Electric Fence for Dog

andreac

1577 wrote: »

We bought an electric fence for our dachshund and he was only shocked twice before he learned the boundaries.
It is wireless and you can set it for 50 metres squared .You then put flags up so the dog knows where not to pass. It starts beeping as he gets to boundary so as to warn him.
It gives him freedom but most importantly it keeps him safe.
I absolutely adore this dog and do not think the collar is in anyway cruel.

But you felt it was ok to shock the dog twice and inflict pain on it? That's not cruel? How is giving an electric shock to a dog, not cruel?

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

But you felt it was ok to shock the dog twice and inflict pain on it? That's not cruel? How is giving an electric shock to a dog, not cruel?

When it is not actually an electric shock that causes pain.

andreac

runawaybishop wrote: »

When it is not actually an electric shock that causes pain.

Well what is it then that causes the pain?

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

Well what is it then that causes the pain?

There is no pain.

krisroger

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Well that's me at my limit for posting within charter regulations. OP has all the information they need, but it seems obvious they are only interested in speaking to people who use the fence with apparent success, and not those who have evidence on the negative effects.

I'm off to lift money from the bank before Shadow blows it all on Red 11. Installing the doggie cam was a much better investment than an electric fence would have been.
Although I wish I didn't know what he was doing to the couch cushions

I know a lot people who have used the system successfully and as I already explained on my previous post had never heard anything negative about them. As I said having seen all of these posts I will definitely do some more research before I commit to buying one - which is why i am starting the process so soon. I am replying to those who have found it successful as I am geniunely interested in hearing about their experiences.

andreac

runawaybishop wrote: »

There is no pain.

Of course there is, that is why it is called a "Shock collar". Are you telling me a shock doesn't hurt a dog??

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

Of course there is, that is why it is called a "Shock collar". Are you telling me a shock doesn't hurt a dog??

Yes, that is what i am telling you. The static correction collar, which is what they call it, is not painful. Anyone using it to cause pain is abusing their animal imo.

andreac

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, that is what i am telling you. The static correction collar, which is what they call it, is not painful. Anyone using it to cause pain is abusing their animal imo.

Have you put it around your neck and let it go off? I really dont understand how you can say it doesnt hurt. Why are they banned in wales then?

borderlinemeath

runawaybishop wrote: »

You are refusing to accept that collar training is reward based though. Its not about shocking the **** out of the animal.

A reward for being scared not to move any further? I don't think you quite grasp the concept of reward based training.

And yes, i don't want a 7 foot chainlink fence around my property.

Because it's so much uglier than a 5 foot one?
It's better looking than having a dead dog anyday.

DBB

runawaybishop wrote: »

Is this a moderator instruction or are you just harassing me on your personal time?

No, no it's not a moderator instruction, as I don't tend to moderate in threads I'm contributing to. In any case, mod instructions are usually issued in bold font, that's across the site, not just here. But I'm pretty sure you know that.
If you deem what I'm asking you to be harrassment, by all means report me.
But the fact remains is that you appear to have made an allegation about me kicking my dogs to train them to obey my voice. As this is a pretty damaging statement to make, and utterly untrue, I think it's only fair that as you made it public, you explain it in public too.
Is that unreasonable?
If you hadn't said it in public, I wouldn't be so concerned about it. But as quite a few people here know my real-life identity, I'd hate to think that anyone would be left with the impression that I would kick my dogs at all. The rumour-mill is a terrible thing. So please, I'll ask you again, clarify what you meant. If you're prepared to say it in public, you need to back it up in public too.
Thanks.

runawaybishop

DBB wrote: »

No, no it's not a moderator instruction, as I don't tend to moderate in threads I'm contributing to. In any case, mod instructions are usually issued in bold font, that's across the site, not just here. But I'm pretty sure you know that.
If you deem what I'm asking you to be harrassment, by all means report me.
But the fact remains is that you appear to have made an allegation about me kicking my dogs to train them to obey my voice. As this is a pretty damaging statement to make, and utterly untrue, I think it's only fair that as you made it public, you explain it in public too.
Is that unreasonable?
If you hadn't said it in public, I wouldn't be so concerned about it. But as quite a few people here know my real-life identity, I'd hate to think that anyone would be left with the impression that I would kick my dogs at all. The rumour-mill is a terrible thing. So please, I'll ask you again, clarify what you meant. If you're prepared to say it in public, you need to back it up in public too.
Thanks.

Grand so, go back and read what i said. Do you often overreact so much?

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

Have you put it around your neck and let it go off? I really dont understand how you can say it doesnt hurt. Why are they banned in wales then?

I do not have a hairy neck. Have you use done on yourself?

Why does the law say rotweilers should be muzzled in public?

borderlinemeath

runawaybishop wrote: »

Yes, that is what i am telling you. The static correction collar, which is what they call it, is not painful. Anyone using it to cause pain is abusing their animal imo.

Oh, it sounds so lovely doesn't it? "static correction". Yes, it really rolls off the toungue far easier than "shock collar". How nice it was for the marketing company to rename it. Not sales generated at all, and it won't piss off any of those pesky animal welfare peeps. :rolleyes:

runawaybishop

borderlinemeath wrote: »

A reward for being scared not to move any further? I don't think you quite grasp the concept of reward based training.

Why would they be scared? Do you think the training involves frying the **** out of them?

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Because it's so much uglier than a 5 foot one?
It's better looking than having a dead dog anyday.

I don't have a 5 foot fence around my property. What is your point?

andreac

runawaybishop wrote: »

I do not have a hairy neck. Have you use done on yourself?

Why does the law say rotweilers should be muzzled in public?

What has that got to do with this thread?

You say you dont have a hairy neck, whats that got to do with the collar? A collar around a dogs or your neck is no diff, its still a sensitive area and will cause pain when something emits an electric shock on to it.

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

What has that got to do with this thread?

You say you dont have a hairy neck, whats that got to do with the collar? A collar around a dogs or your neck is no diff, its still a sensitive area and will cause pain when something emits an electric shock on to it.

Its got absolutely everything to do with your question as to why the collars are banned in Wales. I would have thought the comparison was glaring obvious, especially since i answered this question from you already when you asked it initially.

Have you used one of these collars on yourself?

Rips

I would be totally against the use of anti-bark or shock collars, however, the radio fence system is actually the best compromise to allow my dog freedom to express his natural behaviour.

We have a solid wall to the front and sides of our property, the only place he really comes into contact with the radio fence boundary is if he tries to go out the driveway.

At the back, we can't have a solid boundary fence as we live in an SAC.

The invisible fence is actually buried in our neighbours property, quite a way off our own garden, and when we did the training, after first spending time doing the training, walking the 'actual' boundary, so he knows where it is, I then walked the perimeter of the garden with him off lead, and used reward training to call him back onto our property. No shocks involved. He's since lost interest in going off our own property, except to do his business in the neighbours ditch (doesn't like going on his own patch)

Dogs are territorial by nature, this training for him was something he enjoyed, reinforcing something that had an innate basic understanding of anyway. Similar to his natural behaviour which is to warn other dogs off the property, or greet people that arrive. The fence just means he can't follow his other instincts and go bothering the neighbours livestock, or be killed on the road.

One failing of the fence is that it doesn't keep neighbours dogs out.
Our neighbours ( 2 down, the intermediate property is just a field) are onto their 5th dog. My dad actually ran over the last one, killed it outright. Awful thing.
Before the fence, there was a sort of free-for-all situation, the dogs were always up in our garden. Its most likely a consequence that our dog is more territorial now that he has his own defined patch, but they don't come around now that our dog is restricted to the garden. They are terrier crosses and mostly stick to their patch, fence or no. (Still run out onto the road though :rolleyes:)

He has over an acre to run and play and swim, and he comes in and goes out as he pleases. He has his own business, bringing stuff out and burying it, stalking the cat. Sometimes he just likes to lie in the sunshine, or sometimes the house is too hot for him. I wouldn't dream of putting him in a run, he might as well be in the house if that was the case.
As others have said, dogs are highly sociable, and he would much rather be in the house at any time, then confined to a run.

As far as those who say its not foolproof? What system is, you could just as easily leave your gate open, or have a breakout.

That said, I've seen it improperly used as well though, I used to hack past a pair of labs who were restricted to a patch of the lawn by a radio fence, they were out there for the majority of the day in a relatively small area with nothing to do, and you could actually see the area they were restricted to by the wear of the grass. Its no substitute for actually exercising your dog. I wouldn't put it on a dog aged less then 6 months, I'd wait until you have all your training established and can introduce the fence properly.

Its a great system if you have a large area / large property that is impractical to fence.

My dogs collar beeps and gives him a static shock ... which I have felt myself and is *nothing* compared to say, the shock off the electric fence that keeps my horses contained. Its more an 'uncomfortable' feeling then a painful one.

Mince Pie

runawaybishop wrote: »

Grand so, go back and read what i said. Do you often overreact so much?

Seriously, you owe an explanation for the comment made earlier regarding the kick to obey the voice.
I was confused by it myself and you have said it publicly. I do not think its an over reaction at all to ask for clarification.

andreac

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its got absolutely everything to do with your question as to why the collars are banned in Wales. I would have thought the comparison was glaring obvious, especially since i answered this question from you already when you asked it initially.

Have you used one of these collars on yourself?

Muzzles are nothing to do with shock collars? I asked why would they be banned, because they are deemed cruel and an animal welfare issue, hence me making the point that they are cruel and shouldnt be used on your dog.

DBB

runawaybishop wrote: »

Grand so, go back and read what i said. Do you often overreact so much?

To be clear, you quoted this:

DBB wrote: »

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.

And replied with this:

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?

I'm having difficulty understanding what you're saying here, other than you seem to be alleging that I have kicked my dog to trin him/her to obey my voice.
Is that what you meant? I have asked you repeatedly to clarify your comment and you keep avoiding the question, or fudging the issue by accusing me of harrassment.
If you did not mean this, might I suggest you edit your post so that there can be no double-meaning, please? I will "over-react" when somebody seems to be making an unsubstantiated suggestion about me and my dogs. Like I say, there are many here who know my real-life identity, so your comments are potentially rather damaging to me.

runawaybishop

andreac wrote: »

Muzzles are nothing to do with shock collars? I asked why would they be banned, because they are deemed cruel and an animal welfare issue, hence me making the point that they are cruel and shouldnt be used on your dog.

You still didnt answer the question though.

runawaybishop

DBB wrote: »

I'm having difficulty understanding what you're saying here,

What part of "No?" do you not understand?

DBB

runawaybishop wrote: »

You still didnt answer the question though.

Huh. That's a bit rich, under the circumstances!

StompToWork

runawaybishop wrote: »

What part of "No?" do you not understand?

To be fair, runawaybishop, I suspect the Question Mark is the source of the confusion here.

Your "No?" suggests incredulity on your part that DBB did not kick his dog when the dog didn't follow a command during training.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect you were trying to say that DBB did not kick his dog when training didn't go right.

"Did you ever kick your dog when he didn't follow a command? No?"

Versus

"Did you ever kick your dog when he didn't follow a command? No!"

Apologies if I am wayyy off the mark, but I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Apologies for paraphrasing!

DBB

runawaybishop wrote: »

What part of "No?" do you not understand?

Do you not think that the "No?" rather adds to the suggestion that I kick my dogs? Can you see from what other posters have said how your damaging remarks about me have been interpreted? Whatever you meant, you have caused me damage.

That's okay runawaybishop,
if you can't apologise for your damaging remark,
if you have to be asked multiple times to clarify your damaging post,
if you have to be aggressive in the way you post,
if you have to accuse me, who you've said something deeply insulting and damaging about, of harrassment in my attempts to clarify your comments, if you have to use foul language,
then you're simply not worthy of engagement any more.
You can back up none of your opinions in any case, instead having to resort to insult.
You deserve no more of my time, nor anyone else's here.

runawaybishop

Feel free to ignore me so. I have violated no rules and will post when and where i want to, thanks. You refused my offer to discuss this via PM so i couldn't give a crap.

runawaybishop

StompToWork wrote: »

To be fair, runawaybishop, I suspect the Question Mark is the source of the confusion here.

Your "No?" suggests incredulity on your part that DBB did not kick his dog when the dog didn't follow a command during training.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I suspect you were trying to say that DBB did not kick his dog when training didn't go right.

"Did you ever kick your dog when he didn't follow a command? No?"

Versus

"Did you ever kick your dog when he didn't follow a command? No!"

Apologies if I am wayyy off the mark, but I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Apologies for paraphrasing!

No, you are correct. I didn't think it was that hard to understand, clearly I need to revise my expectations.

runawaybishop

DBB wrote: »

Huh. That's a bit rich, under the circumstances!

Not only did I answer Andreas' question to me when she asked it initially the answer to your question lies in the post you quoted from me.

borderlinemeath

runawaybishop wrote: »

Feel free to ignore me so. I have violated no rules and will post when and where i want to, thanks. You refused my offer to discuss this via PM so i couldn't give a crap.

Why should an explanation on your post, which you made in public and could have potentially damaging consequences - be done via PM? You haven't been asked to take it to PM by a mod so why don't you answer what has been put to you? I've seen more mature responses from a petulant child than the above post tbh.

runawaybishop

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Why should an explanation on your post, which you made in public and could have potentially damaging consequences - be done via PM? You haven't been asked to take it to PM by a mod so why don't you answer what has been put to you? I've seen more mature responses from a petulant child than the above post tbh.

Potentially damaging? HAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAH.