>>What happened to having an opinion and freedom of speech ? <<

Good question.  Apparently MANY posters on this forum want to stifle it by banning a member with whom they disagree.  Interesting, don't you think?

I'm not bothered if he's banned or not but I'd like to see another dimention to him after all how many times can you say the same thing.

> Interesting, don't you think?

No.

But this particular issue is more than just a difference of opinion.  This is not one person saying, for example, 'use this harness' as an answer to everything - this is one person (well, 2 or 3) recommending devices that are known to cause pain and acute stress.  This is a welfare issue.

I'm all for freedom of speech but I do disagree with openly advocating and recommending tools known to cause pain.

As someone else said on one of these threads, if someone popped up recommending hitting the dog as a solution to everything then we'd all be up in arms and rightly so - I don't see how this is different.

Agree, Nikita.

Lindsay
x

How about a POLL - open for a fixed period of time and to existing members only to prevent hijack - so that we can state our agreement, or not, to the use of aversives such as e collars and prong collars. 

From then on we could simply refer all new members to this POLL and an appropriate STATEMENT to say that the majority of users support kind reward based training for our dogs.  In that way the zappers only receive one 'group reply' and we avoid lengthy debates.

Would that work?  Who knows how to do a POLL?

Don't forget choke chains, headcollars, martingales, flat collars, slip leads and harnesses.

Listen, I'm not a fan of shock collars, harnesses are indifferent, headcollars are dangerous, choke chains and slip leads are for all intents the same things, and prong collars aren't suitable for all dogs but share the traits of a martingale.  If you're going to selectively pick aversives then you're in danger of harming dogs, but why would you care, you're not the one who's picking up the vets bill or dealing with the resulting issues after promoting the wrong equipment.  EVERYONE supports reward based training, how kind it is is completely subjective, and that's where the fine line between adult discussion and name calling gets crossed every time....but you've already decided the majority decision without declaring anyones knowledge on the subject so why not just forget the question, shorten the poll to "Are you biased Yes/No?" and leave it that vacant and vauge. I'll bet most say "no" until you actually ask them a question.

You know what's more frustrating than someone hijacking threads with shock collars? The fact the very next tool mentioned in that post is a prong collar. Then they end up in the same sentence. Then the distinction between the two becomes blurred and the thread becomes a flame war.  Trying to prevent discussion of them won't make them go away, why not come up with suggestions on better moderation so reasoned debate can take place?  For example, remove posts from hijacked threads.  Remove emotive posts from the trolls on both sides (yes, trolls are both pro and anti) who answer the threads every time one of these is mentioned to simply insult and goad a response?

For the record, my list of aversives with the liklihood to cause physical harm, from most likely to least likely runs:  e-collar, headcollar, harness, choke chain, prong collar. Martingales and flat collars coud easily be above prong collars as aversives too, but since it's a legal requirement for a dog to wear a collar out in public and it's impractical using a prong collar as a long term or every day collar with a tag then by default of necessity instead of potential to cause harm they'd have to drop behind a prong on the list.  I'm completely open to debate on that, but I'll also bet any thread started to openly discuss the pro's and con's would get hijacked.....

regards,

Austin

The difference there is, EVERYONE here agrees on what's acceptable and what isn't, and those that don't never stick around for long.

Ok, not EVERYONE agrees on what's acceptable. Not EVERYONE wants to discuss it objectively.  Not EVERYONE realises they're in a glass house throwing stones.

Ever been bullied off a board by trying to state a factual point when the self selected "EVERYONE" is constantly hurling petty abuse with no substance backing them up?

How long would you be prepared to stick around for that?

regards,

Austin

if we don't debate it.. no-one will see any of the down side...

Um, that's not debating, that's just telling someone they're wrong.  Debating is presenting the facts, upsides as well as downsides.

regards,

Austin

> Teri and HG don't visit anymore either, the board becomes a less charismatic place, year by year......................

As a Prodigal daughter returning my thoughts are such:

1. A very difficult moral call, as I agree (with Nikkita's obervation) the use of zapping a dog with electricity is a welfare issue, abusive and abhorent. But I would not like to see the topic and ability to debate it banned. I agree with those members who have previously stated on this thread we must continue to have the ability to counter the (sometimes ridiculous/ wildly inaccurate) statements and claims made in the promotion of these devices.

2. The topic has become a 'War of attrition':
To those members becoming jaded and feel they are banging their heads against a wall in a futile fashion I would say, remember Winston Churchill he was defeated in every election for public office until he became Prime Minister at the age of 62. He later wrote, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up." (his capitals, mind you)

3. In regard to the above I would like to appluad my learned friend LilyMc's suggestion of a standard worded response that all members in opposition to the use of these devices can use to avoid the 'show casing' that inevitably happens when the supporter(s) of these devices spam on forum. that would also help to avoid being drawn into a tail chase of discussion should the member just wish to show their disagreement (and the extent of disagreement across the board) and promote better methods.
(It's a shame we don't have the facebook style [like] and [dislike] buttons for individual posts! where advice is of a dubious nature, but sadly I expect it would be miss used as a catalyst for a bun-fight in other areas ;-))

4.In the interest of fairness this particular debate has prompted me (as one who has been away for some time) to wonder:
Taking away the subject matter of the poster that this thread discusses, it appears to me that intrinsically we have a member who has a one subject matter agenda and appears to be hi-jacking threads to steer them on to a course that promotes that subject matter... Historically past members have been banned for prolific posting and doggedly following one track without letting go. I know we longer serving members can name a few and that given a precedence was set. Why one rule for some and not for others? ( I repeat my personal opinion is that I don't support the banning of members for their content) But I do support the banning of members if they disregard polite reminders from Admin/Mods to rein in when their being too prolific becomes a nuisance.

Well I have to say it's uncanny Carrington should name Teri and I together as Teri and I did indeed have a conversation at the side of the Terv ring at Crufts about how long we'd been away... :-D
   And although I've walked back in to the middle of a bun-fight ( *wry smile*) Its good to be back :-)

Now as Liberty in her wiseness would have said in such moments: "Where's the Ribena!?"
HG :-D

Fantastic to see you back HG.