I Need Your Help...
Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost
Re: I Need Your Help...
I agree, any tool can be abused. However, the problem with your comparisons is that cars are NOT designed to hurt or kill. Baseball bats are NOT designed to hurt or kill. while all knives can kill, not all are designed to. Same with guns. Both guns and knives can be used for activities other than killing. And some guns while they can be used to kill, are actually not suited for combat or killing.DogNut wrote:I do wish you could obtain at least a couple of convincing photos and other documentation about the details of exactly what caused the injuries. I agree that prong collars and shock collars can be dangerous in the wrong hands, just like guns, knives, cars, and baseball bats. Any tool can be abused ....
Shock collars and prong type collars are designed for one thing, inflict pain. There is NO other use for them. So the comparison really isn't apples to apples.
While correct use of them is not truly torture, it is still the intentional infliction of pain. Pro shock collar people do a lot of dancing around this but it's an inescapable fact. It makes no difference that they try and use the lowest possible setting, that they are selective in what situations it's used or that they have good timing and understand application of positive punishment, or that when everything goes "right" there is no lasting physical damage. It's still choosing to apply pain to control another living being and completely denying any possible negative emotional/behavioral side effects.
Re: I Need Your Help...
OK, I don't want to argue about this, but I'd like to make a few more points before I shut up and go away. I found the prong collar ineffective, and I've never used a shock collar, I would actively oppose any attempt to have them banned. There are already laws against animal abuse, but the problem is that they are not well enforced. Just like banning guns does not effectively curb gun violence, but just disarms law abiding citizens. In order for it to be effective, it would require a police state where armed officials may invade your home and seize your property and inflict pain and punishment on you if you resist. It happened in Belfast where Lennox was forcibly removed from his loving family just because he appeared to be a breed that was banned.
Will bans of dog training equipment result in similar abuse of personal rights in an attempt to reduce cruelty to animals? What about crates? Can they be abused? Of course! And such abuse is far worse than a pop on a prong collar or a startling (not really painful) jolt of harmless electricity at levels used regularly to promote healing of nerves and reduce pain. It is excceedingly cruel and inhumane to lock an animal in a cage for hours and days at a time in order to deal with behavior problems. But would anyone actually ban crates? Yes! They are banned in Sweden, at least insofar as they may not be used to confine a dog while the owner is away. http://www.mulie.net/index.php?flag=track&id=1151
In Australia, there is a ban on prong collars in Victoria, and perhaps other areas. So, it results in a sort of underground sales network where people can still obtain them. I think the ban is on selling them and importing them, and not specifically on their possession or use. But in order to get around the stigma and risk of arrest in public, they have devised a "good dog collar" which uses hidden plastic spikes which actually don't work as well and may cause even more pain and damage. But they are not technically "prong" collars, and are not banned - yet.
http://www.dogproblems.com/equipment/th ... clicker-2/
I have tried to find credible reports and evidence of extreme damage as shown in your pictures, and you say you were shown much worse. Why are they not to be found on-line? Why can't you show them or divulge the details of just how the injuries occurred? There are all sorts of horrific images of true animal abuse on youtube and elsewhere, and much more disturbing images of violence are viewed by children every day on TV and on the internet and on shared cellphone images and in graphic games.
Why can't a link to such images be provided here? I'd be happy to support your cause if there were enough evidence to convince me that such abuse is common and just the result of carelessness or ignorance. But what I see are extreme cases of active abuse and neglect, and very little actual explanation for the severity of the injuries. I am not an animal abuser and neither are the people I know who use (or haver used) prong collars and remote collars. They have had no behavior issues caused by their use, and they have helped to control unwanted and dangerous behaviors that otherwise would have resulted in extreme management or euthanasia. I am probably like most people with pets, and in order to succeed in your mission, you will need to convince me and the majority of the general public. And even the Humane Society of the US does not advocate banning these tools, although urging caution and professional guidance:
http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/do ... llars.html
Will bans of dog training equipment result in similar abuse of personal rights in an attempt to reduce cruelty to animals? What about crates? Can they be abused? Of course! And such abuse is far worse than a pop on a prong collar or a startling (not really painful) jolt of harmless electricity at levels used regularly to promote healing of nerves and reduce pain. It is excceedingly cruel and inhumane to lock an animal in a cage for hours and days at a time in order to deal with behavior problems. But would anyone actually ban crates? Yes! They are banned in Sweden, at least insofar as they may not be used to confine a dog while the owner is away. http://www.mulie.net/index.php?flag=track&id=1151
In Australia, there is a ban on prong collars in Victoria, and perhaps other areas. So, it results in a sort of underground sales network where people can still obtain them. I think the ban is on selling them and importing them, and not specifically on their possession or use. But in order to get around the stigma and risk of arrest in public, they have devised a "good dog collar" which uses hidden plastic spikes which actually don't work as well and may cause even more pain and damage. But they are not technically "prong" collars, and are not banned - yet.
http://www.dogproblems.com/equipment/th ... clicker-2/
I have tried to find credible reports and evidence of extreme damage as shown in your pictures, and you say you were shown much worse. Why are they not to be found on-line? Why can't you show them or divulge the details of just how the injuries occurred? There are all sorts of horrific images of true animal abuse on youtube and elsewhere, and much more disturbing images of violence are viewed by children every day on TV and on the internet and on shared cellphone images and in graphic games.
Why can't a link to such images be provided here? I'd be happy to support your cause if there were enough evidence to convince me that such abuse is common and just the result of carelessness or ignorance. But what I see are extreme cases of active abuse and neglect, and very little actual explanation for the severity of the injuries. I am not an animal abuser and neither are the people I know who use (or haver used) prong collars and remote collars. They have had no behavior issues caused by their use, and they have helped to control unwanted and dangerous behaviors that otherwise would have resulted in extreme management or euthanasia. I am probably like most people with pets, and in order to succeed in your mission, you will need to convince me and the majority of the general public. And even the Humane Society of the US does not advocate banning these tools, although urging caution and professional guidance:
http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/do ... llars.html
Re: I Need Your Help...
DogNut, please don't feel as though you're being "attacked" on these forums, because you do bring up some good points AND we do respect your opinions. In fact, I do like to hear opposing arguments about this issue, because somewhere there is a bit of truth we all can agree on. Since the beginning of time or whenever man appeared on earth, I don't think there has been an issue that was ever one-sided or without any opposing arguments.
Oh, and to answer your question/comment, "Why can't a link to such images be provided here? I'd be happy to support your cause if there were enough evidence to convince me that such abuse is common and just the result of carelessness or ignorance." Well, about the pictures I saw anyhow.
The pictures I saw are pictures being used as evidence, so there is no way at this time I can or will be able to get copies of them. As for posting them here on this forum, I must also consider the fact that some of the members here are "underage", according to the jurisdictions in which they reside and that has to be considered on a world-wide basis, because of the different laws regarding this and posting such material on a website/forum such as this one. In addition to that, I also agreed to the policies set forth at the time I joined this forum three years ago, which I don't think would have allowed me to post those pictures here on this website/forum anyway, so I am bound by those policies as with any member on this website/forum. "When in doubt, throw out." seems to be my motto in regards of posting any material here.
However, hopefully some day soon maybe I or someone could post or share such pictures on a website/forum that will allow this. So DogNut, please stick around and feel free to post your thoughts and so on here. We're glad you're with us!
Oh, and to answer your question/comment, "Why can't a link to such images be provided here? I'd be happy to support your cause if there were enough evidence to convince me that such abuse is common and just the result of carelessness or ignorance." Well, about the pictures I saw anyhow.
The pictures I saw are pictures being used as evidence, so there is no way at this time I can or will be able to get copies of them. As for posting them here on this forum, I must also consider the fact that some of the members here are "underage", according to the jurisdictions in which they reside and that has to be considered on a world-wide basis, because of the different laws regarding this and posting such material on a website/forum such as this one. In addition to that, I also agreed to the policies set forth at the time I joined this forum three years ago, which I don't think would have allowed me to post those pictures here on this website/forum anyway, so I am bound by those policies as with any member on this website/forum. "When in doubt, throw out." seems to be my motto in regards of posting any material here.
However, hopefully some day soon maybe I or someone could post or share such pictures on a website/forum that will allow this. So DogNut, please stick around and feel free to post your thoughts and so on here. We're glad you're with us!
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius." -author unknown
Re: I Need Your Help...
I just did a "dogpile" search for "pictures of prong collar injuries" and also for shock, and found several websites, blogs, and facebook pages with pictures of injuries allegedly caused by these tools, but in all cases they were clearly misused, and the injuries were really not very severe. In fact the dog that you show pictures of apparently received the injuries when she was rolling around playing with other dogs, and the abrasions unfortunately became infected. There is a picture on a pro-prong facebook page that shows nasty injuries from a rope collar. I can send you links to these by PM if you feel they are too disturbing for young viewers and not allowed here.
But, really, there is a lot more credible evidence that even reasonably careful use of good quality versions of these tools is very unlikely to cause any damage or excessive pain. It must be remembered that even a flat collar causes pain when used to restrain a dog, and it also causes pressure on the trachea. I now use a "no-pull" harness, but even that can cause chafing under the forelegs, and when my dog pulls when wearing the flat nylon collar he chokes and gags. When I did use the prong collar, even when yanking him off his feet with it (as directed by a barbaric and clueless instructor), it did not cause any damage and it was mostly ineffective. Also, the prong collar she sold me was cheaply made, with sharp cut tips rather than the smooth rounded tips of a higher quality pinch collar I got later.
I have no direct experience with shock collars, but having knowledge of electronics and experience with TENS units that have similar power limits convinces me that there is no way the electrical current could cause severe burns. And the fact that a dog may "yelp" is more a reaction to being startled by an unusual and perhaps unpleasant (but not really painful) sensation. That is really the idea, to distract the dog from his fixation and possible dangerous interaction with such things as a rattlesnake or car tires.
IMHO there are many more serious cases of deliberate and horrible abuse that should get our attention, and where action can really save many dogs' lives. People who rescue hundreds of dogs from puppy mills and hoarders do not have the time to use positive techniques to handle them and give them the care and training they need if they are to become adoptable. A responsible dog owner will use these tools only as necessary, with professional instruction, and will also use positive reinforcement as a primary motivator. And anyone who truly loves his or her dog will certainly be sensitive to their best friend's feelings and communications. But you can't fix stupid, and in most of the cases of real animal abuse it goes beyond stupid to being sociopathic or criminally insane.
But, really, there is a lot more credible evidence that even reasonably careful use of good quality versions of these tools is very unlikely to cause any damage or excessive pain. It must be remembered that even a flat collar causes pain when used to restrain a dog, and it also causes pressure on the trachea. I now use a "no-pull" harness, but even that can cause chafing under the forelegs, and when my dog pulls when wearing the flat nylon collar he chokes and gags. When I did use the prong collar, even when yanking him off his feet with it (as directed by a barbaric and clueless instructor), it did not cause any damage and it was mostly ineffective. Also, the prong collar she sold me was cheaply made, with sharp cut tips rather than the smooth rounded tips of a higher quality pinch collar I got later.
I have no direct experience with shock collars, but having knowledge of electronics and experience with TENS units that have similar power limits convinces me that there is no way the electrical current could cause severe burns. And the fact that a dog may "yelp" is more a reaction to being startled by an unusual and perhaps unpleasant (but not really painful) sensation. That is really the idea, to distract the dog from his fixation and possible dangerous interaction with such things as a rattlesnake or car tires.
IMHO there are many more serious cases of deliberate and horrible abuse that should get our attention, and where action can really save many dogs' lives. People who rescue hundreds of dogs from puppy mills and hoarders do not have the time to use positive techniques to handle them and give them the care and training they need if they are to become adoptable. A responsible dog owner will use these tools only as necessary, with professional instruction, and will also use positive reinforcement as a primary motivator. And anyone who truly loves his or her dog will certainly be sensitive to their best friend's feelings and communications. But you can't fix stupid, and in most of the cases of real animal abuse it goes beyond stupid to being sociopathic or criminally insane.
Re: I Need Your Help...
I am very appreciative of your thoughful contributions, DogNut, and it's good to have a discussion of such a contentious subject in such a civilised manner - well done, all!
A few thoughts from me:
Citing other instances of injury/abuse/misuse of everyday items (you could harm a dog with a cheese grater if you wanted) does not contribute anything useful to a discussion on specific items designed to cause pain and fear. Even if 'not much' pain and 'only a little' fear.
We see evidence of physical damage, but we can't quantify psychological damage. And we as a species are rubbish at reading what dogs are telling us. If I had a pound for every time someone has told me their dog is 'fine' with something while the dog is screaming information that it isn't, I'd have a much better standard of living
The message with these devices is: Do that and it's going to hurt. Quite apart from the message this gives the dog, what message does it give people about how to treat dogs?
Sadly we always have to legislate for the lowest common denominator, in this case the person who is going to use the device to inflict a high level of pain and fear on the dog, deliberately or thoughtlessly. We cannot assume every owner is intelligent, kind and free from mental disturbances. We cannot even assume that every dog owner even likes their dog. It is much easier to misuse these devices, and so they will be misused,and there is the potential to cause appalling damage, visible or not.
A few thoughts from me:
Citing other instances of injury/abuse/misuse of everyday items (you could harm a dog with a cheese grater if you wanted) does not contribute anything useful to a discussion on specific items designed to cause pain and fear. Even if 'not much' pain and 'only a little' fear.
We see evidence of physical damage, but we can't quantify psychological damage. And we as a species are rubbish at reading what dogs are telling us. If I had a pound for every time someone has told me their dog is 'fine' with something while the dog is screaming information that it isn't, I'd have a much better standard of living
The message with these devices is: Do that and it's going to hurt. Quite apart from the message this gives the dog, what message does it give people about how to treat dogs?
Sadly we always have to legislate for the lowest common denominator, in this case the person who is going to use the device to inflict a high level of pain and fear on the dog, deliberately or thoughtlessly. We cannot assume every owner is intelligent, kind and free from mental disturbances. We cannot even assume that every dog owner even likes their dog. It is much easier to misuse these devices, and so they will be misused,and there is the potential to cause appalling damage, visible or not.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: I Need Your Help...
I completely disagree. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck...it's probably a duck. a yelp is most likely pain. I honestly can't remember ever seeing a startled dog yelp. heck my fearful dog was just startled yesterday by a young girl ridding by on her bike. did he bark, yelp or make any other vocal noises. NOPE. Did he react? Yes, but it was a physical reaction not similar to a startled human putting their body into a stance to run, fight, defend while quickly looking around for the source of what startled them. But no yelp.DogNut wrote:And the fact that a dog may "yelp" is more a reaction to being startled by an unusual and perhaps unpleasant (but not really painful) sensation. That is really the idea, to distract the dog from his fixation and possible dangerous interaction with such things as a rattlesnake or car tires.
the thing that gets me about the arguments to support the use of or even to maintain availability of these type collars is they really boil down to "it's only a little bit of pain" "or it's not really that painful" or "it doesn't leave an damage". I could hit my wife or kids with "just a little bit of force" an not leave any physical damage or only cause "at little bit of pain"...but that would still land me in jail most likely. there really isn't much difference. inflicting pain to control another living being is still inflicting pain. It makes NO difference if there is "no" physical damage or its "just" a little tiny bit painful.
Is this really the most ethical means to treat another living being simply because our communication with them broke down? Or we just want something fixed fast with minimal effort. Because that is what the other half of the "pro" argument boils down to. failure to effectively communicate and lack of patience.
IF these devices are so harmless, than why aren't we adapting them to our human kids? why aren't we adapting them to wild animal training? reason, they aren't harmless and they aren't the most effective way to train.
Not that any animal should have pain randomly inflicted on them due to lack of human patience, but of all the animals the least needing this "level of control/this type of training tool" is the Dog. for thousands and thousands of years nature combined with human intervention has created an animal that WANTS to do what we ask, that WANTS to work with us, that WANTS to be near us and live with us, that by default is docile with us. It is the result of this that allows us to get away with using harsh training techniques and prong collars and shock collars.
The irony is just painful to think about sometimes. we have the "perfect servant" so to speak, and yet we still feel the need to beat them, chock and inflict pain in order to train them.
Re: I Need Your Help...
I just like to add my tuppence worth here, if that's ok. Whilst I agree with everything you say wvvdiup1, I also appreciate what DogNut is saying.
Unfortunately, there are occasions when dogs need to be kept under control by their owners, otherwise there would be thousands more dogs euthanised because of behaviour problems. I use a head collar on my dog in order to have total control when necessary - but even these can be classed as aversives, and apparently they can cause injury. (If anyone has any actual evidence on that I would be particularly interested in seeing it).
But are there any alternatives that work as effectively ?
As long as we can show no "quick fix" effective alternatives, owners will carry on using these tools.
We can't just simply say training and understanding, because some problems are too difficult for your average dog owner to know how to handle, or are so time consuming, that owners will resort to these so called "quick fixes"
I certainly think Dognut is correct in saying any evidence needs showing. Even if this has no effect on the bully boys, it would probably get the message through to your average dog owner who love their dogs, and would hate the thought that they may do them any damage. This at least would put Training Schools under pressure to stop using them.
Unfortunately, there are occasions when dogs need to be kept under control by their owners, otherwise there would be thousands more dogs euthanised because of behaviour problems. I use a head collar on my dog in order to have total control when necessary - but even these can be classed as aversives, and apparently they can cause injury. (If anyone has any actual evidence on that I would be particularly interested in seeing it).
But are there any alternatives that work as effectively ?
As long as we can show no "quick fix" effective alternatives, owners will carry on using these tools.
We can't just simply say training and understanding, because some problems are too difficult for your average dog owner to know how to handle, or are so time consuming, that owners will resort to these so called "quick fixes"
I certainly think Dognut is correct in saying any evidence needs showing. Even if this has no effect on the bully boys, it would probably get the message through to your average dog owner who love their dogs, and would hate the thought that they may do them any damage. This at least would put Training Schools under pressure to stop using them.
Re: I Need Your Help...
Thanks for consideration of other ways of looking at this issue. All viewpoints have validity, but I think we need to take whatever action we can to save as many dogs as possible and eliminate the worst of intentional abuse and criminal neglect. So I think we should discuss some of the points raised.
1. There is the premise that all dogs are the same, and all of them are naturally docile and seeking to cooperate with and please humans. But various breeds of dogs, and also individuals among a given breed, show a spectrum of behaviors that are classified as "wolfy". This is presented in Temple Grandin's "Animals make us human", and she shows that some breeds which are more closely related to the wolf in appearance (as well as genetic content) display at leasdt 8 out of 10 "wolfy" behaviors, based on instinct. These may include Huskies, Malamutes, GSDs, and wolf hybrids (many of which are really more wolf than dog). Other breeds, notably the Cavalier King Charles, show only one or two such traits. Yes, a dog is not a wolf, but some animals that are supposed to be dogs have enough wolf content that their behavior is mostly that of a wolf, and must be treated as such. This may be better for a separate discussion, but perhaps we can agree that not all dogs are the same, and their motivations and reactions to training methods and socialization will differ considerably.
2. There is the assumption that prong collars and shock collars are designed specifically to administer pain, and the premise that pain is always abuse and must be eliminated at all costs. The primary purpose is to provide control, and actually to do so in such a way as to obtain the highest degree of control with the least potential for damage. If there is any documented evidence that either of these devices, used with a reasonable degree of skill, intelligence, and sanity, cause severe physical or psychological damage, then I would be all for their elimination and replacement with something better (meaning more effective and less likely to do harm). Using a flat collar, or a rope collar, or a head harness, or choker chain, or nylon slip lead, will clearly cause at least as much pain and probably more severe damage than either of the "aversive" control tools being discussed. And tools that cannot provide that level of control, such as harnesses, give powerful dogs a huge mechanical advantage over a small or physically challenged person, and may alloow the dog to harm the handler or escape to cause damage to other dogs or people, or be seriously injured or killed by vehicles or people fearing for their safety. And if the owner is unable to control the dog, s/he will probably either keep the dog confined or surrender it for euthanasia, and will be unwilling or unable to adopt other difficult dogs.
3. There are visceral emotional reactions to the terms "pain", "punishment", "aversive", and "discipline". But pain is merely a physical sensation much like any other, and any of the senses can be overloaded to the point where they progress to being uncomfortable, and then physically damaging. Dogs often cause pain to other dogs during play, just as people do when they engage in rough sports. Usually there is no lasting damage, and because the participants recognize that it is play, there is no emotional trauma, and there are clear signals that can be given to stop the interaction when necessary. Conversely, if someone administers any sort of unpleasantry in an agitated, out-of-control, and angry state of mind, or if the scary stimulus is given randomly with no way to predict it or control it, severe psychological damage can be inflicted, resulting in shut-down or sudden aggression and rage as a desperate attempt to eliminate it.
I do not mean to advocate aversive methods, which is against the policy of this forum, but I just want to clarify the fine line I see between what may be necessary at times for control and safety, and true abuse which can lead to greater behavioral problems. Abuse is caused by the deranged mentality and instability of the perpetrator, and not by the tool. Some tools are very powerful, and need to be regulated in some way. But we need to look closely and carefully at any attempt to ban them completely, when there is much evidence that they can and usually are used properly and without physical or psychological damage. We cannot legislate for the lowest common denominator, as that seems to be diminishing in terms of education, intelligence, and morality. Instead we need to educate those who are receptive to learning, and institute severe sanctions on those who intentionally cause abuse.
And, of course, these are my own opinions, but they are also held by what I think is a growing majority of people. We should choose our battles wisely, and remember that the bottom line is the overall welfare of as many animals as possible. Most people really want to use gentle methods on their pets, but will offer much resistance to forcible exclusion and prohibition of tools and methods that have worked well for them, and have not caused the problems predicted by those who have focused on the rare instances of harm.
1. There is the premise that all dogs are the same, and all of them are naturally docile and seeking to cooperate with and please humans. But various breeds of dogs, and also individuals among a given breed, show a spectrum of behaviors that are classified as "wolfy". This is presented in Temple Grandin's "Animals make us human", and she shows that some breeds which are more closely related to the wolf in appearance (as well as genetic content) display at leasdt 8 out of 10 "wolfy" behaviors, based on instinct. These may include Huskies, Malamutes, GSDs, and wolf hybrids (many of which are really more wolf than dog). Other breeds, notably the Cavalier King Charles, show only one or two such traits. Yes, a dog is not a wolf, but some animals that are supposed to be dogs have enough wolf content that their behavior is mostly that of a wolf, and must be treated as such. This may be better for a separate discussion, but perhaps we can agree that not all dogs are the same, and their motivations and reactions to training methods and socialization will differ considerably.
2. There is the assumption that prong collars and shock collars are designed specifically to administer pain, and the premise that pain is always abuse and must be eliminated at all costs. The primary purpose is to provide control, and actually to do so in such a way as to obtain the highest degree of control with the least potential for damage. If there is any documented evidence that either of these devices, used with a reasonable degree of skill, intelligence, and sanity, cause severe physical or psychological damage, then I would be all for their elimination and replacement with something better (meaning more effective and less likely to do harm). Using a flat collar, or a rope collar, or a head harness, or choker chain, or nylon slip lead, will clearly cause at least as much pain and probably more severe damage than either of the "aversive" control tools being discussed. And tools that cannot provide that level of control, such as harnesses, give powerful dogs a huge mechanical advantage over a small or physically challenged person, and may alloow the dog to harm the handler or escape to cause damage to other dogs or people, or be seriously injured or killed by vehicles or people fearing for their safety. And if the owner is unable to control the dog, s/he will probably either keep the dog confined or surrender it for euthanasia, and will be unwilling or unable to adopt other difficult dogs.
3. There are visceral emotional reactions to the terms "pain", "punishment", "aversive", and "discipline". But pain is merely a physical sensation much like any other, and any of the senses can be overloaded to the point where they progress to being uncomfortable, and then physically damaging. Dogs often cause pain to other dogs during play, just as people do when they engage in rough sports. Usually there is no lasting damage, and because the participants recognize that it is play, there is no emotional trauma, and there are clear signals that can be given to stop the interaction when necessary. Conversely, if someone administers any sort of unpleasantry in an agitated, out-of-control, and angry state of mind, or if the scary stimulus is given randomly with no way to predict it or control it, severe psychological damage can be inflicted, resulting in shut-down or sudden aggression and rage as a desperate attempt to eliminate it.
I do not mean to advocate aversive methods, which is against the policy of this forum, but I just want to clarify the fine line I see between what may be necessary at times for control and safety, and true abuse which can lead to greater behavioral problems. Abuse is caused by the deranged mentality and instability of the perpetrator, and not by the tool. Some tools are very powerful, and need to be regulated in some way. But we need to look closely and carefully at any attempt to ban them completely, when there is much evidence that they can and usually are used properly and without physical or psychological damage. We cannot legislate for the lowest common denominator, as that seems to be diminishing in terms of education, intelligence, and morality. Instead we need to educate those who are receptive to learning, and institute severe sanctions on those who intentionally cause abuse.
And, of course, these are my own opinions, but they are also held by what I think is a growing majority of people. We should choose our battles wisely, and remember that the bottom line is the overall welfare of as many animals as possible. Most people really want to use gentle methods on their pets, but will offer much resistance to forcible exclusion and prohibition of tools and methods that have worked well for them, and have not caused the problems predicted by those who have focused on the rare instances of harm.
Re: I Need Your Help...
You know, there is something this forum does mention in its earlier posts about certain behaviors in dogs and offers ways to manage the situation and behavior. Management is the key of controlling certain behaviors in dogs, and as responsible dog owners/trainers, many of the members here have suggested ways of doing that without the use of shock collars, eCollars, prong collars, and other aversive devices and dog training techniques. Therefore, in using our God-given intelligence, we have found and used ways through our experiences that positively can manage our or anyone's dog's behavior without the use of these aversive devices. That is something I've been trying to say in my earlier posts, but somehow never seemed to be able to get the words out when I spoke of using our intelligence as a high intelligent species.
I'm reminded in my training as a teacher and as a dog owner/trainer that the best way to control a behavior, while at the same time, teach a person or train a dog is to use all their senses in a positive way in order for that person or dog to have a willingness or eagerness to want to learn more. Using negative punishment or even positive punishment isn't the way to do this because it takes that willingness or eagerness away and that is hard to regain that and that person's or dog's trust in me should I use such methods. For example, if I'm teaching a person how to train a dog, or if I'm training a dog a certain way to control a certain behavior, and I inflict pain in some way such as hitting or shocking on either the person or the dog, that person or dog has lost respect and trust in me, and therefore, will not want to learn anything else from me, much less want to be around me, because I've created a fear or some other negative behavior in either one of them.
To keep in the confines of this issue, I feel that if one needs help in controlling a behavior in a dog, training a dog to do something, the best way is to educate themselves thoroughly in that topic, talk to people, weigh the "pros" and "cons" of what you've learned, you'll find that you can manage any kind or type of situation in a positive way, without the use of some force, device, or any kind of punishment that leads to pain or suffering. We on this forum advocate positive reinforcement training because we can use the ideas other members advise or create our own way by adapting of what we've learned in order to manage our dogs' behavior, thus, creating the willingness or eagerness of our dogs to want to learn more from us because they (dogs) trust us. I'd rather want my dog to do as I want it to do because it trusts and respects me, rather than having a dog that does what I want because it fears me and/or the pain I can inflict on it. Think about it for a moment: Would you like to be hit or in any way hurt while you're trying to learn something? I most certainly don't and it has happened to me. But, that's another story, nonetheless, the same consequences are there when a person or dog is learning to behave a certain way.
I'm reminded in my training as a teacher and as a dog owner/trainer that the best way to control a behavior, while at the same time, teach a person or train a dog is to use all their senses in a positive way in order for that person or dog to have a willingness or eagerness to want to learn more. Using negative punishment or even positive punishment isn't the way to do this because it takes that willingness or eagerness away and that is hard to regain that and that person's or dog's trust in me should I use such methods. For example, if I'm teaching a person how to train a dog, or if I'm training a dog a certain way to control a certain behavior, and I inflict pain in some way such as hitting or shocking on either the person or the dog, that person or dog has lost respect and trust in me, and therefore, will not want to learn anything else from me, much less want to be around me, because I've created a fear or some other negative behavior in either one of them.
To keep in the confines of this issue, I feel that if one needs help in controlling a behavior in a dog, training a dog to do something, the best way is to educate themselves thoroughly in that topic, talk to people, weigh the "pros" and "cons" of what you've learned, you'll find that you can manage any kind or type of situation in a positive way, without the use of some force, device, or any kind of punishment that leads to pain or suffering. We on this forum advocate positive reinforcement training because we can use the ideas other members advise or create our own way by adapting of what we've learned in order to manage our dogs' behavior, thus, creating the willingness or eagerness of our dogs to want to learn more from us because they (dogs) trust us. I'd rather want my dog to do as I want it to do because it trusts and respects me, rather than having a dog that does what I want because it fears me and/or the pain I can inflict on it. Think about it for a moment: Would you like to be hit or in any way hurt while you're trying to learn something? I most certainly don't and it has happened to me. But, that's another story, nonetheless, the same consequences are there when a person or dog is learning to behave a certain way.
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius." -author unknown
Re: I Need Your Help...
While I have enjoyed those works of Temple Grandin that I have read (not yet 'Animals Make Us Human' ) I have found many misunderstandings with regard to animal behaviour, and would be very wary of taking her conclusions at face value.
Yes the 'pain/fear' devices are for control, but that is control through pain and fear. This means the control is only possible as long as the animal rates the pain/fear as stronger than the drive to do whatever it wants to do. For instance, many dogs will run through the invisible fence to go out but be afraid to run through it to go back. For something like walking nicely on the lead, which is so easy to achieve, using a device that has the potential to cause pain and fear is way over the top.
Yes the 'pain/fear' devices are for control, but that is control through pain and fear. This means the control is only possible as long as the animal rates the pain/fear as stronger than the drive to do whatever it wants to do. For instance, many dogs will run through the invisible fence to go out but be afraid to run through it to go back. For something like walking nicely on the lead, which is so easy to achieve, using a device that has the potential to cause pain and fear is way over the top.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: I Need Your Help...
a point of clarification. As a species dogs ARE in fact "docile" and seek to cooperate with humans. IF this was NOT true, there would be ZERO point to continuing to develop breeds, or to have encouraged domestication, and to continue trying to use them to perform jobs such as herding, hunting, protection, draft work, and even just companions. Even the must unruly, uncooperative, non "obedient" dog (at the individual level verse a generalized distinction of dog verse wolf or domesticated verse wild) is still "docile" compared to a true wild animal such as the wolf. Or even wolf/dog mixes.DogNut wrote:
1. There is the premise that all dogs are the same, and all of them are naturally docile and seeking to cooperate with and please humans. But various breeds of dogs, and also individuals among a given breed, show a spectrum of behaviors that are classified as "wolfy". This is presented in Temple Grandin's "Animals make us human", and she shows that some breeds which are more closely related to the wolf in appearance (as well as genetic content) display at leasdt 8 out of 10 "wolfy" behaviors, based on instinct. These may include Huskies, Malamutes, GSDs, and wolf hybrids (many of which are really more wolf than dog). Other breeds, notably the Cavalier King Charles, show only one or two such traits.
Because dogs do take some or all their heritage from the wolf (or the predecessor of wolfs and dogs depending on the theory of how we got dogs you lean towards), the fact that they may use "wolf" visual communication signals does NOT mean they are/will display "wolf behavior". Brashaw discusses a study done to "quantify the effects of domestication on the ability to communicate". He reports that out of 16 identified visual signals known to be used by wolves, the Husky does rate highest. The next highest shown on the chart was the Golden Retriever followed by the GSD and Labrador. Goldens displayed over 10 signals, the GSD and Labrador between 8 and 10. I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would mistake anything about a Golden as "wolfy", yet they were rated as displaying more "wolf" visual signals than the more "wolf like" appearing GSD. And yes, the Cavalier King Charles rated lowest.
As to "wolf" Genetic "content". The GSD is one of the breeds with a strong "wolf" like appearance, but still rated lower than a Golden Retriever in terms of displaying "wolf" communication signals. Not only that, they rate very low in genetic "content". Not only do they rate low, they rate MUCH lower than a shih tzu. I am working to re find the documentation for this because it is so important to clearly understand that that appearance of physical wolf traits DOES NOT make a dog behave MORE like a wolf. Nor does "high content" of "genes". back to the shih tzu, hardly a wolf looking dog but more genetically close to wolfs than the GSD who looks very wolf like.
Exception to what I just said above is modern day wolf/dog mixes that but that is a different situation. But even here things do not play out so "cleanly" people would like to believe. appearance alone does not guide in measuring/predicting "wolf like behavior".
Unless your dealing with a wolf/dog mix this is not a actuate statement. people get way with using harsh methods on dogs BECAUSE they are docile and bred to want to work with us, take their direction from us, be near/live with us. you try using a harsh method on a wolf or even a wolf/dog mix you will QUICKLY find how wrong your statement is.DogNut wrote:Yes, a dog is not a wolf, but some animals that are supposed to be dogs have enough wolf content that their behavior is mostly that of a wolf, and must be treated as such.
The irony of irony is. people who advocate harsh techniques based on alleged "wolfyness" or because "wolves allegedly do X" lose credibility real quick when you understand that in reality using these techniques with a wolf or wolf/dog mix will get you in trouble VERY quickly. These animals will NOT tolerate this kind of treatment. we get away with it with dogs because they ARE docile with us when viewed in the context of domesticated animal verse wild animal. Dogs are "geared" from top to bottom to live with us, work with us. Wolves and wolf dogs are not.
Sorry, there is go getting around this and yet maintain any credibility. They ARE designed to administer pain. that is their entire function. there is no getting around this. To argue anything else is well not possible. I suppose you could put these collars on your dog and never use them, and in this case you could say they aren't causing pain. But then why buy them, why put them on the dog if your not going to use them? But to use them requires that you administer pain. There is just NO getting around that. you can try and say it's "just a little pain" or "there is no lasting damage" meaning physically, but it is still the administration of pain to achieve correction of behavior.DogNut wrote:There is the assumption that prong collars and shock collars are designed specifically to administer pain and the premise that pain is always abuse and must be eliminated at all costs.
I will concede this is where things go from black and white, to a bit more complex. While there is NO getting around that these tools ARE solely for the administration of pain to correct behavior, once you start getting into the intent behind these devices and how to correctly use them, why people turn to them etc. things do get less black and white and more grey. I do agree that the average person, trainer or non trainer, who do turn to these devices do not do so out of a sociopathic desire to inflict pain on their dogs. But the fact that someone isn't out to be an abuser does not negate the fact these tools are designed to inflict pain and the only way to use them is to inflict pain.DogNut wrote: The primary purpose is to provide control, and actually to do so in such a way as to obtain the highest degree of control with the least potential for damage.
I think this is why people turn to these. the perception of control. But the thing I keep coming back to the more and more I learn, training and management trump tools. learning to understand dogs, learning to train dogs, learning to build a bond of trust with your dog leads to more control than anything else. that is what i am learning. however, nothing is 100%. Shock collars do not give 100% control. Prong collars do not give 100% control, and training/management does not give 100% control. there is NO such thing as 100% control. you are dealing with a living, breathing, thinking individual. the idea that you can 100% control them is laughable. However, it is my opinion and the more I learn academically combined with experience the stronger this opinion becomes, training and management (as in not putting the dog in situations you either haven't trained for or the dog can't handle) is the best, most effective path to achieving as much control as is possible to achieve.DogNut wrote:Using a flat collar, or a rope collar, or a head harness, or choker chain, or nylon slip lead, will clearly cause at least as much pain and probably more severe damage than either of the "aversive" control tools being discussed. And tools that cannot provide that level of control, such as harnesses, give powerful dogs a huge mechanical advantage over a small or physically challenged person, and may allow the dog to harm the handler or escape to cause damage to other dogs or people, or be seriously injured or killed by vehicles or people fearing for their safety. And if the owner is unable to control the dog, s/he will probably either keep the dog confined or surrender it for euthanasia, and will be unwilling or unable to adopt other difficult dogs.
Play is ritualized combat/fighting even for humans. And while it is generally understood by participants that have mutually agreed to "play" that it's not for real and "I" am not out to get you, this "understanding" isn't a 100% safeguard against anything. This understanding/"safe guard" fails all the time. and even in contexts that are 100% no intention to cause pain and injury, yet pain and/or an injury is experienced sometimes there is still lasting emotional damage that accompanies that experience.DogNut wrote: 3. There are visceral emotional reactions to the terms "pain", "punishment", "aversive", and "discipline". But pain is merely a physical sensation much like any other, and any of the senses can be overloaded to the point where they progress to being uncomfortable, and then physically damaging. Dogs often cause pain to other dogs during play, just as people do when they engage in rough sports. Usually there is no lasting damage, and because the participants recognize that it is play, there is no emotional trauma, and there are clear signals that can be given to stop the interaction when necessary.
This is actually one of the issues with using shock/prong collars. you don't have to be using them in a agitated out of control and angry state of mind to have a negative effect on your dog. even used "right" they are random unpleasant, painful experiences that run high risks of negative emotional collateral damage.DogNut wrote:Conversely, if someone administers any sort of unpleasantly in an agitated, out-of-control, and angry state of mind, or if the scary stimulus is given randomly with no way to predict it or control it, severe psychological damage can be inflicted, resulting in shut-down or sudden aggression and rage as a desperate attempt to eliminate it.
There is a HUGE difference between dogs and wolf and even dogs and wolf/dog mixes. I just finished reading a no holds bared book about this called "part wild" by Ceiridwen Terrill. But I don't just have her book to guide me in this. About 20 years ago I got to be around a alleged wolf/dog mix. prior to my current dog this was actually the closest to owning my own dog I ever got. it wasn't mine, but I got to "work" with it. which basically meant walk it and play with it. I have also recently encountered some wolf/dog mixes in the area I live. These animals are NOT dogs as most people know and think of dogs. And real dogs also KNOW these are NOT dogs. When these dogs show up in the local dog park, the '"real" dog keep their distance EVEN though the wolf/dogs are NOT doing anything aggressive.
As to "controlling" them. The idea that you would use prong collars or shock collars or alpha rolls or other "dominance/pack" concepts to control them is laughable. these are the last techniques you would ever want to use if you want to say alive or out of the hospital. So if using these tools is NOT advised by the experts on dogs that are anywhere from one generation to less than half a dozen generations from full real wolf, then that really to me illustrates that using them on dogs is absolutely NOT required, NOT necessary to achieve "control".
I have personally decided to try and learn as much as I can about wolf and wolf/dogs because people often point to these animals or to alleged "wolfness" in dogs to justify using prong collars and shock collars and other questionable approaches to training dogs. what I am finding out very quickly, using these methods on actual wolf or wolf/dog mixes is a good way to get your self attacked or killed by these animals. we get away with using them on dogs because they ARE in fact docile towards us.
Re: I Need Your Help...
I hadn't come across the argument from 'wolfishness' before, and it seems backwards to me. Can you imagine an animal with a brain resembling a wolf and trained using a shock collar being turned into an amenable, friendly, safe, biddable pet? Nope, you would have a totally wrecked creature who would have had its spirit broken and could not trust any person. I think it's likely that the more riled up a dog is, the more damage to its psyche a shock collar can do. I'd even conjecture that shock collars would be most appropriate to use on dogs with a calm easy-going temperament - in which case there wouldn't be a need for one anyway.
Do I have more control over him? Is he now a safer dog? No, I'd say he's now much more dangerous because the combination of desire to keep the ball and fear of me will stress him so much he could easily explode. A dog who has a desire to do something but is held back from doing it by fear is like a keg of dynamite, and that fear could also overflow into other situations because he can't rely on me to protect him any more.
In my own situation, I could consider using a shock collar on my dog for the worrying situation that if he stole another dog's ball and someone (including me) tried to get it off him, he would bite. So, I approach him, he stands rigid over the ball and growls, I shock him... Now he's really mad, and frightened, and goes for the nearest thing - me. So I shock him harder... Eventually (if I have any hands left) he submits to me, and back off in fear every time I approach him when he has a ball.DogNut wrote:The primary purpose is to provide control, and actually to do so in such a way as to obtain the highest degree of control with the least potential for damage.
Do I have more control over him? Is he now a safer dog? No, I'd say he's now much more dangerous because the combination of desire to keep the ball and fear of me will stress him so much he could easily explode. A dog who has a desire to do something but is held back from doing it by fear is like a keg of dynamite, and that fear could also overflow into other situations because he can't rely on me to protect him any more.
Jasper, lurcher, born December 2009
Re: I Need Your Help...
wvvdiup1
The effort you're putting into this is admirable. I wish you every success.
I believe the vast majority of dog owners want their dogs to be happy and wouldn't want to deliberately hurt them, in order to train them. But they do want their dogs to behave - how to achieve that is the point in question really.
I'm curious, could you tell me please, just what you class as aversive. Is it just the e-collar and prong collar or other tools as well ?
For example, would your aim be to ban, restrict, educate or licence ?
As I see it, as interesting as I'm finding this discussion, it seems to be missing the obvious i.e. If certain training tools and methods inflict harm, either physically or psychologically, we need to provide the evidence to substantiate it, and proof that there's another way, that works just as well, without inflicting harm.
Easier said than done, I appreciate. Is it possible?
The effort you're putting into this is admirable. I wish you every success.
I believe the vast majority of dog owners want their dogs to be happy and wouldn't want to deliberately hurt them, in order to train them. But they do want their dogs to behave - how to achieve that is the point in question really.
I'm curious, could you tell me please, just what you class as aversive. Is it just the e-collar and prong collar or other tools as well ?
For example, would your aim be to ban, restrict, educate or licence ?
As I see it, as interesting as I'm finding this discussion, it seems to be missing the obvious i.e. If certain training tools and methods inflict harm, either physically or psychologically, we need to provide the evidence to substantiate it, and proof that there's another way, that works just as well, without inflicting harm.
Easier said than done, I appreciate. Is it possible?
Re: I Need Your Help...
What is needed, IMHO, is an unbiased study that includes a large sample of dogs whose owners use prong or shock collars, and have them evaluated by behaviorists and trainers, to determine if they have any of the issues that have been reported with these devices. It should also include some history of the dogs and the people. In any cases where physical damage was caused, there should be a veterinary exam and report. Also, perhaps there can be a challenge where dogs who are scheduled for euthanasia due to aggressive, dangerous behavior may be randomly selected and given to an equal number of trainers and behaviorists and skilled dog owners, to use their methods of choice (half using all positive reinforcement methods, and the other half using whatever they choose short of what is generally accepted as abuse), documented on video, and then have an impartial re-evaluation after, say, two months, by representatives of both schools of thought.
I think this is realistic because most people who adopt dogs with problems will not spend any more than that before deciding if the dog will be suitable for their family, or must be returned to the rescue to be euthanized as originally planned. And perhaps the dogs and handlers can be re-evaluated after a year, if they have been kept after the initial 2 month trial.
This challenge has been proposed many times before, but AFAIK it has never been accepted. People who are vehemently critical of aversive methods have never been able to provide convincing proof of the harm they claim it causes. Yet there are hundreds or thousands of apparent success stories, even after one or two years or more. I have tried to find examples on youtube and on "positive" and "anti-aversive" websites and facebook pages, and the few examples I was able to locate were not convincing at all.
I'm only seeking the truth; I certainly don't advocate aversive methods and everyone I know who occasionally use them also predominantly rely on positive reinforcement once dangerous behavior has been controlled. The examples usually cited are rare and clearly abusive and improper use of the tools. If they were prohibited, other more dangerous tools such as ropes and choker chains and thin nylon slip leads would be used instead, with greater damage as well as the probability of the dog being out of control and either injuring someone or being dropped off at the pound for euthanasia.
As for using a prong collar on a wolf hybrid, observe "K2" in this video, and tell me if he seems distressed by it:
http://youtu.be/rIG65aD4O90
And this is a good analysis of wolves and wolf hybrids:
http://youtu.be/qfpQVjYFcSE
More information can be found on:
http://wildspiritwolfsanctuary.org/
http://www.wolf.org/
http://www.thewolfcentre.co.uk/
I think I need to leave this discussion now. Most of the comments indicate that many authors have minds that are already closed to alternate viewpoints and factual information, and make statements that have little or no verifiable proof. We need to deal with the overwhelming problems of intentional animal abuse and the problems of puppy mills, hoarders, and BYBs, rather than trying to prohibit tools that might cause physical or behavioral damage in the wrong hands. We might as well ban high performance SUVs and sports cars which probably have crippled and killed many more dogs (and people) than shock and prong collars. And, yes, those vehicles are designedf to cause harm, because they appeal to those who want to intimidate and dominate other drivers and cause serious accidents because of aggressive driving. Even the advertising says "aggression in its most elegant form".
We have a serious social problem based on violence and ruthless competition and greed and selfish materialism. Most dog owners are helped to embrace better ideals because of their relationship with their canine best friends, and those I know who have used the tools in question are definitely not abusive, and many were unable to achieve the results they needed by pure positive reinforcement. And none of them have had the problems that have been presented here.
I think this is realistic because most people who adopt dogs with problems will not spend any more than that before deciding if the dog will be suitable for their family, or must be returned to the rescue to be euthanized as originally planned. And perhaps the dogs and handlers can be re-evaluated after a year, if they have been kept after the initial 2 month trial.
This challenge has been proposed many times before, but AFAIK it has never been accepted. People who are vehemently critical of aversive methods have never been able to provide convincing proof of the harm they claim it causes. Yet there are hundreds or thousands of apparent success stories, even after one or two years or more. I have tried to find examples on youtube and on "positive" and "anti-aversive" websites and facebook pages, and the few examples I was able to locate were not convincing at all.
I'm only seeking the truth; I certainly don't advocate aversive methods and everyone I know who occasionally use them also predominantly rely on positive reinforcement once dangerous behavior has been controlled. The examples usually cited are rare and clearly abusive and improper use of the tools. If they were prohibited, other more dangerous tools such as ropes and choker chains and thin nylon slip leads would be used instead, with greater damage as well as the probability of the dog being out of control and either injuring someone or being dropped off at the pound for euthanasia.
As for using a prong collar on a wolf hybrid, observe "K2" in this video, and tell me if he seems distressed by it:
http://youtu.be/rIG65aD4O90
And this is a good analysis of wolves and wolf hybrids:
http://youtu.be/qfpQVjYFcSE
More information can be found on:
http://wildspiritwolfsanctuary.org/
http://www.wolf.org/
http://www.thewolfcentre.co.uk/
I think I need to leave this discussion now. Most of the comments indicate that many authors have minds that are already closed to alternate viewpoints and factual information, and make statements that have little or no verifiable proof. We need to deal with the overwhelming problems of intentional animal abuse and the problems of puppy mills, hoarders, and BYBs, rather than trying to prohibit tools that might cause physical or behavioral damage in the wrong hands. We might as well ban high performance SUVs and sports cars which probably have crippled and killed many more dogs (and people) than shock and prong collars. And, yes, those vehicles are designedf to cause harm, because they appeal to those who want to intimidate and dominate other drivers and cause serious accidents because of aggressive driving. Even the advertising says "aggression in its most elegant form".
We have a serious social problem based on violence and ruthless competition and greed and selfish materialism. Most dog owners are helped to embrace better ideals because of their relationship with their canine best friends, and those I know who have used the tools in question are definitely not abusive, and many were unable to achieve the results they needed by pure positive reinforcement. And none of them have had the problems that have been presented here.
