Willem

???...6 ft...that's 1.83 m...I saw the video now several times, but never saw a dog jumping 1.8 m through the air. Jumping 6 feet in the air is a expression. Is English not your first language? ...ups, I gave it away...learned something new.

???...6 ft...that's 1.83 m...I saw the video now several times, but never saw a dog jumping 1.8 m through the air.

...area fenced with a fence that is higher than 1.5 m; inside the area is the snake (safely in a cage / box) in one corner, the dog is kept confined in a safe distance away from the snake by the invisible fence (wire in the ground) and the e-collar in the area that is left - approaching the wire / snake will trigger the e-collar. according to the link this would be legal also in NSW and will work pretty similar - the difference is that the shock is not directly triggered by the trainer, but by the threshold for the distance. Obviously the trainer has a much better control if he/she can trigger the e-collar directly - but it is not legal in NSW, while the second best (?) approach seems to be legal.

...here is the of the video from the Perth guys again...I can't see a major flaw in this approach...

hm,...according to the link above legality of e-collars in different states: 'electric collars associated with canine invisible boundaries' are actual legal in NSW: Section 16 of the Act, Section 13 and Schedule 1 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 and Schedule 1 make the use of electric dog collars illegal. One exception to this rule is electric collars associated with canine invisible boundaries. These are not illegal provided the canine invisible boundary is used to confine dogs, but only used inside a fence through which dogs cannot pass and that is not less than 1.5 metres high. ...so, instead of fencing the dog we just have to 'fence' the snake respectively separate the dog from the snake by using this invisible boundaries...and suddenly we have the same training and trainings effect and it is even legal!

yes, they can .... that is the whole point of the training...dog sees snake and is too close = pain, dog keeps distance from snake = no pain.

when you watch the video from the Perth guys it shows that the first step is to let the dog sniff different locations where he can find treats...one of the locations / holes has the snake, when the dog gets there the trainer hits the button. The dog even doesn't see the snake...he just get the scent. 'Never say never', but with a well thought out trainings methodology - and what the guys are showing in the video is very convincing - I don't believe that such an approach would trigger the fight instinct of the dog. If the dog really would get into fight mode while doing the above, then this methodology is not for him, but I doubt that this single e-shock would damage the dog or would make bad things worse.

Are we using electric collars around the necks of horses and cattle to train them now, the same as ecollars for dogs? I don't think we are? They learn that the fence 'bites'. How strange would it seem to the dog that it gets 'bitten' and can't see any cause, and with an ecollar this bite will last as long as the button is being pressed. ...horse sees fence = pain, dog sees snake = pain ....what's the difference? The horse can run away from the shock but the dog can't because it's attached to them? dog sees snake ...trainer hit the button while dog's focus is on snake - outch...dog moves / runs away from snake...I really can't see a big difference?!?

Are we using electric collars around the necks of horses and cattle to train them now, the same as ecollars for dogs? I don't think we are? They learn that the fence 'bites'. How strange would it seem to the dog that it gets 'bitten' and can't see any cause, and with an ecollar this bite will last as long as the button is being pressed. ...horse sees fence = pain, dog sees snake = pain ....what's the difference?

...some other thoughts: there seems to be a lot doubts that the 'electric shock' respectively the use of an e-collar will be beneficial for a dog regarding snake avoidance training and/or maybe regarding other training goals. If I go back to my comparison made at the beginning of the thread regarding the use of electrical fences for horses: strangely (?) horses and / or other cattle seem to handle the employment of those electrical tools pretty well without suffering long term damage?...how come?

there are actually a few training opportunities out there: animal Ark - WA VDTA - Vic Dog Snake Avoidance Training - Perth 'another one in Perth' Edited:...e-collars are allowed in WA and Victoria (in Vic it is subject to exemptions under Reg 7E(2) / permitted under prescribed circumstances Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Regulations 1997 (Reg 7E(2)). See www.dpi.vic.gov.au/animalwelfare for details. more about legality here: Is the use of electronic dog collars legal?)

to give the snakes we have here down under some credit: luckily they are not aggressive and just want to be left alone. So for us humans - with open eyes - it is pretty easy to avoid any bites. We had so far red belly black snakes and eastern brown snakes in our garden (and I saw also a dead tiger snake on the road) and every time they just wanted to get away and hide (not the dead one on the road of course :D ), so I wasn't worried about this - but that was before we had our dog.

Given the often unfortunate tendency for trends to spread from the US to Oz, I don't think this stuff should be ignored. In the years I spent in Oz I went to a lot of vets. The older ones tended to stick to pretty basic meds and were ok with home remedy stuff like vinegar for yeasty ears . . . the younger ones seem to be more influenced by big pharma, and would recommend Epi-Otic rather than the home-made version. Some of the veterinary chain practices seem to have heeded advice from practice managers to sell as many products as possible, thus increasing profits. Display counters with everything from (overpriced) flea and tick meds, to sequined collars. Also important to keep in touch with what is being taught in vet schools, and how much influence big pharma has on the curriculum. I have started replying to this topic many times then just given up. However, I think your example of young vs old vets is making an assumption about the reasoning behind decision making when there are a number of factors involved other than whether the vet will get a massive kickback from big pharma (delivered on the back of a unicorn). What kind of infection is it? (Young vets are more likely to do cytology to find out). Will an acidic cleaner help? Is an aqueous cleaner appropriate? Is the tympanic membrane intact? Do I think the owner is capable of following instructions, can they do basic maths and determine a concentration of solution for their home remedy? What is the potential for harm? Is this treatment evidence based? Is there a registered veterinary product available to do this job? Can I defend my decision to use this treatment the Veterinary Practitioners Board, if this seemingly lovely client who has declined all my treatment recommendations decides to submit a formal complaint when things don't turn out the way they had hoped? To imply that the decision to use a certain ear cleaner is the result of either being young or in the pocket of a pharmaceutical company is really giving vets very little credit for being responsible for their own opinions, decisions and further education. The vast majority of vets are just trying to help you and your pets. I think Sandgrubber wanted to highlight the experience advantage older vets have...30 years and perhaps more of experience in a special realm will mostly allow for a better evaluation than a lot of theoretical knowledge (and information of the pharma industry) together with only a few years of practical experience - that's I guess is the case for nearly any profession. And with the experience comes also more independency from the pharma industry. from a personal point of view regarding experience with vets and human doctors: relocated from Europe 10 years ago I was a little bit surprized about the 'take it just in case' mentality I found here. I admit I have some problems with this attitude (and a lot of discussions with wife and kids) as I believe (a) that mother nature did a pretty good job, and (b) if there are signs that something is out of balance any interference (e.g. administering drugs) should occur very carefully and not just on a 'trial & error base' or 'just in case base'.

....indeed, you should ...you could also go to Kinder on Monday playing with the other 5 year old in the sandpit - I'm sure they will be heavily impressed with your new band-aids, or did you just stitched it :laugh: ?

...and it was even on sunrise ...I work for over 20 years in the water & wastewater industry and thought I know a little bit about ions, pH etc. etc...never ever heard such a hoax / bs where some unscrupulous people capitalize on the ignorance (wrt water) of people...that can't be legal?

ups ... seems to work... wrt topic 'dog rocks': I don't know whether I should admire this 'business idea', or whether I should be upset that something like this is allowed in Australia (to my knowledge it is not allowed in other parts of the civilized world)... I think I'm more upset, as this is IMO serious fraud. By accident I stumbled some times in the internet over their page and thought it is just a hoax and they just making fun - yesterday I saw in Bunnings that this 'product' is really sold and bought in Bunnings and as I heard from the manager also in other shops. AU$ 12 for 2 or 3 rocks that can't work (ok, you could throw them and if you hit I might help...). Some facts: there is enough scientific evidence that the burns are a result from the nitrate and nitrogen salts in the urine, and this is a normal residual from the digestion of protein - it has nothing to do with drinking water, the only effect that drinking more water would have would be a more diluted urine...which might burn the grass a little bit less. The information on the package is absolutely nonsense: e.g. quote: ... 'it will remove any nitrates and tin found naturally in water....this will give your dog a cleaner and healthier water supply'... what a load of ...the nitrate conc. in tap water is likely even lower than in bottled water ...and I even use tap water for watering my lawn and the nitrate never did any damage (sarcasm) ...of course not as there are only traces of nitrate (otherwise people would have serious health issues).

...looks like I can reply also it is an old topic?

you are right, I saw even maps that are showing an even bigger distribution range...however, if you drive to the beach for fishing and stay, lets say in a zone of 50-100m from the water and it is not grazing land, then I believe the chances catching a tick are minimal as the typical sand / dune environment is not tick area. Give your dog a good swim in saltwater will also help. Would I risk it?...likely not, but it is not a question for us anyway as we walk our dog in all kind of areas and also really tick infested areas (wife removed 17 ticks from her when we got her!!!...she was fine so ...the dog I mean) so it is not a question for us.

you, might be right...always hard to evaluate from the distance... Edited to add: ...I guess I'm a little bit spoiled regarding how easy it is to train our dog and of course it is wrong to assume that this is the same with other dogs. Snook is right - best to discuss all the recommendations given here with an experienced local dog handler / trainer who is in a positon to evaluate the dog's behavior and the associated risks.

hm, sandy beaches, dunes ...to my knowledge this is not the typical 'tick' environment...however, if your way to the beach also includes grazing land with cattle and higher grass / bushes then I wouldn't risk it without any form of prevention.

huski,...the video is all about finding the right level - I actually miss a few comments about the varying resistance of the fur: I would assume that moisture, clipped or not clipped, pressure of the collar (could even vary depending on the posture of the dog), even if the dog was bathed a day before would have an impact on how the dog feels the electric shock...so I guess you would have to go through this for every single trainings session?

yeah, distance and persistence... ...oh, I didn't know it that I was a poet :D seriously, small steps will get you there; if you can't control your dog anymore you are too close. The trigger distance depends also on daytime and mood of your dog, for the first dog you see in the morning the trigger zone is likely far bigger than for the ones your see later during the day. I found 'stalking' other dog owners is a good methodology...just follow another dog, find out what the distance is where you can control your dog...keep him in this zone...and decrease the 'stalking' distance when you recognize progress ...of course, do this only if the trigger zone is big enough so the other dog owner / dog is not intimidated!!! I found that walking behind (50 m...100 m) another dog / dog owner gives a lot of opportunity to train sit, stand, drop ...every lantern pole a sit...2x - 3x 15 minutes a day...use a harness for easier control as suggested by MRB...it is a young dog so it shouldn't take too long till you see success.

...might be helpful to add the link to the old thread assuming that there have been an old thread?

You'r clear, obvious implication is that if a lost dog ends up on a road it will get killed by truck if its wearing collar in use as a lost dog recover method and if its not wearing an e-collar and trained in that, it would just as easy get on to a road but because its not on an e-collar no harm will come to it. Out of 100 dogs which have gotten lost somehow other and are between 5 to 10 miles distance from owner, 50 have the garmin/tri tronics system and are trained to do a down stay and await recovery (stay) and the remaining 50 have nothing which do you think would be the higher % of dogs recovered with no harm done out of the 2 groups???, Im interested in your answer Willem. . that's the point...you can use all this electronic tools to improve scenarios or to make them worse; doing what you describe here in the outback or other remote areas makes sense, however, doing the same in a city or suburban area is IMO not suitable and would decrease the chances to see the dog alive again as you might hit the button at the wrong moment. The problem with the video clip is that it attempts (?) to support the use of e-collars, but does it in a way that is - IMO - totally contra productive. The guy in the video (is it you?) let get the dog out of sight...the dog could have chased a rabbit in the meanwhile, could be shot by a ranger (I think in a few European countries rangers have the right to shoot an unsupervised dog in a forest etc.?...TBC) or could be just crossing a road or a railway. If the guy in the clip wants to highlight the advantages, he has to show the risks and potential hazards that could evolve from using such tools too - that is actually his duty of care which shouldn't be taken lightly! ...unfortunately there are people out there who even used their microwaves to dry their pets, then successfully sued the manufacturer because they didn't warned them not to do so.

But why would it scare you? you, obviously, you would not use it & if you had a dog lost it could just as easily end up squashed on a road without a collar, the later is really beside the point, what would be a relevant point is for those who refuse to learn about collars to ALSO demonstrate how they would recover their dog if it was lost by useing the Garmin sat nav without any way of recovering the dog.........the only thing I can forsee (correct me if i am wrong) is that they would simply watch the screen as their dog lost was wandering round in 12 miles radius, probably including roads & until it was out of range or lying dead on a road, in which case they could recover the remains......i request a sensible answer to that. . ...I believe it is irresponsible to put up such a video on YouTube - for sure their will be followers who do exactly the same thing like the dog owner in the clip just to find their dog smashed by a truck when they come around the next corner finding a very busy road...unfortunately, this video clip is a very good example why the access to such tools should be restricted...at least show a clip where it is used for a decent recall, but don't use such a tool to make your dog drop when he is out of sight as he could be in the middle of a busy road!