Shock collars.
Discussion
https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved/campaign/shoc...
https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/support-us/campaigns-...
READ THE INFO AND PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION/ ASK MP TO CREATE DEBATING TIME IN HOUSE OF COMMONS TO DEBATE AND GET THIS BARBARIC PRACTICE BANNED.
Ive had a reply via my MP that it might be debated, SUBJECT to HOC debating time. It needs word to MPs that this is not acceptable and practice should be banned and HOC time MUST BE FOUND.
Sign up to help dogs be trained with love, not fear.
https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/support-us/campaigns-...
READ THE INFO AND PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION/ ASK MP TO CREATE DEBATING TIME IN HOUSE OF COMMONS TO DEBATE AND GET THIS BARBARIC PRACTICE BANNED.
Ive had a reply via my MP that it might be debated, SUBJECT to HOC debating time. It needs word to MPs that this is not acceptable and practice should be banned and HOC time MUST BE FOUND.
Sign up to help dogs be trained with love, not fear.
Well that was a lot of emotion led rubbish right there. You don't use fear and for Gods sake....you don't train a dog with love. You can love your dog and they could show you what you consider to be 'love' as after all, it's just the production of oxitocin which both species are capable of producing, but you don't train with it.
Lets start at the top...'Shock Collar'.
This is a incorrect description. They do not send a shock (they are of a different frequency to an electric shock) they use a static pulse that will stimulate the muscle to contract dependent on strength of the pulse. DEFRA has used these in GPS fenceless containment and themselves use the term static pulse. People against the use will use this language to fan the human first responce of emotion rather than look at the actual evidence. Those adds have been reported and the FB ones taken down as they have been classified as misleading under T&Cs.
What experience have you had with the use of a modern electronic training collar? It would appear non apart from anecdotal ramblings from others who have no idea about what they are trying to ban. Are you thinking that they are used soley for punishment...wrong again. What would be your definition of punishment in dog training? The actual definition is 'the likelihood of a behaviour to decrease' so absolutley nothing to do with punishment in human terms. Rienforcement means the likelihood of a behaviour to increase. Positive means you add something and negative means to take something away. This all makes sense when you look at the actual languge meaning in context with what you are describing.
Lets have a look at a study. The Lincoln report is thrown about a lot so lets go through that as it deals with the use of training with an electronic collar to aid in livestock avoidance training so quite a big issue and area. The lead scientist has since come out to say that the whole report was bias toward Positive Rienforcement. This was due to 7 out of the 10 people on the committee already signing up to groups wanting to ban the collar before entering into the study even though they had stated for the record that they had no prior knowledge or opinion on the subject.
The Positive Rienforcement group training took place in spring/summer on warm dry ground with the sheep penned. As you should know, predation requires movement so how can the sheep move while penned? The e-collar group had their training set up to take place in the middle of winter in the Scottish Highlands...snow on the ground and sheep free moving in a lage enclosed area so they were always in motion looking to escape. Sound a fair set up?
On the test day which was held at the same venue and time the +R group needed all dogs to be dragged away from the prey species as all showed behaviour that would lead the handler to believe that the dog would chase the sheep (hunt and kill as in predation mode) so all failed.
The e-collar trained group dogs all showed AVOIDING behaviour and went nowhere near the prey species. This was after 1-2 millisecond exposure to a pulse of a specific strength to create an aversion to the sheep through association.
The report concluded that there was not enough evidence to show that the proper use of an e-collar caused any harm or welfare issues to the dogs trained with this method. Let that sink in. So why is this study sited so frequently? It is because at the end, the stakeholders (stakeholders in an independant study??) chipped in and despite the evidence, just dismissed that actual findings in front of them. The Dogs Trust, RSPCA and BVA all follewed this line. Carrie Johnston met with Michael Gove at a dinner 2 weeks after the report was brought for discussion. 7 days later the wording of the conclusion was changed by the Government and the proposal for a ban in Wales was set to be introduced.
Ah Wales......where the ban has been in place since 2010. Last year Wales suffered 4x the amount of sheep kiiled as England, Scotland and Ireland combined. The Welsh Sheep farmers association have motioned to have the ban lifted as they are suffering huge losses.
The other common cry is that they are open to be abused and even the Government have stated this. Why is it then that with 100,000 complaints to the RSPCA in 2022 regarding abuse against dogs that there were none...NONE..ZERO that involved the use of an electronic training collar. Could it be that there were none because the people using them have actually recieved training and understand how dogs learn.
It's a lazy persons tool and a quick fix...not at all. Your dog needs to have skills first before you use the collar to enhance them. You need to allow the dog to understand what the pulses mean and how to utilize the quadrants of operant conditioning. The dog wears the collar for 2+ weeks before it is even turned on to stop the dog becoming equipment or collar smart. You then layer (using a hell of a lot of +R as well as -R) to aid this.
I have hours of footage of my dog and ones that I've trained enjoying thier freedom, but also seeing prey species who've appeared out of nowhere and the dogs doing exactly what they're trained to do. There is not one single piece of footage of a +R dog doing this...not one and why is that? It's because the methodology is flawed when you only rely on one quadrant to train. There was a £50,000 prize offered to any +R trainer that could take a dog that had killed livestock and train it to be around the prey sepecies and ignore and show avoiding behaviour toward it. Nor a single trainer worldwide took the offer up. They provided some intresting reasons as to why they wouldn't take part but not one accepted the challenge.
Did you also realise that the 2 organisations you've mentioned above operate a 'death before discomfort' policy? They would rather a fit and healthy dog who has some behavioural issues that they can't help with due to their stance on methodology, be killed rather than allow trainers with experience in these issues help the dog. They scream that if you don't follow their way then you use fear, agression and violence to train. Absolute rubbish!!
I used to think the same as you but when all trainers failed me and my rescue I looked at the evidence and spoke to some very knowledgable trainers who showed me exactly what the truth was. 5 years on and I've trained many dogs to be able to off lead in the wilds knowing that they will have 100% recall and also and most importantly if they see a prey species that they will return to me even if I'm not present as they have turned a corner of gone through a gate.
Have a look at https://joinardo.com/ as they will be able to direct you to unbias information that will maybe allow you to take an informed as opposed to an emotional decision.
Lets start at the top...'Shock Collar'.
This is a incorrect description. They do not send a shock (they are of a different frequency to an electric shock) they use a static pulse that will stimulate the muscle to contract dependent on strength of the pulse. DEFRA has used these in GPS fenceless containment and themselves use the term static pulse. People against the use will use this language to fan the human first responce of emotion rather than look at the actual evidence. Those adds have been reported and the FB ones taken down as they have been classified as misleading under T&Cs.
What experience have you had with the use of a modern electronic training collar? It would appear non apart from anecdotal ramblings from others who have no idea about what they are trying to ban. Are you thinking that they are used soley for punishment...wrong again. What would be your definition of punishment in dog training? The actual definition is 'the likelihood of a behaviour to decrease' so absolutley nothing to do with punishment in human terms. Rienforcement means the likelihood of a behaviour to increase. Positive means you add something and negative means to take something away. This all makes sense when you look at the actual languge meaning in context with what you are describing.
Lets have a look at a study. The Lincoln report is thrown about a lot so lets go through that as it deals with the use of training with an electronic collar to aid in livestock avoidance training so quite a big issue and area. The lead scientist has since come out to say that the whole report was bias toward Positive Rienforcement. This was due to 7 out of the 10 people on the committee already signing up to groups wanting to ban the collar before entering into the study even though they had stated for the record that they had no prior knowledge or opinion on the subject.
The Positive Rienforcement group training took place in spring/summer on warm dry ground with the sheep penned. As you should know, predation requires movement so how can the sheep move while penned? The e-collar group had their training set up to take place in the middle of winter in the Scottish Highlands...snow on the ground and sheep free moving in a lage enclosed area so they were always in motion looking to escape. Sound a fair set up?
On the test day which was held at the same venue and time the +R group needed all dogs to be dragged away from the prey species as all showed behaviour that would lead the handler to believe that the dog would chase the sheep (hunt and kill as in predation mode) so all failed.
The e-collar trained group dogs all showed AVOIDING behaviour and went nowhere near the prey species. This was after 1-2 millisecond exposure to a pulse of a specific strength to create an aversion to the sheep through association.
The report concluded that there was not enough evidence to show that the proper use of an e-collar caused any harm or welfare issues to the dogs trained with this method. Let that sink in. So why is this study sited so frequently? It is because at the end, the stakeholders (stakeholders in an independant study??) chipped in and despite the evidence, just dismissed that actual findings in front of them. The Dogs Trust, RSPCA and BVA all follewed this line. Carrie Johnston met with Michael Gove at a dinner 2 weeks after the report was brought for discussion. 7 days later the wording of the conclusion was changed by the Government and the proposal for a ban in Wales was set to be introduced.
Ah Wales......where the ban has been in place since 2010. Last year Wales suffered 4x the amount of sheep kiiled as England, Scotland and Ireland combined. The Welsh Sheep farmers association have motioned to have the ban lifted as they are suffering huge losses.
The other common cry is that they are open to be abused and even the Government have stated this. Why is it then that with 100,000 complaints to the RSPCA in 2022 regarding abuse against dogs that there were none...NONE..ZERO that involved the use of an electronic training collar. Could it be that there were none because the people using them have actually recieved training and understand how dogs learn.
It's a lazy persons tool and a quick fix...not at all. Your dog needs to have skills first before you use the collar to enhance them. You need to allow the dog to understand what the pulses mean and how to utilize the quadrants of operant conditioning. The dog wears the collar for 2+ weeks before it is even turned on to stop the dog becoming equipment or collar smart. You then layer (using a hell of a lot of +R as well as -R) to aid this.
I have hours of footage of my dog and ones that I've trained enjoying thier freedom, but also seeing prey species who've appeared out of nowhere and the dogs doing exactly what they're trained to do. There is not one single piece of footage of a +R dog doing this...not one and why is that? It's because the methodology is flawed when you only rely on one quadrant to train. There was a £50,000 prize offered to any +R trainer that could take a dog that had killed livestock and train it to be around the prey sepecies and ignore and show avoiding behaviour toward it. Nor a single trainer worldwide took the offer up. They provided some intresting reasons as to why they wouldn't take part but not one accepted the challenge.
Did you also realise that the 2 organisations you've mentioned above operate a 'death before discomfort' policy? They would rather a fit and healthy dog who has some behavioural issues that they can't help with due to their stance on methodology, be killed rather than allow trainers with experience in these issues help the dog. They scream that if you don't follow their way then you use fear, agression and violence to train. Absolute rubbish!!
I used to think the same as you but when all trainers failed me and my rescue I looked at the evidence and spoke to some very knowledgable trainers who showed me exactly what the truth was. 5 years on and I've trained many dogs to be able to off lead in the wilds knowing that they will have 100% recall and also and most importantly if they see a prey species that they will return to me even if I'm not present as they have turned a corner of gone through a gate.
Have a look at https://joinardo.com/ as they will be able to direct you to unbias information that will maybe allow you to take an informed as opposed to an emotional decision.
Edited by Hypermonkey on Tuesday 5th September 02:22
Edited by Hypermonkey on Tuesday 5th September 02:47
Edited by Hypermonkey on Tuesday 5th September 03:52
They should be banned. I've trained both my dogs without the need of such devices. Maybe if they are used in a correct manner with appropriate training of there use, maybe I could see a short term use for them in some training. The real problem is, it takes a lot of effort and time to train a dog and a lot of people are just lazy and blame the dog. These people buy these collars and think that just shocking, sorry "plusing" the dog will fix the problems and when it doesn't they "pluse" again.
“ The real problem is, it takes a lot of effort and time to train a dog and a lot of people are just lazy and blame the dog. These people buy these collars and think that just shocking, sorry "plusing" the dog will fix the problems and when it doesn't they "pluse" again. ”
This is another anecdotal response that is seen all of the time. What about a dog that pulls? Have you ever seen an owner pulling back on the harness/flat collar (opposition reflex so actually telling the dog to keep pulling) repeatedly while saying ‘stop pulling’ and getting more and more frustrated.
Should leads be banned then as the owner is obviously, according to your explanation, lazy as they haven’t bothered to teach the dog about lead pressure and what the tool being used means and how to escape the pressure and receive a reward, praise, food, freedom off lead?
I get where you’re coming from and due to the false information put out there, why you have come to that conclusion. Have a look at the link I posted and you’ll see a different side of the story.
People joining a bandwagon to ban something that they have not researched correctly and are basing on anecdotal second hand chatter as opposed to real life studies, data and actual footage of the results is a dangerous place to be.
You don’t have to use them, but why condemn something you haven’t looked into thoroughly from various sources to formulate a decision based on that as opposed to emotion.
I don’t agree with head collars/Halti’s as many people have no idea how to use them correctly and I see dogs dragging their faces along he ground and pawing to take them off. Is it because the tool itself is so painful to the dog? No. It’s because the dog isn’t conditioned to the tool and the operator needs some training.
I have not yet met an owner using an e-collar who hasn’t received professional training….ever.
The laziness argument is unfounded, as is the cruelty aspect as I mentioned in a previous post as even a Government funded study that was set up to condemn collar use found no such evidence to back it up….until it changed the wording of the results without foundation and let people run with that.
This is another anecdotal response that is seen all of the time. What about a dog that pulls? Have you ever seen an owner pulling back on the harness/flat collar (opposition reflex so actually telling the dog to keep pulling) repeatedly while saying ‘stop pulling’ and getting more and more frustrated.
Should leads be banned then as the owner is obviously, according to your explanation, lazy as they haven’t bothered to teach the dog about lead pressure and what the tool being used means and how to escape the pressure and receive a reward, praise, food, freedom off lead?
I get where you’re coming from and due to the false information put out there, why you have come to that conclusion. Have a look at the link I posted and you’ll see a different side of the story.
People joining a bandwagon to ban something that they have not researched correctly and are basing on anecdotal second hand chatter as opposed to real life studies, data and actual footage of the results is a dangerous place to be.
You don’t have to use them, but why condemn something you haven’t looked into thoroughly from various sources to formulate a decision based on that as opposed to emotion.
I don’t agree with head collars/Halti’s as many people have no idea how to use them correctly and I see dogs dragging their faces along he ground and pawing to take them off. Is it because the tool itself is so painful to the dog? No. It’s because the dog isn’t conditioned to the tool and the operator needs some training.
I have not yet met an owner using an e-collar who hasn’t received professional training….ever.
The laziness argument is unfounded, as is the cruelty aspect as I mentioned in a previous post as even a Government funded study that was set up to condemn collar use found no such evidence to back it up….until it changed the wording of the results without foundation and let people run with that.
Haven't got time right now to go into all the reasons why an e-collar could be a useful tool, but a few questions for those who support the ban.
- Do you distinguish between 'shock collar' and 'e-collar' in terms of the actual device and the way it is used?
- Have you felt one on your own skin? which device was it? what did it feel like?
- Have you seen a dog trained on one? what was it trained for? can you describe the method? and how did the dog react?
Just curious, because normally when you ask those questions to anybody who supports the ban, they can't answer but will happily spew a load of hysterical, emotionally led nonsense about dogs being abused.
Personally, I'd like to see restrictions on the sale of devices with only approved, high-quality brands being available and a requirement for recognised training standards to be followed. Perhaps qualified trainers could be licensed to sell them, packaged along with the required training. Unfortunately, that would require some effort from our government which appears to not be on the agenda.
An outright ban on their use is a ridiculous idea, especially with the way the draft legislation has been written.
- Do you distinguish between 'shock collar' and 'e-collar' in terms of the actual device and the way it is used?
- Have you felt one on your own skin? which device was it? what did it feel like?
- Have you seen a dog trained on one? what was it trained for? can you describe the method? and how did the dog react?
Just curious, because normally when you ask those questions to anybody who supports the ban, they can't answer but will happily spew a load of hysterical, emotionally led nonsense about dogs being abused.
Personally, I'd like to see restrictions on the sale of devices with only approved, high-quality brands being available and a requirement for recognised training standards to be followed. Perhaps qualified trainers could be licensed to sell them, packaged along with the required training. Unfortunately, that would require some effort from our government which appears to not be on the agenda.
An outright ban on their use is a ridiculous idea, especially with the way the draft legislation has been written.
Edited by billbring on Tuesday 5th September 17:44
Gassing Station | All Creatures Great & Small | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff