|
Location: Essex, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,147
|
|
Location: Sutton Coldfield. UK
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 371
|
11-11-2009, 03:15 PM
|
|
Location: Helmshore, uk
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 828
|
11-11-2009, 03:55 PM
Originally Posted by Ramble 
Yep...opinions are great and yes, people should be able to post their opinions...BUT to post an OPINION and then say is is backed up by an indepth government report is actually putting your opinion over as a FACT. It is saying this is my opinion...but since it is backed up by all this evidence it is a FACT, when in reality there is no such evidence, that's why it is dangerous. People will come on and think it is true...when it is an opinion...just that...an opinion. There is no indepth government study because that study is still being done.
Scarter's posts are always well written and intelligent...therein lies the danger..it sounds feasible, yet there is no link to support what Scarter says.
As I said above, yet you slated my initial post which essentially said the same thing. I have no problem with opinions...but when said opinions are put across as being fact I think that is dangerous when dealing with a subject matter as contentious as this one.
That's what I was trying to say. Thanks.
Which is why I re posted saying that I agreed that you need to be able to back up fact with evidence otherwise it is just opinion.....
Let me try and explain myself better.....
My own inital opinion on these types of electric collers was that they were quite good and effective.
That was based on what i had seen of them- happy free roaming dogs. I had not seen any examples of ill usage or effects.
However, because people on this thread have had a change to voice a range of differining opinions and examples, I have been prompted to change my own opinion- and i now feel quite anti!!
My limited experience of them was obviously not enough to really see what they are like..........
So this is how having a whole range of opinions on here is helpful..........
Having said that I am big enough and ugly enough not to be 'lead' by so called studies that cannot be backed up and can see past intelligent wording.......... so do not consider anyones posts as a 'danger'.......
Originally Posted by ClaireandDaisy
hey, Scarter - you`re not from Cambridge are you?
|
|
|
Location: Blackpool, UK
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,045
|
11-11-2009, 04:19 PM
Just a thought...
|
|
|
|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
11-11-2009, 04:39 PM
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
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,749
|
11-11-2009, 04:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
11-11-2009, 04:56 PM
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
There are no plans at present to ban the sale and use of any electronic training aids for animals, including the ‘electric shock collars’. For many years the Protection of Animals Act 1911 made it an offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a domestic or captive animal. However, the Government is not aware of any prosecutions under the 1911 Act in relation to the use or misuse of electronic training collars.
The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA), which became law on 6 April in England (on 27 March in Wales), repealed and replaced the 1911 Act. The AWA provides additional powers to prohibit or ban the use of any equipment in England and Wales in relation to animals through secondary legislation if considered necessary. It also allows a prosecution to be brought where an animal, although not currently suffering, is being treated in a way that fails to meet its welfare needs.
While we are aware of a number of scientific studies on electric shock collars, Defra considers that to date those studies published in this area are not sufficiently robust and that the evidence base needs to be built on before consideration can be given to either banning or regulating their use. The government is not prepared to do this unless there is clear evidence that these devices in themselves are harmful to welfare.
Defra has recognised that further research into these types of collars is a priority and has sought to set up a suitable study. Following an unsuccessful Open Competition Call in August 2005, Defra reconsidered its position and, in July 2006, circulated a revised call for research, this time in the form of a Limited Tender Call. The call invited proposals for studies to assess the effect of specific electronic pet training aids (excluding electric fences) on the welfare of dogs. The call encouraged an epidemiological approach, which is one based on observation of collars already in use. One proposal was received in response to the call and this is currently under discussion with a view to commissioning a suitable programme of research later this year.
Defra has also asked the Companion Animal Welfare Council, advisory body to government on companion animal welfare matters, to undertake an independent study of available evidence on the use of these electronic training aids to help inform Defra policy and complement any separate research that Defra may commission.
All research into these areas commissioned by government will be put into the public domain.
Further information on the Animal Welfare Act 2006 can be found on the Defra website (new window).
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 7,723
|
11-11-2009, 05:06 PM
To me it dosent really prove anything at all
It seems (correct me if I am wrong) this 'study' involved asking trainers - some who did use them and some who didnt. Those who did use them said they werent cruel
Also I would be interested in what training saved dogs life when the only alternative to the shock was being PTS - I cant see where putting a lead on, training your dog or putting a decent fence up are not an alternaitive??
Sorry but what I see there dosent constitiute a scientific study - especially if you bear in mind that there is no minimium standard for someone to be a trainer so these 'experts' that were being asked possible had little training to understand dog stress signals - sad to say that many of the dog loving public are actualy blind to the signals dogs give us that they are not happy
|
|
|
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,890
|
11-11-2009, 05:07 PM
Originally Posted by 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).
|
|