Just read this thread with interest.  I didn't get a good bye pm from AP but I did get pm'd by him when I posted problems with my dog and when I chipped in on the discussion on collars.  I replied politely the first time and then just ignored him.  I always said that the worrying thing about the way he operated was his ability to pm people - yes he is a polite man and perhaps his intentions were good in his eyes - did he actually benefit financially from any of his use of this forum?   People who are unexperienced with dog training who are very open to suggestion - desperate to grasp an easy solution to their dog behaviour problems, were particularly vulnerable to his private conversations that nobody else could put up an argument against.  I have been there - but I have been lucky enough to be given plenty of good advice on here before he came along to opt for the best way to train - not necessarily the easiest way!!  Thanks to this forum I have been educated!  I don't think I have quite finished my education yet though - still working on my dog's behaviour and will be until the day she dies.  I was told yet again that I would have no problem finding a good home for my dog!  She is such a brilliant little dog - shame about the handler!

> I always said that the worrying thing about the way he operated was his ability to pm people -

Surely it is against TOS to use the PM facility to spam people with products or services? It is on other forums. Different if people were Pming Adam to ask for his services, yes - but for him to PM people who post about their dog's issues is blatant misuse.

> did he actually benefit financially from any of his use of this forum?

Yes, he did.  In one of his PMs to me he very clearly stated that he had gotten plenty of business from this forum.  Not clients, not cases - he used the word 'business', indiciating that it has been profitable for him.

That to me says it all - I have not profited from any of my cases, quite the opposite I expect if I was to sit down and work out what I'd spent on treats, equipment etc.  I have done it all to help the dogs, he was very open about using the forum to advertise and gain business.

Goodness this thread has gone off topic!!!!  In reply to MsTemeraire who said > it is against TOS to use the PM facility to spam people with products or services

I never said that the subject of this thread ever offered me anything but advice - I just chose not to take it.  But in offering his advice as a PM it meant that no-one could counter-argue and give a poster a balanced view.  Somewhere on this thread it was suggested that he was advertising his services in an indirect way - ie posting links to his videos - but I didn't get the impression that he was doing anything but championing his cause which everyone shot down on here anyway.  I wouldn't decry anyone offering advice by pm - I have had plenty and have been glad of it - but he was quite industrious doing it from what I can see - he did feel the need to 'sell' his theories of dog training.  There has been a lot of criticism for admin for letting him continue - and he has rightly put the thread in a prominent place for everyone to read and consider.  New people come on here every day and may not be familiar with the pros and cons (not that there are any pros that I can see) and it should be easy for new folks to see that these methods are not a quick fix.   Not sure what I am saying now and it is time to get ready to go to training.

Right I'm going to throw this back on topic

Going back to good riddance to a bad dog trainer..........

Looking at the thread on STAR the poor dog shot, tied up and buried alive, now sadly passed......... a thought crossed my mind and I almost posted on the thread, but decided to come back here instead, can anyone imagine anything worse after what she was put through than also being put in the hands of a trainer/owner like Adam and Co. To then say if she pulled...... being subjected to a prong collar, or electric shock collar if her recall was bad. It makes me shudder that she could ever have ended up in those hands.

Does that not bring home to those using those methods and even more so to those who seem indifferent to these training methods just how barbaric they really are?...............

It makes me shudder too Carrington but I don't think someone who uses prong collars or e-collars would care, because they always say again and again how they don't hurt are not cruel and seem to have started preaching that pronging or zapping your dog is far kinder than making it work for a treat or a toy, which is bizarre.

I'm so pleased that I don't read all the excuses and reasonings behind why they use these methods, your right they are totally bizarre.

I suppose it is a bit like being in a weird cult they all brainwash each other (very similar) not seeing the wood for the trees and continue to preach to make excuses for barbaric behaviour and a lack of being able to actually train a dog like the rest of us.

seem to have started preaching that pronging or zapping your dog is far kinder than making it work for a treat or a toy, which is bizarre.

I wonder if they have to try to justify it even to themselves so therefore have to come up with excuses like this. After all, nobody can have any excuse for NOT knowing the facts, not in this day and age. Deep down they must know how wrong it is.

Deep down they must know how wrong it is

I am not sure they do, it seems a head in the sand situation. They happily put horrific videos of terrified dogs up and suggest it shows the success of the punishment method. They obviously have no idea of how to read the canine body language because if they did they would see what they were doing - it also worries me that people who are oblivious to the signal put out by our dogs can advertise themselves as trainers and worse, canine behaviourists.

> so as long as somebody isnt being deliberately offensive or abusive how can they be removed?

Isn't that the whole point of this discussion?  On the one hand you have someone who is promoting methods of training which have been banned in some parts of the U.K. because of the cruelty involved, who was allowed to continue his campaign for ages before being banned and then someone who was banned for merely trying to uphold certain standards on here!

> Isn't that the whole point of this discussion?  On the one hand you have someone who is promoting methods of training which have been banned in some parts of the U.K. because of the cruelty involved, who was allowed to continue his campaign for ages before being banned and then someone who was banned for merely trying to uphold certain standards on here!  It makes no sense to me!

Ok, but look at this way. someone comes on and asks how do i get my dog to come back? Adam comes on and says zap it, and then 20 others come on and explain easier and nicer ways of doing it. Surely they will be educated more by the others saying no to zapping and yes to kind methods rather than just given an explanation on kind methods? They get to see not only the right way but also the wrong way?

Why was Adam Palmer not banned earlier ?

Well, Marks stance on that is that he naively did not realise AP was advertising and touting for business,  (I think Mark perhaps was in a coma for a few months not to have noticed, but ce la vie, we'll have to take him at his word. :-D) as both were clearly a breaking of TOS, which should have led to a banning.

Having a different opinion on training methods I agree is not a TOS offense and due to that Mark had no reason to ban him. :-)

> Well, Marks stance on that is that he naively did not realise AP was advertising and touting for business

Perhaps he just didnt have proof?

Carrington, have no idea how Mark did not know it was said often enough - suppose we can't expect him, Mark, to read everything but we were all aware.

Perhaps he just didnt have proof?

It was all over the board Tilly, links, videos, self advertising, if you look back on old threads you'll see the extent of the self promoting and advertising. I'm sure there were lots of complaints too. :-)

But, that was stopped eventually and it was a lot of hard work for our mods.

I think it is about clear reasons why a person is banned as I think what people are saying is that there is no consistency in who and why people are banned .

I also think people's motives for posting are a great consideration in the reason why somebody should be
banned by a clear directive of the ethics of the site eg whether the site supports methods of training like shock collars. They can be discussed but not to promote a tool or in deed their business as Adam Palmer was clearly doing.

I have just got hold of a copy of a book called Canine Behaviour ( insights and answers) from the publishers I am currently working at. It shows a graffic picture on the physical damage never mind the physiological damage these collars can cause :-(  A horrific injury is shown . The section around this,although  short concludes there are better more effective  alternatives that exist. In the hands of people who do not know the classic behavioural signs and principles of teaching a dog, it is a dangerous tool which results in the majority of dogs experiencing fear, stress and pain which is also associated with the person who administers the shock.

Forgot to say this is a book written by a Professor who practices in animal and clinical sciences and so not written by a ' unsubstantiated source.

Generally throwing in my five penorth (wrong spelling but still!)
I actually had a look at the link Mark had put up earlier in the thread about AP, followed some of them,

AP appears to have been asking/suggesting using his electric shocks on Horses .
Visions of him getting kicked into next week by something BIG with steel shoes on :-D :-D

Chris

I'm another glad to see the back of Adam Palmer. I was quite horrified to see him suggesting an e-collar for training a recall with a PUPPY once that I didn't bother reading any of his other posts