I find it quite telling how `Adam`s` grammar and spelling changes from post to post......
You could almost believe it was two people.

seconded by me

Like wilbar, i think it right to make the distinction between saying you are a cruel man and saying you perform a cruel act.
I feel you perform the latter, the video adds to that conclusion, the video also shows an otherwise reasonable chap with some good body langauge of his own, a calm demanour, good tone of voice, and possessing of dog training skills.

Its a shame you arent so aware of the body langauge and emotional level of the jack russell, or dogs in general.

Time is not an agument for using e collars.
These things shouldnt be rushed.
I have mixed dog aggressive dogs in with other dogs, you dont need e collars.

A careful combination of management (crates, stairgates, separate rooms, muzzles), routines and organisation (separate training), and emotionlly based training.
For example, prey drive techniques such as tug of war, the pushing technique, and using rubber rings as prey objects as a distractor/alternative for the jack russell.
For example, guided walking.
E collars are used to strip away that initial outer layer of aggression/reaction/over-arousal/lack of cognition and focus on the trainer.
However, they do so very very quickly, leaving the dog in a state of calm submission, confusion, repression.
You are correct when you say e collars, prong collars, and choke chains (*if* used without anger and stress reaction) are more 'efficient', as you only need to utilize their effects once or twice, so the application is even and the dog doesnt create resistance, so as not to risk physical harm.
Whereas, its true and ill fitted and poorly used halti, harness, etc, the dog can create more resistance to the handler and the handler can also cause the same harm thru their own frustration or stress as a handler can do with the prong/e/choke.

So the key to both sets of equipment is for the trainer to teach the handler to use them calmly and proactively.
Yes, the haltis etc will take longer and give allowance for the dog to have a freeer rein of reaction.
But that is the key point.
That is because it is an intuitive evolving process that takes into account ever shifting emotional states, contexts of the moment, and body langauge, meaning the dog is progressing with the trainer thru a symbioitc process of empathy.
So the dog is 'learning to change' in a manner which involves choice and gradual change.
And the dog should be allowed some side or small back steps or some 'wrongs'. ie, not needed to always move away form an othe rdog as a traini g rule, ie, not needed to alwasy have an imeadiate robodog recall when a vicinity recall is good enough. Etc, etc.
Allowing some managed behaviour from familiar to the old unwanted behaviour problem but not rooted in the old unwanted behaviour problem is a good oultet for the dog, and adds to his improving emotional stability and confidence.
Thats why OC principles are a bit counter intuitive at times, be they -R or + R.

All the above is thes the approach psychologists etc take with behavior modification of emotionally damaged humans, so the same should apply to other sentient beings, especially canines, whom share some human traits and emotions.

So i would take a few weeks or more of daily guided slow walking to strip away the same unwanted outer layer that e collars etc do.
Then once you have the dog congnitive, happier, calmer, responsive, then you can work on the problem, which is where other techniques such as prey drive training, classically conditioned treat association training, clicker training, operant condtioning look and treat training, whatever is best for the individual dog, come in.

No it does not, but sadly Adam has not got the KNOWALADGE /EXPERIENCE OR EMPATHY with dogs to be able to use a more understanding approach to rehabilitating them, he has not even got the gist of basic training.


He is a one trick pony, which has a nasty bite!!


What I have been saying from day one

AP never seems to miss an opportunity to promote the use of e-collars. He always (justifiably) gets a really hard time from members about this and has always been curiously courteous, patient and persistent in presenting his case. I have often wondered why someone who seems so endlessly patient in dealing what often amounts to a lot of personal abuse on this forum, wants to use such a brutal, quick fix for his dogs. It just didn't make sense. Why bother with the relentless, endlessly patient explanations promoting the merits of this method? Most people would have left and found a more sympathetic forum.

Is it all about money? Is AP using this forum to launch and promote an e-collars business? Left unhindered could he take up permanent residence in the Training and Behaviour section, where any inexperienced owner could be taken in by the patter? Why is Dogsey, which promotes positive reinforcement and improving animal welfare allowing AP the oxygen of publicity? Banning AP (whoever or whatever he/she/they are) would simply prevent their cynical attempt to sell their abhorrent wares on this site. These collars fly in the face of everything Dogsey represents. This is not about free speech, it is about personal ethics, people have been banned for far less.

your question highlighted is a great one, it does appear puzzling at face value, but when one thinks about it, solutions are not hard to fathom.

aside from your 'sales pitch' solution, their are the following likely scenarios;

1. quite simply if one is targetted with abuse by the same regular individual/s, it is just as easy to ignore them.
I have done this myself online.
It is quite easy just to say to oneself that so and so is just silly, so their musings arent significant enough to give regard to.

2. There is a distinction between a cruel man and an everyday decent chap whom perfoms what we regard as a cruel act.
Farmers whom pen border collies up in coffin shaped boxes for 24 hours, spring to mind (i knew some absolutely kind and generous farmers whom did this).
Halal slaughtermen?
These people inhabit a culture which is a way of life and has a context. But in all other respects can be good guys no different to you and me.

3. If we find something morally repugnant, it is much easier for us to ratonalise it by saying their 'must be something wrong with the man'.
Hence your feeling of anamoly above.
But it's not really an anamoly.
By saying a person that commits a cruel act is always a cruel man and therefore must be an aggressive or bonkers individual in general life (ie, denis the notorious e collar trainer whom was constantly abusive and slanderous), it means one does not have to see a commonality between that person and humanity, and therefore we can hide away the truth in all of us: we are all capable of acts of cruelty, regardless of our 'goodness' - just look at religion for an example of that.

As for banning and censorship for expressing unpopular views, yet having followed all the inter personal manners and politeness as required by dogsey rules, i disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly that in all of the scenarios above in bold there are no grounds for banning and censorship simply because you disagree with someone's opinion.

My point was that AP's approach is looking increasingly like a salespitch and having trawled through most of this thread it seems that there is some evidence to support that theory. In those circumstances is Dogsey an appropriate place for a business of this type, bearing in mind the accepted ethos of reward based training?


ETA: It's rather like a butcher joining a vegan society and touting his wares. Except that the consequences for dogs of being the subject of AP's products are far more insidious, to the extent they are now banned in Wales.

if they were banned in law (i hope so) i would not object to discussing the theoretical pupose of them online.
its a fine line though, as one would have to follow a law re promoting them i would think?

personally i dont think he is a corporate salesman, just a trainer that uses e collars

This point was touched on in a recent thread where it was stated choke chains can cause damage to dogs and someone quoted a vet's experience of damage caused, Adam said there was 'no research only opinion'
http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?p=2079380#post2079380

How is it possible to research whether or not something causes pain without actually inflicting pain and is it ethical to test for this anyway. It isn't imperative e collars are tested and used , it's not as though there are no alternative training methods available .

And how can a response to pain be accurately measured anyway, dogs (and humans ) respond differently to pain. I have known injured dogs who must have been in pain to be quiet and still while others yelp at the slightest touch.
I am told some severe injuries in humans like a severed foot can sometimes produce very little pain, but if you stick a pin in someone's arm unexpectedly it can be both painful and upsetting (ask any mother who has had a child vaccinated). Also we know different areas of the body are more sensitive to pain than others, that poor dog in the weirdo's video with the e collar strapped near to its genitals must have experienced great discomfort .

Of course the behaviour of dogs pre and post the use of an e collar can be monitored and changes observed, but no one will convince me it is possible to accurately measure the pain and anxiety a dog may experience with e collar use.

A dog's responses to various situations are often based on association with previous experiences. How do we know the sights/sounds/scents a dog experiences at the moment an e collar is used will not be recalled the next time the dog encounters similar things and that their association with the unpleasant e collar will not cause a dog to behave unpredictably maybe even with agression.

I really fail to to understand how anyone who decides to become a dog trainer (which leads one to assume they have an empathy with animals) could possibly decide to use a training method which causes at the very least discomfort when there are other painless but effective methods of training available.

Perhaps AP would like to clear this up himself? AP, have you, do you, will you sell e-collars?