# Dutch study on e-collars



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

http://www.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif/Trainingdogswithshockcollar.pdf

just curious what everyone and specifically our dutch members thought of this hogwash. you can see problems with this "study" right away. opening paragraph actually.

also if uncle lou is out there, i'd be interested to read his thoughts (although i think i know what they would be).

i especially like this part in the conclusions and recommendations: "Also, less temperamental and less forceful dogs should be bred. This would also decrease the chance that dogs make mistakes for which they receive punishment."


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Didn't read the whole thing, but at no point did they ever talk about any variable ranges in the shock.

Weird. You mean you can stress a dog with electricity ???? Who knew?????


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Consider the source, sounds like an animal welfare organization in Utrecht that did the study. Just because its from Europe doesn't make it relevant or accurate  Plenty of idiots here just like anywhere else. Its just like how people talk about all these well mannered well trained dogs that all Europeans are supposed to own. I have yet to see a dog that was well mannered in public. Im always worried I'll step on the lil rat sized dogs, they keep getting under my feet


----------



## Sam Trinh (Jul 31, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Didn't read the whole thing, but at no point did they ever talk about any variable ranges in the shock.


Look at the first paragraph after the abstract.

Didn't bother with the whole article though myself, it is not news that you can get a nervous and cautious dog by using heavy forms of compulsion.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> http://www.ust.is/media/ljosmyndir/dyralif/Trainingdogswithshockcollar.pdf ... also if uncle lou is out there, i'd be interested to read his thoughts (although i think i know what they would be).... /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Wherever people are writing stuff like this, Uncle Lou will not be far behind. :grin:


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Good, he (Lou) has a unique approach, I think anyway. I'd really like to hear his take on the "study". This study reminds me of one they did at Texas A&M though. Their study was conducted on everyone that drank water in 1755. Evidently water was 100% fatal.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Their study was conducted on everyone that drank water in 1755. Evidently water was 100% fatal.
> 
> DFrost



Well, obviously. They're all dead.

Good one. :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

David, the brain is sooooo slow today, I read your "study" and was on another thread completely and started laughing. Good one.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

This study has been around for a couple of years. It was completed in 2003 and has been floating around the Net for a few years now. I wrote a critique of it soon after I found it. Today I updated it and placed it on my website. This is a rough draft and would appreciate anyone who reads it letting me know if there are any typos or other errors. 

You can see the critique here. Schilder


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Wherever people are writing stuff like this, Uncle Lou will not be far behind. :grin:


Well, I won't say "told ya!"

Oh, wait, I just did....


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

George Carlin's comment fits this to a T/
"Swallowing saliva in small amounts is dangerous to your health. You WILL eventually die"!


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

It's pretty obvious they started with a conclusion and then made the 'data' fit it. A few of my comments on the report:

*-Since when has 'beating' been a training method? What is the connection with e-collars?*
*-Since when has current been measure in volts??*
_-"We were interested especially in finding occurrences of pain, fear, avoidance, pain-induced aggression and submission."._ *Why?*
*-What type of collar was used and what level of stim?*
*-Why were all dogs not wearing collars?*
_-"The fact that several simultaneous comparisons have been made when answering a question necessitates the use of a (improved) Bonferroni correction. On the other hand, we measured the same behaviours and postures in different conditions, so that in fact a kind of repeated measurement design was used. The risk of using a Bonferroni correction is, that meaningful significant differences may disappear. This is illustrated by the disappearance of the significant difference between shocked and control dogs concerning their ear position during obedience exercises on the training grounds (Section 3.3.1). A similar difference shows up in Section 3.3.2. This significance also would disappear after correction."._*So, because the conclusion did not match their expectations, they did not use this correction!*
-"_Vocalisations are also indicative of pain (Hellyer, 1999; Noonan et al., 1996; Conzemius et al., 1997), especially the higher frequency squeals, yelps and barks."._ *Vocalisations can come from all sorts of things including excitement and surprise...*
_-"Afterwards we wished that we had done a control experiment; namely have the shocked and control dogs walked by an unknown person"._ *But they didn't do this, so the comments that precede it are worthless!*
_-"We hope a future comparison of German shepherd dogs trained in a more friendly way will bear out that indeed a friendly training regime leads to less signals of stress. We have not proved that the long-term welfare of the shocked dogs is hampered, but we have made clear that it is under serious threat."._ *Not the most unbiased conclusion.*
_-"To counter misuse of the shock collar, it is proposed to ban its use for “sports”, but save it for therapeutic applications, such as for suppressing_
_hunting and killing sheep"._* So because something can be misused, they want to ban it. I guess cars, microwaves and gerbils will be next....*​ 
In case anyone is wondering, I think it is a very poor and unscientific study.​


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

hey I never told that there weren't any idiots here, who wants to be right even if their study isn't very well mad....


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I would be interested to watch the videos and see exactly when each of the 'readings' were taken. Were they _all_ taken at exactly the same time with each dog? 

I also would like to hear the answers to some of the same questions that Ian asked (what collars were used, & at what stim level, whether the dogs were trained as Lou describes or the collars simply used as a corrective device, etc.)


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> This study has been around for a couple of years. It was completed in 2003 and has been floating around the Net for a few years now. I wrote a critique of it soon after I found it. Today I updated it and placed it on my website. This is a rough draft and would appreciate anyone who reads it letting me know if there are any typos or other errors.
> 
> You can see the critique here. Schilder



The link (above) to Lou Castle's article works now.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Ian Forbes said:


> Since when has 'beating' been a training method? What is the connection with e-collars?


Beating has never been a training method. The connection with Ecollars is that the "scientists" hoped to equate using an Ecollar with an inhumane beating. 



Ian Forbes said:


> Since when has current been measure in volts??


Since it suited the attempts of the "scientists" to try and mislead people. 



Ian Forbes said:


> What type of collar was used and what level of stim?


It was a Shecker Telekart. I don't know the levels, the "scientists" didn't say; but typically these folks use higher levels. 



Ian Forbes said:


> Why were all dogs not wearing collars?


Some of the people in that group don't train with them. And it provided the "scientists" with a "control group." Of course it also made it possible for them to know which dogs were being stimmed and which ones weren't. To be fair (obviously not one of their priorities) all the dog should have been wearing Ecollars, some being used and the others not being used. 



Ian Forbes said:


> Vocalisations can come from all sorts of things including excitement and surprise...


Please Ian don't confuse these "scientists" with facts. Their plates are full already. 



Ian Forbes said:


> So because something can be misused, they want to ban it. I guess cars, microwaves and gerbils will be next


I'm with you. Let's ban cars, microwaves and gerbils! Can we add "scientists" to that list?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Woa, woah, wohhh! Hold on there Lou.

I like my car 



> Let's ban cars


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Woa, woah, wohhh! Hold on there Lou.
> 
> I like my car


Duhhh..I've SEEN your car...any one would like it :mrgreen:


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

> It was a Shecker Telekart.



Is this the same as a Teletac? Where there are contact points all the way around the dog's neck?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Woa, woah, wohhh! Hold on there Lou.
> 
> I like my car


Sorry Mike. Ian and I have determined that it's for your own good.


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

hey lou, while i've got you here...i know this is totally off topic, but...

a number of years ago i heard that some southern california agencies were using their dogs muzzled to take down 5150's. ever hear of anything like that?


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Kristen Cabe said:


> Is this the same as a Teletac? Where there are contact points all the way around the dog's neck?


I'm told that it was this collar. 

Teletakt

I really shouldn't send emails (or write articles) when I'm taking cold meds. I'll change it on the site a bit later.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"5150's" ??

"Nuts"? We don't stand on ceremony here. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> hey lou, while i've got you here...i know this is totally off topic, but...
> 
> a number of years ago i heard that some southern california agencies were using their dogs muzzled to take down 5150's. ever hear of anything like that?


I've not heard that this was a "policy" of any agency in this area. Some individuals may have done it. That's not to say that it didn't happen, just that I've not heard of it. Also remember, I've been out of the loop for a while. If you have some specifics I could make some calls. …


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

no, i don't have any specifics. just something i heard.

david, a 5150 is a section in the california welfare and institution code that gives us the authority to place someone on an involuntary psychiatric detention if they are a danger to themselves based on a mental disorder or inebriation or if they are gravely disabled.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Tim, I heard the same thing about the muzzle, although they didn't use the code you did. I think they used the term, "mentally ill". Now I'm going to have to see if I can find where I read that.


Thanks, for the clear speech though.

DFrost


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

teletac(t) is an old brand name from one of the first producers of e-collars, if we mean an e-collar we usually call it by the old brand name...we have dogtra's (1500 en 1700) and still say teletac instead of e-collar.
So by using the name teletac or TT isn't specially meant the old Teletakt :wink: More likely an old type of tritronics which was use frequently 'till it was banned cause it uses frequencies which aren't free anymore. 
That's the reason we cant import tritronics anymore, which was our favorite brand.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> teletac(t) is an old brand name from one of the first producers of e-collars, if we mean an e-collar we usually call it by the old brand name... we have dogtra's (1500 en 1700) and still say teletac instead of e-collar.


To make sure that I'm getting this right; you use the Dogtras now but may refer to them as "teletacs?" If so, and I think that's what I understand from you, that may have caused some confusion in what I was told. I specifically asked my source what brand/model of Ecollar was used in the study and that was his response. He even sent me a webpage, but searches I've done recently don't turn anything up. I'll check with him specifically. 

Is anyone using the Teletakt these days? I know people here (in the US) who are using 25 year old Ecollars. 

Until I find out specifically, I'll modify my webpage that discusses this. Thanks very much for this info.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I know what she means. Every thing I pick up is a Tritronic, we only have one Tritronic, that is at least 10 years old and no one uses anymore. The Dogtras that we currently use are still Tritronics in my vocabulary. You'd think I could change my vocabulary, but then I still refuse to call the rooms in my house spaces or my drapes window treatments, ha ha. They just need to retire old warhorses like me.

DFrost


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

That's very similar, but not _exactly_, what I was referring to, Lou, but thanks for the visual because I'd never seen one like that before. :lol:

The collar I was asking about has what look like those stud-things on some dog collars (vs. outward facing spikes), on the _inside_ of the collar, against the dog's neck. They go all the way around, and what I saw it used for was forced tracking (on a certain dog that probably shouldn't have been force tracked anyway, but that doesn't matter now).


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I know what she means. Every thing I pick up is a Tritronic, we only have one Tritronic, that is at least 10 years old and no one uses anymore. The Dogtras that we currently use are still Tritronics in my vocabulary. You'd think I could change my vocabulary


David perhaps you just need a little stimulation? Lol.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Lou Castle said:


> To make sure that I'm getting this right; you use the Dogtras now but may refer to them as "teletacs?" If so, and I think that's what I understand from you, that may have caused some confusion in what I was told. I specifically asked my source what brand/model of Ecollar was used in the study and that was his response. He even sent me a webpage, but searches I've done recently don't turn anything up. I'll check with him specifically.
> 
> Is anyone using the Teletakt these days? I know people here (in the US) who are using 25 year old Ecollars.
> 
> Until I find out specifically, I'll modify my webpage that discusses this. Thanks very much for this info.


 
you understood me correctly Lou. I don't think anyone is using the old (brand) teletact anymore. 
There are still some old tritronics being used, but most of them get broken after about 10 yrs and we can't replace them çause of the frequencie (sp)
We use the dogtra for about a year or 2 now.


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Selena I checked with my source. He went straight to Schilder, the person who did the study that was being discussed. Schilder confirmed that the Shecker was the brand of Ecollar used in the study. 

But in any case, it's proper protocol in this kind of a scientific study to name the tools used. As my critique says,


> They go into great detail about the equipment that they used. We know the various breeds of dogs used. We know their sexes and ages.
> 
> We know how many wore Ecollars and how many did not. We know the brand of camera used to film the study; its model number and the size of film it used. We even know that it had a 40X optical zoom!
> 
> ...


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

Hi all, I hope no one minds that I am activating this post again, the reason is because I 'need' some historical information, especialy, from mainland Europe on the Scheker Teltakt. The reason I need it is for a serious research & information paper. 

1. Can anyone remember when you last saw or heard of of the Scheker Teltakt being used and which countries mainly? as close to the year as anyone can remember.

2. Was the collar ever in common everyday use in any known area of dog training? eg protection sports of ANY kind, sheepdogs, gundogs, last resort life or death aid for some dogs etc.

3. If it was not in common everyday use was it considered a last resort type device is rare use only?

4. Approximatley when did modern - _post 1998_ - start to become popular as an additional training aid.

5. At the periods in time it was in use was it ever considered a 'safe' collar?

5. How do any of you who knew the Scheker Teltakt perceive that specific collar in contrast to modern e-collars ie can you compare it in any way beyond the fact that it worked electronicaly?

All replies much appreciated and needed for serious purpose, many thanks, 
Denis Carthy
London UK

Elementary E-Collar edu for the general public
http://uk.youtube.com/edogsuk


.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

One very important question I forgot:

6. Were pet owners ever know to have used the Scheker Teltakt, anywhere, either in common use or some occasional capacity?

Thanks.

.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> Lou
> It was a Shecker Telekart. I don't know the levels, the "scientists" didn't say; but typically these folks use higher levels.


The collar used in the Shillder study was, according to him in reply to my email of 2005, an obsolete collar with one high level, in the Schalke paper of 2001 she records a current on moist skin of 1.25Amps, thats wrong because she gave a voltage of 700v which means the current was 1.4Amps.

Those levels are around the same a stock fence or app 10 higher than a TT pro 500 top level.

Now I will F** Off for good, obviously the yokes on here are to snobish ( _we are better than thou types_) to answer senisble questions such as I asked above, not exactly 'lets advance e-collar knowledge types'.

Denis Carthy
London UK


----------



## Lou Castle (Apr 4, 2006)

Denis Carthy said:


> Now I will F** Off for good, obviously the yokes on here are to snobish ( _we are better than thou types_) to answer senisble questions such as I asked above, not exactly 'lets advance e-collar knowledge types'.


Denis I don't think that anyone here is the snobbish type. I think that this is a US based list (I'm pretty sure anyway) and so few, if any, have even heard of the collar you're inquiring about ,which mainly was used in Europe. It's also an older unit, no longer being made, and few would be old enough to even have used them, even if they were in the right part of the world.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> Lou
> *) and so few, if any, have even heard of the collar you're inquiring about *


Denis ...and THAT is *HIGHLY* usefull *AND SIGNIFICANT* written information for my needs!!!!! BUT as you cannot speak on anyones behalf because thats just hearsay, what you say is irelevant and the others could not be assed to reply at all...stuff 'em, as we say here!!!!!!


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

One- most folks decline to answer questions to which they have no answers.
Two- posting a question, and then throwing a hissy fit because you didn't get immediate answers, isn't the way to entice folks to respond to you, nor is it in good form.

Sorry we couldn't do your research for you.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> posting a question, and then throwing a hissy fit because you didn't get immediate answers, isn't the way to entice folks to respond to you, nor is it in good form.
> 
> Sorry we couldn't do your research for you.


Yea, well not to worry, stay asleep, what we had you have coming and coming in increasing intensity, IACA is already becoming an inter faction battle ground, well the good noews for you is, when you do need to do your own research the people who have the answeres will not be there for you either, now yall can go back to sleep!.....for now![FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


----------



## David Scholes (Jul 12, 2008)

Denis Carthy said:


> Yea, well not to worry, stay asleep, what we had you have coming and coming in increasing intensity, IACA is already becoming an inter faction battle ground, well the good noews for you is, when you do need to do your own research the people who have the answeres will not be there for you either, now yall can go back to sleep!.....for now![FONT=&quot]
> [/FONT]


Any researcher with this kind of attitude would only produce results I'd have no faith in. Makes me wonder if there is a hidden bias or agenda.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Denis,

If you are conducting research by asking questions on an online forum, your research sucks as much as the original.

Random, unverified and untrained observations from a bunch of online strangers, hardly qualifies as sound research methods. Perhaps Wikipedia can help you? 

Did you plan on passing off our online comments as bonified evidence of something? No research is better than irresponsible, wreckless and poorly conducted research.

At least then, one can say that no research has been conducted into the area. With your haphazard approach, naysayers can easily discredit the entire school of thought based on the incorrect research methods you employed.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> naysayers can easily discredit the entire school of thought based on the incorrect research methods you employed.


A nice catagorical statement, so, what specific was I researching and why? obviously you have something in mind to commit to a catagorical statement!


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

I'd qualify my statement as generalized.

Any crappy research will lead to bad results, and damage to the entire field of study/interest.
As a random example, the "Winter Soldier Investigation".

My statement was broad, and intended as such.
I haven't the foggiest notion of *what* you are researching.

I'm getting a clearer and clearer idea of *how* you are researching it, though. Pretty unimpressive.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> I haven't the foggiest notion of *what* you are researching.


...or why, despite the fact I have given one international ref!


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Denis Carthy said:


> ...or why, despite the fact I have given one international ref!


You are 110% correct.
Perhaps you can share with us.

If you're trying to save us all from having E-collars outlawed in the United States, save your time.
No amount of research, evidence or proof effects the laws that are inacted in this country.
A quick peek at our gun control laws, breed specific legislation and drug policies would tell you that much.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> *David Scholes*
> Makes me wonder if there is a hidden bias or agenda.


Do you use and e-collar? if so have you ever used a Scheker Teletakt?


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

any other e-collar users in the US? if so have any of you ever used a Scheker Teltakt?


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Do I use an e-collar? I have in the past, and will again in the future, when my current dog is older, and further along in her training.

My past experiences with E-collars have been with Dogtra and Tritronic models.

Of course, I could be lying, and you'd have no way of knowing. Likewise for every other answer you get online. Granted, I am NOT lying, and I doubt anyone else on this forum would be either, but that's irrelevant.

The point is, the information doesn't qualify as a legitimate source for research.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> st experiences with E-collars have been with Dogtra and Tritronic models.


Is there any reason why you have never used a Scheker Teltakt?


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Prior to this thread, I'd never heard of one, let alone seen one.
When starting out in E-collar training, those brands were recommended to me by my trainer.
Having had success with them, I've stuck with them.


----------



## Denis Carthy (Dec 27, 2007)

> Prior to this thread, I'd never heard of one, let alone seen one


OK thanks for answering


----------



## David Scholes (Jul 12, 2008)

Denis Carthy said:


> Do you use and e-collar? if so have you ever used a Scheker Teletakt?


No and No... will be in the market for an e-collar within the year.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

So, given that I answered your question, is it possible for you to answer mine?


----------

