A END OF THE COMMON SENSE AND GOOD DOGS. - Page 10

Who is determining that it is 'extremist wacko's' that are pushing for this?  Do we know this for a fact? Or is any animal welfare organisation 'extremist' in your view Hans?   Maybe that is where the problem lies.
Our KC in the UK are lobbying for it. Animal welfare organisations seek it, for valid reasons - because that the majority of people do not know how to use these devices properly and will never bother to learn. Although we have a lot to criticise our KC for, but I wouldn't call them right wing, animal activists or extremist wacko's. At least they weren't the last time I looked. And the last thing they are trying to do is prevent dog ownership because they make far too much money from it!
I see your argument and understand where you are coming from. Any law and any action can be taken to the extreme as given in your examples. If you believe that this is where it is leading then of course, you are at liberty to believe that.  I am more inclined to believe that it is a move with animal welfare in mind, and not an underhand long term plan to take my dog away from me. Animal welfare has progressed considerably over the years, and is continuing to improve all the time thankfully. I do not see it as a threat, but as progress.
You seem to love your quotes Hans, so here is one I like:
      “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”   Mahatma Ghandi

But in all fairness, I see much more appropriate use of these tools today than in years past....actually almost everyone uses pinch collars in obedience these days, even the AKC obedience people ( which would be the equivalent to the UKC'sKennel Club), and it is not being used abusively. The very few people I see using electric these days are almost exclusively in the hands of skilled dog handlers and trainers. So the picture of all these people running around shocking and hanging dogs with prongs, is actually perceptionally  more prevalent than actual occurrence. So in that case, then the principles Hans espouses should not allow the liberty of using these tools to be forbidden....and the enforcement of current rules, morays, and regs against their abuse should be vigilantly sought.

In an ideal world, animal lovers (especially GOOD trainers who I believe are becoming less and less due to humans tendencies to limit themselves to perceived "good and correct" current trends rather than also looking outside of the box to truly be educated) would control "industries" like training. They are the experts after all. They should know to put things in order.
But money and competitions put a kink in this. More ribbons, higher placings, younger animals often equal better business. Clients look for those things often because they are not experts and rely on those trimmings. So the trainers need to have ethics and morals and gently control the perceptions of the real world.
If not, outsiders (politicians, activists etc) will step in and meddle.
Too many examples from the past to call up.
Just two from the horse world being poleing and hyperflexion. Not wrong if executed by experts with knowledge and care. Just got a client who has a rescue horse and has done some silly things due to lack of knowledge, yet has very strong opinions judging other who have a much broader knowledge base without any consideration that maybe there could be proper uses. This very nice and well meaning client has good points but not anywhere close to enough be able to write rules for good trainers. Yet in so many venues, those folks are getting stronger and stronger.

I also agree with Gustav, I think my observations also reflect a bit more consideration on how to use methods more appropriately.
And just to state my position, I believe appropriate is the operative word. Which is why I neither support pure positive methods and certainly not pure compulsive methods. To me, it starts with the individuals pairs of a specific human and his/her specific four legged partner.

Hans liberty in itself is a huge debate.

I am happy to forfeit my 'liberty'




Once the process is complete, the discussion is impossible.

COMMON SENSE AIN'T SO COMMON!

Abby Normal, Let me ask you honest question which I am asking for sake of clarity. What is in your eyes more important. Welfare of dogs or Liberty of people?
 
Prager Hans

Hans

This cannot be answered so simply, the question cannot be separated from a context IMO, though I think I see where you are leading with this.

But let’s take out the ‘emotional ‘dog’ factor’. You may as well ask is ‘liberty of people’ more important than the environment, or a particular species. In the long term the loss of a species or our rainforests etc, may have unforeseen consequences that ultimately causes the eventual extinction of mankind – what price liberty then? You cannot separate the question from a context. The person who made money from cutting down the rainforest isn’t going to be happy that if his ‘liberty’ is infringed when decisions are made to protect the rainforest and a ban is imposed against logging. You can’t please all of the people all of the time.

I am sure that you suspect that I put the welfare of dogs above the liberty of people, but I re-iterate it would depend on the circumstance, the particular aspect of welfare versus the level of impact on personal liberty. Context.

I have made my answer as succinct as possible.

Abby Normal.
Well you are  honest I'll give you that. However I was not talking about destruction of the planet, but about dog.  I  will always put liberty of even a single person  above any dog's welfare.  And I love dogs same as anybody or more. 
As far as Liberty and Life goes have you ever heard this one? 

..........Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry. 
Actually I have memorized this one. 
Prager Hans

 

Hans, of course I am honest, what would be the point of being anything else? Your views and mine meet in some places and diverge in others, but it has been an interesting conversation. I deliberately took dogs out of the question  in order to remove the 'emotional' aspect that they tend to evoke., thus focusing on liberty in a different context. 
I have heard lots of quotes about life, liberty and many other things too. These whilst quoted independently are not usually stated 'in isolation', but are the result of a much bigger event or situation, and should be taken in the context of the whole situation about which they were made.
I can really add no more to what I said before.