Scarter...at this point I am wondering if you are for real.
Do you really think that if a dog was in pursuit of a rabbit...a tickle would stop it going over a boundary?

The reason efences work is because a dog receives a correction... a warning beep or vibration and then a correction. The dog learns to avoid a certain area because of the correction (not a tickle a correction, a shock). The initial correction can be increased if a dog ignores it or decreased once the dog associates the boundary with the correction,thus some people will tell you that the collar only beeps or vibrates. In the initial training the collar would shock the dog.

I have to admit, I am becoming a little tired of you playing with words.
You have yet to post a link to the government study that YOU initially claimed outlind that ecollars were not cruel...then you said it was 50/50...now you can't remember the figures.
You tell us you know one person who has a containment fence that works on vibration, a tickle infact,yet there is no link, no evidence nothing.
You speak a lot but never seem able to back your speech and rhetoric up with concerete evidence.
Until such time as you do it is all pie in the sky and I am becoming tired of it.

It's OK, the only thing I'm confused about is how an electric perimiter fence can work if it does not administer a shock. On what basis does it work?

Actually, maybe I'm confused about two things, as I don't apper to be able to find and electric perimiter fences for sale that work on vibration only.

Or maybe I'm not confused at all...

There are invisible fences that work using a collar and then there are the visible fences which don't. My understanding is that the study will focus on electric shock collars and as they are used as a training aid with regard to these fences, enabling the learning of a boundary, they will be included, whereas the electric fences that are visible (like the ones used for stock, with metallic tape and a battery connected) will not be. Either way, I would hope there will be implcations for all devices which shock domestic dogs as a result.

And sorry to refer to government intervention with regard to electric shock devices on this thread, but you were the first to allude to a government study on "into this" which you have yet to provide a reference for.

I don't mean the circuit - I mean the concept with regard to training a dog not to cross the boundary. Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear. Does the lady you have spoken to know why they work? Is it a type of conditioning? Magic?

If a little tickle works, then I'd be pretty interested in one of these, but alas, they don't appear to be for sale. All the ones I can find offer after a warning beep then shocks, which get progressivley stronger until the dog gets back within the boundary - no tickles or vibrations mentioned.

The only electronic device I've seen used was an electric collar - it had a few settings, and the lesser ones were used as a reminder but weren't sufficient to 'train' with as the reward of chasing was greater than the consquence - dogs are canny and are quite capable of weighing things up!

I also found this lovely snippet:

http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_4524475_us...-dog.html?cr=1

Hope they're lying.

classic...just classic

As for the last part, I suspect they are not lying.

Just bobbing in quickly here but I think it may not be agood idea to start calling all electronic devices/equipment "electric collars" as it does cloud the issue.

Most do not see spray collars etc as "electric collars" (ie, shock collars).

To most, electric collar = shock collar and that is how it's always been referred to and it's understood what the meaning is.

I don't think this should be altered for this thread, as otherwise it will get confusing!

Sorry, JMO but i think it's a valid point?

Wys
x

No probs Bramble - I'll skip over you posts in an attempt not to aggravate you further

Hopefully the study will shed some light on that. As many claim in defence of shock collars that they only use very mild, painless stimulation I'm sure the study will look into that and see if it's true. And if it's true that a gentle tickle does indeed work then it makes sense that vibration only, sound and other such markers would work just as well.

I'm not sure. I got the impression that a lot of people consider electric shock fences used to contain dogs are considered acceptable. The use of these weren't challenged so the study wasn't to include them. It was just the use of shock collars used with remotes.

From quotes that you made earlier:

And I've got the same impression from other places too. I *think* the reason that a lot of anti-shock-collar people are OK with using these devices in conjunction with an invisible fence is because the dog can be quickly and easily trained to avoid the fence thus avoiding the shock. I've also seen studies that suggest that the stress caused by shock collars is pretty much eliminated if the dog is able to figure out how to avoid the shock. But hopefully this is something else the study will make clear.

Nothing to apologise for. I think the government study is highly relevant in this discussion. But that's only part of it. The thread is about 'electric fences' - a wider subject than is covered by the study so it's valid to talk about the wider issues too. That's all.

I don't think there is too much rocket science involved. The shock part (or spray) has to be unpleasant to the animal for it to deter it from wishing to repeat the experience. The important thing is that the animal makes the link between the unpleasant experience and the action which is deemed by the human handler to be undesirable. This is akin aversion therapy.

The problem with remotely operated shock collars is very different from that of e-fences. With the e-fence the proximity sensor is consistent; so the dog has the opportunity to learn. With the e-collar it is dependent on the human operator to deliver the punishment at precisely the right moment that the dog can make the link to the undesired action. Unfortunately humans being what they are can be unreliable in their precision and can shock the animal at completely the wrong moment causing confusion. That is the reason to NOT use them.

A visible electric (stock) fence works well enough in my experience. If the animal goes near the fence and you shout a no command in a low voice and they ignore you and get a belt then they should learn the second time not to do it; just like the child told not to touch the hot stove or they will get burnt but they do it anyway. Animals are designed to learn from experience. I am very careful what fences I touch when out on a walk!

I have heard of faulty collars delivering random shocks; in one case the dog attacked a behaviourist as they entered the house; the attack was attributed to the faulty collar. The dog was destroyed.

Some of the previously given links clarify a few issues as to what is being looked at, why and when. I posted one for the consultations, and what was being looked at, and one for the study which explained what was being looked at...

Very helpful, I was

'Ere we go, this is the study one:

(Haven' t checked fully as not looked at this for several months and the info has been altered, but I believe the study is this one) :

http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.as...32#Description


Wys
x

Just to put my position forward - as it seems there are lots of points of view

I am against e- collars and anything that provides and electric current onto the skin of the animal

I am against vibrating collars, training disks, bottles filled with stones and anything that is used to startle or 'snap a dog out of it'

I suppose if a gentle gentle vibration is used for a deff dog only to teach it its owner is calling it then that could be positive - but the temptation for many people would be to pump up the vibration if the dog was ignoring - rather than teaching a propper recal

and yes all these corrective collars can go wrong - my poor friends dog was wearing a spray collar and she was lieing nicely being petted when the collar went off and she was repeatedly sprayed - he was v lucky she didnt attack him

So if it happens with a spray then it can happen with a shock.

AFAIK the way the e fences with collars work is there is a warning beep, vibrate, noise or little shock and then if the dog keeps going then it is shocked at a higher level - it learns quickly that the inital warning will be followed by the shock and backs off (or freezes and collapses on the ground) in FEAR of the bigger shock

People say the collar isnt shocking - cos it dosent need to - the dog has learnt that the noise is followed by the shock

And from what we know about dog training if they can associate a click with nice things comming and the click make them happy then they can associate the beep with a shock comming and learn to be scared when they hear the beep

I dont consider teaching fear as a way to increase my dogs quality of life

one other thing about electric shocks is that individual people (and presumably individual dogs) have varying sensitivity to electric shocks.

Although I've never played with an electric shock collar, I've played with various shock gadgets including one that is supposed to stop snoring and you can choose the shock level.

Several of us passed it round and there was a huge variation in the levels at which individuals found the shock uncomfortable/painful.

now a human can tell you exactly how bad or otherwise a shock is to them, but how would a dog do this? Yes, if it screams you can work out that the shock hurt it, but if it doesn't scream, does it mean that it isn't hurt?