Electronic collars a valid control

offer. And who can blame them?

Reading through the biographies sent out for the Hutt City Council elections was depressing. They were typically white, middle-aged and boring (like me), with no vision other than trite statements about keeping rates down or listening to the views of the community. Where’s the passion to do something different or radical?

The district health board candidates seemed to be a mixture of the old, the odd, and ex-mayors. After I crossed out those names, I voted for five, none of whom made it onto the board. Unfortunately, I’ve no simple answer to get people enthused about local body politics, but I’m sure it’s nothing as simple as an app on their iPhone.

NOEL LEE Normandale [abridged] Catriona MacLennan’s arguments (Opinion, Oct 15) about banning what she terms ‘‘shock collars’’ for dogs are wrong. I’m a very responsible owner of two dogs, and travel widely with them, including through farms, coastlines, and untracked backcountry. Regular leashes can be impractical.

Floyd, my spoodle, required electronic collar training to improve his behaviour, follow commands, and, importantly, not chase wildlife. This collar’s been so effective he no longer really needs it. He now associates my warnings with the unpleasant consequences which might follow. Both dogs no longer need regular leads. Appropriate electronic leash training has led to effective control via my ‘‘voice leash’’.

Furthermore, collar voltages are easily varied, and aren’t unsafe for dogs. If I do use one on Floyd, it’s for my peace of mind, and I only need it on vibration warning mode. Floyd knows the drill now and is very happy, welladjusted and behaved.

Well trained, safe dogs make for a safer community. An electronic collar used appropriately is a recommended, harmless technique.

Lazy or bad dog owners have numerous methods available to be cruel to their pets – even more so if electronic leashes are banned.

JOE NAWALANIEC

Carterton