Shock Collars

[Erny]

I was using this article to make a single point, which is that a two terminal device will produce a radial not a point to point pattern. That is all. Off course the taser uses much higher voltages, off course it is meant to be a man stopper. The field pattern that a Taser produes is of much higher intensity than an e collar, but it's pattern is very very similar.

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.

It is often stated to the point of ad nauseum ... facts straight ... loose the pro and anti hysteria in this debate.

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) :

DC : If I have to use an Aversive, I tend to use properly applied time out

Monelite : so you are at work, dog barks, how do you apply time out than?

I also use common sense when I train dogs. I realise that events like this can occur, and it is obvious to all and sundry that a time out can not be used. It is why I am not an absolutist.

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?

Edited August 5, 2008 by Erny

[Just Midol]

Denis, I now understand the comparison. But your comparison is still incorrect.

The distance at which the current radiates is directly related to the level of power, the e-collar is so low in power (lets use layman terms here) that the distance the power radiates is negligible.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Lord Midol

[denis_c]

Denis, I now understand the comparison. But your comparison is still incorrect.

The distance at which the current radiates is directly related to the level of power, the e-collar is so low in power (lets use layman terms here) that the distance the power radiates is negligible.

Look ,these diagrams are relative to the current conducting through the main path. The current thorugh the main path is measurable not neglible. If you have a look at the taser and reduced it to suit it would look pretty similar to the e collar. The current conducts by the way, it doesn't radiate a hell of a lot.

Why am I doing this?

Well it seems there are two sides to this arguement, one lot who would slap on an e collar if it had a tail and a nose and walked, and another lot that think that e collars are the devil's invention. I would like to see a more factual and evidence based discussion rather than a usual DOL board on anything like this where manners seem to go out of the window , (Look at the message above I have been told I am incorrect by someone who is a layman rather than may be asked if I am mistaken or could I elaborate?) and an extremist element who hop on anyone that might have a hope of presenting a different case or some views that could be included in a journey to working out what the truth is. If that is what you want to do, just rename the site or have a warning that people like myself with dissenting views aren't really welcome for some reason or other.I can respect that. and we will all be happy

I think that wiser people than me realise that when these discussions come up it is really a back slapping session for those who use e collars and keep away. I am just a little more persistent because I see the truth get mangled in the process along with a few of our canine companions.

[Kavik]

denis

I do not belong to your two groups :p

I don't use an ecollar on my dogs (have stated this many times in this thread), but I understand how they are used and have felt one myself. I post to educate people on the methodology behind their use, so they can make a more educated decision on whether to use one that is not so grounded in emotion.

[MonElite]

denis for someone that has total of 31 posts on DOL to date you seem to have a lot of knowledge n how this board works and the dynamics of it.

Did you know that its not allowed here to use multiple ids?

[Erny]

Look ....

Why am I doing this?

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.

Well it seems there are two sides to this arguement ...

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?

I would like to see a more factual and evidence based discussion ...

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.

rather than a usual DOL board on anything like this where manners seem to go out of the window , (Look at the message above I have been told I am incorrect by someone who is a layman rather than may be asked if I am mistaken or could I elaborate?)

:p .... DC - where is it bad manners to be told something you've said is incorrect?

...and an extremist element who hop on anyone that might have a hope of presenting a different case ...

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.

or some views that could be included in a journey to working out what the truth is. If that is what you want to do, just rename the site or have a warning that people like myself with dissenting views aren't really welcome for some reason or other.I can respect that. and we will all be happy :p

I think that wiser people than me realise that when these discussions come up it is really a back slapping session for those who use e collars and keep away. I am just a little more persistent because I see the truth get mangled in the process along with a few of our canine companions.

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?

Edited August 5, 2008 by Erny

[Ms James]

When the dog barks it shocks the dog with electricity...

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 ??

Erny, I don't want to come to blows over this, but this isn't right. Inside the ecollar is a circuit which boosts the 12 volts to somewhere between 500 -2000 volts. I hesitate to write this beause it seems a little sensational. What happens is that the cirucit is high impedance, once the current starts flowing the voltage drops back. A good article to read is on the Taser

Denis Cody

Dennis C, you are, in fact, being sensationalist. In my understanding of such matters, E collars are a lower energy device for shorter periods rather than a continuous circuit: Your 500 to 2000 volts are indeed a lot of voltage, but contain very little current, probably microamp range. So therefore a device such as an E collar will give a tingling sensation rather than a paralysation as used in tasers.

Unless, of course, you know something of the laws of physics that we are not privy to?

[Luke GSP]

I would like to see a more factual and evidence based discussion rather than a usual DOL board on anything like this where manners seem to go out of the window , (Look at the message above I have been told I am incorrect by someone who is a layman rather than may be asked if I am mistaken or could I elaborate?) and an extremist element who hop on anyone that might have a hope of presenting a different case or some views that could be included in a journey to working out what the truth is.

Dennis_c

Okay Dennis, lets stick to fact and evidence in regard to using a remote training collar on a real life dog . My dog who would chase anything and everything previously has not chased anything unless released with a command since using the e-collar. When we put it on his tail wagged like crazy his eyes were bright and he stayed that way during our entire training sessions. Several months on he is still the same, he has not been stimmed for nearly a month now. Why not? because he does what he is supposed to. That is a fact that I have witnessed first hand and that is the evidence base that I am coming from. Now what facts or evidence do you have in respect to the training that I conducted with my dog? You cannot discuss the physics of the stim used as you do not know what level of stim, what that level equated to or the output of the device i used. You say that you prefer a well timed time out, have you ever studied what level of stress removing a dog from it's pack causes? Maybe you should conduct such a study before claiming that e-collars cause stress to the animal which in term suggests that other methods don't, of course they do, every challenge that an animal faces will evoke some form of stress.

If Midol is a "layman" that does not mean that their view is wrong! When you are as condisending as you are towards people who work with these collars and all seem to have happy, healthy, stress free dogs that are now free of issues or the threat of destruction orders what do you expect? Sadly for you Their real life experience with their dog contradicts your beliefs and studies that you are quoting. Have you seen monelites video? Rex looks quite happy to me?

being an electrical engineer does not make your judgement of the e-collar as a valid tool for training a dog worth any more than the next person. Especially if you have not tried one or kept up to date with the modern low stim methods. Please also bear in mind that some people may be using the collars to prevent much more serious harm coming to their dogs than the e-collar could possibly do (destruction orders, snake proofing etc)

[Luke GSP]

I was using this article to make a single point, which is that a two terminal device will produce a radial not a point to point pattern.

The current conducts by the way, it doesn't radiate a hell of a lot.

Dennis_c

In one post you claim a radial pattern and then you correct someone in your next post by saying that current conducts? :p Please, before replying, I don't need a physics lesson. I understand electronics. I don't undertsand why you feel that you can use a terminology and then correct someone for using it in their reply? I checked on wilkapedia and it said, A radial pattern is one that appears to radiate from a point. If you are going to ask for pinpoint accuracy from others posts perhaps you should use pinpoint accuracy in yours!

[Just Midol]

Dennis sort of proved my point anyway, the amount it radiates by in a collar is negligible.

[Tonymc]

Denis or poodle old Chap,you seem to be going down the same old track!!!!I guess a Poodle cannot change its spots{Sorry I meant Leopard}

The problem I have is when somebody really is genuine and doe's know what they are talking about, they do not have to leave it 24hrs to reply.Genuine aquired true knowledge just flows.

You have tried the old I am an Electrical genius before,so perhaps we could be spared the same routine this time around.

Tony

[haven]

Dennis is Lab and Poodle? Are you sure? L+P was always so rude, arrogant and condescending and I don't recall DCs posts being like that in his other responses I've read :p

I am a little perplexed though, as I was always under the impression that Dennis was an advocate of electrical collars and now the opposite seems to be true. Has there been a change of heart or am I confuzzled somewhere? P.S. If I am, I blame the hormones :D

[Erny]

Dennis is Lab and Poodle? Are you sure?

Yes.

I am a little perplexed though, as I was always under the impression that Dennis was an advocate of electrical collars and now the opposite seems to be true. Has there been a change of heart ...

I don't know. :D

:p Whooohoooo Haven!!! Nearly there!!! I'm getting excited for you!! Thinkin' of ya :p

Edited August 5, 2008 by Erny

[haven]

:p Whooohoooo Haven!!! Nearly there!!! I'm getting excited for you!! Thinkin' of ya :p

Bah, was supposed to be yesterday :shakehead:

Still, I suppose I should have known she would take after me in that respect :D

[Steve K9Pro]

DC: I think that wiser people than me realise that when these discussions come up it is really a back slapping session for those who use e collars and keep away. I am just a little more persistent because I see the truth get mangled in the process along with a few of our canine companions.

K9: The truth is that many thousands of dogs have been, & still are being trained with e collars, & the biggest problem the anti e collar folk have is that there is not one genuine case of harm occuring through the use of these collars.

Regardless of what diagrams you present, that will still be the number one fact to be considered.

[oonga]

I am a little perplexed though, as I was always under the impression that Dennis was an advocate of electrical collars and now the opposite seems to be true. Has there been a change of heart or am I confuzzled somewhere? P.S. If I am, I blame the hormones

I think you mean Dennis Carthy http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showuser=5849

Denis Cody

This Denis posting in this thread according to this post is a different person.

The similarity in the names is uncanny

[Rusky]

DC: I think that wiser people than me realise that when these discussions come up it is really a back slapping session for those who use e collars and keep away. I am just a little more persistent because I see the truth get mangled in the process along with a few of our canine companions.

K9: The truth is that many thousands of dogs have been, & still are being trained with e collars, & the biggest problem the anti e collar folk have is that there is not one genuine case of harm occuring through the use of these collars.

Regardless of what diagrams you present, that will still be the number one fact to be considered.

An open letter from Dr Karen Overall regarding the use of shock collars.

Date: Tue Dec 6, 2005

No, I have not changed my opinion and it is that there is never any reason for pets to be shocked as a part of therapy or treatment. If anything, I have strengthened this opinion. There are now terrific scientific and research data that show the harm that shock collars can do behaviorally. At the July 2005 International Veterinary Behavior Meeting, held in conjunction with the AVSAB and ACVB research meetings, data were presented by E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, and R. Jones-Baade that documented these damaging effects (Stress symptoms caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs (Canis familiaris) in everyday life situations. Current Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine, Papers presented at the 5th Int'l IVBM. Purdue University Press, 2005:139-145. [iSBN 987-1-55752-409-5;1-558753-409- 8]).

This follows on the excellent work done by Dutch researchers, in cooperation with their working dog groups and trainers, that showed that working /patrol dogs were adversely affected by their 'training' with shock, long after the shock occurred (Schilder MBH, van der Borg JAM. Training dogs with the help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2003; 85:319-334).

Research meetings can be attended by anyone paying the fee, and most published work is available either in the public domain, from an organization, or from someone with a university library connection.

There is no longer a reason for people to remain misinformed. Let me make my opinion perfectly clear: Shock is not training - in the vast majority of cases it meets the criteria for abuse. In my patient population, dogs who have been 'treated' with shock have a much higher risk of an undesirable outcome (e.g., euthanasia) than dogs not subjected to shock, and I never recommend euthanasia. In all situations where shock has been used there is some damage done, even if we cannot easily see it. No pet owner needs to use this technique to achieve their goal. Dogs who cease to exhibit a problem behavior usually also cease to exhibit normal behaviors. The only data available support the idea that shock is neither an effective nor suitable training tool.

That said, it's time we replaced everyone's personal mythologies and opinions with data and scientific thinking. Such opportunities are now available, but are often not exploited.

For example, the statement: "Major veterinary universities have tested E-collars since the mid 60's when they were invented. No evidence of any damage, Physiological or psychological has ever been found." is patently and wholly false. For the evidence re: data - see above. As for the initial statement - it's WRONG. It's a MYTH. The specialty college (ACVB) even conducted a census a few years ago to see if we could find ANY truth to this and there was NONE. We couldn't get anyone to say that they had - or knew someone who had - participated in such tests and studies. This pattern of behavioral repetition is representative of the danger of myth, and also of the power of the scientific method. Science tells you when you are wrong. Myth allows you to steal credibility where none is earned. That particular myth has damaged universities too long, and it has traded on the reputations of people who neither endorsed that decision, nor supported the finding, and it must stop.

I hope this helps. I have never thought we could get via electricity what we couldn't get by advanced training and hard work.

Karen L. Overall, M.A., V.M.D., Ph.D.

[Kavik]

Rusky

In that report it does not say how the ecollars were used (were they used as a correction/punisher which requires a higher level of stim or as negative reinforcement, which uses a lower level), or what they were trying to achieve witht hem.

[Steve K9Pro]

K9: Are you responding to my earlier comment (see below)

K9: Perhaps you could link us to this study or reference it for me? I havent seen a study done on low stim training, only high stim training.

K9: If you are you have given another example of high stim training....

From the good Doctors letter though...

There is no longer a reason for people to remain misinformed.

K9: There never was a good reason...

Let me make my opinion perfectly clear: Shock is not training -

K9: I agree, no one ever said it was did they?

in the vast majority of cases it meets the criteria for abuse.

K9: when its high stim training, I agree!

In my patient population, dogs who have been 'treated' with shock have a much higher risk of an undesirable outcome (e.g., euthanasia) than dogs not subjected to shock,

K9: stats please, without them this is just hype...

and I never recommend euthanasia.

K9: she just said ...In my patient population, dogs who have been 'treated' with shock have a much higher risk of an undesirable outcome (e.g., euthanasia) than dogs not subjected to shock,

In all situations where shock has been used there is some damage done,

K9: every single case huh? wow...

even if we cannot easily see it.

K9: where are the tests done to prove every single situation caused damage then?

No pet owner needs to use this technique to achieve their goal. Dogs who cease to exhibit a problem behavior usually also cease to exhibit normal behaviors. The only data available support the idea that shock is neither an effective nor suitable training tool.

K9: There is plenty of data available, her eyes are just closed to it...

That said, it's time we replaced everyone's personal mythologies and opinions with data and scientific thinking. Such opportunities are now available, but are often not exploited.

K9: I agree again, except for the part where she wants to replace everyones opinions....

Why not complete some low stim training tests by an unbiased panel, not someone who obviously was against them when they started...

Edited August 6, 2008 by K9 Force

[Erny]

This Denis posting in this thread according to this post is a different person.

The similarity in the names is uncanny

Ahhhh ..... now I see the confusion Haven had.

Denis Carthy is DEFINITELY a different person to Denis Cody. Thanks Oonga, for picking up on this.