This is a placeholder text
Group text
by TessJ10 on 25 February 2009 - 15:02
"Tess, you are one step away from suggesting an outright ban on the devices, which I will suggest (in my opinion) is your true intent and goal."
Oh, man, you are so, so wrong. Totally wrong.
Please quote my statements that make you think this.
Actually, you might be mixing me up with another poster.
by Mystere on 25 February 2009 - 17:02
Tess,
Your constant railing is what gives that impression. EVERYONE has agreed that it is a tool that can, and has been, abused! There is NO dispute about that. Yet, you go on and on and on and on.... as if "someone" (everyone) feels/believes that it cannot and is never misused.
If everyone is in agreement, and that appears to be the case, why go on and on ad nauseum, unless you are, in fact, after something more, such as a ban?
Your constant railing is what gives that impression. EVERYONE has agreed that it is a tool that can, and has been, abused! There is NO dispute about that. Yet, you go on and on and on and on.... as if "someone" (everyone) feels/believes that it cannot and is never misused.
If everyone is in agreement, and that appears to be the case, why go on and on ad nauseum, unless you are, in fact, after something more, such as a ban?
by TessJ10 on 25 February 2009 - 19:02
Oh, knock it off. I go "on and on," as you say, because some people on here put words in my mouth that I never said, and I won't stand for it.
I'll ask again - give me ONE quote I said where I'm implying a ban. Go on. Do it.
I'll ask again - give me ONE quote I said where I'm implying a ban. Go on. Do it.
by TessJ10 on 25 February 2009 - 19:02
Maybe it was me saying we have to defend our use of e-collars that makes you think I'm in some Machiavellian way asking for the opposite:
"But none of us do the sport any good unless we aren't afraid to defend our legitimate use of e-collars to the public while not ignoring their mis-use and pretending it doesn't happen, but calling it out when we see it."
Where in there do you see a ban?
"But none of us do the sport any good unless we aren't afraid to defend our legitimate use of e-collars to the public while not ignoring their mis-use and pretending it doesn't happen, but calling it out when we see it."
Where in there do you see a ban?
by 4pack on 25 February 2009 - 23:02
Tess so the dog is zapped what is your point? It should be a low setting as to not make the dog jump, cower or lay it's ears back, just enough to remind it, like a tap on the shoulder "hey, pay attention". If not the e, then it's a collar correction and that does the very same thing, so again, what is wrong with using the e? It is not abuse unless you are overdoing the strength of the correction. That can be said with a flat collar and the heli correction too, it's not the tool on the dog that is the problem, it's the "Tool" on the other end of the leash. My dog takes the e collar corrections better than a stern "no" from me.
by Mindhunt on 26 February 2009 - 00:02
Cledford, very impressive, you and your dog look great. Hard work looks like it paid off. Your post 310 is also good. My trainer used an e-collar on a dog that charged horses whether on lead or off, spent a long time working from basics up to no avail (other than cementing the basics real well) did everything prior to resorting to e-collar (used correctly). Dog finally got the idea that it is not acceptable to charge the horses and still doesn't do it to this day. He was a good dog with everything else, he just appeared to have a "thing" for charging horses (left the cows alone).
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top