Electric Fence for Dog

anniehoo

Right folks, this is getting out of hand.

Runawaybishop you've been asked to clarify what you meant by this statement:

wrote:

Originally Posted by runawaybishop
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?

It is being interpreted many different ways by posters. If you cannot explain it, then I suggest you edit or delete it accordingly.

For everyone else, please keep the thread civil.

StompToWork

DBB wrote: »

You can back up none of your opinions in any case, instead having to resort to insult

This right here is the biggest problem I have with threads like this. Working on an assumption here (and I hope I am right), runawaybishop obviously uses one of these systems. Why is his experience - or mine or that of anyone else who uses the systems - any less valid than blogs and papers and studies?

I use an electric dog fence (that means the system is powered by electricity, NOT that it constantly shocks my dog, FFS). I know it works. I know my dog is content and happy. I have no reason to sugar coat anything, and I am sharing my experience. The OP was looking for advice from people who have experience of these fences, and instead, it turned into an animal rights and welfare debate, driven mainly by posts from users which would suggest they have spent no real time in investigating the systems or have ever even used them themselves, but instead hang on the fact that all these systems do is shock your dog.

In the parlance of our time, that really grinds my gears!!

EDIT: runawaybishop, I will agree that without clarification, your comment was misunderstood as being insulting. DBB wasn't the only person to bring that up. Sorry dude, but that's my opinion. I do agree with most of what you said, however.

runawaybishop

I have clearly clarified it already :rolleyes:

DBB

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.

Stomp away. At the end of the day, you posted something that was not only interpreted by me as damaging, but by a number of other posters too. You said it in public, so any corrections, retractions or apologies you need to make must be in public too. That's how it works in adult life.

Mince Pie

runawaybishop wrote: »

I have clearly clarified it already :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, I must have missed that post?

runawaybishop

Mince Pie wrote: »

I'm sorry, I must have missed that post?

Its in this thread, maybe look for it?

runawaybishop

DBB wrote: »

Stomp away. At the end of the day, you posted something that was not only interpreted by me as damaging, but by a number of other posters too. You said it in public, so any corrections, retractions or apologies you need to make must be in public too. That's how it works in adult life.

Its not my problem if you have an issue with misinterpreting simple statements.

Mince Pie

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its in this thread, maybe look for it?

Well maybe you could link to it because I and many others are having difficulty in finding it. This is not an easter egg hunt.

runawaybishop

Mince Pie wrote: »

Well maybe you could link to it because I and many others are having difficulty in finding it. This is not an easter egg hunt.

No thanks, do it yourself.

Mince Pie

runawaybishop wrote: »

No thanks, do it yourself.

Sorry but I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist. YOU made the statement so its up to YOU to clarify what you meant by a potentially damaging remark.

runawaybishop

Mince Pie wrote: »

Sorry but I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist. YOU made the statement so its up to YOU to clarify what you meant by a potentially damaging remark.

I couldn't care less.

anniehoo

Is this your explanation?

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

runawaybishop wrote: »

Its not my problem if you have an issue with misinterpreting simple statements.

Yes, it is your problem when the content and context of what you post in a thread affects another poster negatively. Which in this case it has.

I've politely asked you to edit your post to make it grammatically correct or delete it altogether. We are going around in circles here and you're making it infinitely more difficult for yourself by being stubborn about it.

runawaybishop

anniehoo wrote: »

Is this your explanation?




Yes, it is your problem when the content and context of what you post in a thread affects another poster negatively. Which in this case it has.

I've politely asked you to edit your post to make it grammatically correct or delete it altogether. We are going around in circles here and you're making it infinitely more difficult for yourself by being stubborn about it.

Either that or the word "No" in response to the original rhetorical question. Take your pick.

My post is grammatically correct. It isn't even a statement anyway so any claims i made a statment on another posters actions are incorrect. Furthermore, to state that it affects a poster negatively is just hyperbole. I am also under absolutely no obligation to respond to a post when not directed by a moderator, which i clarified earlier. I offered to discuss it via PM but this offer was not accepted.

borderlinemeath

StompToWork wrote: »

This right here is the biggest problem I have with threads like this. Working on an assumption here (and I hope I am right), runawaybishop obviously uses one of these systems. Why is his experience - or mine or that of anyone else who uses the systems - any less valid than blogs and papers and studies?

I use an electric dog fence (that means the system is powered by electricity, NOT that it constantly shocks my dog, FFS). I know it works. I know my dog is content and happy. I have no reason to sugar coat anything, and I am sharing my experience. The OP was looking for advice from people who have experience of these fences, and instead, it turned into an animal rights and welfare debate, driven mainly by posts from users which would suggest they have spent no real time in investigating the systems or have ever even used them themselves, but instead hang on the fact that all these systems do is shock your dog.

In the parlance of our time, that really grinds my gears!!

EDIT: runawaybishop, I will agree that without clarification, your comment was misunderstood as being insulting. DBB wasn't the only person to bring that up. Sorry dude, but that's my opinion. I do agree with most of what you said, however.

And another sweeping generalisation of what posters here have had experience of. Once upon a time there was nothing wrong with shock collars. When they were the 'new' thing, the wonder solution to keeping your pet in, and people, and posters on this thread, bought them in droves. As time passed and dogs continued to break out and be collected from the pound, or worse still the vets with their shock collars still attached or even worse again, a local farmer returns your dogs body because it had escaped and was worrying livestock - it became apparent that they didn't work all too well. Then trainers and behaviourists picked up on behavioural issues with dogs who were 'contained' by these fences. As more research was done it became clear that these were not the fantastic solution they claimed to be and were in fact far more damaging to the dogs welfare than had previously been thought.

So apart from first hand experience,
Apart from the unreliability,
Apart from the research carried out that deem them as being dangerous and damaging to a dogs welfare,
Apart from the fact that they are banned already in Wales
And apart from the fact that they inflict pain and instill fear - then no, posters are just stating the bleedin' obvious.

DBB

StompToWork wrote: »

This right here is the biggest problem I have with threads like this. Working on an assumption here (and I hope I am right), runawaybishop obviously uses one of these systems. Why is his experience - or mine or that of anyone else who uses the systems - any less valid than blogs and papers and studies?

I use an electric dog fence (that means the system is powered by electricity, NOT that it constantly shocks my dog, FFS). I know it works. I know my dog is content and happy. I have no reason to sugar coat anything, and I am sharing my experience. The OP was looking for advice from people who have experience of these fences, and instead, it turned into an animal rights and welfare debate, driven mainly by posts from users which would suggest they have spent no real time in investigating the systems or have ever even used them themselves, but instead hang on the fact that all these systems do is shock your dog.

In the parlance of our time, that really grinds my gears!!

I have posted here before about my experiences with the radio fence system. I used it too. Some of my friends used them. And I have a number of clients who have used them. I also have a reasonable degree of qualification in the areas of animal behaviour and welfare. I understand intimately how they work.
I stopped using the fence because of many the reasons that have been listed. That was my experience. I also realised, from reading the research, and talking to many, many seriously qualied behaviour and welfare specialists, that my (and your) anecdotal experiences should not be used to describe the bigger picture. Nobody, anywhere can deny that shock collars can work. Just like choke chains can work, or kicking your dog can work (don't quote me on that!), or yelling at your dog can work. That's not the point, according to those who measure animal welfare in an empirical way.
The point is that the potential for fall-out is seriously increased, the point is that at a very minimum, discomfort, and ongoing fear of discomfort, have to be used to make the system work. The point is that there are kinder, more ethical, and non-damaging ways to achieve the same goal.
People like me will never change every entrenched person's minds, but not a hope will I read a thread where people use the hackneyed, anecdotal "well, it works for me" line without reminding all readers that the evidence suggests that shock collars cause welfare issues. People can choose to ignore that fact if they like, but it doesn't take away from the fact that as far as the available evidence is concerned, they are potentially causing their dog, or future dogs, harm. As long as they know that, then be it on their own heads. They can't say they weren't warned here.

anniehoo

runawaybishop wrote: »

Either that or the word "No" in response to the original rhetorical question. Take your pick.

My post is grammatically correct.

So, to be clear you intended to put a ? after the word No?

runawaybishop

anniehoo wrote: »

So, to be clear you intended to put a ? after the word No?

If you wish to moderate then please do. I have said all i wish on the subject.

anniehoo

runawaybishop wrote: »

If you wish to moderate then please do. I have said all i wish on the subject.

Post# 53 deleted as you gave me no option.

I suggest you stay out of this thread from now on as you are not only argumentative with posters but you could have made my job easier also.

Do not reply to this post.
Anniehoo

CollyFowler

The fact is that radio collars do work in most cases. This majority of users on this forum gives a one-eyed view of dog ownership.

OP go buy one and train your dog properly. You'll have both a happy dog and a peace of mind.

See ya.

borderlinemeath

CollyFowler wrote: »

The fact is that radio collars do work in most cases. This majority of users on this forum gives a one-eyed view of dog ownership.

OP go buy one and train your dog properly. You'll have both a happy dog and a peace of mind.

See ya.

And how do you know they work in most cases? Have you conducted a poll of users? A proper poll? 100 or so users, ie not your friends? And I must say, you yourself have a fairly myopic view of this forum given your limited posting on it.
And would you agree that 'most' cases simply just isn't good enough. No?

StompToWork

borderlinemeath wrote: »

And how do you know they work in most cases? Have you conducted a poll of users? A proper poll? 100 or so users, ie not your friends? And I must say, you yourself have a fairly myopic view of this forum given your limited posting on it.
And would you agree that 'most' cases simply just isn't good enough. No?

Yerra honestly now.

Not every conversation in life has to be backed up with studies and polls.

Personally, I did extensive research before I bought my fence. I spoke to people who had it, I researched online, I saw the controversy, and I made an informed and educated decision, based on all the available information and my own personal needs that this would be the best way to go about containing my dog. 2 years later, I have a happy dog (when I compare his reactions and personality to other dogs I know who are not contained with electric fences), and he is content and well-adjusted. To top it all off, I have a dog who is contained.

Posts like the quoted one here contribute nothing to a discussion.

DBB

StompToWork wrote: »

Not every conversation in life has to be backed up with studies and polls.

Whilst I'd agree that in a normal conversation, bringing in facts and figures might not be appropriate. But this is not "just" a conversation. It's a discussion thread about shock collar containment systems. The op asked for people's experiences of them. Some people have experience with them and say they work well. Others have experience of them and, in my case at least, had a couple of extremely upsetting incidents with mine (indeed, the only times my dogs have ever escaped from my property was when they were contained with the radio fence. Coming home from work to discover your dog is gone is deeply unpleasant. As is when the system, a top of the range system, malfunctions and shocks your dog repeatedly and inescapably), and I have had to deal with a number of clients' dogs who were suffering from some pretty serious behavioural problems as a direct result of wearing a radio collar. I have also, with my involvement in dog rescue, come across my fair share of dogs in the pound, or found straying, whilst wearing the shock collar.
But the fact that there is a fair bit of evidence to suggest that they're not conducive to welfare, with a pretty much complete dearth of any evidence to suggest that they're harmless, is surely a vital, vital consideration which has a fair place in this particular conversation? This is not just about having a bit of a chat. It's about letting the OP, and future readers of this thread know that whilst they might ignore the evidence, they are running a risk of things going badly wrong for them, a risk that is eliminated by having a physically secure boundary in the first place. It's up to them to ignore the evidence, but to not bring it to people's attention in a thread like this would be seriously remiss.

sillysmiles

For those poster who are adamant against the use of the collars would it be possible for the OP to start boundary training his pup now with a reward training program? ie bring them out into the garden and when they start wandering towards the gate then call them back and reward them?

DBB

sillysmiles wrote: »

For those poster who are adamant against the use of the collars would it be possible for the OP to start boundary training his pup now with a reward training program? ie bring them out into the garden and when they start wandering towards the gate then call them back and reward them?

This method is not appropriate for leaving the dog home alone. It's pretty good for training a pup not to approach the boundary when you're there to supervise, but neither this, nor indeed the radio fence, can be trusted to keep dogs in.

borderlinemeath

StompToWork wrote: »

Yerra honestly now.

Not every conversation in life has to be backed up with studies and polls.

Personally, I did extensive research before I bought my fence. I spoke to people who had it, I researched online, I saw the controversy, and I made an informed and educated decision, based on all the available information and my own personal needs that this would be the best way to go about containing my dog. 2 years later, I have a happy dog (when I compare his reactions and personality to other dogs I know who are not contained with electric fences), and he is content and well-adjusted. To top it all off, I have a dog who is contained.

Posts like the quoted one here contribute nothing to a discussion.

But I wasn't the one to claim that as a 'fact' that they work in 'most cases' without any conclusive proof? Anecdotal evidence at best, with maybe a bit of friends anecdotal evidence as back up. I thnk that's a bit rich to claim as evidence, don't you?

fiounnalbe

sillysmiles wrote: »

For those poster who are adamant against the use of the collars would it be possible for the OP to start boundary training his pup now with a reward training program? ie bring them out into the garden and when they start wandering towards the gate then call them back and reward them?

This is exactly what I did with all my dogs.

Question to those with the fences who are say that the shocks do not hurt their dogs...Have you tried them out on yourselves? Because I'm truly wondering why a dog wouldn't just ignore the shocks and wander off any way if there wasn't some level of discomfort?

borderlinemeath

DBB wrote: »

This method is not appropriate for leaving the dog home alone. It's pretty good for training a pup not to approach the boundary when you're there to supervise, but neither this, nor indeed the radio fence, can be trusted to keep dogs in.

Agreed. My pair (and anybody who has met them will attest to this) won't leave our garden, they stand waiting for visitors if I have the gate open. I could be fairly certain that if I left the gate open they wouldn't go out. But I need to be more than fairly certain, I need to be 100% sure.

StompToWork

fiounnalbe wrote: »

This is exactly what I did with all my dogs.

Question to those with the fences who are say that the shocks do not hurt their dogs...Have you tried them out on yourselves? Because I'm truly wondering why a dog wouldn't just ignore the shocks and wander off any way if there wasn't some level of discomfort?

I have. I described it in an earlier post here.

It is definitely a shock. It is A LOT less than a cattle electric fence, but it is a shock. I found it uncomfortable rather than painful.

The point is, however, (and I will make it again) that once your dog is trained, you can set the collar up to correct using a beep or a vibrate, and no shock is used.

DBB

StompToWork wrote: »

I have. I described it in an earlier post here.

Did you not say that at the very start, the dog got a shock? A static shock?
Can we accept that this static shock is an unpleasant event for the dog?
I assume we're all going to accept this as the system can't work unless the initial shocks are unpleasant. It cannot work if the dog does not pair the buzzing sound with the consequent unpleasant shock. The dog subsequently avoids the perimeter due to trying to avoid the shock from happening. Are we all agreed on that?
So can we not all accept that for this system to work, the dog must experience at least some level of discomfort (at best)?
And for the system to continue working, the dog must continue to maintain an apprehension of approaching the boundary, because he has learned that there's an unpleasant consequence if he does so? In other words, even if the dog doesn't get a shock on subsequent occasions, he is still actively avoiding a negative experience? And every time he feels the vibration, or hears the buzz, regardless of whether he is shocked again, he experiences a physiological stress response which causes him, amongst other things, to move away from the boundary, because he has been conditioned to think that when the alarm sounds, there's a shock coming?
It is this ongoing apprehension, by the by, that causes the chronic anxiety levels in dogs contained by radio fence systems. Chronic stress is difficult for many owners to spot at all, and indeed its insidious nature is well known to many a human too. So, it's not so much the shock that's the problem in many cases (although it is, in far too many cases in my experience), it's the anxious anticipation of the shock that causes long-term problems.

fiounnalbe

StompToWork wrote: »

I have. I described it in an earlier post here.

It is definitely a shock. It is A LOT less than a cattle electric fence, but it is a shock. I found it uncomfortable rather than painful.

The point is, however, (and I will make it again) that once your dog is trained, you can set the collar up to correct using a beep or a vibrate, and no shock is used.

Thank you. I'm happy that you tried it out on yourself, I fear many people don't bother and may set the shock too high, really hurting their dog.

I still personally wouldn't use this system, as all my dogs so far have had no problems staying inside our boundaries with reward based training and too many dogs are being stolen these days, so they are never left outside alone anyway while I'm out.