Thoughts on man being fined for using a Shock Collar

[Jennifer and Jack]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14181927

 

 

Apparently these are illegal in his Country. I personally am not a fan of shock collars or electric fences unless the owner really really knows how to use them and train their dog accordingly. Then I think they are fine as long as the dog learns quickly and is not continually shocked as in for training purposes

 

Do you think that someday they will be illegal to use in the US, do you think the humane society will step in?

 

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-14181927 

[Jennifer and Jack]

agreed!!!

[Angie, Hudson and Lily]

I think shock collars have their place in some situations for some dogs, but I think that many people misuse them by not trying and putting the work into regular training methods first. Many people want an easy and quick fix and may use a shock collar to get there, when it should be a last resort method.

[Adina P]

I don't think it needs to be 'last resort.' My trainer uses it (among other effective techniques) as a way to enforce recall to keep them guessing and solidfy their response. Also she uses it before her dogs are fully reliable and she wants to enjoy the beach with them without worrying about their training. With ocean waves and a large space it is easy for a dog to not even hear 'Rover COME!' Lots of hunters use them for distance work. Their main use has nothing to do with frying a tough, difficult dog. Which is why I don't even like the term 'shock collar' just like I dislike the term 'choke chain' because it evokes an emotional response that is incongruent with the primary use of the tool.

[Cindy M, Zachary & the Frenchies]

Respectfully, a shock collar shocks and a choke chain chokes - and although I agree that they can be effective training tools in the right hands one does not have to pass a test to use them and I am afraid that they are more often than not misused, whether intentionally or not, and it is the dog who suffers.

[ClarkP]

This is an interesting philosophical debate.  It's liberty vs. control.

 

I agree that e-collars shock and training collars can choke.  But knives stab, guns murder, cars run over children, pain-killers create addicts.  All of these are horrific things.  But none of those horrible things are the main use of the tool.  The people that call them emotionally charged and negative names tend to be those that do not like the tools themselves and seek to characterize them in a negative light.

 

It's a tough issue.  I respect others's opinion on the matter.  I would never suggest that someone use a tool they were not comfortable with.  And I most definitely want to eliminate abuse.  But that's the point:  Abuse by definition is use that is counter to the designed use of the tool.  We shouldn't work to eliminate tools simply because they can be abused by idiots.  We SHOULD lock up idiots that abuse humans or animals with or without tools.  The tools aren't the problem.  The abusers are the problem.

 

As you can see... I'm a bit of a libertarian.  ;-)   (I have had fleeting thoughts of moving to New Hampshire just because their state motto is so cool:  "Live Free or Die.")

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

Clark, I'm wondering what your personal opinions are on laws like those requiring people to use seatbelts, to have their children in safety seats or boosters, bike helmets, and so forth...not things that prohibit the sale or use of "tools", but things that certainly restrict our freedom. After all, if I choose not to fasten my seatbelt, who is harmed except me?

[ClarkP]

Hi Karen,

These are my personal opinions and I wouldn't dream of enforcing them on anyone else.  (Although, if you think as I do, I will naturally be biased for your position and think you are "right" and "smart" and all sorts of other superlatives.  :-)

 

I think we as a society must protect those who cannot or should not have to protect themselves.  So children, animals, disinterested third parties, etc. should have legislation that protects them and keeps them safe from harm and abuse.  So child seats required in cars?  I'm fine with it.  Bike helmets required for kids?  Good.  Leash laws?  Cool.  Drunk driving laws?  Essential.  Legislation is also to protect the powerless from abuse by the powerful.  So finance regulations, etc. are essential to preventing the financial mess the US is in.

 

As far as personal liberties that do not directly effect others, once you are dealing with adults, I believe in strongly protecting personal freedoms.  We can't possibly legislate morality, safety, health, sexuality or ethics.  And we should not try.  So to finally answer your question, yes, on principle I am against seat belt laws, helmet laws, drug laws, laws that discriminates based on sex or sexuality, etc.  It does not mean that I will partake in any of those activities... but why should anyone else be able to take away my freedom to do those things?  Why should I not have the freedom to do as I wish with myself?  Yes, my freedoms SHOULD end where anyone elses nose begins.  My choices may also preclude me from certain jobs or positions in life, but those were the choices I made and I can deal with the consequences.

 

Government's role should be to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, NOT to make everyone have the same values and then enforce those values on everyone.

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

I am right and smart and all sorts of other superlatives, lol.

 

[ClarkP]

I always knew that!

[F, Calla & Luca]

I knew we had a lot in common : )

[Nancy, Ned, Clancy, and Charlie]

Me too!

[F, Calla & Luca]

Sometimes others' freedoms impinge uon all of us in unanticipated ways, though. I am admittedly coming in in the midst of this discussion so I may have missed some cogent material but I promise to go back and read all. That said, someone not wearing a helmet or seat belt and getting injured drives up the cost of healthcare for all of us for example. And that is true whether or not they have insurance. Except perhaps for Bill Gates we all will one way or another pay for the costs to put Humpty Dumpty together again. That goes for smoking too. Where does one draw the line? I don't know. Should we all become vegans? Some things are just clearer than others and should be prohibited but perhaps diet is not so well documented. (We could ask Adina.)