Radio fence for dog

ISDW

almighty1 wrote: »

Which part?

Second paragraph is not a theory, its my opinion.

What scientific evidence is your opinion based upon?

almighty1

ISDW wrote: »

What scientific evidence is your opinion based upon?

Sorry I must have missed the lecture when it was explained that people need scientific evidence before they can formulate an opinion.

Could you please explain the scientific evidence that explains why opinions can only be derived from scientific evidence

ISDW

almighty1 wrote: »

Sorry I must have missed the lecture when it was explained that people need scientific evidence before they can formulate an opinion.

Could you please explain the scientific evidence that explains why opinions can only be derived from scientific evidence

You and other posters have disputed the experience and evidence posted by a professional working in the field of animal health, yet you come up with a percentage of time a dog should spend outside, with no evidence to back that up. Go figure.

Cherry Blossom

almighty1 wrote: »

Well its depends on how often you bring your dogs for a walk. Think about it from their standpoint. Their instincts are to move around, play, mark their territory etc, how can they do this being inside 24x7?

How does dumping a dog outside and electrocuting it equal exercise or become a substitute for its owners getting off their lazy backsides and fulfilling its needs which is what they made themselves responsible for when they choose to get a dog?

My dog is a mostly indoor dog (a lot more than 40% of the time). She spends an hour every morning 'helping' me muck out stables, she also gets a half hour walk on-lead and follows me around until I go to work, then she chills out in the living room for a few hours. After lunch when the house gets busy - (kids coming in from school etc.) she goes outside to her 12ft run (where people leaving doors/gates open is not an issue) for around 4 hours. She then gets a long walk on-lead in late evening followed by a run in the fields off-lead or some agility training in the back yard. At the weekend I take her hiking with me. My day starts at 7am and ends at around 2am and the dog sleeps in my room. At most (week-days) that's around 3 hours exercise every day and my dog is either lazing around the house or in her run the rest of the time. She has no wish whatsoever to be left in the garden unaccompanied and will sit on the doorstep crying to get in. Outside alone is incredibly boring after about 15 minutes, but she's perfectly content in her run with her kongs and comfy bed, she just does what she would in the house . . . sleep! Can you point out to me the parts of my routine that are any way cruel given that the maximum time in any given day that she doesn't have constant access to human companionship is the 4 hours in the dog run?

I find it unbelievable that people dumping their dogs outside and electrocuting them due to human laziness and not wanting to spend money on a proper fence can accuse anyone else of cruelty.

DBB

Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts, but I will nonetheless, because I think your posts need to be challenged, and things you state clarified. Can I also point out to you that you might think about attacking the post, not the poster: calling me naive, and referring in such a dismissive manner to Graces7's post, does not make me want to take you very seriously.

eilo1 wrote: »

No that is not what I am saying, perhaps you should reread over all of my posts on this. Im saying the shock is minimal and basically no worse than a nip from a bitch.

So, can I ask, does a pup find a nip from a bitch pleasant? I'm assuming you mean a pup being admonished by it's mother... having reared lots of pups, I have never seen a bitch nip her pups. I've seen them sometimes give a pup a gentle mouthing, but have never seen teeth used. Just FYI on that one. In any case, I'm interested that causing any level of pain is justifiable?

You have my assurance that I read your posts thoroughly, I don't comment on posts unless I have read them thoroughly.
However, you might forgive me for wondering whether you were suggesting that electric stimulation therapy on humans transfers to shock-collars having a therapeutic effect on dogs, because you mention this therapy as being non-harmful and therapuetic several times on a thread where you're also justifying the use of shock collars:

I have had this myself and there is plenty of research to prove that although the sensation is not pleasant it is not seriously painful and causes good, not harm in these people.

The voltage used in shock collars is lower than used in rehab therapy. I was trying to give a reference point to people who may not have felt this shock so they have a realistic idea of what it feels like.

IMO the shock collar is not as big a deal as some people would have you believe, you yourself have experience a stronger shock and found it therapeutic

I have tried a number of brands of e-collars on myself: not on my neck, but on my hands. In all cases (1) I was really anxious in the lead-up to it, because I knew something unpleasant was coming, and (2) I let go of the collar when I got the shock because it was uncomfortable enough to not want to hold it any longer.
I have used the Radio Fence system before, back in days of yore. So I'm not dismissing it out of hand: I base my opinions on personal experience, as well as reading peer-reviewed research and findings of other behaviourists around the world.
So, having been there and done that, I think it quite stunning that people still try to justify a "little bit" of pain when completely painless, and more effective options are available. It's just not justifiable, and it amazes me how people continue to try to justify them. It's the same with poeple who keep using choke chains and alpha-rolls etc... in the face of great evidence in favour of positive, non-punitive equipment, they still cling to the belief that it's okay to deliberately cause a dog even "minimal" pain ("minimal" being in the neck of the beholder).
Can I also say again, yet again, that whilst the level of the shock is one thing, it is not so much the instantaneous nature of it that's a big problem for welfare: it's the anticipation of the shock that causes long-term harm. So, you can tell me as much as you like how "minimally" unpleasant you find a shock, that's not the point. The point is that use of these collars can cause long-term anxiety, which makes a quick shock look like small fry in comparison.
I'm dying to hear someone justifying this. In fact, I've asked this question on several simlar threads before, and it's always conveniently ignored :rolleyes:

As non elective as being locked in a pen for hours, being tied around your neck to a moving anchor or being taken from your mother at a young age.

So replace one negative form of containment with another? At least a dog is safe in a pen.
Re taking a pup from it's mother.. can I just quote you back to yourself on that one?

What? I mean seriously, just what are you on about?????

Please tell me what has taking a pup from its mother got to do with shock collars? Or this entire thread?

Plus the sensation is not intensified by its proximity to the brain, so being in the neck is not more or less painful than say in torso or tail.

You're right. Proximity to the brain has got little to do with this. It's got everything to do with nerve endings: the neck is much richer in nerve endings for many breeds than other areas of the body. he trachea and opesophagus lie just under the skin where the collar works. The pain of getting a shock in the neck has nothing whatsoever to do with proximity to the brain. But of course you'll know this, what with you doing a course in health science.

And for your information that is nativity at its best, the new horse whip rules being a prime example. Its popularity backed up by bias and or selective research.

This particular comment caused some mirth in this house, not because of your typo, but because of how far off the mark you are with it! You're not to know this, and I don't particularly like bigging myself up on forums as it doesn't read well, but it just so happens that I have more expertise and working experience in the field of animal welfare than most, having studied it to a high level and working in the area. So, a lot of things I might be, but when it comes to matters of animal welfare and welfare law, naive I ain't :rolleyes:
I also happen to know the reseachers in the UK who acted, and continue to act, as consultants in the drafting of the rather good UK animal welfare laws, and can utterly assure you that without their research and advice, these laws simply would not exist.
Just an FYI on the whip rules: they are rules, not laws. They were introduced by the British Horseracing Authority, and are not part of UK legislation. I'd hate to see the legislators in the UK being tarred with your spurious assertions.

Im in my final year of a health sciences course and the spread of the inflammation along with no sign of charring makes its far more likely in my opinion, that the injuries where from friction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't friction one of the causes of burning? It's not the saem as holding a lit match up to a dog's throat, but it is burning all the same. With secondary dermatitis and infection. but of course, you'll know that, what with your course in health science.
I'm interested at the attitude that one form of injury seems to be more acceptable to you than another: the fact remains that these injuries were caused by the prongs on an e-collar, which suggests there is a pretty remarkable design flaw with these collars (shaving a dog's neck as per manufacturer's recommendations, and placing two 1cm long prongs against the bare skin seems to be asking for trouble)

To DBB and the girl who mentioned the animal welfare laws only being based on scientific evidence, what do you think of the RB list :cool:

For starters, if you would return the respect and read my post in context :rolleyes:, my post was specifically in response to the shock-collar ban in Wales.
However, just to clarify to you, the RB list in Ireland, and the banned breed list in the UK, were knee-jerk reactions by politicians to dog control laws, not animal welfare laws (they are separate Acts and Orders). As I said before, the welfare laws are based on scientific research, whether it's in relation to dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, fish or frogs. Once the research has answered the necessary questions, the legislation is designed around it. That's not naive talking, it is fact. If you'd like, I can send you a small selection of the myriad research papers the legislation is based on.

DBB

almighty1 wrote: »

Sorry I must have missed the lecture when it was explained that people need scientific evidence before they can formulate an opinion.

Could you please explain the scientific evidence that explains why opinions can only be derived from scientific evidence

Tell you what... if you ever need brain surgery, or any medical procedure carried out, or even if you ever need psychiatric help, I'd be happy to step up to the mark? I'll even do it for nothing, as I've no expertise nor have read any research into these things.

eilo1

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

How does dumping a dog outside and electrocuting it equal exercise or become a substitute for its owners getting off their lazy backsides and fulfilling its needs which is what they made themselves responsible for when they choose to get a dog?

My dog is a mostly indoor dog (a lot more than 40% of the time). She spends an hour every morning 'helping' me muck out stables, she also gets a half hour walk on-lead and follows me around until I go to work, then she chills out in the living room for a few hours. After lunch when the house gets busy - (kids coming in from school etc.) she goes outside to her 12ft run (where people leaving doors/gates open is not an issue) for around 4 hours. She then gets a long walk on-lead in late evening followed by a run in the fields off-lead or some agility training in the back yard. At the weekend I take her hiking with me. My day starts at 7am and ends at around 2am and the dog sleeps in my room. At most (week-days) that's around 3 hours exercise every day and my dog is either lazing around the house or in her run the rest of the time. She has no wish whatsoever to be left in the garden unaccompanied and will sit on the doorstep crying to get in. Outside alone is incredibly boring after about 15 minutes, but she's perfectly content in her run with her kongs and comfy bed, she just does what she would in the house . . . sleep! Can you point out to me the parts of my routine that are any way cruel given that the maximum time in any given day that she doesn't have constant access to human companionship is the 4 hours in the dog run?

I find it unbelievable that people dumping their dogs outside and electrocuting them due to human laziness and not wanting to spend money on a proper fence can accuse anyone else of cruelty.

So now people who let their dogs out are cruel because they are "dumping" them?

And why are people getting so angry and abusive?

mikom

eilo1 wrote: »

And why are people getting so angry and abusive?

Fur babies mammies and daddies tend to get like that from time to time.

eilo1

DBB wrote: »

Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts, but I will nonetheless, because I think your posts need to be challenged, and things you state clarified. Can I also point out to you that you might think about attacking the post, not the poster: calling me naive, and referring in such a dismissive manner to Graces7's post, does not make me want to take you very seriously.



So, can I ask, does a pup find a nip from a bitch pleasant? I'm assuming you mean a pup being admonished by it's mother... having reared lots of pups, I have never seen a bitch nip her pups. I've seen them sometimes give a pup a gentle mouthing, but have never seen teeth used. Just FYI on that one. In any case, I'm interested that causing any level of pain is justifiable?

You have my assurance that I read your posts thoroughly, I don't comment on posts unless I have read them thoroughly.
However, you might forgive me for wondering whether you were suggesting that electric stimulation therapy on humans transfers to shock-collars having a therapeutic effect on dogs, because you mention this therapy as being non-harmful and therapuetic several times on a thread where you're also justifying the use of shock collars:





I have tried a number of brands of e-collars on myself: not on my neck, but on my hands. In all cases (1) I was really anxious in the lead-up to it, because I knew something unpleasant was coming, and (2) I let go of the collar when I got the shock because it was uncomfortable enough to not want to hold it any longer.
I have used the Radio Fence system before, back in days of yore. So I'm not dismissing it out of hand: I base my opinions on personal experience, as well as reading peer-reviewed research and findings of other behaviourists around the world.
So, having been there and done that, I think it quite stunning that people still try to justify a "little bit" of pain when completely painless, and more effective options are available. It's just not justifiable, and it amazes me how people continue to try to justify them. It's the same with poeple who keep using choke chains and alpha-rolls etc... in the face of great evidence in favour of positive, non-punitive equipment, they still cling to the belief that it's okay to deliberately cause a dog even "minimal" pain ("minimal" being in the neck of the beholder).
Can I also say again, yet again, that whilst the level of the shock is one thing, it is not so much the instantaneous nature of it that's a big problem for welfare: it's the anticipation of the shock that causes long-term harm. So, you can tell me as much as you like how "minimally" unpleasant you find a shock, that's not the point. The point is that use of these collars can cause long-term anxiety, which makes a quick shock look like small fry in comparison.
I'm dying to hear someone justifying this. In fact, I've asked this question on several simlar threads before, and it's always conveniently ignored :rolleyes:



So replace one negative form of containment with another? At least a dog is safe in a pen.
Re taking a pup from it's mother.. can I just quote you back to yourself on that one?

Please tell me what has taking a pup from its mother got to do with shock collars? Or this entire thread?



You're right. Proximity to the brain has got little to do with this. It's got everything to do with nerve endings: the neck is much richer in nerve endings for many breeds than other areas of the body. he trachea and opesophagus lie just under the skin where the collar works. The pain of getting a shock in the neck has nothing whatsoever to do with proximity to the brain. But of course you'll know this, what with you doing a course in health science.



This particular comment caused some mirth in this house, not because of your typo, but because of how far off the mark you are with it! You're not to know this, and I don't particularly like bigging myself up on forums as it doesn't read well, but it just so happens that I have more expertise and working experience in the field of animal welfare than most, having studied it to a high level and working in the area. So, a lot of things I might be, but when it comes to matters of animal welfare and welfare law, naive I ain't :rolleyes:
I also happen to know the reseachers in the UK who acted, and continue to act, as consultants in the drafting of the rather good UK animal welfare laws, and can utterly assure you that without their research and advice, these laws simply would not exist.
Just an FYI on the whip rules: they are rules, not laws. They were introduced by the British Horseracing Authority, and are not part of UK legislation. I'd hate to see the legislators in the UK being tarred with your spurious assertions.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't friction one of the causes of burning? It's not the saem as holding a lit match up to a dog's throat, but it is burning all the same. With secondary dermatitis and infection. but of course, you'll know that, what with your course in health science.
I'm interested at the attitude that one form of injury seems to be more acceptable to you than another: the fact remains that these injuries were caused by the prongs on an e-collar, which suggests there is a pretty remarkable design flaw with these collars (shaving a dog's neck as per manufacturer's recommendations, and placing two 1cm long prongs against the bare skin seems to be asking for trouble)



For starters, if you would return the respect and read my post in context :rolleyes:, my post was specifically in response to the shock-collar ban in Wales.
However, just to clarify to you, the RB list in Ireland, and the banned breed list in the UK, were knee-jerk reactions by politicians to dog control laws, not animal welfare laws (they are separate Acts and Orders). As I said before, the welfare laws are based on scientific research, whether it's in relation to dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, fish or frogs. Once the research has answered the necessary questions, the legislation is designed around it. That's not naive talking, it is fact. If you'd like, I can send you a small selection of the myriad research papers the legislation is based on.

Im not interested in scoring points or putting people down with snide remarks.
There is no point in engaging with you as you ignore logic and sound reasoning.

I engaged in this because there is some hysteria, misinformation and hypocrisy on this topic.

I hope my posts will encourage people to be more understanding and less aggressive towards posters on this forum who choose to use these techniques.

ISDW

eilo1 wrote: »

Im not interested in scoring points or putting people down with snide remarks.
There is no point in engaging with you as you ignore logic and sound reasoning.

I engaged in this because there is some hysteria, misinformation and hypocrisy on this topic.

I hope my posts will encourage people to be more understanding and less aggressive towards posters on this forum who choose to use these techniques.

So you didn't actually bother reading DBB's post then.:rolleyes:

eilo1

ISDW wrote: »

So you didn't actually bother reading DBB's post then.:rolleyes:

I read to the point his household were laughing at my spelling mistake that was it.

Cherry Blossom

eilo1 wrote: »

So now people who let their dogs out are cruel because they are "dumping" them?

And why are people getting so angry and abusive?

I wasn't talking about people who 'let their dogs out', as can be seen clearly from my post I said people who dump them outside and electrocute them out of laziness. I have nothing at all against outdoor dogs whatsoever as long as their needs are still met and they are treated properly - irrelevant to this thread all the same. What people are getting angry and abusive? Who has abused you?

You've quoted my whole post and not refuted any of it or answered the question in it, so what is the point of your post other than making wild accusations?

DBB

eilo1 wrote: »

I read to the point his household were laughing at my spelling mistake that was it.

No. Whoa horsey. Re-read my post.

This particular comment caused some mirth in this house, not because of your typo, but because...

However, the fact that you were so quick to post that I said something I didn't, it doesn't beg much confidence in a lot of what else you've said. Kinda makes it souind like you're stomping away with your football.
And I'm a she, not a he.
And you started the "aggression" as far as I can see. You're the only person I've seen posting snippy comments, so stop transferring your own traits onto other posters. We can all debate with manners.

There is no point in engaging with you as you ignore logic and sound reasoning.

*snort* More mirth!
Again eilo, cast about with all of these statements, just because you say these things doesn't make them true: opinions are not much good unless they're based on something verifiable. For you to say that I ignore logic and sound reasoning, just like saying I'm naive (in relation to animal welfare), is so far off the mark you'd cringe if I told you. So I'll save your blushes.

So. Anyone going to tell me how to justify using electric collars over a completely non-punitive method of containment? Maybe if I put it up twice, my question won't be ignored this time!

eilo1

DBB wrote: »

No. Whoa horsey. Re-read my post.


However, the fact that you were so quick to post that I said something I didn't, it doesn't beg much confidence in a lot of what else you've said. Kinda makes it souind like you're stomping away with your football.
And I'm a she, not a he.
And you started the "aggression" as far as I can see. You're the only person I've seen posting snippy comments, so stop transferring your own traits onto other posters. We can all debate with manners.

The entire tone of your post is derogatory, rude and snide. Im no key board warrior but I do enjoy good informed and objective debate.

You open your post with "Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts" so you will forgive me if I don't believe you where not trying to belittle me.

The words/terms - "disgusting", "cruel", "lazy", "dumping and electrocuting" are all being thrown around by multiple posters in relation to people who do not think shock collars are a bad thing. Its all there is black and white just read it. I am not an aggressive poster in any way shape or form.

Cherry Blossom

eilo1 wrote: »

The words/terms - "disgusting", "cruel", "lazy", "dumping and electrocuting" are all being thrown around by multiple posters in relation to people who do not think shock collars are a bad thing. Its all there is black and white just read it. I am not an aggressive poster in any way shape or form.

I believe these terms are being used in relation to the topic being discussed, you seem to be misreading a lot of posts here and picking out things out of context that just aren't there. Electric shock collars work by electrocuting the dog - that's a fact. My personal opinion of them is that they are in fact cruel (ie they inflict unnecessary suffering on the animal), I do find their use disgusting and I do think that they are just a lazy solution to pet confinement largely used by people who dump their dogs outside and can't be bothered to put up a proper fence. That's my opinion of shock collars.

Are opinions only allowed if they agree with yours?

I suggest you stick to discussing the topic in the form of the logical, reasoned, debate you are looking for instead of posting nit-picking one-liners designed to provoke a reaction from other posters which add nothing to the thread.

DBB

eilo1 wrote: »

The entire tone of your post is derogatory, rude and snide. Im no key board warrior but I do enjoy good informed and objective debate.

You open your post with "Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts" so you will forgive me if I don't believe you where not trying to belittle me.

Eilo,
Perhaps, just perhaps, I seemed a little jaded in that post to you, because you had said that I was naive. So maybe, just maybe, you need to accept that you have initiated any snideyness.
My posts are not derogatory, rude, or snide (you've already completely and utterly misinterpreted something I said and not acknowledged that you picked me up wrong), my posts simply counter the misleading information you were posting. As AJ says, just because you don't agree with me, doesn't mean I am attempting to belittle you, or any of the other adjectives you've cast around like gold dust there, none of which are true. You've already posted a number of un-truisms about me, which I have corrected for you, so, like I say, with all the inaccuracies and with the attitude you're taking, it is difficult to have much heed in your arguments.

Cherry Blossom

Eilo1 - I've removed your post (twice!), if you wish to express your opinion on the topic of the thread continue to do so. The personal attacks stop now though!

Perhaps it's best if everyone takes a time out from this thread to avoid it having to be locked.

Do not reply to this post, if you have an issue with it take it up by PM.