Hopefully I've put your mind at rest by spelling out my thoughts more clearly.

I cant be sat outside 8 hours a day with them, michael enjoyes sitting outside during the day, even till late evening, i am trying to find a way he can do this, without messing the lawn.

ATD x

I don`t think you are because many people have suggested alternatives. What you are trying to do is win an argument with your parents IMO.
At the end of the day it`s their house, their rules. If you refuse to use aversive methods, it still leaves you with the same problem.
Many people have made suggestions which you have not given due consideration, always coming back to the `Shall I use an electric shock to train my dogs?`. I would be extremely surprised if anyone can tell you more than you already know - which is that this would be a mistake.
So why are you not presenting your parents with alternatives? Or trying to find a dog-sitter for the days you are out?