|
|
|
Rufus is a collie X whose owner thought they were being good to him by using an 'invisible fence' or 'pet containment system'. The vet who treated Rufus sent a letter to the manufacturer stating: "It is my assessment that the lesions seen on this dog were caused by the before mentioned training collar. The malfunction of this collar caused, first second and third degree burns". Her letter can be read here His owners went out, while they were out it started raining and when they came home Rufus wouldn't let their son take his collar off. The owner managed to get the collar of and when he saw the injuries to Rufus, took him straight to the vets. The whole story can be seen here. Some manufacturers make invisible fence systems sound almost good animal welfare, with information like '...is an ‘invisible’ dog fence which enables you to keep one or more dogs in complete freedom within a perimeter defined by you without the need for an ugly containment fence' The simple fact is that each year in the US, thousands of dogs are found roaming the streets with shock collars on, having ignored the pain caused by the 'containment system' or when they fail to work. They also state: 'as the dog learns the boundary the electrical impulses can be reduced and the collar used to emit sound beeps only. Eventually the collar can be removed altogether' This doesn't make any sense, just as dogs can learn that walking close to the 'invisible perimeter' causes pain, they can also learn when it doesn't. Please see our main page on shock collars |
|
|
If you have any questions or comments on any part of our
work, please contact us: |
|
