Quote: Electronic training devices such as electronic fences and anti-barking collars rely on painful punishment and negative reinforcement,
causing dogs to live in fear of being electrocuted for normal behaviors like crossing invisible lines, barking, and jumping onto surfaces within their own homes. Earlier I wrote, Their very language gives them away. "Electrocution" means to kill by electricity and no do has EVER been killed by ANY Ecollar, even the older ones that had much higher levels of stim. AGAIN there's no evidence here, just more opinion.
Susan gave this link
This link to yet ANOTHER anti-Ecollar site. This time it's the KC (The Kennel Club) in the UK. This is an organization of behaviorists who stand to suffer fiscal loss from Ecollars. Their members long ago took a stand against Ecollars because they allow for dogs to be trained by owners without consulting their members. Just recently they tried to ban Ecollars in the UK. They were unsuccessful at this. The site says,
Quote: Shock collars work by emitting painful shocks to the dog,
showing that they don't know about modern use of modern versions of the tool. AGAIN there is nothing there but opinion. Not one bit of scientific evidence to support that Ecollars can cause a burn.
Susan gave this link
This is nothing but a different link to the same incident as the first link that Susan supplies. Perhaps she missed this.
Susan gave this link
This link is to yet ANOTHER anti-Ecollar site. This site starts out by discussing an incident of child abuse where the parents put an Ecollar on their daughter. This is an obviously emotional appeal that has nothing to do with training dogs with an Ecollar. But let's overlook that .
Interestingly this page directly attacks the claims made of burns in the Rufus links wherein it says,
Quote: May 21, 2002, an eight-month old yellow Lab named Rufus suffered first, second and third degree chemical burns (LC: not electrical burns) because a collar went haywire on a rainy day. (Emphasis added)
AGAIN there's absolutely no reference to burns beyond someone's opinion.
Susan gave this link
This link is to yet ANOTHER anti-Ecollar site. Is anyone noticing a trend here? ROFL. It says on this site,
Quote: Many owners report ulcerations after using a shock collar. Studies suggest that this is more likely to be a result of physical contact from the prongs on the collar, rather than electrical burns. (Emphasis added)
It's clear that these folks, even as anti-Ecollar as they are, admit that an Ecollar can't cause burns.
One link that Susan DID NOT POST
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2002/860.html is to the transcript of a lawsuit brought against the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) in Australia, by Innotek, a manufacturer of Ecollars and similar devices. The RSPCA had made many false claims, including the "burn statement" about their Ecollars. It turned out that the RSPCA has FALSIFIED EVIDENCE in their efforts to get Ecollars banned in Oz. They had supplied photos of supposed "burn marks" on the arm of one of their officers, supposedly cause by a bark collar. But the burn marks WERE NOT BURNS. As someone keeps saying, it's impossible for an Ecollar to burn anyone or anything.
This is something that's extremely easy to prove if it were true. EVERY DOG that ever wore an Ecollar would carry burns and any vet that examined them could show such damage. But there's absolutely no evidence of this. It's a myth spread by those who want to scare people away from using Ecollars.