ok guys i am confused - sorry if this seems really dumb.

i have been reading the posts on behaviour about elec collars and have a question - what is positive training? i assume it is reward based training which nearly every single training school i investigated does...is that right? the opposite being the "old-school" shout at your dog, frighten him into submission approach.
if that's correct, why would positive training encourage aggression as suggested on the other post? i don't get this and am really only wondering cos i train archie with positive training (I think!!)

the other thing is - i'm sure i read somewhere that electric shock collars (are these the same as electric collars?) are being banned in the UK cos obviously it ain't nice to shock your dog - i know they're really big in America but am sure they're being banned here - is that true?

I think you've about summed it up correctly, Lu. I can't see how rewarding good behaviour will make a dog become aggressive, either!

I'm not sure if the collars are to be banned in the UK, but I'm sure there are moves afoot to do so.
:)

If you run a search using the search facility in the top right hand corner of the forum page, you will find many old threads on this subject.

Yes electric shock collars are going to be banned. Mr David Rendal MP has brought a bill in to ban them along with Anne Widdicombe and other respectable MP’s. The things only eased their way into this country slowly so one would notice.
An eminent veterinary Dr Wirth did studies on the damage done to some dogs by them, I am sorry but it makes horrific reading.
Dr Hugh Wirth said the electric shocks had caused epileptic fits, vomiting, seizures, burning and bleeding.
"Electrified dog collars are being used as a torture tool to train dogs.
The collars can inflict a 3000-volt shock up to 1800 times every six seconds.
Outraged animal welfare groups say the collars are used to teach dogs to fight.
Dr Wirth, a respected veterinarian, found the electric collars often shocked dogs into a fit. And says they cause permanent behavioural damage" he said."
One test on a unit showed the collars inflicted a 3000 volt shock.
In many cases the collar inflicts burns, the electrodes get stuck into the skin and the dog can't get away.
In one case 12-month-old 60kg malamute fitted with collar for training as an attack dog.
The neighbours reported the dog howling and doing backflips every time he was given a shock. The dog was traumatised and turned on its owner, savagely biting him. The owner then had the malamute destroyed.
Another owner noticed scorch marks the dog's neck, and took the dog to the RSPCA. The dog had been trying to remove collar, resulting in scorch marks all around neck from moving electrodes.
There are more cases but not for long, I heard they will be banned very soon and no sooner is Mr Rendal getting those banned than we find another new instrument of torture being used and by a the NCDL vet at that this one damages the eardrums as well as giving the dog constant headaches, well njot for long I am writing to my own MP about it and I hope he does as good a job as Mr Rendal.

:( :(

liberty :(

Dont care if I upset anyone here but the use of electric collars is downright disgusting and cruel

Hi lel

I hope my sad'n'angry emoticons weren't misconstrued as any kind of support for electric collars, it was to show how I felt about their use.

Reading through the thread again, I can see how it could look :(

liberty

Sorry
Liberty
it wasnt a reply to your post personally - I was replying in general to their use .

Unfortunately, anyone that would torture to turn it into an attack dog does not need to rely on the availability of electric collars. One of my friends bred GSDs and a puppy she sold that ended up in the wrong hands. She found out rather quickly, after only a few weeks, and went to rescue the dog. She found the dog in a basement, with several others, and all the dogs' ears had been ripped and bloodied. The person she sold it to ran an "guard dog" business and torturing dogs was his method of training.

Stacey

i think it's horrendous that anyone would deliberately misuse a tool like that, purely to hurt what should be their beloved pet :( The more stories i see like this, the more i think the ability to purchase them should be restricted to trainers qualified to use them [and PROVE that they know how before purchase], rather than have them available to the general public.
However [and i know i'm going to be shot down in flames for this] i think a blanket ban on them is foolish! In the right hands, with the appropriate training course for both handler and dog the ecollar is a valuable tool. It can be a last resort for some people - it very nearly was for me!!! And no matter how much i wish it would, a ban is not going to stop the sick B*****ds that buy them to torture their dogs from finding another way to do it. They might get a prong collar and try to strangle their dog into submission. Maybe a choke chain, maybe they'll just kick it who knows!! :(
But yeah, that's just mho

Annette

It seems to me that we are surrounded be people who should not have dogs at all. Thankfully very soon indeed these devices will be illegal I hope they jail people who are found to use such things.
But no sooner do we get rid of one awful instrument of torture than they invent another which in many ways is even worse. What about these sub sonic fences which make and electronic noise to frighten and hurt dogs ears? We now find the NCDL head vet Chris Laurence is using them. These things are also known to overheat and burn dogs, they damage dogs eardrums and give them headache they cannot be heard much by us but to a dog it is like a fire engine suddenly letting loose at the side of us yet another inherently cruel device I think. The dog has to find out by accident where they are and some dogs simply panic and run out of the garden and onto roads, a dog who has been given pain and headache with one will get confused and will attack anyone trying to help it.
I suppose now the government will have to start all over again to get these banned as well, then what? Some kind of harness with a mechanical hammer on top to knock the dog on the head to train it.

I must admit, although I dislike them (mainly for the reason Speedsmum states, that they are on sale to the general public) I was never quite sure whether or not to believe the stories about severe burns etc. I have always kept an open mind on this.

But fairly recently a poster on here posted a link to a photo of a GSD who had been very badly burnt, it was obviously totally genuine and disgusting

Even more recently, I was chatting to a rehab trainer about a Dobe she has been helping, and she told me some of his history, including the fact that when she first saw him, he had burns due to an electric collar, as his owner confirmed :( What sort of person could do this?

The dog is only 3 years old so I am not sure if the collar would have been the old style one, which did deliver a nasty shock and which is presumably still in use, or the newer one. I am presuming the older one, but either way it is horrific to hear about this......

OMG the poor dog!! :( i don't suppose you have a link to that photo, or the thread it was on??? The only pics i've seen of supposed burns from an ecollar have all been fake, usually very obvious injuries from too-tight collars being left on as the dog grew.
Awful what some people can do to animals - sometimes i think people should need a license to PROVE they can care for a dog :(

Annette

1a.
On 04.07.03 21:53 GMT MrsB wrote,
Yes electric shock collars are going to be banned. Mr David Rendal MP has brought a bill in to ban them along with Anne Widdicombe and other respectable MP’s. The things only eased their way into this country slowly so one would notice.

Doogle wrote,
1a.
No, passing laws is not that simple or anywhere close to being simple.

David Rendels bill, which you mention, is called a private members bill. He has been trying this for around 7/8 years. He is attempting it under the 1911 Cruelty to Animals Act “Causing unnecessary Suffering”.

There are MANY stages for all bills, this one, has had its first reading. What that means is that he applied under the ten minuet rule for it to be heard in detail at a later date. An MP simply states the basics he has written them and asks permission for it to be heard by any members who are in the commons at the time of his/its second reading.

It is almost automatic that these applications go through, it’s only if a backbencher comes up with something completely stupid, such as a law to ban the washing of socks on Wednesday mornings that they are refused permission.

At the second reading the private member must come out with statement giving the facts and reasons why a bill should become law. Private members second readings are heard on Friday mornings.

Friday mornings are usually quiet in the commons and the MP reads out his finished form of what he wants and why, his supporters are always there and others who might be waiting for their private member to say his bit.

What an MP says is taken on its merits and is in its final form so everyone can take it away and start to dissect the elements, these second readings are not a point where all or any of what an MP puts forward is questioned, it is basically to see if what is said makes sense, if it does a vote in favour is common, there is no serious questioning or anything at this stage and the second readings almost always get through as this will.

From that point on what is written as the proposal by an MP starts to get scrutiny, it also has to go before committees, back to the commons, more and more people become involved, back to committees, ALL facts as put by an MP get tested, technical things such as in Rendal bill must be tested, the legal wording,accuracy of statements of alleged facts and all sorts of things start to get scrutinised by committees etc.

An MP cannot simply come out with a whole load of non-facts as if they were facts
without them being scrutinised at a later date they will be put under the microscope of Parliament to be tested at some point/

They cannot pass a law based on inaccuracy otherwise a court conviction would be thrown out on appeal, then go back maybe to the lords and the law be found to be unlawful because the law was passed based on incorrect statements by an MP, it’s called “Misleading Parliament and the People”.

On top of that, these days, it must conform to both Europe and the human rights act. If a private individual or individuals are objecting through their MP they must be answered not just to the MP but to the house if a point is made and the members bill found misleading or even false in places. If the MP putting forward a bill has been given grounds for that bill by concerns which have a commercial interest in seeing a bill go through then all that has to be scrutinised.

A small bill like this, if it gets past committee stage, could last years before it is thrown out again (as it was before) or made into law and in that period many hundreds of people and concerns become involved who had no knowledge of the bill until it slowly seeped out, then their MP’s become involved. E.G. it took almost 25 years before warnings were put on cigarette packets about health, despite the fact everyone ‘knew’ they damaged health it had to be medically unequivocally proven before it could become law.

The Guardian reported it in its parliamentary column pasted below and I believe a dog paper also said it would not become law. It will not become law for a number of reasons.

Yesterday in parliament
Staff and agencies
Thursday February 13, 2003
The Guardian

Animal electric shock collars "unnecessarily cruel" collars that give animals an electric shock in a bid to teach good behaviour. Liberal Democrat David Rendel, introducing his animals electric shock collars bill, said their sale and use should be outlawed because it was wrong to use "pain to discourage unwanted behaviour". His bill gained its first reading but stands no chance of becoming law.

1b. MrsB wrote,
“and no sooner is Mr Rendal getting those banned than we find another new instrument of torture being used and by a the NCDL vet at that this one damages the eardrums as well as giving the dog constant headaches, well njot for long I am writing to my own MP about it and I hope he does as good a job as Mr Rendal.”

Doogle wrote,
There is no need to write to your MP MrsB (although if it makes you feel better do so )
There is a part of David Rendels bill which automatically brings them within the his proposed bill

"An MP cannot simply come out with a whole load of non-facts as if they were facts
without them being scrutinised at a later date they will be put under the microscope of Parliament to be tested at some point/

They cannot pass a law based on inaccuracy otherwise a court conviction would be thrown out on appeal, then go back maybe to the lords and the law be found to be unlawful because the law was passed based on incorrect statements by an MP, it’s called “Misleading Parliament and the People”"

At one time I would have agreed with those statements, but sadly we have seen that this is not the case with the hunting with dogs bill.

I havent actualy follwed that bill it's far to vast, but if there is something missing and a court case came about it could easily end up back at the lords for a ruleing.
I think that whole hunting bill is so vast and drawn out a lot will be flawed by the time it gets through, I can see the appeals court blocked up.

MrsB wrote
“An eminent veterinary Dr Wirth did studies on the damage done to some dogs by them, I am sorry but it makes horrific reading.”…………..MrsB continued with some cases.

Doogle wrote,
It does indeed make very interesting reading MrsB but it omits many things for such serious statements.
EDIT
Another owner noticed scorch marks the dog's neck, and took the dog to the RSPCA. The dog had been trying to remove collar, resulting in scorch marks all around neck from moving electrodes.

1. Did you get the information from a web site? if so please give a link.

2. if not a web site where did you see the information and when?.

3.. When was the dog taken to the RSPCA and what did the RSPCA say?, was this in the press if so which one and when did this event take place?

________________________________________________________

On 05.07.03 18:15 GMT Lindsay wrote,
1. But fairly recently a poster on here posted a link to a photo of a GSD who had been very badly burnt, it was obviously totally genuine and disgusting

2.a. Even more recently, I was chatting to a rehab trainer about a Dobe she has been helping, and she told me some of his history,

2b. including the fact that when she first saw him, he had burns due to an electric collar,

2c. as his owner confirmed

3. The dog is only 3 years old so I am not sure if the collar would have been the old style one, which did deliver a nasty shock and which is presumably still in use, or the newer one. I am presuming the older one,

Doogle wrote,

1. Please past a link to this thanks.

2.a. “Rehab” is this a rescue dog?

2b. How did she substantiate the marks she says she saw were burns? Can you repeat the description she gave?

2. c. What exactly did the owner confirm, did he use an e collar? What exactly was he confirming? Was he told this by someone or has he seen the labaroratory results of skin sample tests?

3. Why have you not established which MAKE of collar? it seems you are in touch with someone who knows about this please find out what make of collar and model. The amount of information the people have given you to relay ( especially as the owner says he can “confirm this” ( means he must know which collar make pr can find out.

Denis,

I walk for interest with a rehab group, this dog (Dobe) was with the group for rehabilitation.

The owner tried many methods including a rather stupid local dog training group and then went to a trainer who used an electric collar - i don't know the details but the electric collar did cause the burns, whether the owner went on to use it after the trainer i have no idea. As the owner confirmed this i feel we will have to take him at his word, it is hardly the sort of thing most people will admit to after all.

Re the photo with the burns, you presumably have already seen it as i am sure you were involved in the original discussion. I will however try to find it.

Lindsay

HI Annette

The link was on a previous discussion about dogs on here, and was posted i believe by Jacquie N. It was a link to a GSD site i believe and the owner was talking about the dog she had bought in, who was in a bit of a state but very gentle. I have to say the burns looked absolutely genuine to me.

I will try and find it on here, but someone better with computers may beat me to it!

Lindsay

MrsB,

First of all, there is no such thing as a "sub sonic fence." The static containment fence that you mention, which I thought I read here sometime ago was supposedly used by a vet formerly with the RSPCA (not the NCDL), does emit an audible warning noise. It is not the least bit unpleasant to human or canine. In fact, when the distributor of the fence you say emits a noise that would "frighten and hurt dogs ears" and "damage dogs eardrums and give them a headache" just last week tested the collar in my home so that it made a noise the response was quite different. My Cairn ran over to it with her tail wagging to inspect and sniff at the device that was emitting this so-called dangerous sound. No one had a headache or found the sound the least bit unpleasant -- neither canine nor human.

I have used a static contaiment fence before with no problem. I used it to train my dog to stay within my garden and I never even bothered putting the collar on the dog 99% if the time once she was trained. The only time I put the collar on was when I noticed she was getting closer to the boundary, in which case I would put it on her for a few days until she was reminded of the property lines. She never got a correction after the intial week of training, which feels like a strong (not painful) muscle twitch (I tried in on myself), the warning sound was enough to remind her of her limits.

Dogs do not "find out by accident" where they are and "panic and run out of the garden and onto the roads" - they are *trained" first on where the boundaries are that you want them to respect. You first do this without the dog even wearing the collar - you hold the collar in your hand and when you reach the spot where the warning noise (the so-called " dangerous and subsonic" noise) starts you teach them to move back. Static containment fences do not work without training and I imagine that exactly what you say could happen if someone installs a fence and expects it to work by itself. I suppose it's the reason why if you buy a toaster or hair dryer the instruction tells you not to use it in water -- an intelligence test is not required before purchase.

As to burns, if the dog receives a correction and for some reason it stays within the area where a correction is received (as in someone holds it in that spot) the correction stops completey after a very short time. Further, if the collar is from a reputable manufacturer it cannot cause burns. In addition, the collar can be set so there is only a noise and no correction, fyi.

I am by no means saying that static contaiment fences cannot be misused or misunderstood by people who think they work by themselves without training. Nor am I a saying that some manfacturers of so-called training ecollars have not abused the technology and in fact developed devices which are dangerous.

Will the government ban these static containment fences and ecollars? There is no reason to do so. If a device is used which injures or is cruel to a dog than it is already illegal to use. On the other hand, it seems to be okay for people on horses to chase foxes and for their dogs to rip them apart. And it seems to be okay for "farmers" to breed unhealthy puppies in unhealthy conditions. Much easier to ban ecollars, I'm sure, it will not effect re-election like banning fox hunting or closing down puppy farms.

Stacey

Stacy he is now with the NCDL ;) Gillian

Just found that link, i am sorry but not sure how to do a "proper" one so if anyone is interested, take a peek at "Drive Stimulation Training Continued" and scroll quite far down to Jacqui N's link, it's a short post and link is obvious; 03/03/03 at 17.40.

Hth
Lindsay

Edited to have a go at posting the link ....

Here's the link, there was an admin warning about the link on the original post.

http://www.gsdring.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=25;t=000118

It is people like doogle who by their writing have not got the slightest interest in dogs or what happens to them which leads to abuse of dogs. What do you do doogle get fed up of it and dump it over a motorway bridge, at least it will not be tormented by an electric shock collar.
Mr Rendals bill will of course go through people in the uk will not tolerate dogs being forced into doing a sadistic owners wishes by giving it electric shocks by people like you and Stacey, brutes. I saw the studies of Dr Wirth on the internet in winter and although I saved it I felt dirty and sick with it so I deleted it, I even feel sick writing about it.

Whoah!!! Hang on a minute!!!!
i'm sure there are some people here that will agree with me when i say the ecollar isn't some form of torture device when it's used correctly!!! You're talking about people *abusing* them, and thus abusing their dogs - that is NOT the same as using them properly, and you'e no right to accuse either Stacy or Doogle of abusing their dogs!!
As i've said before, i don't think they should be available to the general public because there are those that WILL misuse them, maybe not always through being sadistic b*****ds, maybe just through ignorance on how to use them, but the end result is the same for the dog which is exactly why i feel they should only be available through a trainer who knows how to use them with the appropriate training course.
If Doogle's right, the bill probably won't go through if it's been tried so many times, and i do think a ban on them would be daft anyway!!

Annette

The best way to deal with Trolls is to ignore them Annette

i can't find it!! Which part of the GSD webring board is it in?? Sorry if i'm being completely thick here, but i honestly can't see it anywhere - the link just took me to the main page of the forum - HELP!!

Annette

I've just checked and although i copied the exact link from the post on DST continued, for some reason it is not now taking us to the photo

I tried to do a search on there, and i was told i was not logged in - I wonder if now, it is necessary to do that in order to see the photo?

i must say that is a big site so I am not sure where to start looking for the photo :( Maybe there is someone cleverer than me out there who could help.....

LIndsay