I Need Your Help...

Get to know other Positively members here.

Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost

DogNut
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:07 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by DogNut »

Comparison of a shock collar to a Tazer is about like comparing a firecracker to a stick of TNT. The shock collar is energy limited by the capacitor so that each jolt is limited to that which affects the nerves for pain sensation, while the Tazer is designed to incapacitate an individual by causing prolonged involuntary muscle contraction. Both can be painful, but the Tazer involves a lot more energy, probably above the upper level of the muscle stimulators posted previously. I have not found a figure for the amount of energy or power involved in Tazers, but the literature mentions an initial voltage of as much as 50,000 to 500,000 volts which is needed to penetrate clothing, and then a continued pulse train of perhaps three to five seconds at non-lethal current levels, which may be as much as 20-50 mA. At such levels, tissue damage from burning and high current densities is probable, and it is undoubtedly painful. Furthermore, it is possible to inject enough current through the heasrt to cause ventricular fibrillation which can be lethal unless treated immediately. Tazers are used as a less lethal alternative to bullets, and should be used only in case of immediate danger. Here is more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser
http://www.taser.com/research-and-safet ... ch-library
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19104137 (This links to an article which has more information, but I'm not going to pay for it)
http://stungunreviews.tripod.com/electr ... tazer.html (plans for building a similar device)
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222769.pdf (an extensive study of Tazers on humans)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... onday.html (EE says Tazer has 85x lethal current level)
http://www.defendthyself.com/pages/TASER-FAQ.html (Says Tazer uses less than one joule)

I agree that the best way to handle behavior problems is to take the time and acquire the skill to use positive reinforcement and avoidance of triggers, but many people cannot or will not be willing to do that. In some cases, such as rescuing hundreds of dogs from puppy mills, hoarders, and dog fighting rings, the rescuers must act quickly and be able to safely handle sometimes very frightened and aggressive dogs. The negative effects of frightening and painful methods are not as severe as years of abuse and neglect, and with normal handling, most dogs will quickly recover and have few long-lasting effects. And there are some people who are only able to handle their dogs with such tools as prong collars and electronic collars. If such tools are prohibited or too severely restricted, such people may have to surrender their dogs or keep them cruelly isolated, muzzled, or otherwise managed. I submit that a moderate amount of pain (more discomfort, really) for brief periods of time, is far preferable to a long time struggling with a flat collar or head harnesses or very dangerous choke chains and nylon slip leads, and certainly better than extended isolation or euthanasia.

If it were not for what seem to be a majority of successful use of these tools, even by non-professionals, and relatively few serious incidents mostly caused by abuse and ignorance, I would probably support strict licensing of these tools. But I have yet to see convincing proof that they cause far more harm than good, and where the damage is serious and long-lasting, either physically or psychologically.
User avatar
Nettle
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by Nettle »

Pain is not less painful because there is more painful pain. The dog knows nothing of this - it only knows pain and fear from that pain.

Given that I work with some severely reactive dogs, and so have more than a theoretical idea of how to rehab. those that are saveable, I profoundly disagree with:
DogNut wrote:The negative effects of frightening and painful methods are not as severe as years of abuse and neglect, and with normal handling, most dogs will quickly recover and have few long-lasting effects
Once a dog has been subject to abuse, more pain and fear is not going to help it. Especially given that pain and fear does not help a normal dog either, instead making it more fearful and so violent, or else shut down, according to its character. Neglect is different, and there is no excuse for inflicting pain and fear here either, because dogs that have been neglected as opposed to being abused are usually very easy to bring round.
DogNut wrote:I agree that the best way to handle behavior problems is to take the time and acquire the skill to use positive reinforcement and avoidance of triggers, but many people cannot or will not be willing to do that.
Then they should not be getting these needy dogs. You cannot fast-track rehab.
DogNut wrote:the rescuers must act quickly and be able to safely handle sometimes very frightened and aggressive dogs.

Yup, been there, done that, and you don't do it with a shock collar.

DogNut wrote:I submit that a moderate amount of pain (more discomfort, really) for brief periods of time, is far preferable to a long time struggling with a flat collar or head harnesses or very dangerous choke chains and nylon slip leads, and certainly better than extended isolation or euthanasia.

You are quantifying pain again. The dog does not quantify pain when it receives it. It does not think 'heyho, I could be in worse pain'. The dog is frightened. The pain goes and the fear remains. The psychological damage has the potential to be profound.

Anyone who can't manage the devices you mention a flat collar or head harnesses or very dangerous choke chains and nylon slip leads isn't going to be a skilled handler of a device created solely to inflict pain and fear.
DogNut wrote:If it were not for what seem to be a majority of successful use of these tools, even by non-professionals, and relatively few serious incidents mostly caused by abuse and ignorance
Your opinion, your rhetoric, not fact. This makes your arguments lame, and I know you can do better. :wink:
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog

SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by jacksdad »

DogNut wrote:Comparison of a shock collar to a Tazer is about like comparing a firecracker to a stick of TNT.
The amount of voltage in play may be significantly different, I have not measured my self. BUT the comparison is more closely apples to apples than shock collar to medical device, which is apples to oranges. both devices (shock collar and tazer) are designed to STOP behavior. to do so, you use pain.
DogNut wrote:But I have yet to see convincing proof that they cause far more harm than good, and where the damage is serious and long-lasting, either physically or psychologically.
I don't understand this.

We KNOW that one negative scary encounter with another dog, even without physical damage CAN cause psychological damage. We KNOW that hitting a dog, even without leaving physical damage can cause psychological damage.

We KNOW shock collars cause pain (intensity is irrelevant, pain is pain) and even IF there is no physical damage there is the sensation of pain, and since it comes out of no where it logically causes fear too. we have non shock collar evidence about scary out of the blue causing a fear reaction in dogs.

Combined all that with an understanding of what a shock collar does, can do, and is designed to do, administer a pain sensation, how can there be any doubt about the high, high risk of psychological damage to the dog from the use of a shock collar.

At the risk of repeating my self I am unable to comprehend how there can even be a debate about if the collars cause pain and fear.

Where I think the disconnect really is, is people just want their dog to do X or not do X NOW!. I honestly don't think most people buy a shock collar with this thought process "humm, I think I want to hurt my dog today" What I think they are focused on is stopping X or trying to make X happen and because of that they talk them self's out of any concerns about the pain or the side affects of the pain. They get frustrated and "just want X to stop NOW. I can't take this anymore" The other issue is I don't think many of the people who promote shock collars and other positive punishment devices collars understand dogs as well as they think they do. Or they wouldn't promote them.

The appearance of success is HIGHLY reinforcing to us humans. So if something seems to work, we repeat it over, and over, and over...even if in reality we were not or did not achieve our goal. So if the use of shock collars seems to be working (regardless of if it is or isn't) this WILL lead to additional uses. this is the slippery slop that leads to misuses/overuse of correction devices such as shock collars and prong collars. This was a point made by steve white a police dog trainer in youtub video explaining the 8 rules of properly applying punishment.

If you goof with positive reinforcement you get a dog who won't do something without a treat or a fat dog. significantly less harmful side effects for getting it wrong, AND significantly easier to fix than the side affects of positive punishment with something like a shock collar or prong collar.

But even getting it "right" with shock collars and prong collars you run a risk of unwanted/unintended side affects that have serious implications on the dogs psychological state and it's trust in you. Some dogs KNOW who is pressing the button. I had one guy try and talk me into using a shock collar on my dog. he said "you only need to use it once, then all I have to do is pickup any remote and my dog responds". To me very telling.
Last edited by jacksdad on Wed Mar 14, 2012 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jakesmom
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:35 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by jakesmom »

jakesmom wrote:We stopped taking him out for weeks on end, we just couldn't cope with him, and were worried he would actually strangle himself, his choker pulled so tight (Not that it appeared to bothered him, I doubt he even noticed it, he was in such a frenzy)

I hated it - there had to be a better way - for both of us. But how could I even begin to work on his issues when I couldn't even hold on to him safely ?

I admit I considered using a shock collar out of desperation - but I didn't, because quite honestly, if being choked hadn't stopped him, why would an electric shock. I did, however, use a spray collar, it stopped him reacting in the car the first time I used it, but after that made no difference whatsoever.

Without whittling on anymore, suffice to say eventually after trying numerous tools we did find one that enabled me to keep control of him, the Dogmatic halter (but even this can be classed as an aversive).

With our current dog, I use a no-pull harness and /or the halter, because apparently the head collar alone can cause damage, even though our vets say they won't. I don't know. I know how to use it well, but I do believe it could cause damage, if used alone with a long lead.
DogNut wrote:And there are some people who are only able to handle their dogs with such tools as prong collars and electronic collars. If such tools are prohibited or too severely restricted, such people may have to surrender their dogs or keep them cruelly isolated, muzzled, or otherwise managed. I submit that a moderate amount of pain (more discomfort, really) for brief periods of time, is far preferable to a long time struggling with a flat collar or head harnesses or very dangerous choke chains and nylon slip leads, and certainly better than extended isolation or euthanasia.

If there was no alternative I might agree with you on that DogNut, but there is - a good harness used together with a good head collar/halter gives excellent control.

As I described above, I can only imagine how powerful a shock collar would have had to be, in order to stop my dog reacting. He would literally be choking and frothing at the mouth, and he still reacted violently. (probably more so because he was choking)

What stopped him reacting was showing him he had no need to - I admit this took quite a few months, maybe a year - but I'd been trying for years the other way.

I realise now, that there was no way on earth, I would have obtained that by inflicting more pain and fear. As others have said, he may have been too terrifed to show his fear - but it would still have been there.

If I'd known then what I know now, I'd have never used a choke chain in the first place.
Even though I used choke chains for years on previous dogs and had no problem...... but that's because the dogs themselves had no problems - I'd had them puppies and trained them correctly in the first place. But now I understand how easy it is to all go wrong - especially with rescue dogs.
JudyN
Posts: 7018
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:20 pm
Location: Dorset, UK
Contact:

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by JudyN »

Assuming there are some dogs for whom a shock collar has cured a problem behaviour without having any side effects or impinging on the relationship between dog and owner, you would also have to ask how many similar dogs have had similar treatment for whom there have been negative results. Having a 'good' result could be a matter of luck as much as anything else, in which case using one is similar to Russian Roulette.
Jasper, lurcher, born December 2009
wvvdiup1
Posts: 3397
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:31 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by wvvdiup1 »

I think the biggest problem behind this issue of using shock collars or other aversive devices is something Jacksdad had just mentioned: The attitudes of people who believe that shock collars work, because (1) they've used it and claim to see a big difference in their dogs behaviors; (2) these devices didn't cause any harm or injuries, because they claimed they used these devices properly by reading and going by the manufacturer's directions/instructions and those who didn't, misused them or didn't follow directions;(3) they believe these devices work because the results came in a short time, or "immediately", and many other reasons why they would use them. I saw a lot of these reasons in many website forums and social sites. Needless to say, they want to see where these devices caused physical injuries, fear, and other psychological and neurological damage to the dogs.

The point is that was mentioned at least a few times by Jacksdad, JudyN, and others, in short, is that pain is pain, fear is fear. One caused the other. When showing pictures or videos of the physical injuries done to dogs using these devices such as shock collars, they disbelieve that these injuries were the caused by that device, but some of those people also believed that the injuries were caused by the dog's owner's negligence by misusing and/or abusing their dogs. They say this but they don't have any proof on the contrary that the pictures or videos are real or actual evidence. It's the argument that comes down to this: "You can't believe everything you see on the internet." What they fail to realize is that these pictures and videos are documented evidence that can be or will be used in legal cases. The best analogy I can use in describing their opinions is comparing to the analogy of seeing a ghost in which they don't believe with their own eyes unless someone or some people are with them to witness it. That's how much of a battle I have been into in discussing this issue with them.

My point in all this is until people really see and understand what their dogs are going through when these devices are used, they won't change their attitudes. As I've been "bitten", and into quite a few "dog fights" with the members of these website forums and social sites about this issue by being against the use of such devices, I am also making some headway in persuading some of them and others considering using such devices, but I know I have a long way to go. After all, these aren't ghosts we're debating whether or not they exist or not, these are real animals with the same sensations, maybe the degree of sensation is different, but nonetheless, as we humans. Pain is pain, no matter of the degree or intensity in which is received, it still leaves reminders either physically and/or psychologically. What intensity of pain delivered by a certain joule or volt may not hurt some humans, may hurt others, and dogs skins are more sensitive than ours, so that pain hurts even more. To gauge this amount of pain, unfortunately, we hear the yelps, because no technology exists that can accurately measure the amount of pain, no matter what technology or device is out there that claims such.

As we've mentioned, there are better ways of training and/or controlling behaviors in dogs. Just look at the responses posted on many of the threads of this forum, especially from members who even admitted they've used shock collars and/or other aversive devices on their dogs and have found their dogs developed further problems and/or issues. We've shown that certain behaviors can be controlled, or even to some degree, eliminated, without using any of these aversive devices, and we've also have heard from those members who said they can see a "real" or "big difference" in their dogs in a good way. Why? We've used our intelligence, creativity, and what we've learned from our experiences. So, there is a way. Education, management are keys along with time in which we all have to invest in learning about dogs and their behaviors/body language, as well as learning training techniques that will help us and our dogs better, while yet, keeping our dogs trust, respect, and willingness to learn. The time and patience we spend on doing this is time well spent as well as enjoying being with our dogs.
Image
Image
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius." -author unknown
jakesmom
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:35 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by jakesmom »

I just thought I'd give you some good news.

I've joined another forum, and I'm saddened to realise how many owners use prong collars and e-collars.

Well, a member has posted that she has joined a new training club, that only uses positive reinforcement, and she is unsure about the club, because they don't allow leash corrections, prong collars or choke chains. She wondered what the other members thought.

And to my surprise......... the vast majority think it's a great idea and worth a try.
DogNut
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:07 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by DogNut »

wvvdiup1 wrote:Pain is pain, no matter of the degree or intensity in which is received, it still leaves reminders either physically and/or psychologically. What intensity of pain delivered by a certain joule or volt may not hurt some humans, may hurt others, and dogs skins are more sensitive than ours, so that pain hurts even more.
I respectfully submit that these are opinions or beliefs, and probably not confirmed by professionals in comparative anatomy. IMHO, a dog's skin is generally less sensitive than ours if you include the thick layer of fur. Otherwise, you may be right:
http://us.arcanatura.com/dog-healthcare ... uman-skin/

What may be more important is the density of nerves in the skin, and it does appear that it is higher in the neck:
http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/165/11/314.full

But I do not agree that "pain is pain" or "a kick is a kick", because the psychological response to these stimuli vary greatly depending on the tolerance of the individual, but even more so on the emotional state of both participants. Life is full of pain, although usually it is simply a warning that continued action may be harmful. Nature uses pain as an aversive, and it works very well for thorny plants, bees, and just about all living entities. And various levels of pain are to be expected when engaging in competive sports, martial arts training, and even play. Dogs hurt each other all the time with body slams and biting, and they do not usually suffer debilitating psychological effects, even from injuries, as long as the emotional exchange is not full of anger, frustration, or intent to do harm. So I cannot agree with a denial of a spectrum of pain. It makes no sense to me that intensity makes no difference. But I totally agree that it depends on the emotional state, and psychological damage only occurs when it is continuous or random, and when the recipient of the pain cannot control it. This has been proven by studies of cortisol levels in dogs.

My biggest problem is not that people have a strong desire to reduce pain-based aversive training methods and tools. It is instead the assumption that their opinions are fully proven by absolute fact, and the desire to use aversive methods on people who disagree and want the option to use the tools they have found effective and safe. Just as it is better to use positive reinforcement for dog training, it should also be the method of choice to deal with people who do things that other people consider dangerous, unhealthy, or immoral. Criminalizing drugs, gambling, alcohol, and prostitution has done little to reduce their popularity and damage to society, and instead probably makes it worse. Animal abuse is a moral issue, but people seem to use different criteria when it comes to dogs and cats, compared to domestic animals bred for food or sometimes painful and dangerous uses. And dogs have also been bred for purposes other than pets, and we have brought them into our world with the expectation that they will do what we want, rather than follow their instincts to run free and kill prey.

I think it is fairly clear that some dogs are more cooperative than others, and some peoples' needs are different from others. And some people love animals so much that they become vegans and eschew all animal products, and some even think having animals as pets is cruel. Fortunately they have not been able to legislate such "animal rights", but I admire their purity of thought and willingness to "walk the walk". Otherwise, there must be a fully accepted understanding that some animals are "better" than others, and this usually involves dogs and cats, but also should extend to our close primate relatives like chimpanzees, and maybe also dolphins. So, where does one draw the line? I think it is best to allow people free choice of tools and methods unless there is clear and unambiguous evidence of cruelty, and even that needs to be defined. And I do not agree that "pain" is a sufficient criterion. I believe this is an issue of freedom to choose, and I doubt that very many people want legislation limiting their right to birth control or religious practices or free speech, or other "unalienable rights" as were declared by the colonists as we formed the United States. Of course, those in Great Britain or elsewhere may see things differently.
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by jacksdad »

dognut...it's not a denial of a spectrum of pain. I fully acknowledge that different individuals have different pain thresholds. I am flat out saying this is irrelevant. I am saying there is no such thing is x amount of pain is "good" and "harmless" but Y isn't. The use of a prong collar or a shock collar requires that I administer pain to my dog to get the point across that it did something I consider wrong and that it should stop...or it will feel pain again. that it might be pain from the lowest setting where its hardly felt or on the max setting and inflicts intense pain is IRRELEVANT. the only relevant point is that I am inflicting pain and we really have NO way of knowing how intense the pain was perceived.

To find that "sweet" spot requires experimentation...I flat out refuse to go there. there is NO need for it because there are proven, more effective, non painful ways to get a dog to do what we want it to do.

Stop trying to down play or distract from the fact these devices inflict pain to do their job, stop trying to argue that X level of pain is "safe" but Y isn't. There is NO way to know what X or Y is with a dog until you start using these tool and even doing once could be once too many for a particular dog. And until you start using these devices, you have NO way to know the effect on an individual dog. Another risk I personally refuse to take. Because again there are proven, more effective methods to train a dog without using pain. Just because I may not be able to envision how to apply those non pain inducing methods to a particular problem does not justify falling back on prong/shock collars. which what I clearly see some people doing in their arguments in support of these devices. basically it comes down them saying "I don't what else to do" so they build up the dog as some special dog such as..."certain "dominant breeds" need a "firm" hand and can only be controlled by using a prong collar or shock collar"..... B... FREAK-EN.... S what is really being said is..."I have reached the limit of what i know to do, so I am going to use pain to achieve my goal quickly so I can move on".

If you want to argue for prong/shock collars even in just a devils advocate role (which is fine, it forces us to really think about our beliefs and feelings and facts) I would respectfully suggest you can't "win" the pain aspect of this issue, it would be more constructive and honest to concede this point and submit arguments and points as to why positive punishment via pain is effective and the risks are out weighed by the benefits when applied by tools such as prong or shock collars.

It is frankly silly to keep debating is pain painful.
DogNut
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 3:07 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by DogNut »

jacksdad wrote:It is frankly silly to keep debating is pain painful.
That is not the most important point to my objections. There is no argument that positive reinforcement is preferable to punishment as a first response to a behavior problem or as a means of training a desired behavior. But I will actively oppose unreasonable attempts to criminalize something which I contend is not abusive, and that is a moral issue which I believe comes under my rights to make my own decisions about what I do. And if such devices and methods are banned, I assume that means they will be criminalized, and I will be punished if I use them, purchase them, or even just possess them, as it is with certain drugs and firearms and vegetation.

Tell me if you would support or oppose the following proposed laws:

1. No person may purchase or consume veal, because it involves abusive conditions for young calves.
2. The purchase or consumption of Twinkies or other junk food is prohibited by law, because such foods have been proven to cause morbid obesity as well as impairment of brain function which caused a reduced sentence for a killing http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-29/ne ... urder-case
3. Human life begins at conception, and the termination of a pregnancy by any means, for any reason, is classified as murder, and punishable accordingly.
4. Football, boxing, and other aggressive contact sports have been shown to cause severe injury and death to participants, and therefore shall be illegal.
5. Any physical discipline, such as spanking, of a child by a parent or other person is painful and may have negative psychological ramifications, so it shall be classified as battrery and punishable as a felony.
6. Horses are not designed to carry the weight of a rider on their backs and this can cause pain and injury, so riding horses for any reason is designated as animal abuse and punishable as such.
7. The manufacture and consumption of alcohol is immoral and unhealthy and so shall be prohibited: http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/31/t ... rohibition
8. Cursing and taking the name of the Lord in vain shall constitute blasphemy and be punishable by one year in jail (in MD until 2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_ ... of_America
9. Publicly funded schools shall teach creationism along with evolution in science classes, and teachers who refuse or give unequal weight to evolution shall be fired and/or prosecuted. (supposedly supported by 90%) http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... 2/teaching
10. Possession of firearms by people other than law enforcement officials or members of the military is dangerous and shall be prohibited.
11. Vehicles which get less than 25 MPG are damaging to the environment and may not be manufactured or sold.
12. Any dog that barks for more than one hour shall be declared a nuisance and must be surrendered to animal control for euthanasia or subjected to removal of vocal chords.
13. It is illegal to have a dog confined to a crate in a private home when there is no human supervision.
14. Any device which may cause compression or pain to a dog's neck or trachea and causes choking or gagging shall be prohibited.
15. No tool or method of training or behavior modification other than positive reinforcement may be used on any animal at any time, under penalty of law.

I admit that many of these are outmoded or ridiculous, but all of them involve value judgment and moral or ethical issues that some people want to impose upon others. Where does one draw the line? Bans of anything constitute a slippery slope that rational people will rightly oppose, especially when the reasons are emotional and subjective and based on opinions and beliefs, rather than objective facts and impartial scientific studies. Who supports BSL and bans on pit bulls, Rottweilers, or other power breeds? And who makes the identification of a banned breed? Remember Lennox?
wvvdiup1
Posts: 3397
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:31 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by wvvdiup1 »

dognut wrote: But I do not agree that "pain is pain" or "a kick is a kick", because the psychological response to these stimuli vary greatly depending on the tolerance of the individual, but even more so on the emotional state of both participants. Life is full of pain, although usually it is simply a warning that continued action may be harmful. Nature uses pain as an aversive, and it works very well for thorny plants, bees, and just about all living entities. And various levels of pain are to be expected when engaging in competive sports, martial arts training, and even play. Dogs hurt each other all the time with body slams and biting, and they do not usually suffer debilitating psychological effects, even from injuries, as long as the emotional exchange is not full of anger, frustration, or intent to do harm. So I cannot agree with a denial of a spectrum of pain. It makes no sense to me that intensity makes no difference. But I totally agree that it depends on the emotional state, and psychological damage only occurs when it is continuous or random, and when the recipient of the pain cannot control it. This has been proven by studies of cortisol levels in dogs.
Dognut, concerning those studies of cortisol levels in dogs, I have no faith in them, because they're done on a sample level and there isn't even the technology or any machine, test, or whatsover that can gauge the cortisol levels in dogs accurately, which is a couple of the reasons I don't go by these studies. The fact still lies that when people deliberately administer pain via use of shock collars and so on is still inflicting pain. These people who've used such devices say "it worked well with my dogs" haven't taken into the consideration that their dogs have developed further behavioral problems and other issues, resulting from the fear of being shocked or injured in any way by these devices. Furthermore, I will agree that life is full of pain, but I must ask you, why should we administer more unnecessary pain? Why the needless warnings of harming the dog by more electrical shocks or whatever that just administers pain to the dog, when none of these devices address the cause, symptom, problem, or in other words, behavioral problems in dogs? They just don't.

As we have been saying, there are better ways of training and addressing problematic dog behavior. First is to observe what is causing the unwanted behavior, and second, is to manage it. We can do that without inflicting pain or injury to the dog through +R training just by removing the stressor then working our way back gradually working the dog to where it can deal with the stressor in a more positive way. We have to take "baby steps", which require time and patience, however, its time well invested in the dog without any physical or psychological injury.

When I've communicated with members on the other dog website/forums, they've argued the same way as you have on this issue. Comparing this discussion to the game of "Battle Ship," they've came at me with their weapons of opinions aimed at me and my reasons, however, I have been able to shoot and sunk their opinions, because they don't have the scientific evidence, or any other evidence on the contrary, to prove shock collars and other aversive devices do not harm dogs. But, to those people who still believe what these members of these forum believe, I and some others who agree with me, don't get to communicate with them, because we do not who they are until they speak their opinions. Those of us who believe shock collars and other aversive devices are harmful to dogs have scientific, medical, and other evidence on our side, not to forget from those of us who have many years of experiences of training and working with dogs, who have seen the effects of these aversive devices, used on dogs. As you know by now, those of us who use positive reinforcement methods address the root cause of the problematic behavior -the basic components that, shall we say, the physical and mental base- of the dog by understanding dog behavior and body language itself and work from there, the raw basic component of the dog, and that, as you know, doesn't and shouldn't be addressed by inflicting pain on the dog.

I will be looking into the links you've provided, dognut, but if they are the articles I've read before, I think are outdated as more results from more studies have arrived since those articles. It's just like the time that passes while we work with our dogs: the more time passes, the more we learn from our dogs. Unfortunately, it seems most of these articles and other forms of information have been released before they should have been as more results are appearing later in these experiments and studies.
Image
Image
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius." -author unknown
Ari_RR
Posts: 2037
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:07 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by Ari_RR »

I think I am starting to understand DogNut's main point here... I think it's not whether shock and prong collars are good or bad, should or should not be used, help or hurt the dogs... It's whether they should or should not be banned legislatively, and DogNut's position is that while animal cruelty and abuse are outlawed in general, there is not enough evidence that use of shock and prong collars is animal cruelty, and therefore DogNut is opposed to banning them, although may be open to the idea of restricting their use via licensing.

My personal take on this - I am not planning on using any such device, and I encourage others to find better ways of correcting dog's unwanted behavior (by tracing it to it's root cause and addressing that cause, even though this often requires more time and effort). But I don't think I would support banning them.

This is about dog owner's mind set, I think.. Simply banning these devices will not change those who are looking for shortcuts and quick fixes.
Use of e-collars and prongs is in most cases a shortcut to getting the dog to not do something (action = pain, dog stops taking the action, but there are side effects... many elaborated on this earlier in the thread, no need to repeat).
However, banning them would be a similar (and futile) shortcut to making dog owners look for better ways of addressing unwanted behavior in their dogs, and will also have side effects (using homemade devices, or simply dumping dogs with behavior issues, for example), because just banning these devices would do nothing to educate the dog owners, and would do nothing to help them find other ways.
Unfortunately, the right way is often the long and expensive one. In this case - through education, through books and through the Internet, by making resources available, by promoting responsible dog ownership (think twice before getting a dog), by promoting responsible breeding, etc.
wvvdiup1
Posts: 3397
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 2:31 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by wvvdiup1 »

Dognut posted: Tell me if you would support or oppose the following proposed laws:

1. No person may purchase or consume veal, because it involves abusive conditions for young calves.
2. The purchase or consumption of Twinkies or other junk food is prohibited by law, because such foods have been proven to cause morbid obesity as well as impairment of brain function which caused a reduced sentence for a killing http://articles.mcall.com/2011-12-29/ne ... urder-case
3. Human life begins at conception, and the termination of a pregnancy by any means, for any reason, is classified as murder, and punishable accordingly.
4. Football, boxing, and other aggressive contact sports have been shown to cause severe injury and death to participants, and therefore shall be illegal.
5. Any physical discipline, such as spanking, of a child by a parent or other person is painful and may have negative psychological ramifications, so it shall be classified as battrery and punishable as a felony.
6. Horses are not designed to carry the weight of a rider on their backs and this can cause pain and injury, so riding horses for any reason is designated as animal abuse and punishable as such.
7. The manufacture and consumption of alcohol is immoral and unhealthy and so shall be prohibited: http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/31/t ... rohibition
8. Cursing and taking the name of the Lord in vain shall constitute blasphemy and be punishable by one year in jail (in MD until 2003): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_ ... of_America
9. Publicly funded schools shall teach creationism along with evolution in science classes, and teachers who refuse or give unequal weight to evolution shall be fired and/or prosecuted. (supposedly supported by 90%) http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... 2/teaching
10. Possession of firearms by people other than law enforcement officials or members of the military is dangerous and shall be prohibited.
11. Vehicles which get less than 25 MPG are damaging to the environment and may not be manufactured or sold.
12. Any dog that barks for more than one hour shall be declared a nuisance and must be surrendered to animal control for euthanasia or subjected to removal of vocal chords.
13. It is illegal to have a dog confined to a crate in a private home when there is no human supervision.
14. Any device which may cause compression or pain to a dog's neck or trachea and causes choking or gagging shall be prohibited.
15. No tool or method of training or behavior modification other than positive reinforcement may be used on any animal at any time, under penalty of law.

I admit that many of these are outmoded or ridiculous, but all of them involve value judgment and moral or ethical issues that some people want to impose upon others. Where does one draw the line? Bans of anything constitute a slippery slope that rational people will rightly oppose, especially when the reasons are emotional and subjective and based on opinions and beliefs, rather than objective facts and impartial scientific studies. Who supports BSL and bans on pit bulls, Rottweilers, or other power breeds? And who makes the identification of a banned breed? Remember Lennox?
Dognut, these issues don't really address the problems and injuries caused by shock collars. These items you've listed are subjected to the protection of a community, state, province, or country. By the way, many of us here, including myself, fight against BSL, because BSL doesn't work and it doesn't address the behavior problem of the dog, nevermind what breed of dog it is. Furthermore, BSL doesn't address irresponsible dog owners either.

For item #10: "10. Possession of firearms by people other than law enforcement officials or members of the military is dangerous and shall be prohibited." I'm well aware that many members on this forum, or any other forum for that matter, do not live in the United States, but we have the right to bear arms within certain limits, meaning we cannot own fully automatic or semi-automatic weapons. A government that keeps its people unarmed by laws that regulate by saying "it is illegal..." is a government that doesn't respect the basic fundamental, undeniable, natural rights of its people to protect themselves is a goverrnment that should be overthrown. We've seen that in the early history of man and government to know the outcome.
1. No person may purchase or consume veal, because it involves abusive conditions for young calves.
What for government is going to enforce such regulation, when it involves a big agricultural business?
2. The purchase or consumption of Twinkies or other junk food is prohibited by law, because such foods have been proven to cause morbid obesity as well as impairment of brain function which caused a reduced sentence for a killing
What for moronic government would pass such a regulation such as this when it doesn't address the reason why some people are obese such as a medical condition such as a thyroid/metabolism problem?
3. Human life begins at conception, and the termination of a pregnancy by any means, for any reason, is classified as murder, and punishable accordingly.
What for government has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body? Other than incest or some medical problem such as a terminal illness, in my opinion, a woman shouldn't do this as it is a form of murder. In the US, we have Roe v. Wade(1973) that basically says the government has no right to tell a woman what she should do with her body, wiping its hands of getting involved in this issue. That's why it is still a controversial issue today.
4. Football, boxing, and other aggressive contact sports have been shown to cause severe injury and death to participants, and therefore shall be illegal.
What's wrong with requiring these athletes to wear protective gear, so that they can play the sports they enjoy? We complain so much about how overweight people are getting, yet, some people want to outlaw such sports! Do we humans ever make sense?
5. Any physical discipline, such as spanking, of a child by a parent or other person is painful and may have negative psychological ramifications, so it shall be classified as battrery and punishable as a felony.
Congratulations! Your country will be building more prisons because the ones they have are overcrowded and becoming too expensive to run. Society isn't going to be able to withstand paying higher taxes to keep these prisons up and running. To solve this problem, allow the parents to discipline their children, however, keeping watch on the children for physical and behavioral problems over long periods of time. Report if you see a child being "punished" without cause (abused). Treat as a case by case situation in regards to the law in your county, state, province, or country.
6. Horses are not designed to carry the weight of a rider on their backs and this can cause pain and injury, so riding horses for any reason is designated as animal abuse and punishable as such.
Again, what for moronic government would pass such legislation, considering this was a form of transportation before automobiles, trains, and plains? Besides, what report can prove this? If the horse's back is unreparingly damaged and the horse is being "abused" by a person riding it, and in addition to being such a law, administer the law to the offender, not society as a case by case situation accordingly.
7. The manufacture and consumption of alcohol is immoral and unhealthy and so shall be prohibited
Opinion of the conservatives who have never learned the history of what happens during Prohibition. Higher crimes such as gang related murders and high unemployment rates. Through education, this can be addressed, just like over-eating and doing less activity will lead to obesity.
8. Cursing and taking the name of the Lord in vain shall constitute blasphemy and be punishable by one year in jail (in MD until 2003)
Can you imagine the population of Maryland, including my family living in Maryland, being put into prison doing this? Who's watching who? This can and should be repealed even though I don't believe someone should be taking the Lord's name in vain. Let God take care of the offender.
9. Publicly funded schools shall teach creationism along with evolution in science classes, and teachers who refuse or give unequal weight to evolution shall be fired and/or prosecuted. (supposedly supported by 90%)
Depending on who's defined as the taxpayers (is it the population of a country that pays for each public school or the taxpayers in that area of the school or school district as in the United States) should be defined by the community in which that public school is located. Better yet, it should be the parents who should take this responsibility as it concerns their religious or nonreligious views about this issue.
(I've answered #10 earlier) 11. Vehicles which get less than 25 MPG are damaging to the environment and may not be manufactured or sold.
By whose standard? Considering some vehicles such as tractor-trailors or "lorries" depending on your country don't get this mileage when they have to pull very heavy loads to get that load delivered to where it is intended, which, by cost-effective measures, work well in short distances. This legislation or regulation would put a lot of people out of work too.
12. Any dog that barks for more than one hour shall be declared a nuisance and must be surrendered to animal control for euthanasia or subjected to removal of vocal chords.
What is the reason the dog is barking for more than one hour? Not fed or watered? Abused? A burglar? A murder? This piece of legislation would not address the cause of why the dog is barking for over an hour.
13. It is illegal to have a dog confined to a crate in a private home when there is no human supervision.
There must be a logical reason why a dog is confined in a crate in a private home. Behavior issues? Obviously, the owner hasn't either address the problem or is in the process thereof. If the door to the crate is where the dog can push it open and the dog is content in its crate, there is no problem.
14. Any device which may cause compression or pain to a dog's neck or trachea and causes choking or gagging shall be prohibited.
It shouldn't be used on a dog period. There are better ways to train and address any behavioral problems in dogs as we have discussed so far in this thread.
15. No tool or method of training or behavior modification other than positive reinforcement may be used on any animal at any time, under penalty of law.
It is a proven fact that positive reinforcement methods work better than the other methods and aversive training tools such as shock collars have been proven to cause injury. Scientific, medical, and other evidence support that fact that these tools do cause injury. Again, this is what we've been discussing in this thread.

In short, any legislation, law, or regulation doesn't address the problems in each of the items you've mentioned above, dognut.

Dognut, I think I'm sinking your navy! :D
Image
Image
"Common sense is instinct. Enough of it is genius." -author unknown
User avatar
Nettle
Posts: 10753
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:40 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by Nettle »

The debate has now split into two parts. One is about shock collars and the other is about legislation to ban anything being an assault on personal freedom.

I agree with the second point up to a point :wink: I detest the 'ban' mentality because it resembles Big Brother-ness, and because I like my freedoms. While I can understand (for instance) not banning devices that inflict pain on animals when those devices are misused I can see a point to banning something that inflicts pain whether used properly or not. But those who argue for the freedom of the individual to use these devices are not giving adequate consideration to fear as a direct result of pain, and psychological damage as a direct result of that fear.

I think those are two big considerations. Shall we consider them? :wink:
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog

SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
jacksdad
Posts: 4887
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: I Need Your Help...

Post by jacksdad »

I am cautious about agreeing to or calling for the banning of anything. I am cautious about laws/bans that tread on people's freedoms. I don't believe that freedoms have to be outlined in law or a constitution to be protected freedoms. But I have yet to hear a good argument explaining how banning something like a shock collar treads on anyone's freedoms.

Unless your saying there is a right to inflict pain/fear on another being simply because I don't like what they are doing, they aren't responding to me in the time I think they should, or speak another "language" than I do etc. I am fairly sure there isn't a court in the USA that would agree with that.
Locked