Tele stimulator

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tele stimulator: collar with receiver and hand transmitter

Tele-stimulators are prohibited aids for dog training in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (electrical training collar). Widespread are u. a. also the following names: Teleimpulsgerät (TIG), E-Gerät, Ferntrainer, Elektrohalsband (e-collar), Teletakt, Teletak, Teletac.

function

Tele stimulators are electrical impulse devices. They consist of a hand-held transmitter and a receiver collar with a pulse generator to generate electrical pulses of different strengths. From a technical point of view, it is a short electrical high-voltage pulse. The electric pasture fence works on a similar principle.

If a command is not obeyed or if it behaves incorrectly, the dog can be taught a metered impulse even over a long distance, up to more than 1000 m. The strength of the stimulation current can be regulated, the effect ranges from a slight tingling sensation to a distinct pain. With modern devices, a vibration pulse or acoustic signal can also be triggered.

Invisible fence

The devices known as invisible fences also belong to this group of tools. A cable embedded in the floor serves as a trigger, which functions as a very short range transmitter. When the receiver, which is again attached to the dog's collar, approaches, the cable triggers a current impulse similar to that of the tele stimulator. An influence or even the presence of the dog handler is not required. An additional problem is that the dog can cross this line with increased drive position, but the way back is then blocked.

Anti-Bell Collar

The anti- bark collar (commonly called Bell-ex ) usually detects the vibration of the larynx when barking. If the dog barks, an automatic electrical penalty is triggered. Permitted devices work with a jet of water or air, a scent stimulus, vibration or sound signals and are often triggered manually and not automatically. The Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare marks electrical, chemical, noise-producing and air-blast-producing Bell-Stop devices as accessories that are contrary to animal welfare because the dog's natural form of communication is suppressed.

Rating

Most cynologists reject this method (especially in the hands of amateurs), as it cannot be guaranteed that the dog can combine punishment and cause. In the case of a dog, cause (the wrongdoing) and effect (punishment) must follow one another immediately; two seconds are already considered too long. However, there are also some proponents of the tele-stimulator, u. a. the American animal welfare organization Humane Society , which recommends the remote trainer expressly for dogs with strong hunting behavior, as these animals cannot otherwise be granted free exercise. The American behavioral scientist Karen Overall, on the other hand, made it clear in an open letter in 2005, referring to a study published in 2007, that electric shocks are not training, but mostly meet the criteria for abuse.

Other proponents of modern electric stimulators clearly distance themselves from concepts such as punishment for misconduct or coercion . Instead, they propagate the use of the devices as a remotely effective arousing attention or slight irritation to support commands in dog training. The dog only feels a tingling sensation or an aversive stimulus below the pain threshold. However, they emphasize that only thoroughly trained people should use such devices. In 2007, the VG Freiburg expressly contradicted such a representation and made it clear that so-called low-current pulse devices , the pulses of which are largely comparable with those used in medical treatments for muscle strengthening or the like in humans , cause considerable suffering in dogs cause psychological damage and are therefore prohibited.

Electric stimulators, including dummies, have been forbidden on dog sites that are subject to the VDH since May 2004; the IRJGV has forbidden its use for much longer.

Legal situation

Germany

Usage ban

Service dog apparently wearing a tele-stimulator

The use of an electric stimulator or tele-pulse device to train a dog is prohibited in accordance with § 3 sentence 1 no. 11 TierSchG.

In the German Animal Welfare Act it says in § 3 S. 1 No. 11:

It is forbidden to use [...] a device that significantly restricts the appropriate behavior of an animal, especially its movement, through the direct action of electricity, or forces it to move and thereby causes the animal considerable pain, suffering or damage, unless this is done federal or state law is permissible.

Unlawful use of remote stimulation devices constitutes an administrative offense in accordance with Section 18 Paragraph 1 No. 4, Paragraph 4 of the Animal Protection Act, which can be punished with a fine of up to € 25,000.

In February 2006 the Federal Administrative Court confirmed that the prohibition according to Section 3 No. 11 TierSchG is a general prohibition. It made it clear that it does not depend on the specific use in the individual case, but on whether the device is designed to cause significant pain to the animal. With reference to this, the VG Freiburg dismissed a lawsuit in 2007 against the prohibition of the use of an electric stimulator on dogs and found that in the present case the decision to prohibit the use of the Dogtra 2000 device and devices of the same design is lawful.

Status as a weapon

"Objects that are intended to cause pain to animals using energy other than mechanical (e.g. electrical impulse devices), with the exception of objects that are used according to their purpose in animal husbandry or in proper dog training (e.g. cattle prod)" in Germany weapons according to Section 1, Paragraph 4 of the Weapons Act . Electro pulse devices for use against humans are electro pulse weapons .

Austria

The ban has existed in Austria since January 2005. Section 5 of the Federal Animal Protection Act prohibits the use of electrifying dressage equipment. Placing on the market, acquisition and possession are also prohibited.

Switzerland

The Federal Animal Welfare Ordinance of 2008 forbids dogs in Article 76 (2) "the use of devices that electrify, emit acoustic signals that are very unpleasant for the dog or act by means of chemical substances". However, according to Art. 76 (3) “on request, the cantonal authority can exceptionally authorize persons who have the necessary skills to use such devices for therapeutic purposes. The cantonal authority has to check the qualification. The Federal Department of Economic Affairs (FDEA), after hearing the cantons, defines the content and form of the examination ordinance ". And Art. 76 (4) says: "Anyone who uses devices that require a license must document every device use and submit a list of all uses to the cantonal authority at the end of the calendar year ..."

Remarks

  1. ↑ “The three devices used were examined with regard to current strength, voltage curve and pulse duration. These values ​​depend on the skin resistance. The resistors used were 500 ohms to 2.2 kOhms, which cover the range of skin resistance that occurs in practice. At level '5', a current of 1.25 amps and a voltage of 700 volts were measured for 500 ohms, and a current of 0.82 amps and a voltage of 1760 volts for 2.2 kOhms. The duration of the impulse was between 0.15 milliseconds for large and 0.2 milliseconds for small resistances. ”[Juliane Stichnoth: Symptoms of stress when using electrical training collars in dogs in a similar way to practice . Diss. Hannover 2002, p. 53]
  2. ↑ In the opinion of the Federal Council it says to insert the words “or in the case of the proper dog training” in the Appendix 1: “In the dog training up to now electrical stimulation devices (Teletakt) could be used. The devices have proven themselves. A ban would be disproportionate. "

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Juliane Stichnoth: Symptoms of stress when using electrical training collars in dogs in a similar way to practice . Hannover 2002, dissertation, Institute for Animal Welfare and Behavior (Domestic Animals, Laboratory Animals and Horses) at the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover
  2. ↑ Accessories that are contrary to animal welfare in keeping dogs and cats ( memento of the original from October 7, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. TVT Veterinary Association for Animal Welfare. Leaflet No. 70 (as of March 1999) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.tierschutz-tvt.de
  3. ^ E. Schalke, J. Stichnoth, S. Ott, R. Jones-Baade: Clinical signs caused by the use of electric training collars on dogs in everyday life situations. In: Applied Animal Behavior Science. 105, 2007, pp. 369-380, doi : 10.1016 / j.applanim.2006.11.002 .
  4. ↑ "Shock is not training - in the vast majority of cases it meets the criteria for abuse." An open letter from Dr Karen Overall regarding the use of shock collars. December 6, 2005.
  5. ^ Dieter Klein: Teleizgeräte. Expertise for use in dog training. Nordenstedt 2006, 5th edition, p. 62 ff.
  6. ↑ Rolf Kröger: Typing instead of shock. In: Wild and Dog. 11, 2000, pp. 64-69
  7. ↑ Dieter Klein: Telereizgeräte ... S. 182
  8. ↑ a b c VG Freiburg judgment of March 15, 2007, 4 K 2339/05: Prohibition of the electric collar for the education of dogs. on the Baden-Württemberg state jurisdiction page
  9. ↑ BVerwG, judgment of February 23, 2006 , Az. 3 C 14.05, full text.
  10. ↑ BVerwG, press release No. 8/2006 of February 23, 2006.
  11. ↑ Appendix 1 to the Weapons Act
  12. ^ Opinion of the Federal Council. Item 21 (here p. 18) BR DS 838/07 ( memento of the original dated August 30, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 65 kB) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bundesrat.de
  13. ↑ Federal Animal Protection Act (Austria)
  14. ↑ Animal Welfare Ordinance (Switzerland)

Web links