Dog Radio Fence

DBB

bogshepherd wrote: »

Also dogs don't feel pain the same way as humans, they have a much greater tolerance and forget about it much quicker than we do

I would be very interested to see the evidence you have to back up this statement, please.

fatmammycat

DBB wrote: »

I would be very interested to see the evidence you have to back up this statement, please.

It's nonsense; a dog can't complain the way a human can, therefore people like to pretend they feel pain differently, that way they can 'clout' them without remorse. You know, they way we 'clout' babies and children when they do something wrong.

andreac

bogshepherd wrote: »

Also dogs don't feel pain the same way as humans, they have a much greater tolerance and forget about it much quicker than we do so the arguement When I first got my dog he used to scratch the patio door constantly trying to get inside so I have him a clout on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. Is that cruel? .

First of all, how did you come up with that idea, that dogs dont feel pain the way we do?? How do you know? Wheres your evidence to support such a claim?

And yes, it is cruel to hit a dog on the nose with a newspaper :mad:

LisaO

bogshepherd wrote: »

Also dogs don't feel pain the same way as humans, they have a much greater tolerance and forget about it much quicker than we do

We kept some pigs until about 3 years ago & 1 of my dogs got a shock from the electric fence around their enclosure once. He will still not go into that area, no amount of enticement will induce him; as soon as he sees me going towards the area he becomes extremely agitated and runs away.

Maybe I should give him a "clout" to sort him out

ppink

The name "Dog Radio Fence" always makes me laugh a bit.......its like the dog is given a walkie talkie or something instead of a labelling it as it is "Dog Shock Collar".

Bog shepherd if dogs forget about pain quicker than we do then does this not mean they will be getting shocked constantly?

Foreversky i cant understand you saying it works well when your sisters dog breached it 3 times in an area with sheep. If she put up a secure run then that would never have been an issue....unless it was a tornado!

foxer3640

I have used the pet safe system for a number of years and have found it to work pretty well. I had spent 1500 euro on chain link fence and buried it with stone on the bottom but one of the dogs (jack russell) would dig and dig until she got through and then the other dogs(rottis) would follow her out. There are a lot of sheep in my area so i had to try something different. I set up the system so that they would have to be almost through the fence before the collar kicked in. They only got actually shocked once or twice at the start and now they only have to hear the beep and they will leave the fence alone. The area i have my dogs in measures about a quarter acre and to hear people on this site say that their dogs are happier cooped up in a little 8x4 mesh box all day and just get a walk in the evening makes me sick. In my opinion that is more cruel than the shock collar.

LisaO

A number of posters advocating the use of shock fences state their dogs only received a shock a couple of times. But how would you know? Unless you are there to watch them all the time they are in the area enclosed by the shock fence - which would negate the need to use it

foxer3640

LisaO wrote: »

A number of posters advocating the use of shock fences state their dogs only received a shock a couple of times. But how would you know? Unless you are there to watch them all the time they are in the area enclosed by the shock fence - which would negate the need to use it

I kept the wire that activates the collar a metre out from the fence so that the dog would have to be almost through before the collar beeped. They gave up trying to get out so they were not getting shocked. I would not like to use it on its own without a fence though. Dog runs through and gets shocked and then gets shocked again while trying to get back in.... not good.

Galway K9

Just a note almighty, the best approach for you and the dog from my experience is to understand why dogs leave the garden, its often out of boredom, adventure...something is more fun outside than inside..The best practice i found for this was to throw the ball in and around the garden, play in the garden with the dog, also just tire him/her out, provide bone or kong...

In 85 percent of all cases i've seen this had worked, there was failure but the failure was over powered by the survival instinct to mate and no toy would distract dog from that, or me lol.

ppink

foxer3640 wrote: »

I have used the pet safe system for a number of years and have found it to work pretty well. I had spent 1500 euro on chain link fence and buried it with stone on the bottom but one of the dogs (jack russell) would dig and dig until she got through and then the other dogs(rottis) would follow her out. There are a lot of sheep in my area so i had to try something different. I set up the system so that they would have to be almost through the fence before the collar kicked in. They only got actually shocked once or twice at the start and now they only have to hear the beep and they will leave the fence alone. The area i have my dogs in measures about a quarter acre and to hear people on this site say that their dogs are happier cooped up in a little 8x4 mesh box all day and just get a walk in the evening makes me sick. In my opinion that is more cruel than the shock collar.

we put steel mesh on the ground horizontally around our dog runs under the soil/bark mulch so when they dig they hit the mesh and cant get through it. It seemed to work ok for us, no escapees in 10 years anyway:).

bogshepherd

fatmammycat wrote: »

It's nonsense; a dog can't complain the way a human can, therefore people like to pretend they feel pain differently, that way they can 'clout' them without remorse.

Watch a dog go through a ditch of brambles and ask yourself could you do that as painlessly as the dog did? Look at a dog that cuts itself on something and pays no attention whatsoever to the injury after 2 minutes compared to a person who shows signs of distress far longer after being hurt. Aside from this there are a number of studies on dogs' sensitivity to pain and you can use google scholar to look in to this subject. It varies from dog to dog but in general most dogs, especially the working breeds and larger breeds have evolved to be more resilient and less sensititive to pain in the same way as wolves and other wild animals have.

fatmammycat wrote: »

You know, they way we 'clout' babies and children when they do something wrong.

Giving the same values to dogs as humans? We don't put down humans when they get sick, but we do for dogs. We don't castrate men to stop them chasing girls, but we do for dogs. I love my dog, but I can't treat him like a person. He doesn't have the same psychology or behaviour. He doesn't regret decisions based on the morality of his behaviour, he understands a small disciplinary action like a brief, minor pain as a negative consequence for a particular action, ie. small shock when crossing wire = do not cross wire. It's not because he fears the wire or is stressed or worried about the wire, his brain works on a very simple set of perceived consequences for different types of behaviour.

Incase I'm coming across as some sort of sadistic dog killer I'd like to say that I don't approve of training methods that use violence or harsh techniques. It's always better to reward good behaviour than to punish bad behaviour in order to achieve the behaviour that you want, but in some cases mild punishment techniques are necessary. I believe that a small clout with a newspaper or a small electric shock do constitute a mild punishment for dogs.

bogshepherd

LisaO wrote: »

Maybe I should give him a "clout" to sort him out

No that obviously wouldn't work. But I'm sure there are techniques that could be used to teach the dog where it is and is not safe. Creating a positive experience out of being in the environment would be a start. Put his food bowl somewhere in sight of the area as close as he is willing to be to it and feed him there every day. Then move it a little bit closer every day. He will soon learn there is no danger. I've used this on a dog that wouldn't go past a house on our lane where he was attacked by another dog and it worked great, by stopping as soon as he showed signs of distress on approach to the house and giving him a treat to distract and reward him and getting a little closer each day he learned to lose his anxiety of the house and thankfully the owners have the dog properly enclosed now, although admittedly not by a radio fence!

fatmammycat

bogshepherd wrote: »

Watch a dog go through a ditch of brambles and ask yourself could you do that as painlessly as the dog did? Look at a dog that cuts itself on something and pays no attention whatsoever to the injury after 2 minutes compared to a person who shows signs of distress far longer after being hurt. Aside from this there are a number of studies on dogs' sensitivity to pain and you can use google scholar to look in to this subject. It varies from dog to dog but in general most dogs, especially the working breeds and larger breeds have evolved to be more resilient and less sensititive to pain in the same way as wolves and other wild animals have.



Giving the same values to dogs as humans? We don't put down humans when they get sick, but we do for dogs. We don't castrate men to stop them chasing girls, but we do for dogs. I love my dog, but I can't treat him like a person. He doesn't have the same psychology or behaviour. He doesn't regret decisions based on the morality of his behaviour, he understands a small disciplinary action like a brief, minor pain as a negative consequence for a particular action, ie. small shock when crossing wire = do not cross wire. It's not because he fears the wire or is stressed or worried about the wire, his brain works on a very simple set of perceived consequences for different types of behaviour.

Incase I'm coming across as some sort of sadistic dog killer I'd like to say that I don't approve of training methods that use violence or harsh techniques. It's always better to reward good behaviour than to punish bad behaviour in order to achieve the behaviour that you want, but in some cases mild punishment techniques are necessary. I believe that a small clout with a newspaper or a small electric shock do constitute a mild punishment for dogs.

Watch two boxers in a ring, oh look, they keep fighting, obviously they are not in any pain. Watch a ballerina dance, got to be painless right? Watch a gang of kids skateboarding, see when they fall off and get right back up? do they feel pain differently to other people? They must, otherwise why would they keep skating, even with cut knees and bruised elbows.

I appreciate you're not a sadist, and I understand the point you are making, but because a dog might not show pain the same way a human does not mean they don't feel pain like we do and it's anoying when people trot out the line as though mistreating them is AOK because of this.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/201109/do-dogs-feel-pain-the-same-way-humans-do


Also, I never said dogs were human, I don't treat my own dog thusly, he's a dog with a dog brain and dog behaviour. Neither do I clout him with a newspaper to make him obey me. Yet remarkably, even at 8 months, he has mastered a whole host of commands and actively seeks my approval. He trusts me, in part, because I don't clout him. I think clouting a dog is just lazy handling. I brought up children because there are plenty of people that think 'clouting' children is fine too, they don't hit back (maybe they don't feel pain the way grown ups do) and sure it's grand as a mild punishment. I think clouting children is lazy parenting.

bogshepherd

fatmammycat wrote: »

I think clouting a dog is just lazy handling.

I think its a convenient technique but I don't think its lazy, or cruel. I'm talking about a small clip with a newspaper on the nose. It doesn't do the dog any harm or cause any real pain. I appreciate there are lots of conflicing views on how dogs feel harm and the article you posted does have merit, I've read it before. With any issue there will be studies proving for and against so it's really hard to establish a definitive truth for the agruement. But if you do believe humans and dogs feel pain the same then roll up a newspaper and give yourself a short clip in the nose. Decide how painful it was and how long the pain lasts. I'm not talking about a powerful smack with a big wind up! In my opinion its not significant and is more of a shock to the dogs senses which snaps him out of the unawnted behaviour. Another way would be to squirt him with a little water pistol to distract him when he exhibits such a behaviour, which is preferable if you bleieve the pain from the newspaper is too much, but I don't think it is.

Whispered

It's quite nice to have someone in the forum who advocates the use of force or a small bit of pain, but who doesn't get all defensive when it's put to them it might not be the best way. Leaves the way open for conversation.

There are obvious merits of interrupting a behaviour that you don't want. I would suggest a better way of doing it would be to really make a word interesting to your dog. I regularly reinforce their look command even though they know it well. I use it to interrupted behaviour I don't want, like chasing a cat, running to another dog for games and I use it a lot when play gets too rough between them. I call "LOOK", the behaviour stops when they look at me, then I can add another command like come or sit and they usually get a nice treat.

I think it's a good idea to give the dog something else to do when you interrupt a behaviour. So stop jumping and sit, or stop chewing the door, chew this chew toy instead. It might not be necessary but I think it helps change unwanted behaviour rather than just suppress it.

SillyMangoX

Whispered wrote: »

It's quite nice to have someone in the forum who advocates the use of force or a small bit of pain, but who doesn't get all defensive when it's put to them it might not be the best way. Leaves the way open for conversation.

There are obvious merits of interrupting a behaviour that you don't want. I would suggest a better way of doing it would be to really make a word interesting to your dog. I regularly reinforce their look command even though they know it well. I use it to interrupted behaviour I don't want, like chasing a cat, running to another dog for games and I use it a lot when play gets too rough between them. I call "LOOK", the behaviour stops when they look at me, then I can add another command like come or sit and they usually get a nice treat.

I think it's a good idea to give the dog something else to do when you interrupt a behaviour. So stop jumping and sit, or stop chewing the door, chew this chew toy instead. It might not be necessary but I think it helps change unwanted behaviour rather than just suppress it.

I totally agree with having a 'break away' command in place, but sometimes something comes as such as a shock that the natural reaction is to hit out (same would happen if I got a bad fright from a human, someone runs towards you, you naturally put out your hands to defend) Like for example, the other day the dog jumped up and mouthed my arm, she had never done it before but I got such a shock I hit her a slap but I felt immediately bad afterwards. It stopped her biting me, but didn't address the problem of her being hyper. I really don't think it hurt her as she kept bouncing around as she was but she just stopped mouthing me. I know she has a high pain tolerance as I've accidentally closed a door on her tail, and stood on her paw and she has just looked at me as if to say ''hey, that's mine, give it back!.'. It's not something I would advocate at all as a regular form of punishment though, its like with the case of children, you could sit them down and rationalize with them why they shouldn't dart across the road, but if it happens you may get such a fright that a short slap fixes the problem quick. Of course it doesn't help in the long run, no form of physical punishment does. But again, this is different to actually applying an electric shock to the most sensitive part of the dog. No matter how weak the shock may be, I really don't think it should be done. What if the dog has an undected heart problem? Then it's bye bye doggie. Just not a rick I would be willing to take when there are other ways to safely contain a dog in a garden. Just my 2 cents on the matter!

DBB

bogshepherd wrote: »

Watch a dog go through a ditch of brambles and ask yourself could you do that as painlessly as the dog did? Look at a dog that cuts itself on something and pays no attention whatsoever to the injury after 2 minutes compared to a person who shows signs of distress far longer after being hurt.

As already posted, humans can and do ignore pain when they're in certain situations: I've broken bones and not known it for hours after. Adrenaline produces an analgesic effect in order to get an animal, human included, away from something that has harmed it, in the "flight or fight" response.

Aside from this there are a number of studies on dogs' sensitivity to pain and you can use google scholar to look in to this subject. It varies from dog to dog but in general most dogs, especially the working breeds and larger breeds have evolved to be more resilient and less sensititive to pain in the same way as wolves and other wild animals have.

I can't find any... can you link to some of them here please?


Anyway, that all aside, the simple reality is that whilst your nose slaps etc can work, the fall-out can be damaging.. you slap a sensitive, nervous dog on the nose, even gently, you will likely end up with a dog with more serious problems than the one that caused you to slap it in the first place!
The stark truth, to anyone who uses slaps (even gentle ones) and the like to "correct" undesirable behaviour, is that there is simply no need to do this in order to stop the behaviour: Whispered's post nicely illustrates an ethical, completely harmless way to stop dogs doing stuff you don't want them to. There are also Time Outs and Reward Withholding to use as "punishments", which do no harm to the dog's psyche or trust in humans.
Now, I know, we all know, that there are times when we lash out if the dog gives us a fright or hurts us, as per Sillymango's post: sometimes, it can be understandable, as long as there are once-offs.
However, and this is REALLY important, this is an entirely different scenario to using slaps and taps as a training tool. To routinely incorporate even mild physical corrections into training is not acceptable in light of the fact that it can be done without laying a finger on the dog, with a bit of preparation and training.
And it is not acceptable given that it can really set a dog back when he doesn't know for sure why you're raising your hand near him: is this a friendly gesture, or is he about to get a thwack?
For what it's worth, I know of several dogs who were routinely tapped on the nose with the newspaper: one day, when someone other than the owner picked up the rolled-up paper (not to punish the dog), the dog attacked them, because all the cues were in place to indicate to the dogs that this human is on the attack. Now, I know these are extremes, but they do illustrate what's actually going on in dog's heads when we use taps and slaps as training tools.
On a personal level, my old Westie was in my life before I had much of a clue about training, and yes, I admit it, I was advised by a trainer to tap him with the newspaper when he was bold, and I did it. Years later, long after I knew the error of my ways, I happened to pick up a paper, and rolled it up to kill some flies. My poor Westie almost lost his life, cowering and shivering. This is YEARS after it had last been done to him, and it had never been more than a light tap. The guilt
But again, just goes to show what our dogs think of this form of correction.

ProfanityURL

There's a lot of talk about how these punishments can make dogs nervous but remember that some dogs are also just naturally nervous. I think that mollycoddling dogs can actually make them overly sensitive and nervous. A bit of roughhousing doesn't do a dog any real harm in my opinion.

A good example: My neighbor has two dogs, a lab and a jack russel. He bought them both at the same time as young pups and he set up an electric fence that runs around his property. Not a radio fence, an actual electric fence with just a single cable running about a foot above the ground. When he bough them he brought them both over to the fence and touched a paw of each pup to the cable to give them a small shock. A small shock from a low voltage fence, a shock which he also received when he did it because he was holding the dogs so he could judge how powerful it was. Now years on the dogs are happy out and have loads of space to run around the large garden, but they never try to cross the cable. They're not nervous around it, they come right up to it to greet you when you enter the property but they never cross it. They're both well big enough to jump over it, the lab could just step right over it if he wanted to but that one shock was enough to teach them not to do it. They are very happy dogs and have never got out to my knowledge and are not the least bit nervous. This in my opinion advocates a small amount of pain to teach the dogs a valuable lesson early on that enables them and their owners to enjoy their life together.

planetX

ProfanityURL wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about how these punishments can make dogs nervous but remember that some dogs are also just naturally nervous. I think that mollycoddling dogs can actually make them overly sensitive and nervous. A bit of roughhousing doesn't do a dog any real harm in my opinion.

A good example: My neighbor has two dogs, a lab and a jack russel. He bought them both at the same time as young pups and he set up an electric fence that runs around his property. Not a radio fence, an actual electric fence with just a single cable running about a foot above the ground. When he bough them he brought them both over to the fence and touched a paw of each pup to the cable to give them a small shock. A small shock from a low voltage fence, a shock which he also received when he did it because he was holding the dogs so he could judge how powerful it was. Now years on the dogs are happy out and have loads of space to run around the large garden, but they never try to cross the cable. They're not nervous around it, they come right up to it to greet you when you enter the property but they never cross it. They're both well big enough to jump over it, the lab could just step right over it if he wanted to but that one shock was enough to teach them not to do it. They are very happy dogs and have never got out to my knowledge and are not the least bit nervous. This in my opinion advocates a small amount of pain to teach the dogs a valuable lesson early on that enables them and their owners to enjoy their life together.

Hmm, those must have been very intelligent dogs, most dogs would learn nothing from that except that sometimes my owner takes my paw and hurts it. I guarantee that lesson would have ended badly if it was tried on a fearful dog.

DBB

I'm beginning to wonder are the people who keep rejuvenating this thread with isolated stories of how they know someone who knows someone whose dogs didn't suffer any ill-effects of receiving an electric shock at the boundary, actually reading ANY of the posts that were made throughout the thread warning of what can happen, on a regular basis, when things go wrong.

Isolated exceptions are not good enough to illustrate how electric shock systems can work: the bottom line is this, and it is being conveniently ignored by some here... you can shock your dog to keep him in. But you don't have to. Given that there are safer, more reliable, completely harmless-to-welfare for ALL dogs, ways to contain dogs, it renders any shock-system a lazy, thoughtless way to do the job. Build a damn fence.

The same can be said for any owner who justifies using any form of gear that has to cause pain, startle or aversion in order to work: choke chains, prong collars, remote control collars, spray collars, rolled up newspapers to thwack dog on nose etc etc... nobody denies they can work. But the fact that there are more ethical ways, and more effective ways renders these lazy ways inexcusable, if dog welfare is the top of your priorities.

bogshepherd

DBB wrote: »

Isolated exceptions are not good enough to illustrate how electric shock systems can work

Are the isolated incidents of how it can have negative effects more relevant? I don't believe that positive results using the fence are "isolated exceptions" as you say. In fact I would say that the occasions where people experienced negative effects are more likely to be the exceptions, otherwise there would be no market for the technology at this stage.

You mention the alternatives and there are many. But I believe that what it actually comes down to is this: Do you think the shock and level of pain that the dog receives represents cruelty to the dog? In your opinion it represents an animal welfare issue, but from another perspective animal welfare doesn't come in to it and people may feel that the dog will have a better quality of life with this system. The "build a damn fence" approach isn't as simple as you say and it may (or admittedly may not) be the case that the radio fence is a more sucessful method of securing the dog than the "damn fence".

ISDW

bogshepherd wrote: »

Are the isolated incidents of how it can have negative effects more relevant? I don't believe that positive results using the fence are "isolated exceptions" as you say. In fact I would say that the occasions where people experienced negative effects are more likely to be the exceptions, otherwise there would be no market for the technology at this stage.

You mention the alternatives and there are many. But I believe that what it actually comes down to is this: Do you think the shock and level of pain that the dog receives represents cruelty to the dog? In your opinion it represents an animal welfare issue, but from another perspective animal welfare doesn't come in to it and people may feel that the dog will have a better quality of life with this system. The "build a damn fence" approach isn't as simple as you say and it may (or admittedly may not) be the case that the radio fence is a more sucessful method of securing the dog than the "damn fence".

Take a look at the pounds and shelters to see how many dogs end up there, still wearing the electric collars, and tell me they are effective and these are isolated exceptions.

yes I do believe that the shock and level of pain represents cruelty to the dog.

bogshepherd

ISDW wrote: »

yes I do believe that the shock and level of pain represents cruelty to the dog.

I respect your opinion and you have every right to it. No problem. But I think that people who advocate the use of the fence are automatically defined as cruel, because from your perspective or the perspective of others it is cruel.

The OP in this case was looking for information about the different fences available and had to abandon the post in frustration because it turned in to a cruelty debate which is what we are having now!

You think it's cruel. I don't think it's cruel. Fine, thats the basis for a good discussion. But none of us can difinitively say whether this device is cruel or not because we're dealing with an abstract subject, so it just comes down to each persons individual opinion. Noone will persecute you for having your opinion, but I think people on the other side of the debate are automatically labelled.

borderlinemeath

bogshepherd wrote: »

You mention the alternatives and there are many. But I believe that what it actually comes down to is this: Do you think the shock and level of pain that the dog receives represents cruelty to the dog?

It's unnecessary pain so yes it is cruel.

In your opinion it represents an animal welfare issue, but from another perspective animal welfare doesn't come in to it and people may feel that the dog will have a better quality of life with this system. The "build a damn fence" approach isn't as simple as you say and it may (or admittedly may not) be the case that the radio fence is a more sucessful method of securing the dog than the "damn fence".

I spoke earlier on this thread about a golden retriever who is now a nervous wreck due to wearing a shock collar. I spoke to the owner this week and she has now realised that the dog only associates the pain from the shock with either herself or her husband and she is terrified that it's going to associate it with their 6yr old son and so has taken the collar off. I asked had the dog changed it's behaviour at all and she said No, it hasn't broken the boundary but it still associates her with causing pain as he snaps at her when she goes to put the lead on him to go out for his walk.

It's not just the pain that it inflicts, it's what the dog associates the pain with and how it affects their behaviour.

DBB

bogshepherd wrote: »

Are the isolated incidents of how it can have negative effects more relevant? I don't believe that positive results using the fence are "isolated exceptions" as you say. In fact I would say that the occasions where people experienced negative effects are more likely to be the exceptions, otherwise there would be no market for the technology at this stage.

Way back up this thread, I listed a good old handful of negative incidents that I, one person, have come across with the radio fence system. And several other posters here listed things that they have seen go wrong. And every dog warden in the country will tell you how often the system breaks down/doesn't work. There's also the long list of research papers which indicate that using electric shock collars is deleterious to welfare. I think that's pretty relevant.

By "positive results", you mean successfully containing the dog in the garden, I assume?
Before I go any further, I think it needs to be pointed out that it's more than just a shock (it's often more than just one shock, but that's beside the point). The rationale this system works on is to create fear of the boundary. Hopefully, if training is done properly, it is the boundary that the fear will be created for... all too often, it's not the boundary: it's the nearest person, the nearest dog, the nearest cat, or at worst, it is a general fear of thin air, when the dog does not understand why the shock happened, or where it came from.. i.e. the dog does not know how to control it.
But overall, the system works by creating fear. So, the dog might be happy enough once he knows he won't get shocked in the "safe zone". But, having an area he's frightened of in his own garden? No thanks.
Both my older dogs were happily contained in my garden years ago, using the radio fence system. But I remember several incidents where the dogs forgot themselves whilst playing with kids, or with each other, and got a belt from the fence whilst out enjoying themselves in the garden. And they got out from time to time. And, as I said above, the system malfunctioned, as did my friend's, so that our dogs were shocked no matter where they were in the garden. That was a horrible day. Yes, they were happy most of the time, but as soon as the radio fence came into play to any degree, the dogs were not happy. They were, in fact, petrified. Not a good enough trade-off IMO. I never saw a dog afraid of a wall or fence.

But once again, my point is being missed. To get the dog to stay in the garden, he's got to be shocked. I'm afraid there is nothing anyone will ever tell me to convince me that deliberately hurting or startling a dog, and thence setting up a lifelong fear-response, is acceptable, given that there are more ethical alternatives.
This last line is the central crux. Nobody, anywhere, can justify using any system which induces pain, shock or aversion, when there are ethical, pain-free alternatives.

Do you think the shock and level of pain that the dog receives represents cruelty to the dog?

Yes, principally because it is unnecessary, and goes far beyond a simple shock: the system couldn't work otherwise. And I have seen the fall-out when it goes wrong too many times. Far, far too many times, both personally and professionally.

In your opinion it represents an animal welfare issue, but from another perspective animal welfare doesn't come in to it and people may feel that the dog will have a better quality of life with this system.

Welfare doesn't come into it? What? :eek:
When someone decides to keep an animal, and don't take the welfare of that animal into account, then, quite frankly, shame on them.
Although, ignorance plays a huge role in the use of this type of gear. I think a huge amount of people use gear that hurts or startles because they're not aware of the alternatives, nor of the potential fall-out: I know I wasn't at the time. It's pretty much identical to where dog training is at: the people using gear or techniques that hurt are starting to feel the pinch of owner education, and spurning of use of such harmful, unnecessary techniques.

Using shock collars has been shown again and again, in scientific research, to be deleterious to welfare: it was upon this research that the Welsh based their legislation outlawing e-collars.
That an owner "may feel that the dog will have a better quality of life with this system", in light of the weight of evidence against this misapprehension, I'll not be taking what an owner "feels" as evidence that using shock collars is justified, given that most owners don't really understand what's going on with them. You'll always get people justifying stuff that's not justifiable, but just because they say it often enough doesn't mean it's true! I'll go with the scientific evidence.

The "build a damn fence" approach isn't as simple as you say and it may (or admittedly may not) be the case that the radio fence is a more sucessful method of securing the dog than the "damn fence".

Would it make you happier if I just said "build a fence"?
It is that simple. Build a fence! Installing a radio fence is not simple either.
How on earth can a radio fence be more successful than securing a dog with a physical fence? I've never come across one single situation where this would have been the case.

DBB

bogshepherd wrote: »

But none of us can difinitively say whether this device is cruel or not because we're dealing with an abstract subject, so it just comes down to each persons individual opinion.

It's not abstract! It has been definitively shown that welfare suffers when shock collars are used. So no, it's not down to individual opinion, as it happens: no more than it's down to individual opinion that evolution happened, or that punishment-based training causes more problems than positive-based training does, or that the earth is round.

DBB

I went for a quick hunt around for some papers relating to welfare issues, and problems caused by using electrical shock to affect a change in behaviour. There were quite a few, and I didn't want to go putting a big list of links to abstracts and papers here. When happily, I came across this article which reviews a number of the papers I've just found, in one go.

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232713013325&mode=prd

A quick google also reveals a long list of dog welfare, professional dog training organisations, and professional dog behaviour organisations which have come out against the use of shock collars due to welfare concerns and behavioural fall-out.

mosi

Some neighbours of my parents have used these radio fences for years. They had a lovely GSD who got run over. They got another GSD after that, she got run over. They then got another GSD, a boxer and a collie. The collie recently escaped and hasn't been seen since, while the GSD regularly gets out and charges people who are passing. If some people on here really don't care about shocking their poor dog, maybe they should consider the fact that these bloody devices don't actually work half the time

bluecherry74

ProfanityURL wrote: »

he brought them both over to the fence and touched a paw of each pup to the cable to give them a small shock.

This an awful thing to do to two dogs, especially young puppies.

ProfanityURL wrote: »

There's a lot of talk about how these punishments can make dogs nervous but remember that some dogs are also just naturally nervous. I think that mollycoddling dogs can actually make them overly sensitive and nervous. A bit of roughhousing doesn't do a dog any real harm in my opinion.

I was on holiday in Kerry in October, staying in the middle of the countryside. The lady who owned the house I was renting kindly gave me the use of an empty field to walk my dogs in. On one of our walks my dog Henry was sniffing in the bushes and must have touched the electric wire, because he ran away howling in pain and fright. He was nervous for the rest of that walk and wouldn't even walk too close to tufts of grass for fear they'd hurt him. Now he's normally a confident, happy dog and rarely shows signs of anxiety or nervousness, even fireworks don't bother him, but the electric shock had a huge effect on him. It wasn't until we were safely back at the house that he relaxed.

Thankfully he didn't suffer any long term effects, but if it was something that happened repeatedly I imagine it could have a massive psychological effect on any dog.

I felt awful about the incident, I grew up in the countryside and should have know there would be an electric fence. :mad:

ACD

Almost the same thing happened to me as well. I was walking my two dogs around the fields and my girl while playing with the other dog accidentally jumped into an electric wire. She absolutely panicked, ran away howling, tail between her legs, I could see she just couldn't make up what happened to her. And she was afraid to come back to me, when I recalled her, she was really terrified and I believe also confused. Now this is the same dog, who can run in to a tree or a wall at full speed while playing, give it the "why are you in my way" look and continue playing, but the electric shock really made her panic.
But the image of her running away scared and in pain, made me absolutely certain that I would never ever use something like that on my dogs,neither I would recommend it to anyone.