I didn't need any of this nor three weeks with you to train my dogs, in fact my foster dog I have had 4 weeks and her obedience is coming on a treat especially as she wasn't even house trained when she first came.   I had problems with Joe when he came but he had been beaten to teach him how to behave and once I found the key, he was very quickly obedient.  Even my little hooligan is obedient, the hooligan is because of her energy levels, she is mainly BC.

They won't win any competitions but I am not interested in that, they do obey me as and when I want them to and I haven't spent all this money out on any of my dogs, let alone just 1.


and I thought you had missed me so much you were devoting a whole post to reply to me Denis, I am disappointed that you have put this in it when it had nothing to do with me

Thanks Lassie

As I said no harm intended. I see the ecollar debates come up a lot recently but I have no problem with it whatsoever. I home in on everything its just some threads are far more interesting than others. On reading the forums Lou seems very knowledgeable and not easily provoked but some people on here are just plain rude and offensive.

BTW Stan I am not Denis. If the moderators of this site wish to publicise my IP address its fine by me. It will just prove I am not who you think I am. Perhaps if the moderators would simply confirm I have a different IP that would suffice.

Personally I think the moderators do an excellent job of keeping harmony and letting everyone have their say. Most sites would boot you off for the things you have said in the past. They must strike a balance between letting people have their say and it becoming a slanging match. Some threads on here would have been locked a long time ago on other forums.

A dog that is "trailing" a long line is no longer considered to be on that long line.  He's off leash for all practical purposes.  He can't be stopped from running into the street, fighting with another dog or eating a chicken bone that he comes upon. 

If he's considered to be "on leash" then the owner (or someone) MUST be holding onto to the end of it. 


If he's on leash and he takes off, he hits the end of it with great force.  If you drop the leash he's not "on leash" anymore. 


I don't see any contradiction. 


If the dog is truly off leash then the Ecollar is the ONLY tool that can be used to remind him of his training. 


You're misreading what was said.  The Ecollar is not "fail safe."  It is a fail safe. 


This is a typical comment from someone who's never used an Ecollar. 



It's completely possible.  But when he feels the stim he'll be reminded of how to turn it off, by complying with the command. 


Using any other method that you care to choose, if the dog decides to disobey what can you do?  Now assume the same thing only now the dog is wearing the Ecollar. 


Having put Ecollars on over 2,000 dogs myself and never having one of them do as you describe, I know it to be true. 


The Ecollar makes for a clear distinction between what is acceptable and what isn't.  so-called positive methods don't do this. 

If you substitute the word "Ecollar" for the word "headcollar" in this sentence, it makes just as much sense.  Pain isn't in the tool, it's in how it's used. 

There's no discussion.  There's simply one person giving her opinion.  I wouldn't expect that it be "heated."  LOL. 



The author is someone who has her entire profession at stake.  She one of the best known of the so-called positive method trainers.  Her statements about the Ecollar show that she has no idea of how to use it. 

I don't have an answer to this question.  I'd suggest that you go back to the beginning of the thread and see who started the personal attacks.  Then I'd suggest that you do the same with any recent thread on Ecollars.  I'll bet you discover that they're always started by Stan Rawlinson.  Anything after that is a response, a counterattack. 

Not "No", - "Yes", we are all intelligent enough to read any statement which is designed and deliberately intended to portray any specific element in its content.

In your statement below you named yourself as “The” [ singular ] behavioural “consultant” [ singular ] – it is quite clear to anyone that the statement refers only to the main behavioural consultant for EDITED BY MOD, it implies a full time position with that company held by only one person – you.


In the same month you, a married man with grandchildren, a bog standard 'positive trainer' and employed as “the” behavioural consultant for EDITED BY MOD UK, an international firm of repute and which always promotes family values, stalked and harassed, a young, respected, female Kings College lecture, who is in a stable long term relationship and whose photograph you had seen on her college web site.

You made improper telephone calls to her office, you bombarded her at her office with emails containing improper and unwanted content, it is quite clear to me and any right minded person that EDITED BY MOD UK, by employing a known internet, predatory stalker is risking bringing the reputation of EDITED BY MOD UK and EDITED BY MOD international in disrepute.

OK, time to clarify some things:

K9 Magazine and DogChat are not one and the same. K9 Magazine is published by K9 Media Ltd. DogChat is published by K9 Media Ltd. Nothing published on this site is endorsed or even related to anything that K9 Magazine does. Nor does anything published on this site indicate something is condoned or opposed by any other publication owned by K9 Media.

This site has ALWAYS been known for allowing debate to go as unopposed as possible. Just because you term e-collars abuse does not make it so. This is probably where you are getting confused. K9 Magazine, in fact, does not take advertising for e-collars. Nor in fact would DogChat. That is a commercial decision not a moral one.

We don't promote or encourage fox hunting of other field sports either. Again, a commercial decision not a moral one. If I'm not mistaken, you have recently been telling people why fox hunting should not have been banned as it is wrong for one group to impose their views on another based on misconceptions? Well fox hunting is illegal and e-collars are not. You said:

"hunting should never fall within the category of being so unacceptable and urgent in terms of standards of human behaviour that it justifies government and political interference. It should be left where it rightly belongs; as a matter of personal conscience and choice"

How does this logic stack up with this forum promoting cruelty? We allowed you to argue for something which is illegal, which absolutely 100% results in the death of an animal, an animal belonging to the canine family. It's called free speech and we will never deny it whether 1000 people think the poster is wrong, mad, misguided etc we won't deny it if it is in the bounds of free debate. We allowed you to air your personal opinion that something which is against the law, should not be against the law and was made illegal on the grounds of animal cruelty.

Yesterday we had a post from someone trying to sell some cross breed puppies via this site. We could have banned that person, removed the post, thrown the toys out of the pram. We prefer to leave these posts up and let intelligent people debate and argue the points as to what they think about this practice. Does it mean K9 Media condones the selling of puppies on the internet? No. It means we feel people are better served seeing what the majority of posters think about such a practice and taken away that knowledge of their own accord. Just because we don't agree with something does not mean we restrict that view or ban the perpetrator. It is and always has been the style of this forum and always will.


You have made accusations that one poster is another (Sarah1983 I believe). You seemed to believe that she was Dennis Carthy. I have found no evidence of this and unless you know something I don't, I'd venture to say accusing someone of not being who they say they are in public forum is not much difference to pretending to be someone else.



I will get back to thread in my own time. I don't work to anyone else's schedule other than my own. Action was taken. Have you seen .mattygroves post since? So your 'statement' that no action was taken is, frankly wrong. How could you have known anyway? Why would we have been obligated to inform you?

For the record - and believe me when I say this - I have, as a result of running a publishing company for many years, gained a great deal of knowledge as to how slander and libel work, not to mention K9 Media has a very comprehensive professional indemntiy insurance account should we ever fall foul. You would not even bring up the word slander in this context if you understood it as it relates to the spoken word. As for libel. I've said it before and will say it again. Unless you post using your REAL name and REAL details you haven't got a hope in hell of bring forward a libel case. Let's say you accuse sarah1983 of being someone she wasn't. Let's say she gets offended and decides that your written accusation that she is in fact a man pretending to be a woman is worthy of legal proceedings. She first writes to the publisher (us) and asks us to remove the posts immediately. We say no (we don't like being told what to do, were rebellious like that). She then applies to the high court for an injuction against us (we're already in to the tens of thousands right away). We then hand over all the data we have on file of the original poster. Basically an IP address and email address. If she is absoluteley loaded and very determined she gets all parties concerned into court at which point she explains so and so said I was so and so and in fact I'm so and so. The judge says, so your name is Sarah1983 and this person says you are not? She then has to explain that this is actually not her real name but an alternym used to post on a message board. The judge then looks at his watch, bellows 'case dismissed' and we all go home.

I hope this clears up the constant reference to libel and frankly the whole debate about what we do and don't allow.

I'll finish by saying this. Do you think we receive complaints about certain posters and their posting style? Yes, absolutely. Is Dennis one of them? Is the Pope Jewish? Should we ban him because he gets peoples hackles up? If we did use that logic then I'm afraid we'd have to ban you as well as we also receive complaints about your own posting style - and no, not from the Dennis or Lou.  Hope this helps clear up some misconceptions. K9 Magazine and DogChat not one and the same and acusing K9 Media of promoting animal cruelty is slander,, I mean, libel,, I mean,,, not going to stand here on our own forum.