The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.



It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

By using the remote collar, one can redirect or correct their dog and get an
immediate response. I have found that if the dog is confused or unsure of what
he should be doing, he will more likely vocalize when responding to the collar.
The same dog, however, when not confused, will show no reaction at all at that
same level.

Additionally, I know of no study that shows the collar to be medically
dangerous, including in cases of epilepsy. In fact, I am personally aware of
am epileptic dog that uses the remote collar with no problems or side-effects.

To suggest that remote collar training is cruel, is ridiculous. In fact, I
believe quite the opposite. A choke chain can be not only physically and
emotionally challenging for the owner to manage, but is clearly difficult and
often confusing for the dog as well. The remote collar is a quick and
stress-free method of getting a dog to quickly learn what is expected of him.
In my opinion, this is what all dogs ultimately need, and once accomplished,
they tend to be much more relaxed and content.

Kathryn Allen, DVM

Indian Bend Animal Hospital
3923 East Thunderbird Road, Suite 123
Phoenix, Arizona 85032

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to
argue for another there is a significant risk that it will be countered
with the abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up
abusive or misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of
the remote training collar. The remote training collar is very much
subject to abuse and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use
of the remote collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are
going overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote
collar are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument.
But then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the
mere fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a
statement that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.



--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to
argue for another there is a significant risk that it will be countered
with the abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up
abusive or misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of
the remote training collar. The remote training collar is very much
subject to abuse and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use
of the remote collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are
going overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote
collar are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument.
But then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the
mere fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a
statement that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.



--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to
argue for another there is a significant risk that it will be countered
with the abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up
abusive or misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of
the remote training collar. The remote training collar is very much
subject to abuse and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use
of the remote collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are
going overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote
collar are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument.
But then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the
mere fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a
statement that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.



--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to
argue for another there is a significant risk that it will be countered
with the abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up
abusive or misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of
the remote training collar. The remote training collar is very much
subject to abuse and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use
of the remote collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are
going overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote
collar are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument.
But then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the
mere fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a
statement that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.



--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to
argue for another there is a significant risk that it will be countered
with the abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up
abusive or misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of
the remote training collar. The remote training collar is very much
subject to abuse and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use
of the remote collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are
going overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote
collar are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument.
But then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the
mere fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a
statement that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.



--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen. Dr. Allen
is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations" remote collar
specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended both a "No
Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear that it
is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there is occasional
discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is that it is not only
less painful than other traditional methods of training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I have
seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a choke chain can
cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course, is exasperated when the
chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is left on, even for brief amount
of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and suffocate. Also, I have had to
surgically remove more than one chain that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to
the point that the neck tissue actually grew around the chain. This, of
course, is only in cases of obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to
argue for another there is a significant risk that it will be countered
with the abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up
abusive or misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of
the remote training collar. The remote training collar is very much
subject to abuse and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use
of the remote collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are
going overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote
collar are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument.
But then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the
mere fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a
statement that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.



--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dogplay.com/Shop/

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:50:57 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled
these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen.
Dr. Allen is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations"
remote collar specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended
both a "No Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve
seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear
that it is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there
is occasional discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is
that it is not only less painful than other traditional methods of
training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I
have seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a
choke chain can cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course,
is exasperated when the chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is
left on, even for brief amount of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and
suffocate. Also, I have had to surgically remove more than one chain
that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to the point that the neck tissue
actually grew around the chain. This, of course, is only in cases of
obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to argue for
another there is a significant risk that it will be countered with the
abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up abusive or
misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of the remote
training collar. The remote training collar is very much subject to abuse
and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use of the remote
collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are going
overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote collar
are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument. But
then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the mere
fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a statement
that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.

Your examination of the typical veterinarian's behavioral knowledge is
akin to what physicians knew about nutrition 20 years ago. They have/had a
long way to go in a critical area...

My problem isn't with method, but with what Dr Allen acknowledges but
doesn't include in her argument: there's simply too much neglect and abuse
in the general public--how much more does she need to see before
NOT recommending high-tech dog-shocking toys?

The same abusive owner, having ratcheted a "stun-gun" on their dog's neck,
will use it indescriminately and the canine world will go from one
possibly not as physically abused from chokers to one psychologically
depressed and abused.

Arming hillbilly-idiots with shock toys will inevitably lead to social
demonstrations of their newfound remote "power" and the future dog running
out in front of a bus may be doing so--in hopes of being plowed under. All
we can pray for in shock collar popularity is the novelty will wear out
before the owner replaces the batteries. And Dr Allen, what's keeping
the same owners from letting the dog's skin grow over the substitute
electric prongs instead?

If Dr Allen's point was to merely discuss the net result of shocking on a
dog's neck, fine, but that doesn't lend to the argument of a
recommendation by any means. Properly administrated, any (old-school
analogue) tool will work for behavior. It has for ages.

Again, a dog knows how to be a dog, it's the people who are the problem.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:50:57 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled
these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen.
Dr. Allen is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations"
remote collar specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended
both a "No Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve
seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear
that it is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there
is occasional discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is
that it is not only less painful than other traditional methods of
training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I
have seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a
choke chain can cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course,
is exasperated when the chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is
left on, even for brief amount of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and
suffocate. Also, I have had to surgically remove more than one chain
that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to the point that the neck tissue
actually grew around the chain. This, of course, is only in cases of
obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to argue for
another there is a significant risk that it will be countered with the
abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up abusive or
misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of the remote
training collar. The remote training collar is very much subject to abuse
and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use of the remote
collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are going
overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote collar
are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument. But
then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the mere
fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a statement
that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.

Your examination of the typical veterinarian's behavioral knowledge is
akin to what physicians knew about nutrition 20 years ago. They have/had a
long way to go in a critical area...

My problem isn't with method, but with what Dr Allen acknowledges but
doesn't include in her argument: there's simply too much neglect and abuse
in the general public--how much more does she need to see before
NOT recommending high-tech dog-shocking toys?

The same abusive owner, having ratcheted a "stun-gun" on their dog's neck,
will use it indescriminately and the canine world will go from one
possibly not as physically abused from chokers to one psychologically
depressed and abused.

Arming hillbilly-idiots with shock toys will inevitably lead to social
demonstrations of their newfound remote "power" and the future dog running
out in front of a bus may be doing so--in hopes of being plowed under. All
we can pray for in shock collar popularity is the novelty will wear out
before the owner replaces the batteries. And Dr Allen, what's keeping
the same owners from letting the dog's skin grow over the substitute
electric prongs instead?

If Dr Allen's point was to merely discuss the net result of shocking on a
dog's neck, fine, but that doesn't lend to the argument of a
recommendation by any means. Properly administrated, any (old-school
analogue) tool will work for behavior. It has for ages.

Again, a dog knows how to be a dog, it's the people who are the problem.

On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:50:57 +0000, TOTE wrote:

On 07 Sep 2004 04:52:03 GMT Sitmeanssit whittled
these words:
The following is a written piece from Veterinarian Dr. Kathy Allen.
Dr. Allen is also a client of Toni Drugmand, who is a "No Limitations"
remote collar specialist (see www.nolimitations.biz), and has attended
both a "No Limitations" agility seminar, and a "No Limitations" retrieve
seminar as well.


It seems the greatest concern with remote collar training is the fear
that it is either harmful or painful to the dog. Where I'm sure there
is occasional discomfort evoked by the collar, my overall impression is
that it is not only less painful than other traditional methods of
training, but much safer.

The choke chain can, and has caused a variety of health problems that I
have seen repeatedly in my practice. Tugging or snapping back on a
choke chain can cause injury to the neck and trachea. This, of course,
is exasperated when the chain with prongs are used. If a choke chain is
left on, even for brief amount of time, a dog can get hung-up on it and
suffocate. Also, I have had to surgically remove more than one chain
that had imbedded into the dog's flesh to the point that the neck tissue
actually grew around the chain. This, of course, is only in cases of
obvious neglect.

If the people arguing against remote collar training are at the same time
arguing in favor of the choke collar then maybe this would be useful
argument. That, however, is rarely the case.

If one wants to address issues of misuse or abuse of one tool to argue for
another there is a significant risk that it will be countered with the
abuses and misuses of the tool being argued for. Bringing up abusive or
misuse of the choke or slip collar is poor argument in favor of the remote
training collar. The remote training collar is very much subject to abuse
and misuse. And unlike the choke collar the abusive use of the remote
collar does not give the user any tactile warning that are going
overboard. And even where the consequences of abuse of the remote collar
are not as physically harmful as abuse of the slip collar the
mental/emotional consequences can be very servere.

I am not arguing against the remote collar, but I am arguing against the
presentation. I think it is misleading and disenguous to fail to note the
consequences of abuse of the remote collar.

If this veterinarian thinks that there are only two choices, remote collar
or slip collar, then there is a huge credibility gap in the argument. But
then unless a veterinarian is established as a skilled trainer the mere
fact that they are a veterinarian does not lend credibility to a statement
that any training device is cruel or not. Veterinarians are not
particularly well educated in dog behavior, dog training, dog breeding,
dog socialization and any number of other issues involving our family
companions. Individual veterinarians may have interests that encourage
them to educate themselves in those areas in the same way many here have,
but it is not a signiciant part of the veterinary education. Many
veterinarians give really lousy and unsupportable advice in these areas.

Your examination of the typical veterinarian's behavioral knowledge is
akin to what physicians knew about nutrition 20 years ago. They have/had a
long way to go in a critical area...

My problem isn't with method, but with what Dr Allen acknowledges but
doesn't include in her argument: there's simply too much neglect and abuse
in the general public--how much more does she need to see before
NOT recommending high-tech dog-shocking toys?

The same abusive owner, having ratcheted a "stun-gun" on their dog's neck,
will use it indescriminately and the canine world will go from one
possibly not as physically abused from chokers to one psychologically
depressed and abused.

Arming hillbilly-idiots with shock toys will inevitably lead to social
demonstrations of their newfound remote "power" and the future dog running
out in front of a bus may be doing so--in hopes of being plowed under. All
we can pray for in shock collar popularity is the novelty will wear out
before the owner replaces the batteries. And Dr Allen, what's keeping
the same owners from letting the dog's skin grow over the substitute
electric prongs instead?

If Dr Allen's point was to merely discuss the net result of shocking on a
dog's neck, fine, but that doesn't lend to the argument of a
recommendation by any means. Properly administrated, any (old-school
analogue) tool will work for behavior. It has for ages.

Again, a dog knows how to be a dog, it's the people who are the problem.