Electric Fence Collar On A Puppy

[Salukifan]

I'd rather see a collar on the dog that see it out of its yard.

So shoot me. Hardly an ideal situation but there are degrees of worse that need to be considered.

[flame ryder]

The collars are pretty big...designed more for larger breeds. I can't imagine one on a 6 week old puppy. If so it would need to be drastically altered, perhaps cut to make it small enough to fit. Given that these collars cost roughly $200 it's hard to believe someone would do this.

Then again like I said before it could be second hand or one of the cheaper versions

[persephone]

I'd rather see a collar on the dog that see it out of its yard.

So shoot me. Hardly an ideal situation but there are degrees of worse that need to be considered.

I was trying to word a post saying the same thing.

My guess is, that if pup was hanging around near the fenceline ..and it was 'working' then whatever stimulus it was receiving wasn't too drastic?

A level meant for a larger pup/dog would surely send it, surprised & running, far away from the fence?

yes, it is only a baby .. but perhaps an occasional 'Bzzt' is much more acceptable than a puppy roaming ..or injured ..or being belted/yelled at ?

Edited November 5, 2012 by persephone

[dog_fan]

Yeh shouldn't have taken it off, a quick reaction when I felt the pulse.

Disagree!

The pup's hardly a few weeks old, and should have had supervised, intermittent training.

I would've removed the whole dog.

And that would be theft.

Where do you get the idea you are above the law and can break it in your righteous indignation.

What a cheek!

Not in my value system.

Our social responsibility and obligation to protect the weak and defenseless is precisely why the law exists.

I don't care if they're mistreating; a puppy, their children, or bashing each others brains out, I am be bound to intervene in some manner.

Bound to intervene legally???? I think not. A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law.

Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police.

Who said your values are the correct ones anyway? Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop?

[Salukifan]

Persephone:

yes, it is only a baby .. but perhaps an occasional 'Bzzt' is much more

acceptable than a puppy roaming ..or injured ..or being belted/yelled at

?

Or on a chain

Edited November 5, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[BC Crazy]

Folks I think you have a point regarding him escaping his yard as he may get injured or worse. I hadn't thought about that side of things I was more looking at the aspect of pup not getting any interaction/attention.

[JulesP]

Folks I think you have a point regarding him escaping his yard as he may get injured or worse. I hadn't thought about that side of things I was more looking at the aspect of pup not getting any interaction/attention.

You don't know what interaction/attention/love this puppy is getting. Neither does the OP.

[BC Crazy]

I thought I read that puppy wasn't getting any. Maybe I just read it wrong. Only human but a concerned one for the welfare of animals.

Edited November 5, 2012 by BC Crazy

[Lollipup]

We just got an advertising flyer in the mail from one of the brands that make these invisible fences. It says 4 months and up.

I think 6 weeks is way too young. Surely they would explore other options first while the pup is so young and if they put in the work, the pup may not try to escape anymore by the time it is 4 months old.

[Are You Serious Jo]

While it's not ideal to have a collar on a puppy this young the OP didn't say anything about the puppy showing any distress. If it was near the fence then it can't be in any pain. Better than the puppy getting run over.

[Tralee]

Not in my value system.

Our social responsibility and obligation to protect the weak and defenseless is precisely why the law exists.

I don't care if they're mistreating; a puppy, their children, or bashing each others brains out, I am be bound to intervene in some manner.

Bound to intervene legally????

I think not.

A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law.

Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police.

Who said your values are the correct ones anyway?

Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop?

Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Its not limited to a moral imperative.

It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary.

As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Not in my value system.

Our social responsibility and obligation to protect the weak and defenseless is precisely why the law exists.

I don't care if they're mistreating; a puppy, their children, or bashing each others brains out, I am be bound to intervene in some manner.

Bound to intervene legally????

I think not.

A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law.

Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police.

Who said your values are the correct ones anyway?

Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop?

Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Its not limited to a moral imperative.

It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary.

As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not.

But where did the OP say the dog was suffering? What if I decide I am not happy with something you do with one of your dogs and take it, how would you feel? Sure if the dog was yelping in pain, sick or someone was beating it you'd intervene, but really where was the suffering mentioned here?

[dog_fan]

Not in my value system.

Our social responsibility and obligation to protect the weak and defenseless is precisely why the law exists.

I don't care if they're mistreating; a puppy, their children, or bashing each others brains out, I am be bound to intervene in some manner.

Bound to intervene legally????

I think not.

A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law.

Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police.

Who said your values are the correct ones anyway?

Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop?

Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Its not limited to a moral imperative.

It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary.

As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not.

Rubbish!!! First aid is one thing stealing is another. Also who is to prove whether someone has a current certificate or not.

I do not want people with a lack of judgement and information making decisions on behalf of another when we have a system in place to manage those events.

The RSPCA was called and deemed there was no illegality. If you don't like that complain through the appropriate channels do not steal someone's family pet when you do not have enough information to make a rational considered decision. Notwithstanding that stealing is illegal.

[Weasels]

anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Last time I did a first aid course it was drilled into us that we have absolutely no obligation to act if we didn't feel comfortable. How would you even enforce that? Makes no sense.

[Salukifan]

Not in my value system.

Our social responsibility and obligation to protect the weak and defenseless is precisely why the law exists.

I don't care if they're mistreating; a puppy, their children, or bashing each others brains out, I am be bound to intervene in some manner.

Bound to intervene legally????

I think not.

A moral imperative is no excuse to break the law.

Being a vigilante is illegal and nobody elected you as the moral police.

Who said your values are the correct ones anyway?

Today it is the theft of a dog, tomorrow what, maybe the beating of someone you think has wronged you, where does it stop?

Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Its not limited to a moral imperative.

It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary.

As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not.

But YOU do not have a legal duty, nor are you empowered to act. The law empowers only some folk to enforce it. They're called RSPCA inspectors, rangers and police.

Everything else is just vigilante justice.... or in this case common or garden theft. Doesn't matter that it's being dressed up in a 'higher morality' costume.

Imagine if someone decided that a Maremma with it's leg in a sling, confined to a verandah and not being given pain killers, was being mistreated and you came home to find the dog gone. Do you really want people subjectively deciding for themselves, based on eff all information, that animals need "liberating" from their owners?? Why should any person get to be judge and jury before the owner even gets to put their side of the case??

God help us. It's right up there with those who find wandering dogs who decide that any dog at large must have a bad owner and then keep the them for themselves.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Salukifan]

anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Last time I did a first aid course it was drilled into us that we have absolutely no obligation to act if we didn't feel comfortable. How would you even enforce that? Makes no sense.

Correct. There is no legal duty of care that requires anyone to render assistance.

[Tralee]

Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Its not limited to a moral imperative.

It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary.

As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not.

Rubbish!!!

First aid is one thing stealing is another.

Also who is to prove whether someone has a current certificate or not.

I do not want people with a lack of judgement and information making decisions on behalf of another when we have a system in place to manage those events.

The RSPCA was called and deemed there was no illegality.

If you don't like that complain through the appropriate channels do not steal someone's family pet when you do not have enough information to make a rational considered decision.

Notwithstanding that stealing is illegal.

Its not rubbish.

Every school child knows its illegal to stand around and watch a fight.

At least they should if the School Police Liason Officers have done their job.

There is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Further there is no exclusion zone someone can place around themselves if they break the law, animal cruelty included.

There are huge penalties for animal cruelty.

Those collars are illegal in NSW, there's your precedent.

Alternatively, just turn your head and look the other way.

Whoever the neigbours are they're lucky they don't live next door to me.

*ignore*

[persephone]

Last time I did a first aid course it was drilled into us that we have absolutely no obligation to act if we didn't feel comfortable.

*nods*

if we are in danger especially ...

[Salukifan]

Its not rubbish.

Every school child knows its illegal to stand around and watch a fight.

At least they should if the School Police Liason Officers have done their job.

There is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Further there is no exclusion zone someone can place around themselves if they break the law, animal cruelty included.

There are huge penalties for animal cruelty.

Those collars are illegal in NSW, there's your precedent.

Alternatively, just turn your head and look the other way.

Whoever the neigbours are they're lucky they don't live next door to me.

*ignore*

Every school child is being taught incorrectly. It is NOT illegal to watch folk pounding on each other.

Don't confuse morality and the law.

If you're teaching children that the solution to moral problems is to take the law into their own hands then all I can say is that is highly irresponsible.

What's next - "honour killing"?? *shakes head*

Edited November 5, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[dog_fan]

Today in 2012 there is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Its not limited to a moral imperative.

It is the legal duty of those empowered to act, and that is just about everybody, to intervene when necessary.

As an example, anyone with first aid qualifications must render assistance; that's the law.

Or people could just sit on their a^$# like they used to. Not.

Rubbish!!!

First aid is one thing stealing is another.

Also who is to prove whether someone has a current certificate or not.

I do not want people with a lack of judgement and information making decisions on behalf of another when we have a system in place to manage those events.

The RSPCA was called and deemed there was no illegality.

If you don't like that complain through the appropriate channels do not steal someone's family pet when you do not have enough information to make a rational considered decision.

Notwithstanding that stealing is illegal.

Its not rubbish.

Every school child knows its illegal to stand around and watch a fight.

At least they should if the School Police Liason Officers have done their job.

There is no such thing as an innocent bystander.

Further there is no exclusion zone someone can place around themselves if they break the law, animal cruelty included.

There are huge penalties for animal cruelty.

Those collars are illegal in NSW, there's your precedent.

Alternatively, just turn your head and look the other way.

Whoever the neigbours are they're lucky they don't live next door to me.

*ignore*

You speak with such authority and what you say is totally wrong.

I have no idea where you got your information from but I suggest that inciting people to break the law is much worse that putting a collar on a puppy to stop it being squashed by a car.

Threatening to harm another as you have above is also a deplorable attitude and may even be against the law as well.

I suggest you research further before you dig a bigger hole for yourself.