|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
12-11-2009, 04:14 PM
Here's a link I posted before. I know they can get lost, but this is well wortha peek. If no time to read, skim down and read a few snippets
I really like the way he explains how serious sellers of this equipment pull the wool over owner's eyes. I know for a fact this is exactly what happens, because it happened to my US friend.
http://www.johnknowsdogs.com/in-kenn...artraining.htm
Wys
x
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,551
|
12-11-2009, 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by Hali 
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?
Agree!
These points you've mentioned, Hali, are discussed a bit by the chair of the APBC here, and he explains why he would not use a shock collar:http://www.apbc.org.uk/ScottishShockCollars
same thing here but I think the first one was edited a bit:
http://www.dog-secrets.co.uk/negativ...-shock-collar/
I think there is more info on the last one, the first is more of a summary really.
Wys
x
|
|
|
Location: Scottish Borders
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,902
|
12-11-2009, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by Ben Mcfuzzylugs
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
|
|
|
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,890
|
12-11-2009, 04:23 PM
Originally Posted by scarter
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.
We can't rule out that they don't intend to include electrick shock collars used with perimeter fences, but I think it's fair to assume that they don't mean to include "electric fences" (ie. used for stock containment). This will depend, I suspect, upon whether DEFRA will take into consideration the concerns raised by parliament (below). I would be disappointed if the training of boundaries using an electric shock collar wasn't considered to be equally investigation-worthy as training using a remote controlled electric shock collar.
Perhaps I will write to DEFRA for clarification. At the very least, the report will hopefully be able to decide whether the shocking of dogs using electricity is cruel or not - an implication for the electric shock collars used in conjunction with invisible perimeter fences too!
Our position
333. We understand from Defra that it believes the current scientific evidence with respect to these devices to be ambiguous and therefore considers it is not in a position to prepare proposals either to regulate or ban them. Defra has told us it is considering the feasibility of undertaking a research project into the devices, as a matter of priority. If electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices have indeed been in use in the UK for 13 years now, as one submitter claimed, then we are surprised that Defra has not yet undertaken sufficient research into these devices in order to have formed an opinion of them, particularly given the controversy surrounding their use. We urge Defra to undertake a process of consultation and research about the possible regulation of these devices as soon as possible.
334. At this stage, it seems to us that an appropriate approach to electronic shock collars and perimeter fence devices would be to outlaw their use for purposes of training except, perhaps, with the exception of suitably licensed veterinarians. On the basis of the evidence we have received, we do not oppose the use of these devices to contain dogs within a particular area without the need for fences. However, we emphasise that this is very much a preliminary view; we would certainly seek to hear further evidence on this issue before taking a view on any future draft regulations seeking to control this area.
|
|
|
|
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,890
|
12-11-2009, 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by Hali
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?
|
|
|
|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
12-11-2009, 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by Hali
Going a bit OT here but I have never heard of vibrating collars being used as a correction but only as a means of communication - usually where vocal communication is not possible for whatever reason (e.g. the dog is deaf).
For example, we frequently train a dog to enjoy hearing "good boy" or a click. We deliberately (or inadvertently) create a positive marker that the dog works to hear/see/feel.
It's common for people to do the opposite and create a negative marker (such as 'no', 'uh hu', 'tsk'). The dog has bad connotations with this - it may be the knowledge that you're not happy with him, that he won't get a reward - or even fear in some cases. The marker works because the dog will modify it's behaviour to avoid hearing/feeling/seeing the marker. Is it out of fear of the marker or just communication. I think that's debatable.
Wouldn't it be up to the handler to decide whether to make a click, a word, a vibration a positive or negative marker?
A few people have said how on earth will a vibration/mild shock/spray stop a dog that's on a scent. Well I have a simple word that stops my dogs when on a scent. That word is a positive marker they associate with a jackpot reward. They'd always choose the scent over the reward given a choice, but the word has built up to the point where it's a sub-concious reaction. They just come when I call it.
I'm sure the same would happen with a negative marker. I don't use a negative marker myself but I suspect that if I did it could be just as powerful as a positive marker with the right training. I'm open to the idea as there are situations where it's more effective communication to simply say 'no' to the thing you don't want rather than 'yes' to the 1001 things that aren't the thing you don't want!
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
12-11-2009, 04:32 PM
Originally Posted by scarter
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.
|
|
|
|
Location: Scottish Borders
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,902
|
12-11-2009, 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by scarter
Surely any kind of marker can be considered a correction? It all depends upon what the dog associates it with.
For example, we frequently train a dog to enjoy hearing "good boy" or a click. We deliberately (or inadvertently) create a positive marker that the dog works to hear/see/feel.
It's common for people to do the opposite and create a negative marker (such as 'no', 'uh hu', 'tsk'). The dog has bad connotations with this - it may be the knowledge that you're not happy with him, that he won't get a reward - or even fear in some cases. The marker works because the dog will modify it's behaviour to avoid hearing/feeling/seeing the marker. Is it out of fear of the marker or just communication. I think that's debatable.
Wouldn't it be up to the handler to decide whether to make a click, a word, a vibration a positive or negative marker?
A few people have said how on earth will a vibration/mild shock/spray stop a dog that's on a scent. Well I have a simple word that stops my dogs when on a scent. That word is a positive marker they associate with a jackpot reward. They'd always choose the scent over the reward given a choice, but the word has built up to the point where it's a sub-concious reaction. They just come when I call it.
I'm sure the same would happen with a negative marker. I don't use a negative marker myself but I suspect that if I did it could be just as powerful as a positive marker with the right training. I'm open to the idea as there are situations where it's more effective communication to simply say 'no' to the thing you don't want rather than 'yes' to the 1001 things that aren't the thing you don't want!
|
|
|
|
Location: Glasgow, UK
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 810
|
12-11-2009, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by Hali
I didn't say it couldn't be used as a 'negative marker' I said I had never heard of anyone using it in this way...to me it would be like someone using a clicker as a negative marker.
|
|
|
|
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
|
12-11-2009, 04:51 PM
Originally Posted by scarter
There's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't use a clicker as a negative marker. Interestingly (according to wikipedia) some people use a shock collar as a positive marker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_collar
Oh....it's to Wikipedia.
Don't get me wrong, I have posted links to Wiki before now, but it is hardly renowned for it's accuracy.
The link also states the shock is used WITH a reward so isn't at all like using a vibration on it's own.
|
|