here we go
as i have stated more than once "no" and never will.
isn't it strange lucky how some people in life can't agree to disagree.
every person has their own point of view either you agree or disagree shame some folk don't realise that fact.
ops its gone off topic again......

You just don't get it do you Lou? There is an awful big difference between those folks and you. 'Those folks' are trying to tell you loud and clear that they don't want to deliberately make there dog feel uncomfortable. They aren't saying they don't want their dog to cooperate with them, they are saying they would rather train their dog to cooperate without making him or her feel 'uncomfortable'. They don't want to consider taking out a control box, they don't want to consider holding down buttons until their dog get it to turn off, they don't want to consider notching up the shock level until their dog gets to the point where he wants it to stop.

What they do want is a dog that is a companion, a friend. They wouldn't treat their human companions and friends in such a way and don't want to treat their dog that way either.

Just to clear up my stand on this, I am one of the 'they's'

That was me.

Yes, there are. And sometimes those methods fail. The original post in this thread was about one such failure.

I'm not trying to tell you that. Perhaps you should take a few minutes and read all the posts. Of course there are people who use Ecollars for other things. But on this forum discussion about the use of the tool for everyday problems isn't allowed. I'm ONLY discussing them as they apply to saving a dog's life when all other methods have failed.

There have been many accounts of behavioral problems not being solved with those methods and of dogs lives being saved by Ecollars.

You're right they're not. But they've saved the lives of many dogs that otherwise would have been put to sleep.

at last..........bravo!

you know what. i couldnt give 2 stuffs how many lives they have saved and i dare say they do work, but for the wrong reasons. I honestly couldnt care less if they work, they are not needed!

i would never use one and would never ever recommend anyone to use one.
its not often that correct methods do not work if they are applied by a qualified behaviourist. There are many different methods for every single behaviour problem that can be used and im sorry but unless the dog has some mental problem that is irreversable, then i cant see why any methods would not work.

the question is have you ever trained a dog without needing some form of aid or tool.
or do you just try any thing on the market before you use the old ways of training a dog?
1000's of dogs over the years have been trained with the use of postive training methods.
you say if it saved 1 dogs life your'll be happy but then if your methods in which you practice and teach with the required results at the end of it then why do you feel the need to defend them or push your view on to every one else?
it doesn't matter what we think to the e collar.

Jenny
my thoughts firstly was that a qualified and experienced behaviourist will be able to help you solve your dogs aggression problems.

Denis (Clob)
There is no such qualification, unless you like to name it so it can be examined. The way you write I get the impression that you are a pet dog owner who has been told there is some kind of qualification, there is not. I was the trainer and in the case of the home situation you might call me a behaviourist, I could call myself a behaviourist but I would not have my name involved with that that label.

Jenny
It sounds to me like the person who helped you was under qualified.

Denis (Clob)
That is probably because you think there is such a thing, there is not, however, what about a KC accreditation? Do you consider that a ‘qualification’?

Jenny
I am beginning to doubt that the trainer was not a member of the apdt as they require all of their qualified trainers to use positive methods of training, this does not sound to be the case.

Denis (Clob)
Every time anyone is asked what they mean by ‘positive methods’ no one replies, so, if you go back to the OP post you will see what the owners were told for the £100 and it is standard treats and stuff first.

APDT is just one of dozens of organisations which call themselves ‘positive training or trainers’ the fact is they use a punishment based method, the term ‘positive’ and ‘reward’ are commercial terms, they ‘appeal/attract’ the dog owners.

It was me who first asked the owner if the trainer/s belonged to any organisation, all the owners knew was that the main trainer/behaviourist said she belonged to some organisation but they neither knew or cared what it was so I told them it was almost certainly APDT as they are the biggest.

As it turned out when she checked it was not APDT and apologised here. That makes no difference people calling themselves positive trainers are telling pet owners they use ‘positive methods’ one organisation cannot suddenly slag off another organisations members because their ‘positive training is ‘more’ positive than another organisations ‘positive methods' when in fact 'positive methods' is no more than a commercial term.

However, your post sounds more thought out than most on here (which is why I replied to yours), so, if you read it again you see that if that dog had gone to quite a number of people here that dog would be dead by now. It would ONLY have gone back to any rescue if the rescue guaranteed the owners it had a placement on a farm to go to and they would almost certainly have checked it out for themselves.

I don’t know how many people on here would have been the death of this dog but I can name some of them – Wiziwig, known APDT member, Christine Brierley, known APDT member…there’s quite a few more, so if killing a perfectly healthy dog for displaying perfectly normal behaviour, for that dog, is what you call positive (as they do by clear implication) then that is your preference, as it is theirs, it was not the owners preference, the dog had no say either way.

Quite frankley if those people who's hand would have killed this dog are claiming some kind of credibilty then I for one do not see it.

On a more serious note - perhaps this is more down to human error than canine. I say again - let the dogs be dogs. We are supposed to be the superior race and highly intelligent so surely we shouldn't have to resort to pain/shock etc. to understand and live with another type of being? And if certain members of the human race do have to resort to such extreme methods, perhaps the animals in question shouldn't be kept by the masses - or perhaps some people are so rubbish and impatient with dogs they shouldn't have them anyway. And if they are SO BAD with animals they shouldn't have access to e-collars!

Blimey, this thread is active again!!!
Round and round in circles we go....
AZZ WHERE ARE YOU???
This has been debated into the ground, back out again and into the ground again...many times.
We are, at this point giving Clob and Lou a chance to twitter on again about how rude we all are, how we won't listen to reason and how we are naive and would rather have dogs put to sleep than have their lives saved by electric shock.
I'm signing out again. This thread ahs run it's course (again).
These deveices are barbaric and should be consigned to history.
People who truly love their dogs will perservere with kind and positive methods.
Going to do something more interesting now....

im staying out of this one but i will say one thing i agree with LS and ailsa 1