Radio fence for dog

eilo1

I definitely agree with your 2nd point.

However Im not sure that because something can be abused it should not be used. To be fair any collar left on too tight can cause severe skin irritation, hair loss, open wounds or strangulation. That is not in itself a reason not to collar your dog.

mikom

Shanao wrote: »

3. And last but not least. What the collar can do if it malfunctions. I saw two dogs with horrible burns on their necks when i was a vet nurse, they can do tremendous damage. For example:

Nursing studies didn't extend enough for you to tell the difference between electrical burns and pressure sores it seems.
Pressure sores were the ones pictured.
Collar too tight rather than a malfunction.

Taceom

almighty1 wrote: »

I have to say I wholeheartedly disagree with all the negativity posted about these fences here. I have one (Golden Retriever) and my next door neighbour (Cocker Spanial) in a rural location.

The fences work great for us, you can adjust shock level to suit size of dog.
And if trained correctly the dog will instinctively know where not to go regardless of the buzzer going off or not.

I think they are less crueler than a run or letting the dog roam outside.

You could be talking about my situation. I too have a Golden Retriever and have been using the Pet Fence since he was very young, and I have to say it works wonderfully for us.

Irishchick

I'm not posting in this thread anymore. No wonder animal welfare is the way it is in this country when people are willing to shock their dogs in the neck rather than train them or build proper fences and runs. It's disgusting.

Or you know how about exercising the dog so its too tired to bother roaming.

People who use negative re enforcement should not be allowed to own an animal.

almighty1

Oh please Irishgirl. The circumstances listed by Shanao are in the minority.

The way you are talking, every single dog that has a shock collar is a bumbling wreck. I know its not ideal but generally has minimal impact on the behaviour of the dog.

Im 100% convinced that a small-medium sized run is crueler than a shock collar.

toadfly

Why can't the dog be inside rather that the only options being a shock collar or a small run? My dogs are inside all the time unless out for a walk or toilet break and my house is still standing.

Graces7

eilo1 wrote: »

What? I mean seriously, just what are you on about?????

and rather worryingly who is "we" ????

It is clear enough...

to the second issue. Worry not! lol!!!

Graces7

Irishchick wrote: »

I'm not posting in this thread anymore. No wonder animal welfare is the way it is in this country when people are willing to shock their dogs in the neck rather than train them or build proper fences and runs. It's disgusting.

Or you know how about exercising the dog so its too tired to bother roaming.

People who use negative re enforcement should not be allowed to own an animal.

Thank you; this says it all.

Shanao

mikom wrote: »

Nursing studies didn't extend enough for you to tell the difference between electrical burns and pressure sores it seems.
Pressure sores were the ones pictured.
Collar too tight rather than a malfunction.

Wow, thanks for insinuating that my entire course of study was a waste of time. And believe me, I have seen the burns from these damned things, when you've spent a day in a vets cleaning out an infected burn that was allowed fester away beneath one of these collars then maybe you'll be able to recognise a burn properly. And perhaps these were only the cases I came across, funny how so many other people came across similiar cases if these are in the minority, no?

mikom

Shanao wrote: »

Wow, thanks for insinuating that my entire course of study was a waste of time. And believe me, I have seen the burns from these damned things, when you've spent a day in a vets cleaning out an infected burn that was allowed fester away beneath one of these collars then maybe you'll be able to recognise a burn properly. And perhaps these were only the cases I came across, funny how so many other people came across similiar cases if these are in the minority, no?

If you don't want to get called up on it then don't go posting pics of pressure sores and pass them off as electrical burns.
In certain cases misdiagnoses can be fatal.

portgirl123

mikom wrote: »

If you don't want to get called up on it then don't go posting pics of pressure sores and pass them off as electrical burns.
In certain cases misdiagnoses can be fatal.

im sorry but they are like no other pressure sores i have ever seen! and even IF they were pressure sores to get in that state is ok? i think not.

Shanao

mikom wrote: »

If you don't want to get called up on it then don't go posting pics of pressure sores and pass them off as electrical burns.
In certain cases misdiagnoses can be fatal.

And as i already said they are burns, I have seen enough of them to know by now

eilo1

Shanao wrote: »

And as i already said they are burns, I have seen enough of them to know by now

Thats what you say but do you have anything to prove it?

Sorry but the word of a person over the internet doesn't hold much weight.
(for example you are going to disregard my opinion below :P)

Im in my final year of a health sciences course and the spread of the inflammation along with no sign of charring makes its far more likely in my opinion, that the injuries where from friction.

Also the chances of a 3-6 volt battery causing this type of injury is extremely unlikely. As I have previously pointed out you need up 9 volts to get a muscle contraction!

To everyone saying just leave your dog inside or just exercise it until its tired, if these collars can facilitate your dog to have a happy life outdoors then I think its only a good thing.

To DBB and the girl who mentioned the animal welfare laws only being based on scientific evidence, what do you think of the RB list :cool:

planetX

Another person here who knows someone whose dog went straight through the radio fence and under the wheels of a truck.

almighty1

TillyGirl wrote: »

Why can't the dog be inside rather that the only options being a shock collar or a small run? My dogs are inside all the time unless out for a walk or toilet break and my house is still standing.

Sorry but a small run or being holed up inside the house the majority of the day doesnt seem like a good compromise. Again IMO both are crueler than a shock collar.

I didnt see the pics posted earlier but I dispute that much (if any) injury could be caused by a 6v battery.

toadfly

Are you seriously saying that I'm being cruel for keeping my dogs indoors where they are safe?

almighty1

TillyGirl wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that I'm being cruel for keeping my dogs indoors where they are safe?

Well its depends on how often you bring your dogs for a walk. Think about it from their standpoint. Their instincts are to move around, play, mark their territory etc, how can they do this being inside 24x7?

Im not saying that dogs should be kept outside all the time but should be somewhere inbetween. They should be allowed outside for long periods of the day (early spring to early winter) with no more than 40% of their time spent inside.

ISDW

almighty1 wrote: »

Well its depends on how often you bring your dogs for a walk. Think about it from their standpoint. Their instincts are to move around, play, mark their territory etc, how can they do this being inside 24x7?

Im not saying that dogs should be kept outside all the time but should be somewhere inbetween. They should be allowed outside for long periods of the day (early spring to early winter) with no more than 40% of their time spent inside.

Have you got any scientific evidence to back this theory up?

portgirl123

well someone had better report me to the ispca then cos my dogs are indoors. go out for a toilet break and their 2 walks aday, which includes of lead and a swim. no swimming this weather though. my dogs hate been outside unless its sunny then they might sunbathe for a hr but any more than that they bark the place down till i let them in

almighty1

ISDW wrote: »

Have you got any scientific evidence to back this theory up?

Which part?

Second paragraph is not a theory, its my opinion.

ISDW

almighty1 wrote: »

Which part?

Second paragraph is not a theory, its my opinion.

What scientific evidence is your opinion based upon?

almighty1

ISDW wrote: »

What scientific evidence is your opinion based upon?

Sorry I must have missed the lecture when it was explained that people need scientific evidence before they can formulate an opinion.

Could you please explain the scientific evidence that explains why opinions can only be derived from scientific evidence

ISDW

almighty1 wrote: »

Sorry I must have missed the lecture when it was explained that people need scientific evidence before they can formulate an opinion.

Could you please explain the scientific evidence that explains why opinions can only be derived from scientific evidence

You and other posters have disputed the experience and evidence posted by a professional working in the field of animal health, yet you come up with a percentage of time a dog should spend outside, with no evidence to back that up. Go figure.

Cherry Blossom

almighty1 wrote: »

Well its depends on how often you bring your dogs for a walk. Think about it from their standpoint. Their instincts are to move around, play, mark their territory etc, how can they do this being inside 24x7?

How does dumping a dog outside and electrocuting it equal exercise or become a substitute for its owners getting off their lazy backsides and fulfilling its needs which is what they made themselves responsible for when they choose to get a dog?

My dog is a mostly indoor dog (a lot more than 40% of the time). She spends an hour every morning 'helping' me muck out stables, she also gets a half hour walk on-lead and follows me around until I go to work, then she chills out in the living room for a few hours. After lunch when the house gets busy - (kids coming in from school etc.) she goes outside to her 12ft run (where people leaving doors/gates open is not an issue) for around 4 hours. She then gets a long walk on-lead in late evening followed by a run in the fields off-lead or some agility training in the back yard. At the weekend I take her hiking with me. My day starts at 7am and ends at around 2am and the dog sleeps in my room. At most (week-days) that's around 3 hours exercise every day and my dog is either lazing around the house or in her run the rest of the time. She has no wish whatsoever to be left in the garden unaccompanied and will sit on the doorstep crying to get in. Outside alone is incredibly boring after about 15 minutes, but she's perfectly content in her run with her kongs and comfy bed, she just does what she would in the house . . . sleep! Can you point out to me the parts of my routine that are any way cruel given that the maximum time in any given day that she doesn't have constant access to human companionship is the 4 hours in the dog run?

I find it unbelievable that people dumping their dogs outside and electrocuting them due to human laziness and not wanting to spend money on a proper fence can accuse anyone else of cruelty.

DBB

Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts, but I will nonetheless, because I think your posts need to be challenged, and things you state clarified. Can I also point out to you that you might think about attacking the post, not the poster: calling me naive, and referring in such a dismissive manner to Graces7's post, does not make me want to take you very seriously.

eilo1 wrote: »

No that is not what I am saying, perhaps you should reread over all of my posts on this. Im saying the shock is minimal and basically no worse than a nip from a bitch.

So, can I ask, does a pup find a nip from a bitch pleasant? I'm assuming you mean a pup being admonished by it's mother... having reared lots of pups, I have never seen a bitch nip her pups. I've seen them sometimes give a pup a gentle mouthing, but have never seen teeth used. Just FYI on that one. In any case, I'm interested that causing any level of pain is justifiable?

You have my assurance that I read your posts thoroughly, I don't comment on posts unless I have read them thoroughly.
However, you might forgive me for wondering whether you were suggesting that electric stimulation therapy on humans transfers to shock-collars having a therapeutic effect on dogs, because you mention this therapy as being non-harmful and therapuetic several times on a thread where you're also justifying the use of shock collars:

I have had this myself and there is plenty of research to prove that although the sensation is not pleasant it is not seriously painful and causes good, not harm in these people.

The voltage used in shock collars is lower than used in rehab therapy. I was trying to give a reference point to people who may not have felt this shock so they have a realistic idea of what it feels like.

IMO the shock collar is not as big a deal as some people would have you believe, you yourself have experience a stronger shock and found it therapeutic

I have tried a number of brands of e-collars on myself: not on my neck, but on my hands. In all cases (1) I was really anxious in the lead-up to it, because I knew something unpleasant was coming, and (2) I let go of the collar when I got the shock because it was uncomfortable enough to not want to hold it any longer.
I have used the Radio Fence system before, back in days of yore. So I'm not dismissing it out of hand: I base my opinions on personal experience, as well as reading peer-reviewed research and findings of other behaviourists around the world.
So, having been there and done that, I think it quite stunning that people still try to justify a "little bit" of pain when completely painless, and more effective options are available. It's just not justifiable, and it amazes me how people continue to try to justify them. It's the same with poeple who keep using choke chains and alpha-rolls etc... in the face of great evidence in favour of positive, non-punitive equipment, they still cling to the belief that it's okay to deliberately cause a dog even "minimal" pain ("minimal" being in the neck of the beholder).
Can I also say again, yet again, that whilst the level of the shock is one thing, it is not so much the instantaneous nature of it that's a big problem for welfare: it's the anticipation of the shock that causes long-term harm. So, you can tell me as much as you like how "minimally" unpleasant you find a shock, that's not the point. The point is that use of these collars can cause long-term anxiety, which makes a quick shock look like small fry in comparison.
I'm dying to hear someone justifying this. In fact, I've asked this question on several simlar threads before, and it's always conveniently ignored :rolleyes:

As non elective as being locked in a pen for hours, being tied around your neck to a moving anchor or being taken from your mother at a young age.

So replace one negative form of containment with another? At least a dog is safe in a pen.
Re taking a pup from it's mother.. can I just quote you back to yourself on that one?

What? I mean seriously, just what are you on about?????

Please tell me what has taking a pup from its mother got to do with shock collars? Or this entire thread?

Plus the sensation is not intensified by its proximity to the brain, so being in the neck is not more or less painful than say in torso or tail.

You're right. Proximity to the brain has got little to do with this. It's got everything to do with nerve endings: the neck is much richer in nerve endings for many breeds than other areas of the body. he trachea and opesophagus lie just under the skin where the collar works. The pain of getting a shock in the neck has nothing whatsoever to do with proximity to the brain. But of course you'll know this, what with you doing a course in health science.

And for your information that is nativity at its best, the new horse whip rules being a prime example. Its popularity backed up by bias and or selective research.

This particular comment caused some mirth in this house, not because of your typo, but because of how far off the mark you are with it! You're not to know this, and I don't particularly like bigging myself up on forums as it doesn't read well, but it just so happens that I have more expertise and working experience in the field of animal welfare than most, having studied it to a high level and working in the area. So, a lot of things I might be, but when it comes to matters of animal welfare and welfare law, naive I ain't :rolleyes:
I also happen to know the reseachers in the UK who acted, and continue to act, as consultants in the drafting of the rather good UK animal welfare laws, and can utterly assure you that without their research and advice, these laws simply would not exist.
Just an FYI on the whip rules: they are rules, not laws. They were introduced by the British Horseracing Authority, and are not part of UK legislation. I'd hate to see the legislators in the UK being tarred with your spurious assertions.

Im in my final year of a health sciences course and the spread of the inflammation along with no sign of charring makes its far more likely in my opinion, that the injuries where from friction.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't friction one of the causes of burning? It's not the saem as holding a lit match up to a dog's throat, but it is burning all the same. With secondary dermatitis and infection. but of course, you'll know that, what with your course in health science.
I'm interested at the attitude that one form of injury seems to be more acceptable to you than another: the fact remains that these injuries were caused by the prongs on an e-collar, which suggests there is a pretty remarkable design flaw with these collars (shaving a dog's neck as per manufacturer's recommendations, and placing two 1cm long prongs against the bare skin seems to be asking for trouble)

To DBB and the girl who mentioned the animal welfare laws only being based on scientific evidence, what do you think of the RB list :cool:

For starters, if you would return the respect and read my post in context :rolleyes:, my post was specifically in response to the shock-collar ban in Wales.
However, just to clarify to you, the RB list in Ireland, and the banned breed list in the UK, were knee-jerk reactions by politicians to dog control laws, not animal welfare laws (they are separate Acts and Orders). As I said before, the welfare laws are based on scientific research, whether it's in relation to dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, fish or frogs. Once the research has answered the necessary questions, the legislation is designed around it. That's not naive talking, it is fact. If you'd like, I can send you a small selection of the myriad research papers the legislation is based on.

DBB

almighty1 wrote: »

Sorry I must have missed the lecture when it was explained that people need scientific evidence before they can formulate an opinion.

Could you please explain the scientific evidence that explains why opinions can only be derived from scientific evidence

Tell you what... if you ever need brain surgery, or any medical procedure carried out, or even if you ever need psychiatric help, I'd be happy to step up to the mark? I'll even do it for nothing, as I've no expertise nor have read any research into these things.

eilo1

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

How does dumping a dog outside and electrocuting it equal exercise or become a substitute for its owners getting off their lazy backsides and fulfilling its needs which is what they made themselves responsible for when they choose to get a dog?

My dog is a mostly indoor dog (a lot more than 40% of the time). She spends an hour every morning 'helping' me muck out stables, she also gets a half hour walk on-lead and follows me around until I go to work, then she chills out in the living room for a few hours. After lunch when the house gets busy - (kids coming in from school etc.) she goes outside to her 12ft run (where people leaving doors/gates open is not an issue) for around 4 hours. She then gets a long walk on-lead in late evening followed by a run in the fields off-lead or some agility training in the back yard. At the weekend I take her hiking with me. My day starts at 7am and ends at around 2am and the dog sleeps in my room. At most (week-days) that's around 3 hours exercise every day and my dog is either lazing around the house or in her run the rest of the time. She has no wish whatsoever to be left in the garden unaccompanied and will sit on the doorstep crying to get in. Outside alone is incredibly boring after about 15 minutes, but she's perfectly content in her run with her kongs and comfy bed, she just does what she would in the house . . . sleep! Can you point out to me the parts of my routine that are any way cruel given that the maximum time in any given day that she doesn't have constant access to human companionship is the 4 hours in the dog run?

I find it unbelievable that people dumping their dogs outside and electrocuting them due to human laziness and not wanting to spend money on a proper fence can accuse anyone else of cruelty.

So now people who let their dogs out are cruel because they are "dumping" them?

And why are people getting so angry and abusive?

mikom

eilo1 wrote: »

And why are people getting so angry and abusive?

Fur babies mammies and daddies tend to get like that from time to time.

eilo1

DBB wrote: »

Sigh. Eilo, I have little time to be arguing against your flailing posts, but I will nonetheless, because I think your posts need to be challenged, and things you state clarified. Can I also point out to you that you might think about attacking the post, not the poster: calling me naive, and referring in such a dismissive manner to Graces7's post, does not make me want to take you very seriously.



So, can I ask, does a pup find a nip from a bitch pleasant? I'm assuming you mean a pup being admonished by it's mother... having reared lots of pups, I have never seen a bitch nip her pups. I've seen them sometimes give a pup a gentle mouthing, but have never seen teeth used. Just FYI on that one. In any case, I'm interested that causing any level of pain is justifiable?

You have my assurance that I read your posts thoroughly, I don't comment on posts unless I have read them thoroughly.
However, you might forgive me for wondering whether you were suggesting that electric stimulation therapy on humans transfers to shock-collars having a therapeutic effect on dogs, because you mention this therapy as being non-harmful and therapuetic several times on a thread where you're also justifying the use of shock collars:





I have tried a number of brands of e-collars on myself: not on my neck, but on my hands. In all cases (1) I was really anxious in the lead-up to it, because I knew something unpleasant was coming, and (2) I let go of the collar when I got the shock because it was uncomfortable enough to not want to hold it any longer.
I have used the Radio Fence system before, back in days of yore. So I'm not dismissing it out of hand: I base my opinions on personal experience, as well as reading peer-reviewed research and findings of other behaviourists around the world.
So, having been there and done that, I think it quite stunning that people still try to justify a "little bit" of pain when completely painless, and more effective options are available. It's just not justifiable, and it amazes me how people continue to try to justify them. It's the same with poeple who keep using choke chains and alpha-rolls etc... in the face of great evidence in favour of positive, non-punitive equipment, they still cling to the belief that it's okay to deliberately cause a dog even "minimal" pain ("minimal" being in the neck of the beholder).
Can I also say again, yet again, that whilst the level of the shock is one thing, it is not so much the instantaneous nature of it that's a big problem for welfare: it's the anticipation of the shock that causes long-term harm. So, you can tell me as much as you like how "minimally" unpleasant you find a shock, that's not the point. The point is that use of these collars can cause long-term anxiety, which makes a quick shock look like small fry in comparison.
I'm dying to hear someone justifying this. In fact, I've asked this question on several simlar threads before, and it's always conveniently ignored :rolleyes:



So replace one negative form of containment with another? At least a dog is safe in a pen.
Re taking a pup from it's mother.. can I just quote you back to yourself on that one?

Please tell me what has taking a pup from its mother got to do with shock collars? Or this entire thread?



You're right. Proximity to the brain has got little to do with this. It's got everything to do with nerve endings: the neck is much richer in nerve endings for many breeds than other areas of the body. he trachea and opesophagus lie just under the skin where the collar works. The pain of getting a shock in the neck has nothing whatsoever to do with proximity to the brain. But of course you'll know this, what with you doing a course in health science.



This particular comment caused some mirth in this house, not because of your typo, but because of how far off the mark you are with it! You're not to know this, and I don't particularly like bigging myself up on forums as it doesn't read well, but it just so happens that I have more expertise and working experience in the field of animal welfare than most, having studied it to a high level and working in the area. So, a lot of things I might be, but when it comes to matters of animal welfare and welfare law, naive I ain't :rolleyes:
I also happen to know the reseachers in the UK who acted, and continue to act, as consultants in the drafting of the rather good UK animal welfare laws, and can utterly assure you that without their research and advice, these laws simply would not exist.
Just an FYI on the whip rules: they are rules, not laws. They were introduced by the British Horseracing Authority, and are not part of UK legislation. I'd hate to see the legislators in the UK being tarred with your spurious assertions.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't friction one of the causes of burning? It's not the saem as holding a lit match up to a dog's throat, but it is burning all the same. With secondary dermatitis and infection. but of course, you'll know that, what with your course in health science.
I'm interested at the attitude that one form of injury seems to be more acceptable to you than another: the fact remains that these injuries were caused by the prongs on an e-collar, which suggests there is a pretty remarkable design flaw with these collars (shaving a dog's neck as per manufacturer's recommendations, and placing two 1cm long prongs against the bare skin seems to be asking for trouble)



For starters, if you would return the respect and read my post in context :rolleyes:, my post was specifically in response to the shock-collar ban in Wales.
However, just to clarify to you, the RB list in Ireland, and the banned breed list in the UK, were knee-jerk reactions by politicians to dog control laws, not animal welfare laws (they are separate Acts and Orders). As I said before, the welfare laws are based on scientific research, whether it's in relation to dogs, horses, cattle, sheep, fish or frogs. Once the research has answered the necessary questions, the legislation is designed around it. That's not naive talking, it is fact. If you'd like, I can send you a small selection of the myriad research papers the legislation is based on.

Im not interested in scoring points or putting people down with snide remarks.
There is no point in engaging with you as you ignore logic and sound reasoning.

I engaged in this because there is some hysteria, misinformation and hypocrisy on this topic.

I hope my posts will encourage people to be more understanding and less aggressive towards posters on this forum who choose to use these techniques.

ISDW

eilo1 wrote: »

Im not interested in scoring points or putting people down with snide remarks.
There is no point in engaging with you as you ignore logic and sound reasoning.

I engaged in this because there is some hysteria, misinformation and hypocrisy on this topic.

I hope my posts will encourage people to be more understanding and less aggressive towards posters on this forum who choose to use these techniques.

So you didn't actually bother reading DBB's post then.:rolleyes: