Erny

LOL .... I won't ask what you're doing on the carpet for its static shock to affect you so, Aidan. I trust the effect is enough to stop you, at any rate. Errmmm, let's call it "yoga" I missed this post. Yoga. Uhhhh, yep.

Hi Loof and to DOL.

Healing wishes coming from here, GG.

Good on you, A&J Only two people have shown as having written a letter though . Hope the lack of numbers is only due to people having dinner and not having caught this thread. .......... Or perhaps being too busy writing letters . Cheers Erny

Thanks for posting this Erny. I'll try and piece together an email by the 20th (tomorrow), the clock's ticking! Good on you, WhiteEagle. DOL member "Andrea&John" has done the same as have, I expect (trust; hope) others have as well. If you want the email contact list for the 40 or so MLC's to send to, let me know and I'll email it to you. Not sure how it works : ie if you have Outlook, whether it means you can then simply click one button so your letter shoots to all of them (that's how I did it), but can try it if you wish . Will need you to email me Pro-K9 if this is what you would like me to do.

Well, we can only do what we can do. Letter write - send it about. It is supposed to be debated tomorrow, but who knows if the debate won't again be adjourned.

Thank you Sandra777. Good post . ETA: And just to be clear .... and following suit to the others who posted after me - It's a big fat "no" from me too.

Jake-K9 - That is a horrible experience for both you and the dog. As I mentioned, I won't touch noise only activated static anti-bark collars. On top of that, it was most unfortunate that there was a malfunction, and I don't mean that lightly. I've had a reasonable amount of experience in the use of the static anti-bark collars and e-collars in general and *touch wood* I've not experienced such a malfunction. I hope I never do. I know there are many other trainers who have had far more years experience than I who haven't endured the experience you have either. The collars I use/prefer are ones where the stim-level is set by me and I do that in accordance with the dog's response. I want just enough stim to have the dog prefer not to bark and no more. I guess there couldn't be any guarantees, but I presume that if the collar decided to go off of its own accord ( don't know what would cause that) I'd like to think it would have a chance at being at no higher than the level I've dictated.

Your posts have such a tone of attempt to condescend, Corvus. And don't accuse me of not being honest. I am not playing down aversives - show me where and how I've done that. I don't like the word "shock" because at the stim-level that I and many other knowledgeable-about-the-e-collar-people use it, it is NOT a "shock". So quit with trying to have me saying things I am not. And speaking of honesty - I think everyone else understands very clearly what I'm saying and trying to communicate. You're only trying to satisfy yourself with bringing on an argument and it is one that I think doesn't deserve the effort.

.....

I'm not mincing words, Corvus. When I write, I like to use words that properly describe (as close as possible) to what the (in this instance) sensation of a static anti-bark collar can be. I know what image most people get when they hear the word "shock" when used in reference to any electronic collar, and that image is false. So it seems that unlike yourself, I write with a purpose of clarity in explanation (I don't always succeed, but I try), rather than using words that might be technically correct but which create the wrong image and can deter people from using a training aid that might well be the best thing for the dog and the job. The nay-sayers of any electronic collar looooove to use words such as "shock". It's not technically incorrect and it produces exactly the image they want people to imagine even if that image is incorrect.

No - I don't think so. I'll try to get a photo of it next time I pass and perhaps load it up here. It is a very definite citronella smell to me, though. Or ......... maybe I'm wrong, perhaps it is TeaTree Oil smell I'm smelling. Will need to go back there to check. It is stronger when the months are warmer, if I recall correctly. Until I can clarify that - no, he's never experienced/worn a Citronella Collar. I do remember reading somewhere of one or two dogs found to have had a very adverse reaction to Citronella and I believe one of the dogs died from it. Something akin to an Anaphylaxis reaction. But perhaps that can happen with anything - like people and nuts. I think the other one I read caused swelling to the dog's lips/eyes (mucus membrane contact). And I have read that it can cause paralysis in rats. Doesn't mean dogs though. But hey .... why chance it when there is another good alternative.

LOL .... I won't ask what you're doing on the carpet for its static shock to affect you so, Aidan. I trust the effect is enough to stop you, at any rate.

Thanks Mita - yes, it's a Victorian issue but your (and anyone else's) contribution to the thread is appreciated. It's not too late for Victorians to do their letter writing. Thank goodness for the invention of "email" communications. THIS is the sort of thing we can put that sort of speed of delivery to good use. ANY letter - it doesn't have to be long-winded or detailed, merely polite. Express your concerns, worries and dissatisfaction at forethought to things that can happen even when people are "responsible dog-owners". What about that other case about the voice-lowering issue where the dog-owner's dogs were seized because she broke the law of "not allowed to exhibit"? Didn't I read somewhere on DOL that the law went through and although VicDogs were aware of it, they "assumed" it would never happen?

There is (going by the smell of it) a Citronella bush growing on the front boundary corner of a house I often walk past. My boy loves sniffing along the usual "special spots" (dog pee corners etc) but he very obviously arcs away from that particular bush. Has done from day dot with no other known or obvious reason for it other than the fact that it smells of citronella. I agree with you here, Aidan. Whenever I receive a call out by someone who has a dog with a barking issue (complaint from neighbour/council) I always go through the steps of working to find out "why". The cause needs to be addressed, as do the symptoms for the sake of residual "learnt behaviour" once the cause has been removed, if that has been reasonably possible.

Tens machines are electrical currents too, although I don't go to my chiropractor for "shock" therapy. (LOL ..... I go somewhere else for that .) Technically you are probably right, Aidan, but it is well known that people's perceptions of "shock" are vastly different to words such as "stimulation". So for the purposes of describing in a way that readers could imagine at least as accurately as possible of what I'm speaking about, no, I disagree that the stimulation from an anti-bark collar would be rightly referred to as a "shock" (implying, even if inadvertently, in this instance "electric shock" ). Although "static shock" might be a bit closer to the right description - something akin to what we feel when we get a static shock from the car after alighting. If it needs to be as high as that.

In the context that you mean, yes. But technically, in my mind, no. The electronic collars of yesteryears were what I would call "shock" collars. Designed in a way that the stimulation from them transferred through the dog's neck and which is NOT the way of modern e-collars. I'm not personally familiar with the original older style collars as I wasn't using collars way back then. I would dare say that the stim levels were not as 'sensitive' as they are now either. But from most things technical, we progress and we now have e-collars of vastly different make-up and style than they used to be. The marks in your dog's skin would NOT have been "burn holes", GoE. That's a 'trick' the RSPCA tried on in a court case against Innotek. RSPCA lost the case and was found to have actually tampered evidence to suit their argument. But that aside .... What CAN occur is that bacteria can build up under the collar, which of course is required to fit more firmly than the everyday average flat collar so that the contact points touch the skin (otherwise the stimulation won't happen or will occur haphazardly, which is not only NOT going to achieve the consistency your dog requires for easier learning, but is essentially unfair on your dog as well). Add lack of air flow with the fact that there is some pressure by the two contact points and that's when you can get a result that is akin to or the same as a person who has developed bed sores. This is the reason why the collars must remain on a dog's neck for only a certain (prescribed by manufacturer) period of time in one go. There are some dogs who can be particularly sensitive and a rash can appear even if the collar is left on only for the prescribed period. Remember that the "prescribed period" is a generality - there will always be exceptions to the rule but for the majority, if the recommendations are observed, there are no issues. I also recommend people to give their collar a wipe with antiseptic (such as you might use on a dog wound) and even give the dog's neck a light wipe as well, and of course always check daily for ANY signs of redness. If there is redness, stop use of the collar and allow it to clear up completely before using the collar again (keeping a close eye to make sure it is not recurring). So no, GoE. Your collar did not cause "burn holes" in your dog's neck and the wounds created were NOT the result of the e-stim. There is an incident that did occur once (that I read of) and it related to the confinement system collar (ie "invisible fence unit"). Somehow the battery in the collar corrupted and it leaked on to the dog's neck, causing a burn. I cannot recall if there was owner error involved in that or whether it was a very unfortunate but hopefully isolated collar fault. Disclaimer : I don't recall where the incident occurred (ie which Country) nor which unit brand it was. I don't even know how reliable the account was as far as truth is concerned.

But VicDogs say that VicDogs members are responsible dog-owners and therefore their dogs are trained and wouldn't be aggressive. And remember - if the law DID 'catch' a VicDogs dog and unfairly had it killed before the dog's owner could locate it and do anything about it ...... it would only be one - a "very rare" occurrence. Cold comfort THAT would be to the "one" it happens to. ETA: Something also that struck me ..... before we even got talking, I was asked by VicDogs what sort of dog I have.

Wow .... how long ago was that, Jake-K9? I didn't even think they sold those style collars any more. But I agree, you want to get one that activates on the vibration of the bark, not the sound of the bark. And the static setting you put it on needs to be just the level where it is sufficient enough to be perceived as sufficient for your dog to not want to bark. No more and no less.

Hurt? No. Find it aversive (not a pleasant feeling)? Yes. And the split second the dog has stopped the bark, no more aversion/sensation. Unlike citronella, the smell of which remains on its coat and the dog has to endure that even though it is no longer exhibiting unwanted behaviour.

LOL .... and when the dog wants to be able to waft away on the sweet cloud of hazy lazy dreamy days, it only needs to bark to get another 'fix'.

BD - Contacted and spoke with E White today. I'll start by saying that she was good to speak with - don't know if that's because she's very skilled at PR's or whether it is because she really takes on board what people are saying and would be open to a change of mind. BUT, in essence, I'm informed that VicDogs are "comfortable" with the laws proposed by this Bill in that : VicDog members are responsible dog owners and therefore the (tragedy?) of the laws is not likely to affect VicDog Members' dogs. That the incidence of the "trifecta" (ie Unidentifiable dog; accidental escape; aggression) is going to be very rare for a VicDog Member's dog because VicDog Members are responsible. That VicDogs is placing assumption on the Council Officer/person having the experience to be able to properly judge a dog's behaviour. This is not exactly word for word as it was a verbal discussion, but is mighty close. I did thank Elizabeth for her time on the telephone as she did at least seem willing to allow me to express my view and did engage in a bit of discussion about it. But the upshot is that VicDogs are "comfortable" with the proposed law as worded. Apparently the "48 hour" period was initially going to be "24 hours" but it was VicDogs who worked to have that changed to the "48 hour" period and they believe that gives sufficient time for anyone who is a VicDog member to be able to locate their dog in the event something happened to occasion it to be "at large". As Elizabeth was pushed for time I did suggest/ask for a meeting, perhaps after hours, but she was already booked up with pre-committed meetings.

*bump* My letter has been sent to 40 different MLC's and 2 MP's (Helper and Brumby).

As do I, Aidan. On top of everything else written here about them, there are also those known dogs who have died due to a severe reaction from the citronella. Citronella is toxic to dogs - just most dogs don't react to it. I think the static anti-barks are the better ones as well, although my preference is for the Dogtra styles where you set the level of the stim to suit the dog. I'm not a huge fan of the ones that ramp up according to whether the dog has stopped barking or not. If I were to use a spray collar though, I'd go for the compressed cold air style/lemon scented. These, I find, aren't as effective as the static collars though. They seem to work in the short term, but that's mainly because of the startle effect which can easily wear off after a while and the dog thinks "oh .... THAT's all that happens" and finds barking enjoyable enough to warrant continuing.

Hi Fiona. It shouldn't be about what the training tool 'does', it should be about what you DO with it. I could be jumping to false conclusions here, but taking from merely what you've written, I'm wondering if you are using the check chain properly. Have you had a trainer who is experienced in the proper use of check chains show you how to use it and also what walking technique/s to use to help your dog understand what it is you want?