# Defra assessing ecollars



## edidasa (May 7, 2011)

Not sure if this has been posted somewhere before, I couldn't find anything through the search function on this forum.

Defra, UK - Science Search

Project is expected to be completed end of June.

"Following submission of the final report, it will be externally peer reviewed before the Department considers the findings and publishes the report. Once the report is published to the Defra website, it is publically available."


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Does anyone know which European countries shock collars are banned in?
As there are posters from many countries would be useful to have a list handy.

The Government material that follows shows why it is so offensive, to majority of forum's informed professional dog UK trainers & behaviourists, when advocates of these devices seek to portray them as marginalised and poorly informed.

The apparent encouragement of casual use of shock collars in unqualified hands, on young untrained dogs as a tool of first resort, is simply unethical.

Note the survey are having adult dogs in the study, already undergoing training by Professional Dog Trainers who have shown problems.

They are pointing out in the rationale the dangers associated with casual use by normal pet owners who don't have a thorough understanding of the training process.



Defra said:


> It has been argued that inappropriate use of such devices, for example, failure to link delivery of the re-inforcer with clear conditioning stimuli, or poor timing of response and re-inforcement, could lead to welfare problems.
> For this reason it is considered unethical to induce such bad practise experimentally and avoiding exposure of dogs to additional, inappropriate or unavoidable potentially aversive stimuli is a feature of the project


This study appears to be a follow up to the consideration of the issue at House of Commons - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - First Report where the advocates of shock collars described them as a tool of last resort.

Note 328.


Select Committee on Environment said:


> Use of electronic shock collars and training devices
> 
> 328. We received a number of submissions commenting on the use of electronic shock collars and training devices. This was despite the fact that Defra has set out no proposals in the draft Bill document with respect to either regulating or banning the use of electronic shock collars and training devices. On the basis of the evidence we have heard, these devices appear to be used on dogs for the purposes of either what might be termed 'aversion' training or in order to contain dogs within a particular area without the need for fences


Then 334.


Select Committee on Environment said:


> 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


So anyone advocating shock collars for routine training purposes is bucking the considered opinion of parliament after representations made by experts.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> So anyone advocating shock collars for routine training purposes is bucking*the considered opinion of parliament* after representations made by experts.


Your actually quoting from 2 governments ago & the
select commitee's you cite were actually carried out in 2003, the then DEFRA minister was Ben Bradshaw.

What those commities were about is the consulations on the Animal Welfare Bill, those consultations were held starting summer 2002 - untill April 2004. The Animal Welfare Act became law in April 2007, your quotes are 8 years old and 2 governments ago.

That was before the first full spec e-collar went on sale in UK in 2003 (Dogtra). Before that there were only about 3 models of limited use shock collars on sale here. The link to the paper below (History of e-collars - 1968-2004) was an accepted submission (along with video footage) to DEFRA in v early 2004 & to a significant member of the Scots assembly in Jan 06, & the Ulster assembly shortly after that, it was never subbmitted to the Welsh assembly.

The considered will of that parliamentand those since is that there is no law on e-collars, you've even gone as far as misrepresnting 3 governments, the wills of all governements since the 2003 commitees you rely upon is that there is no evidence against collars & therefore there are no laws on them.

Text Paper

Historical Clarification and Categorisation of Types of E-Collars.
From Electric Shock To a Lead Pull Sensation.

_Forty years of technological development 
of the modern electro pulse muscle stimulation collar._

History Of E-C ollars - EDUCATIONAL E-COLLAR DOG

.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

You do realise you are quoting from a report dated 2004


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Yes, it was a submission to those stated (DEFRA, Scots & Ulster) as part of other submissions for the animal welfare bill. Ch 1 ( electric shock collars) is grossly inaccurate, they had normal contact points at the each side of the neck not earthed to the ground as that chapter stated.

The terminology for the periods is accurate but the electric shock collar was only Europe, its existance was unknown outside Europe.

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Not sure if this has been posted somewhere before, I couldn't find anything through the search function on this forum.
> 
> Defra, UK - Science Search
> 
> ...


A decision to carry out a scientific study was taken by the labour government in 2003/4. It was announced in a whole bunch of statements etc on the Animal Welfare Bill by Margaret Becket in March 2003 or 4.

The contract was finally given to Lincoln Uni in late 07 (prof Mills).

In summer 2009 a trainer & specilist on e-collars did a peer reveiw of section 4 of the study design, section 4 was the section which involved training. The reveiw invalidated section 4 & was subbmitted to Prof Mills Lincoln uni in Aug/early Sept 09.

Prof Mills had to contact DEFRA and tell them he know nothing about e-collars & could not continue. This new extension which is the subject of this topic (it was supposed to be finished in 09 untill it was invalidated) is not the original, ECMA approved trainers are carrying the training.

The paper which invalidated the old section 4 of the original study, - _'Assessment of Cortisol, heart rate, body language data collection method in a training context, Lincoln University DEFRA tender'_ - is available at £40 per copy.

.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> The Government material that follows shows why it is so offensive,


The material you refer us to is about 7 years of out date. I think there has been AT LEAST one change of legislators since that was written.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The apparent encouragement of casual use of shock collars in unqualified hands, on young untrained dogs as a tool of first resort, is simply unethical.


Someone who uses information that is this outdated but does not let the readers know this, has no room to be talking about _"ethics."_


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

*So why do all the threads keep going back to E collars.. Especially seen as in Wales these Collars have been banned..*


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

Oh yes.. And see what this section is for??

*Discuss dog training and behaviour problems in this section. Are you having problems with your dogs behaviour? Then submit your problems and get help from other members. Do you have some excellent dog training advice? then submit your details here to help others.*

Its not a part of the forum where posters can insult other members because they do not agree.. Its a part of the forum for helping others with training issues..


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Interesting response to quotes of government reports. Defra, UK - Science Search



Defra said:


> From: 2010
> 
> To: 2011
> 
> Cost: £69,925


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Does anyone know which European countries shock collars are banned in?


France & Germany have either bans or limits [who may use them, who may buy them, for what purpose, etc]. 
Denmark i believe has a total ban. Wales of course has an outright ban.

a pending case in Wales - charged 2-mos ago, trial in July: 
BBC News - Shock collar found on pet dog roaming on Vale beach

the Kennel Club in the UK supports & advocates a ban, & has for some years now - 
i do expect there will be one, which may or may not allow vet-behaviorists to use them, 
or to provide them on prescription only via a qualified trainer [registered, a graduate of a required course, 
or some variation thereof] for their actual use, during specific B-mod only, so that no dog would be handled 
with a shock-collar remote in well-meaning but ignorant hands.

the public perception - 
Urban Dictionary: shock collar t-shirts, mugs and magnets


----------



## Guest (Jun 18, 2011)

*I say...*

We allow some dogs to use them on their owners until they LEARN to look after and train their dogs correctly.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

an Intl Veterinary Conference paper re Anti-bark collars - 
Powered by Google Docs 
A Comparison of Different Anti-barking Devices - 
Aversive & Disruptive Stimuli 
*(*parentheses in original*), **bold & [brackets] added*: 


> EXCERPT - see paragraph 2.2 -
> 
> _ Electric shocks are painful stimuli. These collars have been in use for a long time in the USA.
> Early versions used high-intensity shocks... subject to spontaneous triggering, & sometimes chain-reactions.
> ...


*** - not all collars have safety systems: lightning grounding, shorts, & responding to OTHER remotes 
have all occurred, as well as other malfuntions resulting in injuries or emotional trauma. 
_*U get what U pay for - * cheaper collars often avoid installing good electronic safeties. _

**2 - * recognizing A bark does not mean it responds ONLY to the dog's bark who is wearing it; 
in multidog homes or dog-daycares or boarding kennels, ANY dog within a triggering radius punishes 
the dog who wears the collar when they bark - leaving the dog unable to avoid the shock. 
This can result in serious behavioral fallout of many sorts [redirected aggro: biting other dogs, 
reacting to barks with extreme violence or extreme fear, bolting; refusing to re-enter the building 
on later visits for boarding, etc].

**3 - * the updated versions CAN BE set to lower intensity; however as they adjust, they CAN ALSO 
be set to higher intensities; this is entirely at the discretion of the operator, not the manufacturer or the dog.

**4 - * "no longer entails any danger"? *i disagree;* there are still dogs who come to vets 
for treatment every year with various shock-collar injuries, & many vets specify some are *burns.* 
pressure-necrosis & nickel-sensitivity [skin breaks down due to allergenic contact with metals] 
DO NOT, according to these vets, look like electrical burns - & they state that they're treating electrical burns.

**5 - * very much agree: lower intensity does not equal painless or 'pleasant', just 'less pain'. 
pain is highly subjective & dogs differ from humans anatomically & physiologically; what we feel 
is not what they feel, so testing a collar on my arm does not tell me what a dog feels when i shock that dog. 
aside from individual pain tolerance, there is variable galvanic skin response, the lack of subcutaneous fat 
[present in humans - an excellent resistor], higher ionic levels in a dog's bloodstream, & more.

**6 - * not just their efficacy under lab-conditions, with highly-adept & knowledgeable trainers, 
but IMO their *necessity* is undefined; a leash is important to restrain & control a dog, but i've used 
a belt, rope, decorative curtain sash, car-harness & even a camera-strap to restrain a dog in a pinch. 
*i have yet to "need" a shock-collar, & it's been over 25-years that i've worked with dogs.* 
if they are so necessary - & i work with B-Mod, often with serious issues - why don't i need one? :huh:

continuing, ibid - 


> _ These collars present *not only a serious ethical problem (painful stimulus), but more importantly,
> a scientific problem (see *_* Indications & ContraIndications. ) *_
> 
> For all these reasons, *electric shock-collars are already banned in Switzerland & Scandinavia, & are in
> ...


so Denmark, Sweden, Holland, Norway et al have banned shock-collars. 
Switzerland only allows specific individuals to use them, & now illegal use means jail time, not only fines.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Not really quite on topic, but ...

Recently returned from the USA where I was quite stunned to note in an 'outdoor pursuits store' that their dog training section consisted of no less than 28 different types of e collars and stim collars, 4 different sizes of prong collars and .... *one* adjustable dog whistle amongst the other bog standard dog collar & lead items.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> their dog training section consisted of no less than 28 different types of e collars


I think there are some smaller manufacturers there. Here about 7 manufactuers are selling them, maybe 8 with PAC collars. The 28 maybe models of collars not 28 makes, Lou will know.

The 2 most popular collars used by pros are TT (Tri Tronics) & Dogtra but TT only really do 3 collars for all round pet owner use, TT Pro 500 ( I have), Pro 100 & the sport combo the rest are gundog collars or have more confined uses, they hold US the gundog market and have no serious interest in the pet dog markets anywhere, they dont market in Europe, I have to import mine appx £500 with customs. Any Dogtra collar is suitable for all round use.

I got a rounded off sales fig in May for last year to April, it was appx 86,000, taking into account that late 1990's positive trainers here had developed the total monopoly of the pet dog market, that was the case until around 2006 which had already started drifting away firstly with a trickle but increasing each year now APDT is in ever increasing decline as they go out of worthwhile business, down to only 503 mebers in the whole of the UK, what a change from the total monopoly of some years ago.

Pet owners new nothing about e-collars in the early part of the 90's, the very first full spec collar only went on sale here in 2003 (Dogtra). So the obvious question so called positie trainers need to answere, but are avoiding, is why are you loosing so many pet dog owners to e-collars? as if you all don't know.



> Irish Setter Girl.,  4 different sizes of prong collars and


Thats the same as here, as far as I know Herm Sprenger only make 4 sizes. Prong collars are another tool gaining more & more in popularity by pet owners here, pet owners never heard of them till this past few years but I see them quite frequently these days.

APDT banned its members from using either when it was founded in 1995, that was 3 years before e-collars were invented so the entire, but tiny, membership of APDT, whats left of it, are completly prong & e-collar illiterate, along with all other 'positive trainers'.

.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> APDT[-uk] banned its members from using [prong or shock collars]
> when it was founded in 1995, that was *3 years before e-collars were invented*...


the first patent-application that i found for a shock-collar *patent* in the USA was dated something 
between 1929 & 1935 - the battery was a hand-held box with a handle like a narrow lunchbox, 
wire-leads ran down the leash, & the electrodes were [then as now] on the collar, touching the dog's neck.

in the 1950s, commercial-scale dog-kennels & gundog trainers were already using shock-collars for gundogs, 
*but only to proof well-trained, fluent behaviors on dogs of 9 to 12-MO who were already yard-trained - 
heel, sit on cue, fetch a bumper, etc - & to finish what was essentially a ready-to-hunt young dog. 
they were not used to teach, & never on young pups; they were used by pros only, not pet-dog or hunting-dog 
owners, but professional trainers & handlers who competed in hunt-trials, & dogs were shipped to them 
for this finishing training, after the dog had been well-founded by the owner or a local handler/trainer.*

in 1965 there were plenty of shock-collar direct-sales ads in Outdoor Life, hunting magazines, etc. 
they were expanding their market from pros to pet-owners, & from gundogs to any dog, anywhere - 
but their mantra was still punishment, & again young pups did not wear shock-collars.

by the 1980s anti-bark shock collars were being sold direct to the public; by the 1990s the push to TRAIN 
with shock-collars began, teaching ignorant dogs from lesson-1 of day-1 with a shock-collar.

over the past 40-years the use of shock-collars has mushroomed enormously. 
we can now buy a shock-collar in the USA that will *keep a dog OUT - safe-zones or exclusion; 
keep a dog IN - electronic fences to confine; punish BARKING automatically; train by PROOF - 
punishing non-compliance by a (supposedly) well-taught dog with a fluent behavior; or TRAIN 
from the beginning with shock.

there are also shock-MATS to keep dogs out or off things, & a shock-MAT which punishes the dog 
for LEAVING the mat - euphemistically referred to as 'an invisible crate'.* :thumbdown:

yet with all of these volts flying around, the average-pet-dog who is not trained in a group-class 
or with the help of one-to-one instruction, seems to improve most in DIY training not by the use 
of shock, but by the rapid spread of reward-based training, with or without a clicker - 
often with a book, a DVD or an on-line lesson plan, sometimes simply thru watching YouTube videos 
with such leading lights as KikoPup, Sue Ailsby, & others. 
i know disabled handlers who've trained their own assistance-dogs in precisely that way - alone, 
using on-line videos, Yahoo-groups & Levels-training; no shocks, jerks, pins, pokes, prongs, or chokes. :thumbup:


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> The 28 maybe models of collars not 28 makes


Yes - it was 28 types not makes, I was completely gob smacked at the array vs what I'd call 'normal' dog training aids ie slip lead and a whistle (210.5 in my case, and purple if anybody asks :blush: - it's a girl thing ) I had a recount three times to make sure I got the number right :w00t:

I know at my local PAH there are a few e based collars available but they are primarily for 'anti barking' which I think is sooooo not what these collars should be used for, if at all (but that's a debate I don't want to see the thread degenerate into *again*)


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

the first patent-application that i found for a shock-collar patent in the USA was dated something 
between 1929 & 1935 - the battery was a hand-held box with a handle like a narrow lunchbox, 
wire-leads ran down the leash, & the electrodes were [then as now] on the collar, touching the dog's neck.

Yes that's right, they were as you say 'shock collars'. As it happens TT were first to make marketable shock collars in 1998, it was TT which developed.

It was also TT which developed the technology which created the first e-collar which came of the production line in Sept1998. Shock collars, which you keep mentioning have obsolete completely since around 2002.

Shock collar & e-collar are global terminology terms, they are 2 completly different technologies & capabilities, a shock collar could not be used like an e-collar, which is why it fell into obsolescence.

Even our government knows & calls them "e-collars" - _ Dogs recruited to the study will have been referred for problems commonly addressed using e-collars (for example livestock worrying_ -

Defra, UK - Science Search

.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

What I would like to see an answere to is why have pet owners given up on positive training & turning to e-collars & other types of training? seems your avoiding that altogether.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> France & Germany have either bans or limits [who may use them, who may buy them, for what purpose, etc]. Denmark i believe has a total ban.


As usual, more misinformation. Please show us the laws from France, Germany and Denmark that covers this. The SV in Germany has banned them for use by member clubs but this is not a law, it's a policy and one that is not very widely followed.



leashedForLife said:


> Wales of course has an outright ban.


Yes, we know. It's already been stated.



leashedForLife said:


> the Kennel Club in the UK supports & advocates a ban, & has for some years now 


Of course they do. They support the so−called "kinder gentler methods" and know nothing of modern Ecollar use with modern versions of the tool. If I knew that little about Ecollars I might oppose them too. On their site they state many things as "facts" that are in fact not true about the tool and their use.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

L4l quotes a paper.


> > Electric shocks are painful stimuli.
> 
> 
> Nothing like starting out with a lie is there? The TRUTH is, as anyone knows, electrical shocks CAN BE painful stimuli, but they aren't necessarily _"painful stimuli."_ Why should anyone believe anything that follows?
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> e-collars were _'invented in *1998*?'_ hardly.
> 
> the first patent-application that i found for a shock-collar *patent* in the USA was dated something between 1929 & 1935


We've been through this once before and you were shown to be wrong. I don't mind doing it again. Modern Ecollars as we're discussing them here were invented by the folks from Tri-Tronics in 1968. While there may have been ads in sporting magazines before that date, it was not uncommon then as it's not uncommon today for people to advertise something for sale that is not yet on the market.



leashedForLife said:


> by the 1980s anti-bark shock collars were being sold direct to the public; by the 1990s the push to TRAIN with shock-collars began, teaching ignorant dogs from lesson-1 of day-1 with a shock-collar.


Actually training with Ecollars began in the early 1980's. I REALLY wish that you'd stop handing out MISinformation. It's really a disservice to the readers.



leashedForLife said:


> yet with all of these volts flying around, the average-pet-dog who is not trained in a group-class or with the help of one-to-one instruction, seems to improve most in DIY training not by the use of shock, but by the rapid spread of reward-based training, with or without a clicker


My clients would ALL disagree with your opinion. They are for the most part people who have tried _"reward based training, with or without a clicker"_ and met with failure. Sometimes COMPLETE FAILURE.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Lou Castle said:


> Please show us the laws from France, Germany and Denmark that covers this.
> The SV in Germany has banned them for use by member clubs but this is not a law, it's a policy
> and one that is not very widely followed.


Good news for Welsh dogs 


> K9-Magazine, EXCERPT - *bold & underline added - *
> 
> _ The use of shock collars has already been subjected to ban or control in a number of countries, & a ban
> or legislative control of their use is supported by most of the major animal welfare charities. They are
> ...


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Yes - it was 28 types not makes


Theres probaly that amount of models here, Dogtra alone do quite a few, I also forgot PAC collars, I think theres only 2 models & I have no idea of sales figs for them.



> 210.5 in my case, and purple if anybody asks-it's a girl thing


LOL yea, I use a Fox40 cause if I used Acme she could pick up someone else, mines black  its a devil worship thing

.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

gee, if lightning is never a worry, why do better collars include *built-in lightning protection*?... 
if they didn't need it, they wouldn't design that circuitry... Right? 


> _ [PDF] INNOTEK® UltraSmart In-ground Pet Fencing Systems - Shock Collars ...
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
> *Lightning Protection is an important part of your system. This module is connected between* ...
> including PerfectFit, an indication that the collar is fit- ...
> ...


for cheaper collars who *skip that circuit*, U can buy it separately - 


> _ *Lightning Protection Module*
> 2 DOG PET SHOCK COLLAR ELECTRIC FENCE UNDERGROUND NEW Paypal US $48.88 ...
> Lightning Protection Module | Housebreaking a Dog
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier l4l wrote


> France & Germany have either bans or limits [who may use them, who may buy them, for what purpose, etc]. Denmark i believe has a total ban.


And I responded,


> Please show us *the laws *from France, Germany and Denmark that covers this. [Emphasis Added]


L4l now  posts a link  to *a magazine article *that contains this statement.


> They are
> banned in Denmark, Slovenia and Sweden, with Austria & Italy also considering introducing bans. ...


I guess I wasn't clear enough when I asked l4l to show us _"the laws ... that covers this."_ I guess that request is kinda murky and hard to decipher. ROFL.

If she think that I'm going to accept an article (or that anyone else should) from a magazine as proof of her statements, she's sadly mistaken. She's continually supplied us with articles and blogs that contain outright lies, misconceptions and myths. How is anyone to know if this is the case again? And so l4l you are still giving out unsupported information. Not unusual for the anti Ecollar crowd. BTW I notice that you somehow forgot to post about Germany in any way at all, even in the article you cited. Got any info from there? Or can we safely assume that since this article didn't mention it that there is NO SUCH BAN in Germany as you claimed?

The article is also not dated so we have no idea how current it is. Since it came after the Welsh ban on Ecollars we know it happened after that but it does not tell us the state of the law today.

Abusive use of Ecollars I already against the law in just about every industrial country in the world. Virtually EVERY one of them has laws against abuse of animals. If anyone can show that the use of an Ecollar is abuse, the user can be convicted. How about it l4l, can you show us any successful prosecutions for abuse of people using Ecollars?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> gee, if lightning is never a worry, why do better collars include *built-in lightning protection*?...


*THEY DON'T. * The issue here is that you, as is your habit, keep moving the goalposts. The article you cited was discussing bark collars. You may remember that the title of that article was _"A Comparison of Different *Anti-barking Devices ..."*_ [Emphasis Added] You bounced to Ecollars. NOW you jump to Invisible Fences. Those three tools are NOT the same even though you keep trying to lump them together. They all operate by giving the dog an electrical stim but that is all they have in common. They are triggered differently making them completely different.

In the case of the Invisible Fence, the tool you talk about as having (or not having) _"lightning protection."_ they're talking about protection for the buried wire and the transmitter, NOT for the dog collar. If lightning was to strike the perimeter wire, the wire and the attached paraphernalia (mainly the transmitter) for the system would be damaged. As they so clearly state, _"When lightning is near, powerful electric surges can be produced, *causing significant damage to your underground pet containment transmitter." *_ NOTHING would happen to the dog.

Folks think of having your desktop computer plugged into a surge protector. If lightning were to strike your house, your computer would be protected. But if you were off the electrical grid, such as when using a laptop or notebook that WAS NOT plugged in (just as the collar that a dog wears IS NOT plugged in when it's being worn) nothing would happen to it (or the dog) in the event of a lightning strike, even if there was NO surge protector in place.

This is nothing more than YET ANOTHER *EXTREMELY * misleading post from l4l who rather consistently tries to confuse the issue in the hope of scaring people away from the Ecollar.

This stuff is REALLY simple. There are no scientific studies that show any kind of physical injuries to dogs from the current that an Ecollar produces. NOT ONE! There is also no more danger to dogs from lightning if they're wearing an Ecollar than if they're not. Patently ABSURD. People who put out this tripe are just trying to scare you. They should be ashamed of themselves. Want to see some more of the absurd gobbledygook that anti− Ecollar folks put out? I collect Ecollar myths. HERE'S MY COLLECTION OF THEM Each one is followed by truth behind each of them. I'm going to add this bit of nonsense, "danger from lightning" to them right now.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

here's a local take, 6-mos back. 
January 6th, 2011 - 
Cesar Millan's abbreviated appearance on Danish TV

Kenzo the Hovawart - 
Kenzo the Hovawart: He came, he saw ... and did not whisper *bold added - *


> _ During the whole week up to the show, the TV-station couldn't keep a lid on their excitement
> about having this celebrity on their show. Commercials and teasers reminded us daily about this upcoming event,
> inviting people to take their dog and come meet the "Dog Whisperer". And not just any dog, dogs with issues, please.
> 
> ...


i love, Love, LOVE this comment - 


> *bold added - *
> 
> _ Pamela said...
> I think the real heroes in this story are all the folks who wrote and called the television station about their concerns.
> ...


my buddies *Laurie Luck* & *Roxanne* @ Champion of My Heart comment, too. :001_smile:

________________________________________________ 
THE CLIP - Cesar's 8-minutes of fame on Denmark TV.

VIDEO - 
Hundevenner vrede på 'Go'aften Danmark' - Nyt om TV - TVTID.DK 
1 minute into the interview [which is in English], she says 'many viewers have written in, calling him 
"the dog abuser". *the station had hundreds of critical letters & even more e-mails protesting his appearance, 
thru-out the week of advertisements leading up to the show - many of which bluntly pointed out that 
what Cesar does on TV in the USA is illegal in Denmark - which the TV-host reiterates, on camera - 
both prong-collars & shock-collars are "illegal in Denmark..." * [2-mins 30-secs] *unless of course, 
U'd like to allege that this woman, the host of a nationally broadcast TV-show, has been completely 
misinformed by the station's own legal department?...* 

VIDEO: "Accused of dog-abuse" - [tv] 
Beskyldes for dyre-mishandling: Se ham i aktion - BT TV - BT.dk
TRANS: caption


> _Beskyldes for dyre-mishandling: Se ham i aktion
> Torsdag aften gav "hundehviskeren" Cesar Millan hundeopdragelse i Go'Aften Danmark. Men mange eksperter kalder hans metoder mishandling och frarader dem. Se her, hvordan han mishandler hunde.
> ENG:
> Accused of animal cruelty: See him in action
> Thursday evening had "hundehviskeren" [dog-whisperer] Cesar Millan on dog training in *Good Evening Denmark*. But many experts call his methods cruelty och frarader them. See here how he mistreats dogs. _


love the 'gong' buzzer for FAIL, :001_tt1: That's great! :thumbup: 
his press-rep is there, too; the TV-crew wants Cesar to watch his own video & comment. 
she says no. :blush: aww, darn it.

KENZO - Update January 8:


> _ The discussion still continues in Denmark. Most major newspapers wrote about the story and the sentiment
> is the same. One newspaper, B.T., made a clip with their interview of Cesar. Note how the press officer in the end
> breaks off the interview: Accused of animal abuse. The Danish Kennel Club critisized Cesar's training methods "officially".
> In one of their press release's on their website, they used links to Eric Goedelbecker's dogspelledforward blog
> ...


TRANS -


> *Danish kennel club for dog owners*
> 
> _*Cesar Millan methods? no, thanks*
> Several clips on the Internet illustrate why Cesar Milllan's methods should be rejected. See examples here:
> ...


that's my friend & fellow-trainer, Eric Goebelbecker's blog. :thumbup: Yay, Eric!


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> 'many viewers have written in, calling him
> "the dog abuser"


In the context of accuracy, she should have said that the vast majority of dog owners in Denmark did not say anything.

Anyway, should I take you put Ceaser on here bcause DEFRA are doing a scientific study on him to see if he emits bolts of lightening?

.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> *THEY DON'T. * The issue here is that you, as is your habit, keep moving the goalposts. The article you cited was discussing bark collars. You may remember that the title of that article was _"A Comparison of Different *Anti-barking Devices ..."*_ [Emphasis Added] You bounced to Ecollars. NOW you jump to Invisible Fences. Those three tools are NOT the same even though you keep trying to lump them together. They all operate by giving the dog an electrical stim but that is all they have in common


Bark, Fence & Training Shock Collars, all are designed to pass electrical current through the dog to "stimulate" it, the scientific term being shock.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Bark, Fence & Training Shock Collars, all are designed to pass electrical current through the dog to "stimulate" it, the scientific term being shock.


OK RobD, it's time to test your knowledge of e-collars.

1) Lets start with the simple basic stuff. Taking into account your professed (by implication) knowledge of e-collars we need a much clearer definition of "through the body". So please explain what part of dog does the "electrical current", you esoterically (by implication) mention, pass through & in anotomical terms how deep does the current penetrate?

2) Under which EEC standard are e-collars manufactured and sold?

I look forward to your reply.

.
.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

I understood this study had stalled because they couldn`t find enough properly qualified trainers and vets willing to give dogs electric shocks for a balanced study.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> I understood this study had stalled because they couldn`t find enough properly qualified trainers and vets willing to give dogs electric shocks for a balanced study.


Theres no such thing as a qualified trainer or behaviourist, they may call themselves that if they buy one the hundreds of private diploma courses, in context anyone in UK regardless of age or experience with dogs can write out a few simple questions, then sell a course as (legal example) - Oxford Trinity Professional Dog Trainers Degree - then send out 1 question on dogs, once a week. for 4 weeks & if the person gives the correct answer (as defined by the person selling the course degree) each week then have passed the course, get sent a certificate stating they have passed the Oxford Trinity Pro Dog Trainers Degree course - Dip OTPDT - Degree all perfectly legal. It used to happen a lot but thse days pet owners are wise to it more because of pet owners loosing money and no results in the past 4 or 5, 6 etc years ago, so not many get bitten much anymore, they are wise to it all.

VETS???? E-collars are designed by OB trainers & gundog trainers, vets have nothing to do with them except on a personal level. 
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Claire & Daisy
> I understood this study had stalled because they couldn`t


To repeat what happened, here it is again below.

A decision to carry out a scientific study was taken by the labour government in 2003/4. It was announced in a whole bunch of statements etc on the Animal Welfare Bill by Margaret Becket in March 2003 or 4.

The contract was finally given to Lincoln Uni in late 07 (prof Mills).

In summer 2009 a trainer & specilist on e-collars did a peer reveiw of section 4 of the study design, section 4 was the section which involved training. The reveiw invalidated section 4 & was subbmitted to Prof Mills Lincoln uni in Aug/early Sept 09.

Prof Mills had to contact DEFRA and tell them he know nothing about e-collars & could not continue. This new extension which is the subject of this topic (it was supposed to be finished in 09 untill it was invalidated) is not the original, ECMA approved trainers are carrying out the training.

The paper which invalidated the old section 4 of the original study, - _'Assessment of Cortisol, heart rate, body language data collection method in a training context_, Lincoln University DEFRA tender' - is available at £40 per copy.

.


----------



## momentofmadness (Jul 19, 2008)

SleepyBones said:


> What I would like to see an answere to is why have pet owners given up on positive training & turning to e-collars & other types of training? seems your avoiding that altogether.


Personally *Never* met a trainer who would use an e collar.. The people in my circles think they are *barbaric* and a *lazy* way to train..

I know trainers for the Cheshire police, I know dog trainers I know people who do agility.. And not one would use them..


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Devils Advocate:



momentofmadness said:


> Personally *Never* met a trainer who would use an e collar.


I have met a trainer who, whilst never using it themselves for training was prepared to teach somebody else I know how to use it correctly. This was only after many months of consult as to why the collar was needed and what particular purpose it was meeting, all coupled with much soul searching by the owner. I won't go into the very long background to the whole story and I won't answer any morality or ethical questions this friends actions may give rise to comment by the forum members.

Whilst the collars are currently widely available, and currently legal, there are no instructors readily available to provide instruction on their correct use. This then leads to the bigger issue of the largely uneducated (in the sense of dog training not GCSE qualifications) public majority following instructions seen or read on the internet, or at worst making it up themselves. Needless to say many will doubtlessly get it wrong and potentially cause both physical but mostly psychological harm to the suffering animals.

Those who are going to use these items are going to do so, end of. My argument is at the very least there should be trainers who will stick their head above the parapet and be prepared to provide correct instruction on how to use them 'properly' rather than trainers providing a 'back door' service because of the 'bad press' they and the collars receive currently.

If a product is available then at least provide the correct and appropriate level of training and support in their use.

_Wonder at what point riding crops will be banned from use by riders, after all the horse has no say in their application._


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> If a product is available then at least provide the correct and appropriate level of training and support in their use.


how about _limit the availability of such special-application tools to specialists, like CAABs 
&/or vet-behaviorists &/or registered trainers who've passed an exam for the privilege?_

then only those who KNOW HOW can buy, use or teach their use, & ignorant pet-owners won't be buying, 
using or fumbling thru the learning-process - instead, *if it is supposedly needed as a last-resort - * 
which i frankly doubt the necessity, but for the sake of discussion -- *folks who know what they're doing 
will be the only ones who can buy or use them, legally.*

OTOH - *devil's advocate - * Switzerland has already tried this, & has been forced to raise the punishment 
on violations from fines to fine-plus-gaol, due to pigheaded ppl who insist on buying them 'under the counter' - 
illegally.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> there are no instructors readily available to provide instruction on their correct use.


Im surprised that you particulary posted that ISG because you so often stay with what you know & avoid non basis predjudice guesswork.

It would be accurate to say that some manufacturers are poor on what they send out but to say no instructions available is far, far and away from fact.

One retailer, one of the largest in volumn turnover, brought Robin Macfarlanes 2 volumn video set last Nov after I reveiwed it.

His first container (those big metal aircraft containers) import even surprised him, it was sold out within 3 weeks and now he is importing 3 containers per month and selling the lot with demand rising al the time, he has some clips on his web site.

Only a complete dummy could not understand the simplicity of it as it taught by Robin, she has an exceptional talent at teaching as well as being a damn good trainer.

The same retailer also sends out the Dogtrace video with every collar on top of any manufacturers which are in the sealed boxes. I gave out the official ECMA sales figures from 2008 - 2010 many times on here, if you did not see them by 2010 sales were running at 75,000 PA. Last years figs were 86,000 collars sold.

Now, the return figs of collars (v important) due to pet owners saying, did not like, would not work or faulty from 2 top (in volumn sales) retailers are returned collars average around 0.0007% PA & that figure has been consistant since 2005, less than 1-100 returns on a product which falls under the sales of goods act.

What do thos figs tell you? They should tell you that on an annual basis of dog owners who do some (any kind) of training with their dog the vast majority these days have used an e-collar, work it out.

The largest by many times training organisation APDT was down to only 509 members on 7/12/2010. There are probably far less than 1000 trainers of all kinds in the whole UK.

It would be hard to work out properly but its safe (very) to say less then 1 in every 10,000 maybe even less thqan 20,000 pet owners ever get to any training class, maybe you should ask yourself "So what on earth is the shouting about training about?" where are all these trainers especially now they are in decline as no one wants them anymore due to the bad reputation training & behaviourism has given itself over this past decade (mainly)

As far as 'positive training' goes thats been in steady but increasing decline since around 2006, maybe 7. I know 2 trainers who use all methods including e-collar training (who don't know each other or of each other) who were getting pet dog owners from APDT Crawley coming to them even some years ago. Many of them had been told by APDT trainers Crawley that their dogs should be PTS & apparently in the earlier part of 2010 some did actually do that, but, the ones which started drifting & eventually pouring into these 2 independant trainers were not much more than a little bit bouisterous and to difficult to handel with the trick & treat training APDT Crawley seemed to have been teaching them.

People dont need trainers for e-collars, they do need a good video & telephone support.

So to close this. Pet owners who use collars (or have used them) are largely NOT people who just idly thought "Oh Ill get one of those", they are mainly one time positive trained pet oners who eventually realized it was the training they were being taught which was ineffective & causing problems & not that their dog was exceptionaly lively or had 'behavioural probolems' which is what they were being told by positive trainers.

So with those figs I just out again & the fact that your closed into mainly e-collar illiterate people here rather than the majority who have succesfully used e-collars I suggest you look around more. Below is a video feedback Vancouver client of Robin Mcfarlane who has also been a client of Jean Donaldson & Ian Dunbar, shes asseses them all.

YouTube - ‪Opinions about Remote Collar Training vs Other Trainer's Seminars‬‏

.


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

momentofmadness said:


> Oh yes.. And see what this section is for??
> 
> *Discuss dog training and behaviour problems in this section. Are you having problems with your dogs behaviour? Then submit your problems and get help from other members. Do you have some excellent dog training advice? then submit your details here to help others.*
> 
> Its not a part of the forum where posters can insult other members because they do not agree.. Its a part of the forum for helping others with training issues..


Just a reminder


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

more from the Intl Vet Conference 


> re spray & shock-collars -
> 
> QUOTE:
> in the field, 2 clearly distinct populations are found:
> ...


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

SleepyBones said:


> Im surprised that you particulary posted that ISG because you so often stay with what you know & avoid non basis predjudice guesswork.....
> ....His first container (*those big metal aircraft containers*)


Ooo, I know what those are, am closely involved in the import and export of said aluminium tubing, as we loosely call those flying buses 



SleepyBones said:


> Pet owners who use collars (or have used them) are largely NOT people who just idly thought "Oh Ill get one of those", they are mainly one time positive trained pet oners who eventually realized it was the training they were being taught which was ineffective & causing problems & not that their dog was exceptionaly lively or had 'behavioural probolems' which is what they were being told by positive trainers.


Generally I'd probably agree, but I couldn't say this were true for my next door town which is where the PAH store has them on offer.

Can't contribute much more since the thread looks to be on the verge of being closed, we have been warned, again :smile:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> Generally I'd probably agree, but I couldn't say this were true for my next door town which is where the PAH store has them on offer.


Are you in UK? (I thought you were) Whats PAH? I don't know what it is! If your in UK do you mean a pet supermaket thing are selling them? if so what make & model of collars are they.

Significantly - how collars are sold & marketed is a whole different area to e-collar use & applications and does not neccesarily get the support of specialists in the feild who are the ones best placed to do something about shortcomings.

But, again in the whole context, it's not just e-collars. There are currently severe crticisms of the whole pet dog training & behaviour industry from/by CAWC, things such as trainers not telling people what the goals are, trainers (very common) keeping clients coming for years in some cases when the dog was outside their methods or abilites to train a reliable offlead recall from the pet owners firt lesson & whole range of related issues - Then looked at from another angle, CAWC might merely be boosting up its own image by making such criticisms & setting itself above & apart from the rest, & so it all goes on & on & on.



> the thread looks to be on the verge of being closed, we have been warned, again


I know, it's those other posters, can't take 'em anywhere
.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Uk - yes

PAH - Pets At Home, sort of a supermarket for animal supplies mostly Cats & Dogs focussed. Tend to forget that forum stretches around the world :blush:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

ISG -Pets At Home, 

Oh, yes I know it, I did not know they were selling e-collars, are you sure? I doubt very much they would be comemercialy succesfull in that kind of outlet. 

ISG - Tend to forget that forum stretches around the world

Yes indeed, were are budding international icons of art & litrature,

.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Not too long ago l4l wrote this,


> France & Germany have either bans or limits [who may use them, who may buy them, for what purpose, etc]. Denmark i believe has a total ban.


And I responded,


> Please show us *the laws * from France, Germany and Denmark that covers this.


It seems like a simple request to me and one that is quite natural. If someone says that something is illegal and you don't know if it is or it isn't then it's reasonable to ask them to cite the law that states that it is. NOTHING ELSE BUT SUCH A CITATION is acceptable. There are hundreds of urban legends about what is illegal or legal and the ONLY way to prove it one way or the other is to cite the law that governs.

For example there's a common myth in California that it's illegal to drive a car while barefoot. I heard it when I was a kid nearly a half century ago and one of my kids asked me about it when she started driving several years ago. It persists no matter how many efforts are made to wipe it out. Not too long ago it came up on a discussion board and a CHP (California Highway Patrol) officer claimed that it was true. I asked for him to cite the law on this and after a couple of days of going back and forth he finally admitted that he was wrong.

If a law exists it's very easy to prove that it does. These days such things are recorded on government web sites and easily available through the Internet. If someone says that something is against the law, the burden to prove it, is on them.

On her first response to my query l4l cited * AN ARTICLE *that resulted from an *International Veterinary Conference, *to support her statement. Not only was it NOT a citation of the law, it was from 1994. This is hardly a reliable source as to the state of the law today.

And so I pointed this out to l4l. I reminded her that I'd asked for a citation * of the law, * to support her statement that such laws existed. Then I wrote,


> Your information is seriously out of date. I'd suggest that you either supply these laws to support your statements, or update your source for such information. I know for a fact that in some of these countries all that's necessary is to get a vet to write a letter, which they do so at the merest request.


So today l4l quotes * FROM A BLOG * written early in January about a TV appearance by Cesar Milan in Denmark. According to the blog when the local folks heard about CM's appearance they started writing to the TV station and whining that they didn't like his methods. *The blog states * that Ecollars are illegal in Denmark.

Yep that's where I go when I want definitive information as to the legality of something. If it's in a blog YOU KNOW that it's reliable information because they have so many fact checkers, right? They have dozens of people who do nothing but go to the source and check to make sure that what is written there is true and accurate don't they? What? You mean they don't?! You mean that what is written in a blog is just one guy's opinion and we have no idea if it's right or not, if it's true or not?

Still waiting for you to show us *THE LAW * l4l.

OH yeah, I notice that you're still claiming that Ecollars are _"BANNED"_ in Germany. I've already stated that the SV has prohibited their use by its member clubs but that is NOT the same as "banned by law" the standard that was originally stated.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> That is very significant factor, making all of lFL's examples relevant.


Good to know RobD that you think that l4l's statements about these VERY DIFFERENT DEVICES (the Ecollar, the Invisible Fence and the Bark Collar) are all relevant.

I'd say that means that you agree with the absurd nonsense contained in the article she cited. Some of them are very clearly lies or at least VERY SERIOUS ERRORS. That includes such statements that are obviously untrue such as _"Electric shocks are painful stimuli."_ or that there were no _"serious studies of their efficacy & harmlessness."_ Never mind that the paper l4l cited was published around 1994.

But the biggest pile of nonsense was the claim that Ecollars (the only one of the devices that was being discussed until l4l tried to move the goalposts) was that they needed grounding to protect the dogs from lightning! There is no record of ANY DOG being hit by lightning while he was wearing an Ecollar that has linked the two together. The fear mongering that was being engaged in was l4l quoting some advertising of an accessory which *PROTECTS THE WIRING AND THE TRANSMITTER *of Invisible Fences. Nothing to do with her insinuation that there was danger to the dogs.

But thanks RobD, it's always good to know where you stand on these things.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

momentofmadness said:


> Personally *Never* met a trainer who would use an e collar.. The people in my circles think they are *barbaric* and a *lazy* way to train..
> 
> I know trainers for the Cheshire police, I know dog trainers I know people who do agility.. And not one would use them..


Sounds like you know lots of trainers who think they know about Ecollars. I'd bet that they know NOTHING of modern uses of modern versions of it. Citing more closed minds hardly supports the argument against Ecollars.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Devils Advocate:
> 
> I have met a trainer who, whilst never using it themselves for training was prepared to teach somebody else I know how to use it correctly. This was only after many months of consult as to why the collar was needed and what particular purpose it was meeting, all coupled with much soul searching by the owner. I won't go into the very long background to the whole story and I won't answer any morality or ethical questions this friends actions may give rise to comment by the forum members.
> 
> Whilst the collars are currently widely available, and currently legal, there are no instructors readily available to provide instruction on their correct use.


It's a shame that people who call themselves dog trainers have shut themselves off to learning about some tools. I don't think they deserve the title "dog trainer" if they lack such knowledge.

Ecollars are among the easiest of dog training tools to use. Instructions on them can be found online from many sources. My website is just one of many.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> how about limit the availability of such special-application tools to specialists, like CAABs
> &/or vet-behaviorists &/or registered trainers who've passed an exam for the privilege?
> 
> then only those who KNOW HOW can buy, use or teach their use, & ignorant pet-owners won't be buying, using or fumbling thru the learning-process - instead, *if it is supposedly needed as a last-resort *


*

In the history of mankind can you name ONE tool, ONE substance or one ANYTHING that passing legislation has successfully controlled?

FAR BETTER to legislate behavior than inanimate objects. If someone uses an Ecollar improperly to abuse a dog or otherwise cause some cruelty THEN PROSECUTE THEM.*


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> more from the Intl Vet Conference


L4l quotes a paper.


> re spray & shock-collars 


Im not a fan of spray collars for barking. If there is another dog in the environment he'll be punished by the spray, even though he's not the one doing the barking. MANY dogs don't find either the noise or the scent of the products use for aversion, to be aversive. And finally, the punishment (if the dog finds the scent aversive) goes on long after the barking has stopped.

L4l quotes a paper.


> in the field, 2 clearly distinct populations are found:
> - in most cases [80%], the first few times the collar is triggered the dog is profoundly surprised & *ceases barking after a few attempts; *however, it will only set the collar off a few times & will nto become used to it.


GOOD. The barking has stopped.

L4l quotes a paper.


> - in a minority of cases [20%], the dog reacts at first to the spray but gradually becomes used to its release & stops reacting (the stimulus is no longer disruptive); these dogs are highly motivated to bark, trigger the device regularly, & therefore become used to the stimulus.


Yep nothing in dog training is guaranteed to work all the time. Bark collars are ineffective sometimes because the motivation to bark is too high. But overwhelmingly they work exactly as they're supposed to. Most Ecollar and bark collar manufacturers offer a money back warranty if the product is returned, even if it's been used, if it's returned within 30 days. That's plenty of time to find out if the product is going to work or not.



leashedForLife said:


> to resort to an electric collar in these circumstances is both useless & dangerous. Of course, the vocalization symptom may be suppressed, but the cause of the problem - separation anxiety, social phobia, etc - will not be diagnosed & will certainly not be resolved.


Lots of hand wringers spend hundreds of hours worrying about their dog's psychological well being. In many cases if dogs can't be stopped from barking and the so−called "kinder gentler methods" don't have a good record of stopping this sort of barking, they wind up in the pound where often they'll be killed. Somehow these hand wringers conveniently overlook this fact.

L4l quotes a paper.


> Electric collars entail major risks with respect to behavior modification: there have been accounts of dogs suffering from separation anxiety whose vocalization problem has been treated with electric shocks & which have subsequently developed displacement activities, such as licking & self-mutilation


MORE PEOPLE establishing a cause and effect relationship between two things just because they happen to occur at about the same time. Im surprised that people who call themselves scientists publish this kind of nonsense.

Do you know that sunspots, since they've been recorded have with GREAT ACCURACY predicted the number of Republicans in congress in the US? That is until the Reagan administration when they turned around 100% and with GREAT ACCURACY predicted the number of Democrats in congress. I'm sure that there are some who will say that this is another example of a cause  effect relationship. ROFL.

L4l quotes a paper.


> Shep, a two-year-old German Shepherd, was behaving aggressively toward other German Shepherds. Usually Shep began an intimidation sequence (growling, barking) before attacking the other dog. His owner, irritated by the noise made during walks, decided to buy an electric anti-barking collar. Since Shep's motivation is strong (social phobia), when he comes across another dog, he barks in warning. Since wearing his [shock] collar, he receives an electric shock. Shep stops dead, lets the other dog move away, & the collar has apparently worked. However, what Shep has actually learned is that whenever another dog is close, electrical punishment is triggered. This represents negative conditioning [bad associations to a stim or circ] which can only reinforce Shep's social phobia.


A classic example of bad training. A wise trainer would have the dog barking when other dogs WERE NOT present thereby making such an association impossible. Then, when Shep had learned that it was HIS BARKING that triggered the discomfort he could be allowed back in the environment where other dogs were present. It's foolish to blame the tool for the poor training.

L4l quotes a paper.


> In the same way, the aggression of a dog toward an external stimulus can be reinforced. Imagine a child
> annoying a dog, who is behind a gate. The excited dog barks & receives a shock. The lesson learned is: child outside the gate = punishment. Imagine what the dog will want to do if unfortunately the gate has been left open, the next time the child is there...


The same can be said for this bit of nonsense. Bad training not an issue with the Ecollar.

L4l quotes a paper.


> It is our duty as veterinarians to strongly discourage the use of electrical devices in cases of this nature.


It is the duty of vets to see that dogs are not put to sleep for reasons that are easily fixed.

L4l quotes a paper.


> On the other hand, * a disruptive stimulus could interrupt the behavioral cycle without exacerbating the aggression of the dog. *


At least these folks have some balance and realize that bark collars DO have an application. The same conclusion was reached in the study that I've already cited by J. Steiss, 2003.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Supressing symptoms is not a solution that's just a palliative, adressing the underlying cause is required in a solution. Inhibiting a behaviour leads to frustration.

Bad training is a fact of life, tools which inherently provide a good safety margin are to be preferred. It is not foolish to object to tools on such grounds. Very many products have been redesigned in order to provide safer operation. There are also restrictions on firearms in many countries for similar reasons.

Methods that reward wanted behaviours and avoid humanely bad behaviours are preferred on animal welfare grounds by majority consensus of organisations, Dog trainers & behaviourists with academic qualifications, as well (crucially) by voters in the UK.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Supressing symptoms is not a solution that's just a palliative, adressing the underlying cause is required in a solution. Inhibiting a behaviour leads to frustration.


RobD when you can tell me with all honesty that you, or anyone, can diagnose the cause of barking WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, then and only then will this argument have any validity. It's a guess, perhaps an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless as to why a given dog is barking at a given moment. If your guess is wrong, so will be your treatment. There are MANY stories of dogs who wear bark collars not only stopping barking but also calming down and having their (alleged) separation anxiety just disappear.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Bad training is a fact of life, tools which inherently provide a good safety margin are to be preferred.


I agree. That's why I recommend an Ecollar. They have LARGE _"safety margins"_ when used correctly.



RobD-BCactive said:


> It is not foolish to object to tools on such grounds. Very many products have been redesigned in order to provide safer operation.


I agree. Ecollars are one such tool that has been redesigned _"in order to provide safer operation."_



RobD-BCactive said:


> There are also restrictions on firearms in many countries for similar reasons.


Most industrial countries have _"restrictions on firearms."_ Notice that it only affects those who obey the law, the very people who DO NOT NEED regulation. Those who will use guns illegally, still do. They don't give a damn that they're restricted. They still use them to commit crimes. But this was a VERY poor example to use. If you think that people are emotional about Ecollars, wait till you see the reaction to gun control. But perhaps that was the very reason that you made this choice. lol



RobD-BCactive said:


> Methods that reward wanted behaviours and avoid humanely bad behaviours are preferred on animal welfare grounds by majority consensus of organisations, Dog trainers & behaviourists with academic qualifications, as well (crucially) by voters in the UK.


People who use Ecollars _"reward wanted behaviors."_ I think it's part of your plan to get people to either forget that. or to get them to believe that we don't. Rarely do we _"avoid ... bad behaviors"_ as usually it has no effect on stopping them, especially if they are self rewarding. Most of the "organizations" you describe exist for the benefit those who favor the so−called "kinder gentler methods." Ones that exist for the benefit of ALL trainers, no matter what tool/method they favor DO NOT oppose the use of Ecollars. There's a fiscal duty to theier members in those organizations that do oppose their use. I'm a _"dog trainer & behaviorist with academic qualifications"_ and I certainly don't oppose their use.

As to _"voters,"_ we're not having an election here. So your point is worthless. Majority doesn't rule on this matter.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Lou Castle said:


> when you can tell me with all honesty that you, or anyone, can diagnose the cause of barking WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, then and only then will this argument have any validity. It's a guess, perhaps an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless as to why a given dog is barking at a given moment. If your guess is wrong, so will be your treatment


Which is true of Doctor's treatment & prescribing in many cases, if the patient does not respond then tests or alternative medicine may be prescribed.

When I surmise my dog is attention barking and I ignore him and reward quiet with attention, very quickly I had confirmation of that diagnosis by calmer behaviour like auto-sitting (once other main handler was consistent). As the treatment did not have side-effects, being somewhat uncertain costs only a little time and one can re-diagnose.

On firearm restrictions, the law abiding benefit through family rows not escalating to weapons being pointed or accidental shootings occuring. Most murders are by one family member on another, comparing the UK with US murder rate suggests we benefit from the restrictions despite illegal weapons being available to street gangs.

The mindset of *force, coercion, misrepresentation and intolerance* that's been displayed on this forum, has IMO raised awareness and many would conclude that Aversive Dog Trainers indeed do exist and cannot be trusted to have "taste" and sound judgement, so should face criminal not civil charges.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 18, 2011)

Earlier I wrote,


> when you can tell me with all honesty that you, or anyone, can diagnose the cause of barking WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, then and only then will this argument have any validity. It's a guess, perhaps an educated guess, but a guess nonetheless as to why a given dog is barking at a given moment. If your guess is wrong, so will be your treatment





RobD-BCactive said:


> Which is true of Doctor's treatment & prescribing in many cases, if the patient does not respond then tests or alternative medicine may be prescribed.


So while you're fiddling around trying to guess the reason for the dog's barking, the neighbors are notifying the authorities and the owners are being fined or they're taking the dog to the shelter or the vet's to be killed. Nice solution!



RobD-BCactive said:


> When I surmise my dog is attention barking and I ignore him and reward quiet with attention,


Much, if not MOST, problem barking happens when the owner is not home and so this solution is worthless.



RobD-BCactive said:


> As the treatment did not have side-effects, being somewhat uncertain costs only a little time and one can re-diagnose.


If the dog is NOT barking for attention then the side−effect is that he keeps barking and annoying the neighbors. It's often hard for a dog owner to realize (some don't even consider it at all) how annoying barking can be for someone who either does not own a dog or does not like dogs. One bark a day can be maddening to these folks. There are many instances of them poisoning the dog. It's a simple fact that sometimes barking is an emergency situation that must be stopped immediately. It can be as deadly as running into a busy street. So while you play around, trying to find the reason for the barking, they're putting the poison pill together.



RobD-BCactive said:


> On firearm restrictions, the law abiding benefit through family rows not escalating to weapons being pointed or accidental shootings occuring.


That's what you'd like to believe and is a constant refrain of antigun people. The truth is that guns in homes SAVE far more lives than they take through these accidents. In the US it's estimated that guns are used about 2 MILLION times a years to protect someone.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Most murders are by one family member on another,


Thanks for making my argument. This depends on where you live. In gang areas it's NOT the case. Since they're not going to obey the prohibition of the law on guns such laws are worthless to control their behavior. Murder is already against the law but it doesnt stop them either. In cases where the murder DOES occur within the family the absence of a gun doesn't stop the killing. They just go to another tool.



RobD-BCactive said:


> comparing the UK with US murder rate suggests we benefit from the restrictions despite illegal weapons being available to street gangs.


Actually the prohibitions against guns in your country has left you quite helpless against those who pay no attention to the law. I'm here today because I carry a gun. I was involved in an off−duty incident wherein someone tried to kill me. A gun saved my life. Some folks prefer that the government protect them rather than to protect yourselves. There's an old saying, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." Try dialing the police on your cell phone when the gang member has a gun to your head.



RobD-BCactive said:


> The mindset of force, coercion


There's a reason that commands are called _"commands"_ and not "requests." We've placed dogs into environments that can be life threatening to them and they deserve to be made as safe as possible. Using an Ecollar DOES NOT _"force"_ or _"coerce"_ a dog into a behavior any more than does a treat, toy or praise. The dog always has the ability to decide NOT to obey a command.



RobD-BCactive said:


> misrepresentation


Are you talking about l4l's misrepresentation that in the Baltimore PD video that an Ecollar is in use, when it's not? Perhaps you are referring to her reference to something as positive punishment when in fact it's negative punishment? How about the rather consistent lie that an Ecollar causes dogs to void their bowels that was made but then never supported? Or the one about Ecollars causing electrical burns? Would that include the one that was so absurd it made it to my page of myths ... that a dog wearing an invisible fence collar was in danger from lightning?! Or maybe you mean your own misrepresentations? How about the falsehood that an Ecollar can be activated by a microwave? Perhaps you mean the tall tale that dogs have been electrocuted (KILLED) by Ecollars? Or do you mean your erroneous statement that reinforcing one behavior punishes others? Are those the _"misrepresentations"_ you're referring to?



RobD-BCactive said:


> and intolerance[/b] that's been displayed on this forum,


Intolerance? You mean the intolerance that quite a few have shown in their requests to shut down ALL conversations about Ecollars? You mean the request by the would−be book burners to eliminate anyone who talks about using Ecollars by banning them from the forum? Is that the intolerance you refer to?



RobD-BCactive said:


> has IMO raised awareness and many would conclude that Aversive Dog Trainers indeed do exist and cannot be trusted to have "taste" and sound judgement, so should face criminal not civil charges.


What's an _"Aversive Dog Trainer"_ RobD? Someone who uses aversives? If that's the case then ANYONE who trains a dog is an _"Aversive Dog Trainer."_ Is it someone who uses five Aversives a day? If so ANYONE who trains a dog is an _"Aversive Dog Trainer."_ How many aversives in a training session makes one an _"Aversive Dog Trainer?"_

Animal abuse and cruelty are already against the law in just about every industrial country in the world. If someone is abusing a dog or committing cruelty then call the appropriate authorities and have them arrested, convicted and jailed. I've done it, have you? Basing this on the tool that's being used rather than what is actually happening to the dog displays ignorance and stupidity.


----------



## westie~ma (Mar 16, 2009)

Closed this.


----------

