As both you and Denis only reply to what you want to, then there is no reason why myself or anyone else shouldn't do the same.
I respond to every real, on-topic question that's asked of me. If you want to run and hide, I understand.
Most are in rescue because nobody had attempted to train the dogs
I doubt that. I think that most people do try, but their methods don't work. They may be poor methods or they may be methods poorly applied. They may simply be methods that don't work with "that dog." This forum, and just about every other one on the Net are filled with people who are asking for training advice. Sometimes they're at the end of their rope. Nothing they've done has stopped the dog's undesired behavior and they're one step away from taking him to rescue.
I've worked with a couple of Rescue Organizations. I did a seminar for one in Northern California. They now use the Ecollar to quickly put some OB on a dog to make him more adoptable. Larry Tillack, a SAR worker in Ohio who volunteers at a shelter, wrote an article about his success in rehabilitating an aggressive dog with an Ecollar. http://loucastle.com/simon.htm
She isn't the only foster dog I have had and none of them have had any training, have been very easy to train
"Easy to train" is the type of dog that usually responds well to the so-called positive methods.
The majority of dogs in rescue don't have behaviour problems, they do have problems because nobody had bothered to try and train them and when given boundaries they become very good family pets.
I disagree, I think that the
majority of dogs in rescue
do have some behavior problems
Many people don't bother teaching their children how to behave so what chance do the dogs have.
The fact that people don't teach their children to behave is symptomatic of the so-called positive movement. Never punish the child and he'll never learn what's acceptable and what's not.
It is the same people who get nice cute cuddly puppies and when they are no longer like this, dump them.
This is exactly what I said. But it's not the majority of dogs in shelters.
You can't say that they have problems that can't be cured because nobody had tried
I can say that and I have. People
have tried to stop those problems. Few owners take their dogs to rescue the first time that he has a "mistake" in the house. Few take their dogs to rescue the first time that he won't come back when they call. Few take their dogs to rescue the first time that he steals food from the table. It's when the dog does these things repeatedly and they're unable to train the dog not to do them, that the dogs wind up in rescue.
Any dog that does have a behaviour problem, they are like that because someone had tried to train them by beating them
It's nonsense to argue that
any dog with a behavior problem has been beaten. Common sense tells us that the behavior problem came before the beating. There's no denying that some dogs are the victims of abusers who will beat them whether or not there's a problem, but that situation is in the great minority.
Earlier I wrote:
You win the award for begging the question and avoiding the topic. You are the new champion, displacing someone who's no longer here. ROFLMAO
And Emmy responded
I still have a long way to catch you and Denis up for this Lou
If you can point out anywhere that I've avoided a question I'll be glad to go back and show you that it's not the case. I occasionally miss one but as soon as it's pointed out to me, I'll respond.
Earlier I wrote:
The OP asked some interesting questions that Denis was handling quite well. But you folks couldn't bear that; instead you took the thread off topic and played your silly little games. That's a new tack for you. Rather than try to argue rationally and reasonably or use emotional nonsense in an effort to try (and fail miserably, as always) to decry Ecollars, you went to what you thought was a cute discussion. But alas, someone steered it back and now we're in the same old circle again. You're writing nonsense and I'm punching holes right through it!
And Emmy responded
Judging by what was put up, I think that like me, other members are sick of seeing the same thing written all the time no matter what the question is.
The OP didn't think so. That's why she asked. And has been pointed out so many times before, Denis and I rarely start these conversations. We're responsive to what others do. As soon as the conversation took a reasonable tone, I responded to those points.
If people were "sick of seeing the same thing written all the time" they wouldn’t start these topics. Instead they have misconceptions (such as Max' that Ecollars were illegal and that they're cruel) that need to be corrected.
And, as has been pointed out before, these topics gather the largest readership of any on the forum.
I have no intention of arguing rationally and resonably about e collars
Of course not. You know that you'll lose in such a debate, as you and others have before this discussion.
I have never decried e collars
You're doing so right now.
I . . . have never said anything about not zapping my dogs with an e collar.
You needn't use those words to "decry" Ecollars. But you say just this, a few paragraphs down. LOL.
Earlier Emmy wrote
if the e collar was the perfect tool for us we would be using one but we are not
And I responded
Actually you are. Ecollar sales are rising in the UK.
if it was the perfect tool for many of us, we would all have one.
Great example of illogical thought and writing. ". . . if it was the perfect tool for
many of us, we would
all have one. The illogical part is the reference to "many" and "all." Additionally it's a twist on your original words, where you used only the word "we."
In any case, Ecollars aren't perfect. First off they're expensive. You have to remember to keep them charged. You have to remember to put them on the dog. You have to remember to bring along the transmitter. You have to learn how to use them. Like any mechanical/electrical object they can fail. But the advantage they offer is obvious once one learns that they're not cruel and that they cause only minor discomfort at about the level of a single flea bite.
Earlier you wrote
I don't have any experience of putting my hand in a fire either, but like the e collar, I prefer not to after seeing one used on a dog.
And I responded
Interesting that the analogy that you chose was "putting (your) hand into a fire" ROFL. Typical of your attempts to inject emotionalism into this discussion.
Nothing emotional about me putting my hand in a fire
Oh what nonsense! You could have used the appropriate analogy, "It's chilly, I think I should have put on a sweater" to acknowledge the fact that an Ecollar properly used only gives minor discomfort. Instead you intentionally used fire which carries with it huge amounts of pain, permanent disfigurement and even death. Tell us again how you never "decry" the use of Ecollars! LOL.
Earlier I wrote:
Nonetheless, my question was directed at Merrow specifically. I'd suppose that she's never even seen an Ecollar, yet she writes that she "find(s) them cruel." I wonder how someone can make such a comment based on a vacuum of experience.
If others can't aswer your questions put to other members, then you shouldn't answer questions put to Denis or Denis answer questions put to you. You can't have it one way and not the other. As you once said to me, it is an open forum and anyone can answer any question
There's a significant difference. Questions that Denis and I answer when they're asked of someone else are general questions about Ecollars. When Denis is asked something specific about what he does or his personal experience (my question to Merrow) I don't respond unless I know what he does. I'm still waiting to hear Merrow's response to the question.
I have also said many times that the one I saw was used wrong . . . I saw what it did to a dog when it was used wrong, and because of that, I would never use one on my dogs.
Quite illogical, but that's never stopped you folks before. You've probably seen cars "used wrong;" driven by the scene of crashes or seen them on the news. Yet you probably haven't shied away from cars. Doubtless you've heard about knives used improperly to stab someone, but you're probably still cutting your food with one. But let you see one "wrong" use of an Ecollar and you're done for life. ROFL.
I don't need to use one correctly, my dogs are trained without one.
As I've said "No one
needs an Ecollar.
Earlier I wrote:
In reality there have been at least half a dozen people from this list who have contacted me privately and have started using Ecollars in the UK. Even if there was only one, it would mean that someone had learned something.
If you take into account all the people that come on this board regularly, and I am also talking about those that lurk, this is a very small percentage of these people so it isn't a good record.
Given the climate in the UK I think that even one person making the conversion is a victory. In reality there are far more. Ecollar sales are rising in the UK. Your government has chosen
not to ban them or to place any restrictions on their use. If they were truly cruel as some say, there would be daily arrests for violations of cruelty laws that already exist.
Earlier you wrote:
Lassie, take the minus points as a compliment, it means you have rattled someone's cage, well done
And I responded
Between us Denis and I have 29. We must have REALLY rattled some cages. ROFL.
Yes you both do rattle cages, especially when you can't answer a question and use attacking the member instead.
Please show an example of me attacking someone personally. You can't, I don't do it. I've answered every question that's been asked of me. I always do.
Earlier I wrote:
I'd appreciate it Emmy if you're going to respond for me that you at least tell the truth. What you've written is a complete lie! I've used nearly every method and tool that exists in dog training. I still use them, when appropriate. I taught my patrol dog to bark on command with so-called positive methods.
It is only a lie if I didn't know any difference, but as you keep saying that you use them on every dog, then I am going by what you have said in the past.
It's a lie Emmy. You well know that I've written that I use many tools and methods. When I write that "I use an Ecollar on just about every dog that I train." it doesn't mean that I don't use other tools and methods. That's another one of your famous illogical leaps.
As I said earlier, I am a quick learner Lou
I disagree.
Earlier I wrote:
Denis too uses other methods and tools. Please stop lying Emmy.
Like you, Denis also says that he uses them on every dog, so who is telling lies? I am only going on what both of you have said.
No, you're making illogical leaps and then trying to apply it to both of us. Denis as well, has said that he uses other methods. You're a liar.
Earlier you wrote
Lou even puts it round the tummy of a Yorkie because they are too big to go round the neck.
And I responded
Typical of someone who knows nothing about Ecollars to think that there's something wrong in this. There's nothing magic about a dog's neck, in fact many of you use harnesses that go around the dog's chest AND neck. Many of you use head harnesses of one type or another that go around his entire head. All that happens with dogs that have the Ecollar on their tummy is that they feel the stim at a lower level, so that's what's used.
You have taken what I said out of contex and it is a statement which you have said many times.
I disagree that your comment was "taken out of context." You are of course free to put it back into what you feel is "the proper context."
Earlier I wrote:
When you folks bring up something new then Denis and I will have new responses for you. But you folks don't. You repeat the same old nonsense over and over. Since we're talking about facts of course the responses are the same.
Maybe if you put something new up, we could respond differently but because it is the same old stuff time after time, it has all been said before many times.
Denis and I are mostly responsive to the comments of others. It's rare that either of us start these conversations. It's when someone else does and they include misconceptions or improper comments that we join in. It's not up to us to "put up something new;" we're just answering questions and correcting misconceptions.
When I have done just that, as when I posted the "White Paper" from Petsafe which showed the results of the most recent scientific study, and a comparison of the various levels of power that common devices put out compared to Ecollars; you folks went back to the same old tired arguments.
Earlier I wrote:
You're the ones who are being redundant, we're merely being responsive.
Actually Lou, it is us being responsive to what you write. This was going alone nicely discussing wine until you started to post.
What a short and convenient memory you have Allow me to remind you of the title of this thread. It's called
"E Collars?" Not "wine." The name of this board is
Dogchat not "wine tasting." Please review the OP's first post that started this thread. Not a word about wine. The wine discussion was a diversion from the original topic. There are forums here that are specifically for such
off-topic subjects as your wine discussion; but this isn't one of them.
And I didn't start writing in this thread until the topic came back to the proper subject, Ecollars.
once I found something that he didn't associate with his previous life, it took me 10 days to get a 99% recall from him
Emmy you just qualified for my challenge. I'll even drop the 100% requirement to 99% for you. Now, just for you, it will be "$1,000 for 99%." This requires you to do just as you've said here, recall your dog at any distance (that he can hear your voice [or if he's deaf, that he can see your recall command]) 99% of the time in the face of distractions. If what you say is true, you can be $1,000 richer. Care to accept the challenge? I doubt that your dog's recall is even 99% reliable. Let me know if you want the details. Somehow I know that you'll find a way to worm out of what you've said.
