Without having access to them and my lab I can only make an educated guess that if they have been subjected to electric shock treatment then yes, I would consider them to be mentally and physically abused.

Just because brain damage does not manifest itself in a clearly visible manner, does not mean it doesn't exist. And I am sure many people will watch the vids and say yes it does look like the dog is brain damaged.

E collars get dogs to do what we want by rewarding them (neg reinforcment) when we like their behaviour

E collars doesn't punish them anymore than reward based training (scientific definition) I doubt punishment ect is mental/physical abuse.

Reward based techniques cause just as much if not more stress and frustration during the learning process as aversive. And if they don't work (just look round the forum) that stress and frustratinon was for nothing!

Wouldn't be a very free forum would it?

Just a forum for people who agree!

Adam

I (in comon with most people) don`t need to see a scientific study to know that hurting animals is plain wrong. It damages the animal... and it damages the person doing it.
I will not hurt an animal with a tool or a hand or a boot or a club because there are better ways to train.
People who sell e-collars or promote them are promoting the idea that hurting animals to get them to do what you want is OK. It isn`t. Most people know it isn`t.
So hopefully these dreadful devices can soon be banned in the rest of the UK.

As much as I am against electric shock collars, no. Because we're against censorship of your opinions.

I wouldn't want to go on a site where my opinion about a dog related topic might be censored *shrug*. Who gets to decide what you should or shouldn't think - I find that all a bit scary tbh and wouldn't want to be part of such a draconian site.

Please keep all feedback about the site in the feedback section. Thanks. Both posts will be moved there shortly

Then surely Adam is entitled to his opinion that e-collars are fine?

actually, technically, +R is so called as you give the dog something after it has performed a desired behaviour, to increase likelihood of that behaviour re-occurring.

positive means to add something, negative means to take something away.

the defintion doesnt relate to codes or modes of punishment per se, but i get the drift of your point anyway.

i wondered what the feck his last paragraph meant as well....

Of course. Just as I am entitled to say he is wrong.
These cruel devices are aggressively marketed all over the place. So in a way his weak and illogical arguments in favour of them give people a chance to redress the balance.
Which is fine as long as the manufacturers and sellers of these instruments of torture don`t get up to dirty tricks like - oh, for example joining a forum in order to publicise them in a roundabout way.

Adam - please edit post #14 and use the quote tag feature that should be used when quoting others. Thanks.

Where have I said that he isn't entitled to his opinion?

There is of course the fact that they are banned in part of the UK.... so people from Wales shouldn't be reading threads like this

Azz, if e-collars were banned across the UK, would you then prevent people from recommending their use on here.... as it would be incitement to do something against the law?