Electric Fence for Dog

DBB

runawaybishop wrote: »

A couple of biased articles mean **** all. Use proper peer reviewed material.

You'll find that both articles are, in fact, referenced and/or written by people who are highly qualified in the field of dog behaviour, who base their opinions and advice on peer-reviewed data. Sorry if this doesn't suit your argument, but that doesn't excuse the bad language you're having to use to make your point.

ShaShaBear

StompToWork wrote: »

It isn't always possible or practical to install real fencing. We rent, and as open-minded as our landlord is, I don't think she would stretch to fencing in the entire property. I also read a suggestion earlier in the post from someone that the money spent on an electric system would be better spent on real fencing. I challenge anyone to entirely fence in an acre of land for €190!

And, as already pointed out, you do not need to fence in an entire acre of land, as the amount of space the dog has to roam is irrelevant in terms of exercise. The dog still needs to be walked and chances are will keep to the same small area of the garden/land while you are gone. They don't run laps of the acre until they are tired and then go nap to do it again! Very practical to fence in an area big enough for the dog to play, stretch their legs and do their business without affecting the area where they sleep and eat.

runawaybishop

ShaShaBear wrote: »

In the case of the fence, yes. They hardly stay within the boundaries (when it works) because the fence spits out cookies and steak :rolleyes:
The idea is that they do not want to leave the area because they firstly receive pain, and then are later reminded to be afraid of that pain by the beeps.
If they were not afraid of the beeps and there was no pain, do you think they would stay in the boundary?

No, this is not how the system operates. When used correctly there is no pain involved and often merely sound is used. There is a massive misinterpretation of how the system works among people.

StompToWork

ShaShaBear wrote: »

And if he had been shot and killed by a farmer in that "brief" period?
You see the problem here. By your own admission it is not full-proof, you cannot rely on your dog to obey the boundaries at all times and we have all read threads on the death or disappearance of dogs because of "brief" down-time in the fencing. As we have all said, it works for some, but it is not full-proof and fully reliable considering the consequences of a failure.

Granted, but in some situations, a 100% fool-proof solution is not always viable or possible. Thankfully, we live in a rural area and all our neighbours know Deefor. Taking all things into consideration, this system works for us. I feel strongly that the argument should be about what works best for your own situation, and not down to an issue of cruelty or "lazy training" as someone else suggested.

borderlinemeath

runawaybishop wrote: »

A couple of biased articles mean **** all. Use proper peer reviewed material.

Wow. If the top trainers and behaviourists aren't 'peer reviewed material' then what is?? I find your opinion to mean **** all:D, I doubt you have any credentials and qualifications in the world of canine behaviour and training!!

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

Why are they banned in Wales and also calling for a ban on them in the rest of the UK?

You should know better than this. Why are you forced to muzzle your dogs when out in public? There are lots of stupid and incorrect laws.

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Roll your eyes all you want. It's an aversive method of training that relys on the dog being afraid of getting a shock - ie pain. I don't know about you but I don't like getting an electric shock, it is painful, disorientating and scary - and as a human,I have rational thinking to know why I just got shocked - a dog doesn't. The dog only keeps away from the boundary because he has been 'trained' that if he goes to close he will get a shock - ie he is afraid of pain. He associates the boundary with experiencing an aversive, painful shock. Do I need to spell it out for you any more??:rolleyes:

No, it does not rely on the dog being afraid if done correctly, no more than the sound of your voice is an aversion method for not letting your dog up on the couch.

A bunch of idiots using the system incorrectly doesn't make it bad in and of itself.

ShaShaBear

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, this is not how the system operates. When used correctly there is no pain involved and often merely sound is used. There is a massive misinterpretation of how the system works among people.

So what you are telling me is to use the "shock" collar and fencing correctly, your dog will never experience a shock? You mean to tell me that dogs are hotwired to know that beeping means a shock even though they have never received one?

My MIL boundary trained her old terrier by taking him inside every time he crossed the boundary. Eventually he learned that he stayed outside longer if he didn't cross the boundary.

Free, painless and exactly as reliable as an electric fence.

borderlinemeath

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, this is not how the system operates. When used correctly there is no pain involved and often merely sound is used. There is a massive misinterpretation of how the system works among people.

I think you have a massive interpretation of how a dog works though. To think there is no pain or aversive tactics involved in using one just proves it.

StompToWork

DBB wrote: »

A couple of articles from the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors, I think the most respected and powerful animal behaviour organisations in the world:

http://www.apbc.org.uk/blog/ethics_of_pet_containment_fences

http://www.apbc.org.uk/articles/shockcollars

Unfortunately I'm unable to find any backed-up arguments from qualified people in favour of shock collars.

They are not SHOCK COLLARS!!!!!

runawaybishop

DBB wrote: »

You'll find that both articles are, in fact, referenced and/or written by people who are highly qualified in the field of dog behaviour, who base their opinions and advice on peer-reviewed data. Sorry if this doesn't suit your argument, but that doesn't excuse the bad language you're having to use to make your point.

They are not peer reviewed and are clearly horribly biased. This forum is just a joke when it comes to clear and unbiased advice.

ShaShaBear

StompToWork wrote: »

They are not SHOCK COLLARS!!!!!

So they just beep then? They don't shock the dog?

andreac

StompToWork wrote: »

They are not SHOCK COLLARS!!!!!

Eh, yes they are. What are they then??

ShaShaBear

runawaybishop wrote: »

They are not peer reviewed and are clearly horribly biased. This forum is just a joke when it comes to clear and unbiased advice.

You insisting that electric fences are full-proof and excellent methods of boundary training and that when they go wrong it is a case of being mis-used is just as biased, to be fair.

runawaybishop

ShaShaBear wrote: »

You insisting that electric fences are full-proof and excellent methods of boundary training and that when they go wrong it is a case of being mis-used is just as biased, to be fair.

At no stage did i say they were fool proof. I said they were reliable when used correctly.

ShaShaBear

runawaybishop wrote: »

At no stage did i say they were fool proof. I said they were reliable when used correctly.

But that's just it, you are not factoring in the personality of a dog when making that statement. Not all dogs, nomatter how hard you train them, are going to indefinitely obey the boundary restrictions. And again, it does not stop someone simply taking your dog(s) off the property.

Even if it was 100% full-proof when used with correct training, the power-outages, broken lines, prey-drive of the dog and risk of theft make it entirely too much of a risk to be the sole method of containment for a loved family pet that is kept outside during working hours.

StompToWork

ShaShaBear wrote: »

And, as already pointed out, you do not need to fence in an entire acre of land, as the amount of space the dog has to roam is irrelevant in terms of exercise. The dog still needs to be walked and chances are will keep to the same small area of the garden/land while you are gone. They don't run laps of the acre until they are tired and then go nap to do it again! Very practical to fence in an area big enough for the dog to play, stretch their legs and do their business without affecting the area where they sleep and eat.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as I prefer my dog to have full reign over our property. It belongs to him as much as me at this stage, and I personally wouldn't deprive him of going where he wants to on it. I have trained him (with the assistance of the boundary wire) to where his limits are. He has wide open space with a good view of the surrounding countryside, but he also has his kennel and little den where he can retreat to when he wants to rest up and stay out of sight.

borderlinemeath

StompToWork wrote: »

It isn't always possible or practical to install real fencing. We rent, and as open-minded as our landlord is, I don't think she would stretch to fencing in the entire property. I also read a suggestion earlier in the post from someone that the money spent on an electric system would be better spent on real fencing. I challenge anyone to entirely fence in an acre of land for €190!

I can't remember how much we paid for our fencing, but it was done with both security and the dogs very much in mind. You cannot put a price on the safety of your pets, from escaping, from being stolen or your home being broken into because it's easily viewed from the road.

Again, apart from the cruel and aversive training needed to ensure a dog would stay within the boundary there are still huge risks involved. Even you, and other posters have admitted that the dog crossed the boundary when it wasn't working, so it is not 100% effective whereas fencing or a dog run is.

Alpha Dog 1

People talking about cruelty obviously have not used the fence or simply do not know how it works correctly.
Cruelty is locking your dog up all day .

DBB

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, this is not how the system operates. When used correctly there is no pain involved and often merely sound is used. There is a massive misinterpretation of how the system works among people.

Let's not misrepresent things here. Whilst the avoidance behaviour might be maintained by a beep sound, the initial response to that sound is conditioned using an, at best, unpleasant shock. The system simply cannot work without causing pain or discomfort at at least some point of the training process. I too have tried it on myself, not on my throat I might add, and it rattled me. I'd consider myself to have a very high pain threshold, but I don't want to feel that shock again nonetheless.
The technique relies on negative reinforcement, a branch of learning that is broadly avoided by qualified, evidence-based trainers due to the significantly increased likelihood of unwanted behavioural fall-out with it.
I can say no more than that. If people are determined to justify using fear of an unpleasant consequence to train their dog, let it be on their heads. But you can't say you weren't informed to the contrary here.

borderlinemeath

StompToWork wrote: »

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as I prefer my dog to have full reign over our property. It belongs to him as much as me at this stage, and I personally wouldn't deprive him of going where he wants to on it. I have trained him (with the assistance of the boundary wire) to where his limits are. He has wide open space with a good view of the surrounding countryside, but he also has his kennel and little den where he can retreat to when he wants to rest up and stay out of sight.

But he doesn't have 'full reign'. He's afraid to approach the boundary.

ShaShaBear

StompToWork wrote: »

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, as I prefer my dog to have full reign over our property. It belongs to him as much as me at this stage, and I personally wouldn't deprive him of going where he wants to on it. I have trained him (with the assistance of the boundary wire) to where his limits are. He has wide open space with a good view of the surrounding countryside, but he also has his kennel and little den where he can retreat to when he wants to rest up and stay out of sight.

I would deprive my dog of going where he wants on my property if I thought it would impede on his safety. I would consider that more important than what I prefer.
Suggesting that you "have" to fence in an entire acre of land for a dog is not the same as saying you would "prefer" to fence in an entire acre of land. It is not a requirement.

runawaybishop

[snip]

runawaybishop

ShaShaBear wrote: »

But that's just it, you are not factoring in the personality of a dog when making that statement. Not all dogs, nomatter how hard you train them, are going to indefinitely obey the boundary restrictions. And again, it does not stop someone simply taking your dog(s) off the property.

Even if it was 100% full-proof when used with correct training, the power-outages, broken lines, prey-drive of the dog and risk of theft make it entirely too much of a risk to be the sole method of containment for a loved family pet that is kept outside during working hours.

Fair points but a balance should be maintained. The fences allow greater range and are relatively inexpensive (compared to the cost of securely fencing an entire garden). Power outages and broken lines are issues you can face, as is maintenance and damage to a traditional fence.

ShaShaBear

runawaybishop wrote: »

I am just going to stop you right there. Did you train your own dog to obey the sound of your voice by giving it a kick? No?

No, we train our dogs to obey the sound of our voice by rewarding them when they do so.

A "beep" does not have a tone of voice. A person does. The word "no" implies what "beepbeepbeep" does not.
If you never shock the dog with the collar and they magically know that "beepbeepbeep" means step away from the boundary, then you might as well not pay €190 for the fence and train them exactly the same way with your voice.

StompToWork

andreac wrote: »

Eh, yes they are. What are they then??

If you had read all the posts - including mine - , you would have seen that the collars have various settings. For example, the PetSafe collar that I use has :

1) Beep
2) Vibrate
3) Beep and Vibrate
4) Beep and Vibrate, wait for 1 second then administer a shock
5) Shock straight away.

Settings 4 and 5 are used during TRAINING ONLY, and only while you are there to supervise the training.

DBB

StompToWork wrote: »

They are not SHOCK COLLARS!!!!!

Oh? What are they then? Did the manufacturer of your system use a euphemism like "static" or "tingle" to disguise the fact that it is a shock? They were always called shock collars a few years ago, until the manufacturers realised the negative connotations. Similarly the euphemistic changing of "choke chain" to "check chain", "prong collar" to "pinch collar".... It's semantics, and does not change the reality: an unpleasant electrical shock is discharged into the dog's neck. That's how the system works. There's simply no escaping that fact!

DoctorEdgeWild

DBB wrote: »

As a matter of interest, why are working dogs different?

Sorry I missed this earlier on, I only meant that working dogs are different as they tend to live on farms/large spaces of land where fencing off the entire lot is impractical and other setups like dog runs are a better option. For a domestic setup, fencing off everything is a better call in my opinion.

Didn't mean that they require any less/more love/affection/training/discipline/attention etc.

ShaShaBear

runawaybishop wrote: »

Fair points but a balance should be maintained. The fences allow greater range and are relatively inexpensive (compared to the cost of securely fencing an entire garden). Power outages and broken lines are issues you can face, as is maintenance and damage to a traditional fence.

It is, as I am sure you will agree, impossible to face the issue of a broken line if it occurs while you are in work and will not be home for the next 6+ hours.
More than enough time for any dog to work out that they are free and to get killed by a farmer, run over by a car, or lifted by the dog warden.

andreac

Alpha Dog 1 wrote: »

People talking about cruelty obviously have not used the fence or simply do not know how it works correctly.
Cruelty is locking your dog up all day .

Do you honestly think dogs spend their whole day running around your garden? No, they dont, they spend the time sleeping, or waiting at the back door for you to come home.

borderlinemeath

runawaybishop wrote: »

Fair points but a balance should be maintained. The fences allow greater range and are relatively inexpensive (compared to the cost of securely fencing an entire garden). Power outages and broken lines are issues you can face, as is maintenance and damage to a traditional fence.

Vet bills are fairly expensive when your dog escapes and gets run over. As is the car owner looking for the repair to his car as your dog wasn't adequately and securely contained. You could also get a fine from the council for letting your dog roam. Our fence hasn't moved a bit in 6 years, no storm/wind damage, no batteries or line breaks to worry about. I'd say it's worth the money.