Wysiwig
Just musing on this again and wondering how you can actually write all this above, and yet not be initially honest and admit to using the modern electric collar on very high levels at times?

Clob
Putting aside things such as specific proofing, the reason is simple, without higher levels you could not cover sensory narrowing present in all land mammals,e.g. if level 10 is the basic working level i.e. a non disruptive sensation, when sensory narrowing is occuring/active level 80 would feel the same and have the same effect.

Also, the term levels is misleading, those numbers are for human psychological reference. All collars have one 'range', 0-100, a 16 level collar for instance means that the increases are 1/16th of 100, so the actual level of a collar, all collars is 1.000, it is then reduced by fractions.

Hi Wysiwyg.. did you also read the Memorandum submitted to the select committee and a short list of the organizations who wish to see the animal welfare bill include a ban on the sale and use of shock collars.
Hopefully in time there will be an amendment to the bill and shock collars will be banned


http://www.publications.parliament.u...52/4090803.htm

Sorry but you missed my point, however as we have been warned i can't go into it anymore.

Minihaha
Regarding Collars , may I point out some evidence given to the House Of Commons Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Report ...


Clob
Oh really Minihaha, please stop misleading people. What you are refenceing is the EFRA commitee oral evidence and maybe some of the written memoranda 2004.

Their recomendations were were not accepted at all, EFRA sent me a copy of the Hansard paper containing the rejection on the day it came out in 2005, I think March.

U2 Wysiwig those are just memoranda to EFRA in 2004, the most detailed and only accurate paper EFRA ever got was from me sent, if I remeber correctly, about mid Jan 2005, all the rest was just made up stuff such as the stuff you have written on here.

I did read that, but a while ago now, I especially agree with points 6 and 7 So many are against the collars, and many are very reputable individuals and organisations.

I do find it odd that "science" is needed to prove or disprove the belief that the collars should be banned. It is very hard to find actual proof as such, due to the nature of the beast!

I guess it's because animals can't talk and so what they experience is debatable in the eyes of DEFRA.

Wysiwig
Sorry but you missed my point, however as we have been warned i can't go into it anymore.

Clob
No one has been warned about writing sensible posts.

I know the dates and have read lots of info and parliamentary discussion leading up to date (May 2006 if i remember rightly) but i think Minihaha just wanted to show me what she'd seen as some hopeful movement.

Where is your paper? If DEFRA received something from you what was it and where is the information held?

It would sound like an attack on unclllou so obviously it's out of bounds now. I would think I made my point though, it's obvious what i was getting at.

I think we all know who is doing the misleading here Cob , I have quoted evidence given to a select committee and posted a link to a memorandum, just because the government chose to ignore the evidence does not negate it or mean it was never submitted...neither does it mean the evidence was untrue ..

..as you see from the early day motion ''the house regrets'' so there is still a good chance of an amendment being added to the Animal Welfare Bill later.

Added Thank you Clob for drawing these collars to my attention, without your help I might have forgotten their existance . I shall now have a word with my MP and Defra about them...with the help of Clob we may yet get the collars banned

Wysiwig
So many are against the collars, and many are very reputable individuals and organisations.

Clob
No organisations which new anything about e-collars wrote in because non of them know and most had conflicts of commercial interests.

Wysiwig
I do find it odd that "science" is needed to prove or disprove the belief that the collars should be banned. It is very hard to find actual proof as such, due to the nature of the beast!

Clob
The answere is quite simple - The commercial competion wrote in long ago making all kinds of entirely false claims and lies, burning was a common one then.

In 2004 they had consulations with DEFRA and made a whole load outright false in their entirety claims. Then DEFRA had the consultation in Aug 2004, which I was on with other experts.

Everything the commercial competitors ad said was simply disproved, I also did, as far as it can be done with a human, a demonstration with an e'.

So from that point on anyone making claims against must have conclusive proof that there is a problem with e-collars, they have produced nothing at all, why, because there is nothing wrong them. I am supported by The Kennel Club, 10 years research and not one case which they can substantiate, bless 'em.

Off course all that was long ago and at a time whenvery few pet owners had heard of e-collars except dont buy one, now there are at least 1.5 million in UK and they simpley wrote in to their MPs after the last election singing e-collar praise.

What the current acceptance is that there are a minority of extremists who have been prompted by false stories given by the commercial competition and it is a minority of extremists who wrote wanting a ban, but they were outnumbered well over 11-1 early this year.

In 2002-4 very few people wrote in because no one knew extremist minority groups wanted to ban them. That chance has long gone, liver cake is stale these days.