No Michael, I'm sorry but your entrance with your words was designed to provoke. If you want to talk maturity, then act in a mature manner in the first place, is my advice

I've not yet, actually, met a male shock collar user who understands how to be polite - except Adam, earlier, did at least remain polite in his debate, which I respect even though I strongly disagree with him.

To be honest, most people are sick and tired of the debate (it's been going on on forums for months and months for many years).

You don't seem to realise that many do advocate the use of the shock collar as a basic training method. That is a surprise coming from a supporter.

Clearly though, you don't wish to debate anything. Fine by me

Wys
x

And what is it you think I'm advertising?


I believe the topics are relevant to each other - both the KC and the RSPCA are using their support of this ban as an example of their promotion of animal welfare and are basking in the glow of positive publicity whilst the above issues are being swept under the carpet.


Now you're trying to put words in my mouth in much the same manner as Claire.


Do you genuinely believe that puppy farms have been banned? You can't ban something without first defining it (even if it is a broad and badly worded definition). Can you direct me to the relevant legislation? Puppy farms are alive and well. Going back briefly, not onlythat, but there are some KCAB breeding with nothing other than turnover in mind - why else would they breed from a dam with higher than breed average hips and no other heath tests for example?


We're in agreement on at least on thing.




You seem to suggest that I'm promoting e-collars as the first and only means of training/rehabilition. Again, I'm suggesting the ban isn't necessarily a good thing for the reasons I have outlined.

I'll come back to the rest later.....

In post 219 I laid out my reasoning as to why I do not think the ban is a good idea. I wrote it in order to provoke debate Wys (that's the whole point of discussion forums right?). In response to this, you opened post 223 withYou are here only to promote shock collars, not for any other reason?

If my sole intention was to be provocotive, I might have patronised you and explained the difference between talk maturity, and talk maturely, but back to the matter in hand......

The main idea behind my post was that the ban isn't neccessarily a good thing as it provides positive publicity to the RSPCA and the KC and gives them the opportunity to deflect criticsm over more serious matters.

Not sure of the relevance to Wales banning e-collars this is what the thread is about not Accredited Breeder Scheme


I don't care if the KC or RSPCA are using this as a promotion of welfare and basking in the glow of positive publicity, because it is actually a positive step forward for animal welfare. If you have a look around Dogsey, you will see not everyone appreciates the KC or RSPCA, but can still see the ban a good thing.


Afraid not, you see no grounds for collars to be banned and this allows them to be used on dogs with no penalty, this includes dogs from puppy farms and dog fighting and their rehabilitation to use e-collars is beyond cruel these dogs have been through enough without keeping e-collars legal. So you are happy any numpty can get an e-collar to train their dog.



[I]The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, The Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999
http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-pets/pets/cruelty/

you would also be happy to read this about reviewing the laws
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/8353736.stm


Yay

You outlined other issues one which are different threads. Not regarding this thread being on e-collar bans. So from what I read of your first post, the banning of e-collars is bad because the RSPCA and KC are involved, some person made a statement with vested interest in the e-collar business.

It is great to be passionate, but use your passion wisely other wise you are going to alienate people by saying e-collars aren't requiring a ban, when they do.

You may not like the RSPCA or KC that is fine, as I said have a look around the site and you will see others agree with you on this, but not when something positive is done about dog welfare.

I don't understand why you think banning e-collars aren't a good thing? All you carry on with is that the RSPCA and KC are basking in the glow of the outcome, well who really cares at the end of the day, they may have actually done something worth their 'animal welfare' status. This is not to say they are golden, or faultless. It sounds a bit whiney that you don't want the RSPCA or KC involved too, sorry but you harp on about them and not the actual issue of e-collars.

Please read other threads on here first.

Threads are good and this particular thread is about e-collars not about the subjects you have brought up there are actually threads on here where you can comment on them and make your point but this is not the right one unless you want to solely discuss e-collars, not your thoughts on the RSPCA, I think you will find people on here are not as foolhardy as you think, but go to the right thread for it. I am repeating myself as you don't seem to get what this thread is about and detouring is only going to lose the message of this thread.

Okay, but can you please focus on the e-collar matter, this is after all what this thread it about, there are other threads or you can start one about the other topics.

No, "talk maturity" was what i meant. Not "talk maturely"

I don't really see where you're coming from... the ban is not only to do with KC etc but many individuals who wrote into the consults. Yes, it does provide good publicity (although I can't think if asked, many dog owners would even realise what had recently occurred, to be honest!) but I don't think for one moment their intention was to use a ban for that purpose, ie deflecting criticism. They've been working on it for ages, years even.

I would certainly criticise anyone where i saw fit, whoever they were... and yes, puppy farms etc should also be banned. I recall when one government OKd this for the Welsh farmers. Not a good day.

Wys
x

OK, ban is not only down to KC/RSPCA, but from the BBC article, they're certainly doing the flagwaving. The KC have been desperate for some sort of good publicity since the TV programme highlighted breeding practices/health issues (was it last year?), and now they've got it. There was also the Kisco/Balding interview recently re GSD's and the KC now have two things about which they can claim to be promoting dogs welfare.

It may not have been their intention, but they're not letting it pass by. And again, along with the GSD issue, they can "be seen to be doing something."


I see the way to combat puppy farms as being responisble breeding. This is where the KC could come in, but they need to enforce high standards on the KCAB, which is one of the areas where I feel they are letting themselves down. And then we start the whole cycle again - this ban (in my view) gives the KC credibility and allows them to deflect any criticism ...... I see it all as being interwined, not fragmented individual issues.

I can see where you are coming from when you state it like this, but again - I do not see the KC advocating the ban of e-collars as being a bad thing - it is not going to magically make the other issues disappear and I highly doubt the people who are continuing to campaign for puppy farms being banned and breeding standards to be raised will suddenly think the KC are the best and forget these issues - but anything that looks towards the welfare of dogs and education of people has to be a step in the right direction

Michael did I say you suddenly appeared, I am well aware of your joining date (unless of course you are saying you are one of the two people of whom I spoke having rejoined ).
If you read my post you will note I said..

'' We used to have 'an odd couple' of e collar salesman who suddenly appeared as if by magic every time e collars were mentioned , they seemed to have absolutely no interest in canine welfare only selling e collars and used discussions about training dogs as a smoke screen to sell their goods and cover their own failings.''

....the first part of the paragraph is incidental, the second part of the paragraph having a parallel to your previous assertions.

My own personal opinion is that these infernal devices are inhumane, and that no decent person would use one on an animal he/she professed to love. Of course, some might not love their dogs, in which case, they shouldn't be here. [seemples]

Snorri

I'm suggesting that the publicty gained by the KC from this detracts from other equally if not more important issues.

From the BBC site: Communications Director Caroline Kisko said: "Electric shock collars train dogs through pain and through fear - they are a cruel, outdated and unsuitable method of training dogs. "

Strong emotional language, the KC are now able to claim they are making a real difference regarding dog welfare. I'm saying that is a bad thing as the issues I previously raised can be put aside (at least for the time being). It is my opinion that this outweighs any good that has been achieved by the welsh ban.




The step in the right direction is the ban in Wales. From 2010 Animal Welfare (electonic collars) (Wales): it is prohibited for a person to:

(a) attach an electronic collar to a cat or dog:
(b) cause an electronic collar to be attached to a cat or dog: or
(c) be responsible for a cat or dog to which an electronic collar is attached.

The collar itself has not been banned, and it is not an offence to be in possesion of an electronic collar, and so policing of this act is at best difficult, if not totally impractical.

According to the E-collars manufacturers's association, there are roughly 500 000 collars in the UK, 20 000 in Wales. I've never actually seen anyone using an e-collar so I suspect that most are lying dormant somewhere - but I'll leave the estimate of how many are in regular use in Wales to someone else.

So just how much good has really been done through the enactment of this ban?

I'm suggesting that any good which comes from it may well be outweighed by the harm that is allowed to continue (due to the points I've allready raised).