|
Location: Dogsey and Worcestershire
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 49,483
|
11-11-2009, 11:19 PM
Originally Posted by ATD 
dont appologise, this post is a bit all over the place lol. The lawn at present is a mud bath, i sink inches when i walk on it, the dogs are turing up the grass. I want to keep the dogs off the grass during winter. A neighbour suggested the electic/vibrate collar/fence. I wouldnt leave them out when there is no one in the house, quiet often my sister is in during the day. My 1st reaction was they were crule but i dont or didnt have any hard evidence.
ATD x
if the lawn is already a mud bath it may be too late to do much about it now this year . Perhaps the answer is to allow the dogs on the lawn for now then review the situation in the spring . If you are looking for a long term solution there are various options eg re turf part of the damaged lawn in the spring and gravel the rest putting a chain link fence in between the two sections (this will allow the light through )or gravel the whole area.
|
|
|
Location: Wigan
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,676
|
11-11-2009, 11:30 PM
Originally Posted by Minihaha
Hi
if the lawn is already a mud bath it may be too late to do much about it now this year . Perhaps the answer is to allow the dogs on the lawn for now then review the situation in the spring . If you are looking for a long term solution there are various options eg re turf part of the damaged lawn in the spring and gravel the rest putting a chain link fence in between the two sections (this will allow the light through )or gravel the whole area.
I would love to have a grass free garden lol but alas im not allowed. I think i have managed to pursuade them to use something like patch showed in the previous posts
ATD x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
12-11-2009, 06:51 AM
Originally Posted by scarter
This is all very interesting stuff and I'm not for one minute discounting anything that's presented in this document. If read in context (by this I mean along side the flip-side arguments) I think this is EXACTLY the type of thing people need in order to make informed decisions.
I was in contact with DEFRA and also had access to the consultation afterwards, (because I'd taken part in it so knew it was available to anyone asking to see it) and the only thing that seemed to come from it was that more scienfific evidence was needed (and that was DEFRA's opinion). There is in fact scientific evidence, from studies done (eg Polsky study) but perhaps they felt it was not relevant or something. Or perhaps they are just reluctant to ban something that would cause people who sell them to be out of a job.The Electric collars manufacturer's association were pretty upset this is happening, as you can imagine!
Science doesn't always prove things. In my study for instance (only an undergraduate one) I cannot say "I have proved that ....." I can only say "this study suggests that...."
I'm reminded too of the similar problems faced by people such as Bill Travers and Virginia Mackenna who were opposing the use of wild animals, tigers and such, in circuses. It is clear that wild animals do suffer and do not have a good life being taken from show to show, made to perform, and not able to participate in many natural behaviours. Yet because there was not sufficient scientific evidence, the problem is still ongoing and they are still fighting to stop this. Meanwhile, the animals are suffering.
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
12-11-2009, 07:06 AM
Originally Posted by scarter
...
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.
Finding evidence wasn't really the purpose of the consultation
It was more about consulting with the public and various agencies to get a feel of the views of dog owners and dog experts, and to see if there was anything clear to come out of that, IMO
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
12-11-2009, 07:22 AM
Originally Posted by scarter
...I'm still considering using an e-collar on my dogs. As I've said, I'm open minded about it - largely because I've seen the statement released by the government. Not as you say because they claim the collars are safe (they don't claim that). But because they say there is no evidence to support the claims that they are cruel, and because they say that opinion was split 50/50 amongst the large cross-section of experts that they consulted.
Sorry, no offence meant!
I have counted contributions from (for example) the Scots consultation and it was certainly not 50/50 - there were actually more against than for, definitely, by a fair proportion.However, some contributors opted out of the general public being able to see what they wrote (I was one of them due to various nutter attacks I've had from supporters of shock collars) but I'd be surprised if they swung the balance very much number wise.
The people who contributed from the ecollar world were those I expected, and were amongst those I saw.
Wys
x
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
12-11-2009, 09:35 AM
Originally Posted by scarter
Ramble, well hopefully with all the to-ing and fro-ing it's now abundantly clear what resulted in the government (or was it DEFRA) deciding that there simply wasn't enough evidence to conclude that the collars were dangerous or cruel.
Yes, I'm sure many (although not all) of those that claim they are cruel are basing this on experience or observation. As you say, why would they lie? But by the same token those that claim they aren't cruel, improve the quality of life of many dogs and save lives are no doubt basing this on experience or observation too. Why would they lie any more than the other group? Hopefully the scientific study that's currently underway will help clear things up for dog owners that are struggling to find hard facts amongst all the emotive scaremongering (from both sides).
I'm still considering using an e-collar on my dogs. As I've said, I'm open minded about it - largely because I've seen the statement released by the government. Not as you say because they claim the collars are safe (they don't claim that). But because they say there is no evidence to support the claims that they are cruel, and because they say that opinion was split 50/50 amongst the large cross-section of experts that they consulted.
I tend to believe (based upon anecdotal evidence) that these e-fences and e-collars get great results for some people with some dogs. I also tend to believe what wysiwyg says about problems occurring with other dogs. There's a good chance that these devices could work well with my dogs and if so their quality of life would be improved immensely. I'm not prepared to try them right now as there just isn't enough information available to help me figure out if and how they can be used safely. But if the current study provides information that helps me to proceed safely, or if I come across someone that I can trust that is well informed and demonstrates to me that they are able to assess my dogs accurately then I'm definitely open to trying it. I love my dogs and want the best for them.
The ecollar and efence business is a big, money making one. A lot of the people that use them are also people who, well let's just say that the people who train and work certain types of dog, know people with money....anyway...to answer your question..money.Oh and laziness. If ecollars are deemed to be cruel, then that will mean people will actually have to spend time training their dogs properly.
You seem pretty down on your dogs and their breed and their recall. Such a shame. Whilst you are waiting to find out if the government study thinks ecollars are cruel or not you could be out there ensuring that they are having the best lives possible...now.
You obviously love your dogs and work hard with them, but gosh....I wonder where the fun is with them as you seem very down on them and their abilities all the time. Why not enjoy them as they are? They are Beagles and at the end of the day, from what you have said, they do what they said on the box. Just like Cosmo does...he eats poo and rolls in mud and chases rabbits. C'est la vie. He does what it said he would on the box...I met enough of his family to know he'd be exactly as he is. He has a fab life,even if he doesn't get to chase rabbits when he wants. I think your dogs have a fab life from what you have described...so why not relax and enjoy them, instead of thinking of shocking them for heading to the boundary of a meadow.
Sorry...this sounds like a personal attack and it isn't at all...I perhaps am not phrasing things too well as I have the flu,but your posts suggest happy dogs...yet you always say they are not, you always criticise them. You have done a lot of work with them and they sound happy...why not enjoy that? I am actually being nice...although totally OT.
|
|
|
|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
12-11-2009, 10:58 AM
Their conclusion as I recall is pretty much summarised in the government response to a partition. In fact I'm pretty sure a lot of it is quoted from the actual report I'm referring to but certainly it refers to DEFRA's findings. Here it is again. I've bolded the bits that lead me to keep an open mind until I have more information (and I'm not trying to convince any of you that you too should keep an open mind until the results come in - each to his/her own!):
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).
it cost about £900 for approx 5acres , they come and lay the wire and train you how to train your dog, its never broken in 4yrs and both dogs respect it still. best buy ever!
1. An independent study/consultation/whatever-you-choose-to-call-it has concluded that there is not enough information to decide either way.
2. Lots of groups and people on discussion forums are very much against it claiming that it's cruel and dangerous.
3. Lots of groups and people on discussion forums are very much for it claiming that it can improve quality of life and even saves some dogs.
4. I know some people that have used it with success.
5. There's an impartial study underway, the results of which will soon be available. This will help people to make better informed decisions. Or it may even result in a ban or control of devices.
It simply makes sense to me to reserve judgement until more information is available. But I accept that many of you think that's a bad idea. Each to their own - I won't try and convince you to do things my way!!
|
|
|
|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
12-11-2009, 11:39 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble
Sorry...this sounds like a personal attack and it isn't at all...I perhaps am not phrasing things too well as I have the flu,but your posts suggest happy dogs...yet you always say they are not, you always criticise them. You have done a lot of work with them and they sound happy...why not enjoy that? I am actually being nice...although totally OT.
Yes, I think you're right when you say our dogs have a good life - have you seen their blog? Part of the reason that they are so happy and that we enjoy them so much is that we have always worked hard to let them run free as much as possible. They thrive on it and we thrive on watching them. Here's a clip of the lure coursing to give you an idea of how much they love to run:
http://vimeo.com/6142180
Yes, I'm sure they'd be very happy if they couldn't do this. But we feel that this is what Beagles are all about (ours anyway). They love it. We love to watch them so we're willing to go the extra mile to give them the best possible quality of life.
Sometimes we do have to make very big efforts to keep them safe off-lead - and spend money. We've spent a fortune on training and we've recently bought a new house with a huge garden just for them. But this doesn't spoil their fun OR our enjoyment of them - quite the opposite!
I don't think of shocking them for heading for the boundary of a meadow. What I do think is "hmmm - lots of people with Beagles just like mine are able to let them run free and have absolutely brilliant quality of life without risk through use of e-fences/collars. It's worth looking into this to see if I can safely and humanely use it to improve the quality of life of MY dogs".
You've made up your mind on e-fences (and not all e-fences deliver a shock). I haven't. I'm waiting for more information before I draw a conclusion as to whether they'd help improve our dogs' quality of life.
And BTW - like you I'm fine with sh*t eating, chewing, digging, rolling, chasing....ALL that matters to me is that they're both safe AND have the freedom to run and play. If the day comes where we think it's not realistic we'll be happy to settle for less. But we'll always do our very best for them. It's not a hardship - it's a pleasure...a labour of love I suppose
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
12-11-2009, 11:45 AM
Originally Posted by scarter
wysiwyg - the published report that I'm referring to (I promise I will try and find it - it's not as easy to find on Google as it was a while back but I guess it's old news now) didn't give actual numbers for and against. It was more the panels findings and conclusions.
But anyone reading what you wrote might believe the results of the consult were 50 per cent for, and 50 against. Which isn't correct as far as I know, and from my own small involvement. Anyway thanks for the offer of finding it
If you can't find it, I am quite good at Googling, or I can email someone who will know of it. Can you remind me what it was and who published it?
if so, I'm not upset, but I do like comments about shock collars to be absolutely accurate as it is so easy for anyone reading such threads to be swayed by sentences such as the ones you've said - no evidence for cruelty, when there was also no evidence there was NO cruelty. Sorry, I don't mean to get at you at all,
but just saying that it's easy to sound as if speaking with authority (and your posts do come across that way ) when in fact what is written is down, as you say, is your personal interpretation.There are certainly those who use them with great success for sure - but they've been lucky and not come across the problems. They may never, they may be lucky.
I'd not put vibration collar fences in the same league as electronically controlled ones, either
I'm not 100% up to date with what may be available, but usually shock collars associated with fences have a beep warning system and some shock collars generally have a vibration variation. Not sure if there is an entire system which only relies on vibration. If so, I'd welcome it compared to the other one Wys
x
|
|