Shock Collar user fined in Wales

andreac

bigneacy wrote: »

A more humane, less painful way?

TWO SHOCKS FROM A COLLAR.

Catch a ***ing grip, andreac. The owner was at his wits end. It was probably only a matter of time before the dog done harm to itself. The behaviour was corrected in a time-efficient and safe way. The dog is happy as the owner stated. No lasting effects. Behaviour corrected.

What if it was children the dog was chasing and not sheep? Would it still be inhumane and cruel?

Did you ever even feel one of these shocks? They are uncomfortable - they get your attention. They are not sore. I've yet to hear any dog yelp or cry in pain from getting a shock.

Safe for who, the dog or the owner?? How is it safe when it hurts the dog?:mad:

Some proof that they do damage and hurt the dog.

http://maryshouse.us/A_Word_about_Shock_Collars.htm

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.135249120615.141862.59639020615

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/rufus.pdf

http://caninecountrytualatin.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/shawn-riley/

What more evidence do you want??

wildefalcon

You expect me to be reasonable after being compared to Hitler?

Funny. Not.

So far All I've heard is a heap of science, and not a lot of advice.

I gave an example of the challenge I faced, and have not yet heard a practical comment back.


So, I challenge you, give me some practical advice, and please lay off the insults and snide comments, they don't help me warm to your arguments.

And use English, not jargon, or abbreviations or other obstacles to understanding.

How would this man in Wales teach his dog to respect boundaries? How do I stop my dog from digging under the fence? From jumping over it? From eating his way through it?

The dog is half springer, half collie, and so is mad, intelligent, agile and able to clear 6 feet high from a standing start.

And, anyway, I DO think the solution is good, happy dogs, alive rabbits, intact and secure dog run.

Whispered

bigneacy wrote: »

I've yet to hear any dog yelp or cry in pain from getting a shock.

I have seen a good few very distressed dogs wearing a collar. Other people here
have said similar. Of course you can disregard that as personal experience which can't be proven, but in that case the fact you've never heard a dog yelp with one on means nothing either.

Shanao

bigneacy wrote: »

A more humane, less painful way?

TWO SHOCKS FROM A COLLAR.

Catch a grip, andreac. The owner was at his wits end. It was probably only a matter of time before the dog done harm to itself. The behaviour was corrected in a time-efficient and safe way. The dog is happy as the owner stated. No lasting effects. Behaviour corrected.

What if it was children the dog was chasing and not sheep? Would it still be inhumane and cruel?

Did you ever even feel one of these dog collar shocks? They are uncomfortable - they get your attention. They are not sore. I've yet to hear any dog yelp or cry in pain from getting a shock.

That word is the problem here. Time. Few people seem to have the patience to work with their dog, instead they would rather slap an electrical device onto his neck and let him go get a few shocks to teach him a lesson.
The no lasting effects part is ludicrous really. As I said in an earlier post, you dont know what the dog is associating the shock with. Could be that the next time the owner takes him out for a walk and he sees a sheep he'll go berserk and attack for fear of getting a shock. Dogs dont think the way we do, they do not grasp that an invisble fence is giving them a jolt into the neck, they dont know what it is.
If you've yet to hear a dog yelp or cry in pain from getting a shock then I assume you've never seen one with an ecollar go over the fence.

And no, these aren't safe. This is what they can do if in the wrong hands or if they malfunction, which seems to be happening more and more lately.

Whispered

wildefalcon wrote: »

You expect me to be reasonable after being compared to Hitler?

Funny. Not.

So far All I've heard is a heap of science, and not a lot of advice.

I gave an example of the challenge I faced, and have not yet heard a practical comment back.


So, I challenge you, give me some practical advice, and please lay off the insults and snide comments, they don't help me warm to your arguments.

And use English, not jargon, or abbreviations or other obstacles to understanding.

How would this man in Wales teach his dog to respect boundaries? How do I stop my dog from digging under the fence? From jumping over it? From eating his way through it?

The dog is half springer, half collie, and so is mad, intelligent, agile and able to clear 6 feet high from a standing start.

And, anyway, I DO think the solution is good, happy dogs, alive rabbits, intact and secure dog run.

Totally happy to try give some advice, (although must get ready for work now so it will be later tonight) but to do that would need to ask about training so far etc. It would go way off topic - would you be able to start a thread asking and people can reply there? Just so we can stay on the e-collar topic in this thread.

koppy

andreac wrote: »

Build a wooden fence or get a dog run, much more safer and reliable and dont inflict pain on your dog.
Electric collars are the easy way out for the owner, not the dog.:mad:

dont think you would say that if you had ever seen or trained a dog on the containment fence,
have used this type of fence for a long while now and didn't find the training and re training an easy way out. think these are some thing that will always split people so all i going to say is if you decide to get one please train the dog properly.

just on using shock collars to stop dogs barking etc..this is cruelty
any training or behavioral training that uses punishment is cruel and should not be used.

i know i'm going to get a post saying i'm contradicting myself in agreeing with the containment fence but dis agreeing with the barking bit. for me the difference is the training. i dont agree with using punishment to train and i think a lot of people think that using the containment fence is using punishment. its not. a properly trained dog wont get punished.

ISDW

wildefalcon wrote: »

You expect me to be reasonable after being compared to Hitler?

Funny. Not.

So far All I've heard is a heap of science, and not a lot of advice.

I gave an example of the challenge I faced, and have not yet heard a practical comment back.


So, I challenge you, give me some practical advice, and please lay off the insults and snide comments, they don't help me warm to your arguments.

And use English, not jargon, or abbreviations or other obstacles to understanding.

How would this man in Wales teach his dog to respect boundaries? How do I stop my dog from digging under the fence? From jumping over it? From eating his way through it?

The dog is half springer, half collie, and so is mad, intelligent, agile and able to clear 6 feet high from a standing start.

And, anyway, I DO think the solution is good, happy dogs, alive rabbits, intact and secure dog run.

Well obviously the man in Wales didn't teach his dog to respect boundaries with the collar on, as it was found outside of the boundaries.

Could you not put some extra fencing up inside your wooden fencing, something more metallic that the dog can't chew? What happens if you have a power cut?

wildefalcon

ISDW wrote: »

Well obviously the man in Wales didn't teach his dog to respect boundaries with the collar on, as it was found outside of the boundaries.

Could you not put some extra fencing up inside your wooden fencing, something more metallic that the dog can't chew? What happens if you have a power cut?

I could, but I don't fancy living in a concentration camp, I know, putting appearances before my dog! Shocking!

The fencer is powered by a single 6 volt battery - like in a torch - and it should last 4 months. And, do you know, it doesn't have to be on, to work! The dog just stays away from it now.

Now, those dreadful pictures of abused dogs show what happens when the shock collars are abused, and neglected. This is terrible, but is not caused by the collar, it is caused by the owners not training the dogs, and over tightening the collars. The shock collar isn't at fault, it's misuse is the problem.

The collar should be loose, and the beeping noise emitted by the collar should be enough to trigger the dog to back away. If that isn't happening then the dog hasn't been properly trained.

Again, my point, the collars aren't inherently dangerous, but they can be abused. That an item can be abused is not sufficient reason to ban it, otherwise we'd ban insulin, and chemotherapy, highly dangerous and toxic materials that are used to the benefit of mankind.

I'll open another thread regarding training of stubborn dogs later on, I've got to bring the dogs for a walk now.

ISDW

wildefalcon wrote: »

I could, but I don't fancy living in a concentration camp, I know, putting appearances before my dog! Shocking!

The fencer is powered by a single 6 volt battery - like in a torch - and it should last 4 months. And, do you know, it doesn't have to be on, to work! The dog just stays away from it now.

Now, those dreadful pictures of abused dogs show what happens when the shock collars are abused, and neglected. This is terrible, but is not caused by the collar, it is caused by the owners not training the dogs, and over tightening the collars. The shock collar isn't at fault, it's misuse is the problem.

The collar should be loose, and the beeping noise emitted by the collar should be enough to trigger the dog to back away. If that isn't happening then the dog hasn't been properly trained.

Again, my point, the collars aren't inherently dangerous, but they can be abused. That an item can be abused is not sufficient reason to ban it, otherwise we'd ban insulin, and chemotherapy, highly dangerous and toxic materials that are used to the benefit of mankind.

I'll open another thread regarding training of stubborn dogs later on, I've got to bring the dogs for a walk now.

OK, so you ask for advice, saying that nobody is giving you any and then when someone does, you get nasty. Why did you have to be rude to me? I have powder coated fencing around my property and it doesn't look anything like a concentration camp, but thats not what you want to hear.

wildefalcon

Sorry, didn't mean to insult your property, it's just that the fence that I'd need to keep my dogs in would be fairly ugly in order to work. I also doubt that it would work. As I say, the dogs can borrow down a long way, and can clear 6 foot easily.

I also think it would be too urban for the setting I'm living in. Not to mention very expensive - 1.5km of fencing would cost a fair bit!

ISDW

wildefalcon wrote: »

Sorry, didn't mean to insult your property, it's just that the fence that I'd need to keep my dogs in would be fairly ugly in order to work. I also doubt that it would work. As I say, the dogs can borrow down a long way, and can clear 6 foot easily.

I also think it would be too urban for the setting I'm living in. Not to mention very expensive - 1.5km of fencing would cost a fair bit!

Don't be so crass, you're not insulting my property, your reply was aggressive and uncalled for.

I didn't say to to replace the fencing you already have, just put something in front of it so that the dog can't chew through the wood, if the dog hasn't burrowed under the present fence, I don't see why it would suddenly do so just because theres a bit of extra fencing in front of it. It doesn't have to be full height, just against the wooden fencing so that the dog can't chew it, I doubt that the dog is chewing the top of the fence?

I live in the country, the fencing blends in perfectly, all around the 2.2 acres of land that I have.

Hellrazer

Right everyone needs to calm down now.

Ive issued a red card to bigneacy for the get a ****ing grip comment and wildefalcon youre coming close aswell.

Now if I get anymore reports about this thread Im locking it and banning people.

doctor evil

Whispered wrote: »

I don't think electric fences themselves are illegal.

Definitely not illegal

There are lots of things we do with our animals to guarantee their safety and the safety of others. Not everything in life is pleasant eg injections or even for some, a bath!

Small pain (if any, I've never handled an electric collar, electric fencing gives a zap that I find unpleasant rather than outright injury causing pain {within proper use of tool of course}) long term gain. There are worse things that can happen if an animal gets out. The zap from a fence goes away quicky and nothing lingers.

Karma25

Whether its right or wrong I still think that fine is excessive. I mean people wanting a law like that in Ireland, do you think firstly it could be implemented properly here? Secondly in these financial prudent times are people really going to pay a 3000 fine?

Whispered

doctor evil wrote: »

Definitely not illegal

There are lots of things we do with our animals to guarantee their safety and the safety of others. Not everything in life is pleasant eg injections or even for some, a bath!

Small pain (if any, I've never handled an electric collar, electric fencing gives a zap that I find unpleasant rather than outright injury causing pain {within proper use of tool of course}) long term gain. There are worse things that can happen if an animal gets out. The zap from a fence goes away quicky and nothing lingers.

I think you might misunderstand me - I wasn't suggesting that they were illegal, although quoted on it's own it looks like I was.

The thread was actually about e-collars, not electric fencing. And the fact someone was prosecuted for using an e-collar. I don't think electric fences themselves are illegal.

I just meant that wildefalcon would get better advice on training his dog if he opened a thread, as electric fences for livestock are different to e-collars and has very little to do with someone being prosecuted for using an e-collar.

I do agree that there are worse things that can happen if an animal escapes, of course. But in the instance of e-collars (not livestock fencing) there are so many people who loose their pet when they figure out how to escape, or when for some reason something drives them more than the fear of pain. Even if we take the perceived cruelty out of the equation. They're just not reliable enough to ensure a dogs safety.

Does anybody know how liability works if sheep were to wander onto your land and your dog kills them?

Whispered

Karma25 wrote: »

I mean people wanting a law like that in Ireland, do you think firstly it could be implemented properly here? Secondly in these financial prudent times are people really going to pay a 3000 fine?

No I don't think it would be implemented properly here as welfare laws in this country are a joke and prosecutions for cruelty are very rare, I would hope that a law would make them more difficult to buy, but I would hold out much hope of prosecutions tbh.

Financially prudent times or not - If someone breaks the law then they must take the consequences. Whatever that law is. If you don't want to pay a fine, don't break the law.

ppink

wildefalcon wrote: »

What do you do when your dog is eating his way through a wooden fence to attack the rabbit belonging to the neighbour?

I would put steel mesh painted to match the wooden fence up to stop him eating through.
To stop digging under lay the steel mesh on the ground. If you are worried about appearances dig the sod, lay the mesh and put the sod back over it. If the dog digs he will stop when he gets to the mesh.

you can buy mesh 2" squared from your builders providers, cut to size with angle grinder or wire cutters and tie up with tie wraps or wire. Paint on sale in Aldi for metal at about €6.99 a tin I think.

bigneacy

Hellrazer wrote: »

Right everyone needs to calm down now.

Ive issued a red card to bigneacy for the get a ****ing grip comment and wildefalcon youre coming close aswell.

Now if I get anymore reports about this thread Im locking it and banning people.

My comment didn't have any bad language in it Hellrazer, so I assume you'll be taking the red card back?

Or perhaps you are using your mod privileges to penalise those who don't share your views?

Hellrazer

bigneacy wrote: »

My comment didn't have any bad language in it Hellrazer, so I assume you'll be taking the red card back?

I suggest you read Andreas quote as your language is still there.So no I wont be taking it back.

Or perhaps you are using your mod privileges to penalise those who don't share your views?

Questioning a mod decision has gotten you another red card.I ahavent even posted in the thread.Now I suggest you drop it.

bigneacy

andreac wrote: »

Safe for who, the dog or the owner?? How is it safe when it hurts the dog?:mad:

Some proof that they do damage and hurt the dog.

http://maryshouse.us/A_Word_about_Shock_Collars.htm

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.135249120615.141862.59639020615

http://www.itsfortheanimals.com/Adobe/rufus.pdf

http://caninecountrytualatin.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/shawn-riley/

What more evidence do you want??

Give me five minutes and any subject, any person, any inanimate being, any innocent object and I will be able to find someone with a website and "Scientific Evidence" to back up their point of view.

Just because you can list off a few (ridiculously biased) internet sites and gather some scary pictures doesn't make it true.

Shanao

bigneacy wrote: »

Give me five minutes and any subject, any person, any inanimate being, any innocent object and I will be able to find someone with a website and "Scientific Evidence" to back up their point of view.

Just because you can list off a few (ridiculously biased) internet sites and gather some scary pictures doesn't make it true.

So, what, these people decided to burn the dogs themselves just to fit their own agenda? The facts are there, so you don't like them, deal with it.

bigneacy

Shanao wrote: »

So, what, these people decided to burn the dogs themselves just to fit their own agenda? The facts are there, so you don't like them, deal with it.

Anything could have happened those dogs - pictures are taken out of context daily on the internet.

Oh and re: them burning the dogs themselves - sadly, people have done worse to further their beliefs and you know it.

seoirserob

Should electric fences be banned too? . . . or possibly the eating of cow? maybe fences altogether then . . . or maybe just dog owners.

Something interesting for environmentalist ideology, the most carbon efficient thing a modern family can do is have their dog put down, that's way ahead of even the family car on a lifetime of emissions . . .

star-pants

seoirserob wrote: »

Something interesting for environmentalist ideology, the most carbon efficient thing a modern family can do is have their dog put down, that's way ahead of even the family car on a lifetime of emissions . . .

*insert rolleyes here*


Mod hat - seriously must all half decent discussions end up with bickering?This is the last warning to all on this matter. Post decently or you'll find you can't post.

Whispered

seoirserob wrote: »

Something interesting for environmentalist ideology,

I don't know of anybody coming at this from an environmentalist ideology, I fail to see the connection

EDIT: Also the treatment of our meat animals is absolutely a very interesting topic, but I don't think really connected to the use of shock collars for containment.

Discodog

A few thoughts. The injuries in the photos are relatively common. Yes some are the result of poor fitting but that is the key of the problem. There might just be a possibility of justifying a remote shock trainer if it is used in exceptional circumstances & by a trained, qualified expert. But they are sold on the high street.

In the hands of an expert one could argue that they are not cruel if they do not inflict prolonged or unnecessary suffering. But the reality is that they are attractive to people who do not want to spend money on fencing or want a short cut to training.

If a shooter is out with his dog & it chases cattle then it is not under effective control. He shouldn't let it off lead near livestock until he is confident in it's behaviour.

The confusion between shock & vibration may be because most training collars can be set to vibrate, shock or both.

In the UK the RSPCA are deemed to be the arbiters of what constitutes cruel practice under the law. They spoke out against these collars many years ago & the Welsh Assembly are merely following their advice.

Yes the fine is high. But maybe it's easier to impose a big fine, get huge headlines & have less cases in the future.

Cherry Blossom

If people are going to post any more graphic images please do so via a link not directly embedded in the post. It would be great if you could also issue a warning.

DBB

Whispered wrote: »

Does anybody know how liability works if sheep were to wander onto your land and your dog kills them?

Hi Whispered.
Section 21 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 states:

"(2) Where livestock are injured by a dog on land on to which they had strayed, and either the dog belonged to the occupier of the land or its presence on the land was authorised by the occupier, a person shall not be liable under this section in respect of injury done to the livestock, unless the person caused the dog to attack the livestock."
So, unless you deliberately set your dog on trespassing livestock, it looks like you have no liability for any damage your dog might cause to the sheep.

andreac

bigneacy wrote: »

Anything could have happened those dogs - pictures are taken out of context daily on the internet.

Oh and re: them burning the dogs themselves - sadly, people have done worse to further their beliefs and you know it.

Seriously, are you that much in denial as to what damage these contraptions can do to an animal??
Why would people post pics in relation to these collars and lie about them? Theres a veterinary report there too on a dog that was injured by a collar, are you going to say that someone just made that up too?:rolleyes:

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

Hi Whispered.
Section 21 of the Control of Dogs Act 1986 states:

So if a person trespasses on your property & your dog bites them, the dog can be put down as dangerous. But not if it attacks a sheep. The law recognises that the sheep shouldn't be there but penalises the dog if it is a human intruder.

The CoD act is a remarkably bad piece of law especially as it is relatively recent.