Erny

Yes. I don't know. :D :p Whooohoooo Haven!!! Nearly there!!! I'm getting excited for you!! Thinkin' of ya :p

Denis, this was the sort of language you used the last time you presented your 'view' on electricity to the forum. You won't gain respect here by telling people to "Look". And no one is insisting that you "do[ing] this" so why thrust those words at us? Your tone and inability to converse with other people's views ended up very much pushing people away. The thing is, I don't view the conversation/discussion we were having as being an "argument". Perhaps if you would view it of more an educational discussion, you might end up sounding a little less frustrated? If you were reading, "fact" has been spoken much of. And let's not forget those who have used the e-collar well with their dogs. Proof is in the eating of the pudding in most if not all cases. :p .... DC - where is it bad manners to be told something you've said is incorrect? Plenty of opportunity given and taken for other views DC :D. I think the problem there is they have been expressed by way of sweeping statements and do not purport to any fact, reasoning or knowledge of the proper and good use of stim-collars in training and/or behaviour modification. And this is the sort of thing you did the last time you were on this forum (under one of your alias's .... "Lab and Poodle" if I remember rightly). The conversation was rolling nicely enough DC. At least one if not two people have learnt from the information in this thread. Yet you come along and start running it down, suggesting people have "bad manners", are "hysterical", "repeat things to ad nauseum", have "extremist elements" ..... Perhaps if you could leave this emotive 'speak' out of the equation, conversation might roll along with less of the angst that I certainly detect ..... and perhaps even inadvertently respond to?

When I have felt the stimulation from a stim-collar (which has been on many occasion at many different levels, given my profession and testing of the collars in question), I have only detected the stimulation on the skin between the two contact points. The only "hysteria" I've seen are in the words you've written DC. Otherwise, what I've seen is discussion. But something I'm still curious about (because of what you have posted) ...... and perhaps you missed my post, so I've copied it hereunder (for convenience) :

Thanks Poodlefan. I am already in communication with Dr. Jean Dodds. The issue is with a Vet here who (for want of better words) refutes the analysis arising out of the blood tests and recommended medication for it. Need a Vet who understands.

Hi I need the name/s of Vets/Holistic Vets who know of and understand the work of Dr. Jean Dodds when it comes to hypothyroidism blood test results (ie bloods already done and analysed by her). Can anyone help? Melbourne/South Melbourne area would be the best, if possible. But if further afield, still interested.

Chuckle ...... I'm glad my profession is "dog training/behaviour" and not "gardening". Because going by your analogy, I will have failed before I even got going. You'd only have to see my garden to attest to that!!!

DC .... just so I can get an idea of where you are coming from - what do you mean by the above? In particular the "I am not an absolutist" part? IE "Not an absolutist" in relation to what? What would you use when 'training' is required even though you cannot be present?

K9: Stress levels will also rise if you show the dog a treat & do not give it to him. Stress is an integral part of training, its the level of stress & the way the trainer deals with it that is important. Thanks K9 .... I returned here to make these same comments. "Stress" in the absence of training tools such as stim-collars and even tools such as the PPCollar (aka "pinch" collar) is often forgotten/ignored, when IMO it very much should NOT be. "Prolonged stress" in training exercises that take longer for the dog to learn is not much discussed in many circles. I would be interested in this study too, DC ? A point that is also commonly overlooked. And thanks, K9, for the other of your explanations/comments, including clarification to the common misnomer of "shock" when it comes to reference of a stim-collar :

Not sure why you would raise a topic on collars the style of which aren't used anymore? Anti-bark stim-collars aren't the "bad" you asserted/implied them to be either, Gemibabe. But the clicker should not be compared in having the same purpose or excellent training qualities as stim-collars do. The clicker is used as a "marker" to tell the dog what a good job it just did. Same as a "marker" word such as "yes!". If the dog is not trained to a clicker, perhaps the sound of it will be sufficient to distract it momentarily from what it is doing, but it is not going to work under high drive nor over distance. In many cases, it won't even necessarily work for low drive situations. This is just it, Gemibabe. You are assuming that a dog will keep pressing the anti-bark in its levels just as that person on the video clip did. If that person were a dog, I highly suspect he would have preferred not to bark once the stimulation became uncomfortable. Did you not notice that person becoming increasingly reluctant to "bark" as the levels on the collar were increased (at his own direction and only for the purpose of the video clip .... not a "training" example)? And the whole point about an anti-bark stim-collar is to cease the behaviour (which commonly occurs when the owner can't be present to do anything about it anyway) so that neighbours won't continue to be annoyed and so that any destruction order on the dog is unlikely to ensue or may be withdrawn. The main thing is that (I hope) you've learnt something in relation to the good and effective use of stim-collars from the discussion that has evolved as a result of your thread? :D

Hi Haven .... was sitting here earlier thinking about you. Noticed I hadn't seen you for (a whole!) 24 hours or so .... so began doing a bit of wondering of my own! LOL Not long now!! Regarding the TENS machine - it was discussed in another thread from some time ago that related to e-collars. There was much talk about electrical terminology speak and the thread got a bit 'strong' - I admit to getting a bit lost with it to be able to relate it back very well here. Add to that the amount of time lapsed since that thread .... I'd certainly need to refresh my memory of it. If I can find the thread I'll hook up a link to it, even though if I remember rightly, the reading of it might become somewhat heavy with some psychobabble. Other than that, if I recall well, the thread contained information that could well be found useful and enlightening by some.

From a 12 volt battery. As I understand it, "shock" was a word more in line with the early-day stim-collars (or e-collars) ..... where the current (?) generated went through the dog's neck to a contact point on the other side of the collar. Stim or e-collars are much more sophisticated now (as is their use in training methodology) and the stimulation created by the 12 volt battery travels only through the skin to the nearby contact point. Gemibabe .... what training method would you use and how, to reliably achieve proofing against (eg) a high prey drive dog (eg) chasing live-stock ??

Gemibabe - you have some very strong and firm beliefs about the e-collar (be it a "remote" training collar, or an anti-bark collar). It would help us to be able to understand from where the points you are asserting in this thread are coming from if you would be able to give some description of your experience and/or knowledge in training with them? This will certainly help me (and I am sure the other knowledgeable and experienced people here) know how to best answer the points you are making? Oh ... and when you made the comment "You can momentarily distract the dog with a clicker btw... " I took your tone to be one of a bit "high and mighty, know it all and thumb your nose up", as well. Sorry if that isn't what you intended - tone can be difficult to detect from the written word and I guess I took it as written with the same strength as your other assertions against the stim-collar, which only suggested to me that you really didn't understand the stim-collar (be it "remote trainer" or "anti-bark") and how it is properly used in training and behaviour modification with dogs. So I disagree with your comment that others are being sarcastic. If anything I think most of us are a bit startled at how forceful you are coming across on a subject that your posts suggest you don't know that much about. And "not knowing" is ok too. But showing us that you're amenable to learning would be helpful . You could perhaps check your tone too? Perhaps it is being taken wrongly, but use of emoticons might help with that? :wink: :D

Oh yuck Midol. Too much info . Could you not have just said "I wasn't well last night" ??? :wink: ..... hope you're feeling better now though.

Gemibabe - thank you. But in all fairness, there are many good posts by others here that are designed to provide educational information or at least examples to demonstrate that the stim-collar is not the vile piece of equipment that you were lead to believe by the video clip you posted in your OP. I think they deserve respect too. :D Edited for spelling

Six months is the generally accepted "youngest age", Flip. However there are exceptions. As you say, breed and individuality within breed needs to be taken into account.

Actually, Flip PM'd me and we've conversed that way a couple of times. I think she now appreciates the good info that is contained in this thread and apologised if what she wrote gave the wrong impression. I think all is ok with respect to that relationship :rolleyes:.

:rolleyes: - Kelpie-i. I can imagine him thinking he should be getting around in a pope-mobile next. I'm sure he would love the lime light. With regards to his "National Approach" push ..... I see it as his way of controlling the whole of Australia in relation to animals and what people can/can't do. And instead of targetting the 'real' cases that should be targetted ('cause they're more difficult, nevermind the more necessary and urgent), he'll target 'soft' cases ..... cases that aren't even necessarily a matter of cruelty but that he'll easily convince the unsuspecting into thinking they were. And thereby get more $$$. Makes me so cross when anyone uses "dog-welfare" (or any animal welfare) as a guise to financial benefits.

I would have thought training should be about the dog being reliable in any situation ..... even if we want to start walking a figure 8 from whatever direction. IMO, trialling should demonstrate a snap shot of ability. Not be exemplary as the whole of the dog's ability. Sadly, I think some attitudes have evolved due to not winning prizes for being better than we have to be. But that's just me .... I guess I have a different agenda for the purpose of training than some others might. Sorry ..... but my imagination on this makes me giggle.

DRAFT (incomplete) ..... (refer above post) This paper references Dr Hugh Wirth’s recent “Honorary Presidential” Statement given in the RSPCA News (Volume 8 – Number 2 edition) titled “Towards a National Approach”. Whilst I can sympathise with Mr. Wirth’s view on the ‘three tier political system adopted by the Australian Federation’, there are some major points to his view that appear to be neglected. The first point being ‘healthy opposition’. To have a ‘one view’ for all can be dangerous in that it precludes one from the freedom of identified benefits of a differing view which in itself appears to oppose the very democracy that our Country has proudly boasted throughout the centuries. The second point being the very real possibility (read : likelihood) that views, and therefore, laws, are different from one State to another because of the fact that the advent of the regulations which Mr. Wirth might prefer to be all encompassing (nationally speaking) are fraught with flaws – flaws which reveal that his view is not necessarily the right view from the point of animal welfare. And in this my involvement strictly relates to dog training and behaviour, which is the focus of my expertise and passion and therefore my point of discussion. Mr. Wirth implies that unless laws pertaining to his view of “animal welfare” are not recognised on a national level, the animals are not receiving what they deserve. I think first and fore mostly, Mr. Wirth should study the laws that are already imposed (as has been encouraged and supported by Mr. Wirth himself) in relation to (eg) dog training equipment. Mr. Wirth supports the imposition of the ban of use of “pinch” collars in the very blatant lack of evidence of any harm having been caused by its use (in the hands of a novice handler or otherwise) yet fully supports and loudly proclaims the ‘kinder gentler’ head collar, the evidence of (albeit inadvertent) harm to dogs is easily, broadly and frequently available. Mr. Wirth first needs to investigate these anomalies and provide discussion by way of ‘answer’ to these before he decries the Australian Federation political system. Perhaps for the very system it is, it has offered at least some safeguard against the imposition of a view which is evidentially flawed, becoming a National imposition and for the sake of fairness of trade and not the least, welfare of dogs, this can only be a good thing. It would be an easier task, perhaps, for Mr. Wirth to now lobby for nationalism rather than to state and debate his views (debate which, when it comes to the imposition of the banned use of “pinch” collars, appears vastly absent from Mr. Wirth’s court) and convince the general dog-training and behaviour enthusiasts and experts as to what very good and evidentiary reasoning he has for this regulation. In my own opinion, conditionally recommending the use of training equipment (and yes, this would have to include the head collar, given there IS evidence of harm to dogs through its use, as opposed to the “pinch” collar, where there is NO such evidence) by including these items under Section 7E of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act would be the more democratic, fair and reasonable approach – not just for those trainers and behaviourists who with their skill and knowledge are able to utilise these tools in a beneficial manner in keeping with dog welfare, and who are able to educate those others on their correct and humane application, but for the dogs themselves, who by fair, humane, clear and efficient means of learning are relieved of the unnecessary pro-longed stress that other methods/tools might require, not to mention having the opportunity through efficient training, to escape the clutches of the “green dream” .... a synchronism for “being destroyed”. Surely this last is something that Mr. Wirth’s focus and interest should be sufficiently keenly sharpened, particularly where dog-welfare can remain to be evidenced?

For interest sake, here is an excerpt from the "RSPCA News" Volume 8 * Number 2. I can't find a link to the mag via the internet, so needed to copy it here ... " Wirth Here! Honorary President RSPCA Victoria Towards a National Approach For some thirty years now I have been attending many meetings of federal and state government advisory committees and just as many non-government committees, including those of the RSPCA, all of which proclaim that they exist to achieve a uniform and consistent national approach to animal welfare. Every so often the cynical side of me asks the simple question "if so, what has been achieved?" There is abundant evidence that the majority of advisory committee members do realise the benefits of a national approach and mostly they work to this end. But far too commonly the final outcomes rarely reflect this intent. What then goes wrong? The greatest handicap by far is the three tier political system adopted by the Australian federation. none trust the other and therefore each remains suspicious of proposals not initiated by itself and each maintains a culture where they conveniently believe that another level of government is, or should be, responsible for animal welfare outcomes. Local government is variably effective with animal management but maintains animal welfare is not its responsibility. State government accepts it is responsible for animal welfare but only on a local basis as the Commonwealth is the national government. In turn the Commonwealth argues that the Australian constitution does not mention animals so it can only act as the honest broker in animal welfare and then only farm animals, wildlife and pest animals, but not companion animals. Both government and non-government organisations go to Canberra put their hand up to adopt a national proposal such as the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and then leave the city immediately forgetting this commitment. Obviously it is always necessary to compromise to reach agreement on a national approach, but all too often this in practice means a lowest common denominator compromise. The animals deserve better than this. If a refusal to unnecessarily lower one's standards means being branded as negative, then so be it." Might sound ok to some in theory. But what scares me is that what Mr. Wirth wants isn't what all .... or even the majority of us wants, and I can profess by experience isn't IMO always the best in terms of dog-welfare. Moreover, that certain voices simply won't be heard if it doesn't suit his agenda or wishes. Once he manages to 'level the laws on a National basis' ..... will this simply be a green card to Mr. Wirth's influences within Government : cease the ideology of 'democracy' and oppress us further from what doing what many dog owners recognise as the more beneficial for our dogs. I mean, for the laws ithat he himself has managed to impose upon the population of Victoria under the guise of "dog-welfare" ..... has that succeeded in diminishing dog abuse and the numbers of dogs abandoned (the most common reason being for "boisterousness")? What dog abuse do they now NOT see, given they have prohibited the good use of the PPCollar (aka "pinch" collar)??? In the next post down, I've put up a draft of a letter ..... it's incomplete, but if anyone would like to voice their concerns to their Minister and MP's around Australia, feel free to take whichever ideas for letter writing that you might like, from it and put it to good use.

Any explanation forthcoming from the instructor as to good reasoning for this opinion?

LOL ..... it's ok Kavik, busy lives dictate that we can't remember everything . I can't tell if you sent me anything either ..... I'd need you to email me with your real name so I can "connect the dots" so to speak. You could also visit doglaws.blogspot.com and click on the links for : The Letter to MP's Australia-Wide (adapt it to suit); and The Petitions And issue them as appropriate (Original petition sheets need to be posted *snail mail* to the address given on the foot of the form). All of this is VERY much needed for what I am presently doing. BUT, this is not just about the PPCollar issue here in Victoria! It is more than that and I posted the above to alert all and everybody Australia-wide about what is going on and the liklihood that it is going to affect you. Write to your MP's. Write to your Ministers. Be vocal! Let them know you oppose the imposition of these sorts of restrictions. Let them see they are affecting the very people who they hope for votes from. Let them know this BEFORE they've already concluded that restrictions will be imposed, regardless. Be pro-active rather than reactive. It is what we need to be if we are to be given any chance to be heard. And there needs to be lots of people .... not just a small number. And you don't need to be great letter writers. You just need to let your Govt know how many people oppose the potential for imposition that might occur should Hugh Wirth have his way in regulating in line on a National basis. Spread the news and motivate others into action. Don't just let it be restricted to DOL members. Don't be afraid to stand up for what you think and believe in.

NEWS FLASH "Chinese Whispers" has it that Hugh Wirth of RSPCA has now actively taken steps and consulted with Government in the ACT (Canberra) with a view to bringing dog-laws into line on a National basis. I guess this would be easier for him, rather than picking off one State at a time. Point is people - those who DON'T wish to see restrictions and/or bans imposed in relation to things such as training tools .... or for that matter, rules on breeding (as per Victoria) etc., NOW is the time to let your voices be heard. Going by experience, you DON'T want to leave this until you're notified that it is a liklihood .... by then it will be (a) very difficult to gather the support and info you need to lodge your objections in the time frame given and (b) likely to be a foregone conclusion. It will happen though, if people are complacent and think that it won't. This is what will be relied upon.

..... I never thought this, although I did think that there was some agenda behind the thread in the first place. However, "baited" or not ..... it's a thread that many people who are genuine in their thirst for knowledge might read and might have otherwise been easily influenced by video footage such has been represented in the first post. Video footage that really does not have a basis in "training" at all. So IMO what's been written has definitely not been a waste of time, even if the OP had formed a conclusion before proper consideration. In fact, I think the OP should be thanked - for bringing attention to uninformative and misleading material that is out there and that without this opportunity may well have gone undiscussed and undisputed.

Hey Lisa ... I am really pleased to hear of the success of your work with Maddy and that now you can set out with pleasure and I expect for many more, walks with her . Before you walk both dogs together, make sure your other dog also understands the loose lead walking exercise well. If you can arrange it, it would be helpful if you have a second handler with you for those first times of walking the two dogs out together. But well done, and I'm glad you've found that improvement of your own handling skills is paying off big time ..... for not only yourself but also of course for Maddy (who is a lovely dog, btw!!).