결과가 곧 복지입니다

when combined with the psychotropic medications, were just simply not enough. So, I'm going to go through this video as it plays, claim by claim. This is not going to be a personal attack. However, it's a direct challenge to the force free ideology. And to what that ideology does to dogs in the real world. This is not about what feels nice. It's about what actually works and what keeps dogs alive. So, here is Dr. Rodoste's first claim. Let's get at it. What does the peer reviewed literature say about the use of shock, whether it be an underground fence or a collar as it relates to training in dogs? The literature is very clear. Shock increases fear, stress and aggression. Right? The literature is very clear. Shock increases fear, stress and aggression. The literature is very clear. Shock increases fear, stress and aggression. Whew. Well, that statement sounds decisive. But it's not accurate. Acute stress responses do appear in some of the studies. Particularly when aversive stimulation is unpredictable or poorly applied. There is a big difference. And no one would ever argue with that. What I disagree with is the claim that the literature is very clear. And that e-callers universally increase fear, stress and aggression. So, let's go back to the science. Shao Keroel. disagree with is the claim that the literature is very clear and that e-callers universally increase fear, stress, and aggression. So let's go back to the science. Schalke et al., 2007. The paper was published in Applied Animal Behavior Science and demonstrated something critical and important. Predictability and controllability determine welfare impact. In dogs that could clearly associate the stimulation with their own behavior, so in that study they had a lure that was running and if the dogs were to touch that prey, there was no significant rise in salivary cortisol and no persistent stress indicators. Even after four weeks when they were retested. Okay. Now in contrast, dogs exposed to random or poorly timed stimulation did show elevated cortisol. Nothing surprising here. When ideology erases this distinction, it falsely portrays all e-callers use as inherently harmful. That is not a conclusion supported by the literature by the literature as a whole. Period. Now let's go to claim number two. Even when used correctly by a skilled trainer, it still changes the welfare of the animal which is measurable in stress signals and also in physiologic stress stress measurements. And that is even true outside of the training situation. So in the home or in other situations.

Even when used correctly by skilled trainers, it still changes welfare even outside the training situation. Okay. Now this claim is repeatedly asserted. But it is never ever demonstrated. Again if we go back to Schalke et al., it directly contradicts the idea of persistent welfare harm when stimulation is predictable and controllable. Another frequently cited study, Cooper et al., 2014 published in PLOS One, also does not support this sweeping conclusion. In that study, salivary and urinary cortisol showed no significant differences between the dog trained with e-callers and dogs trained with non-aversive methods. Behavioral differences such as increased yawning and tension were observed but no physiological evidence of chronic stress or lasting welfare impairment was found. The only significant cortisol elevation reported in that paper occurred in a small preliminary study involving high intensity stimulation delivered without proper sensitivity testing or warning cues. A method that the authors themselves distinguish from best practice use. Declaring the dogs must be secretly stressed in daily life without individual evidence is not science. It's assumption. Alright, so let's go to claim number three. It's more stressful for animals, but it's not more effective. In studies that look at highly skilled trainers on both sides, shock and positive reinforcement, using shock is not more effective in training skills. Now, this claim relies heavily on studies that never tested what they claimed to evaluate. Going back to the most frequently cited example, Cooper, 2014. That study is repeatedly referenced as evidence that reward-based training is just as effective, if not better, than electric colors for stopping chasing behavior. However, here is a big problem. However, here is a big problem. The study actually never tested predatory control. The dogs were trained on leash. The ships were confined in small playpans. There was no free-running chase. No activation of the predatory model pattern. No test of recall. No test of recall under genuine predatory arousal. In other words, the study avoided the very condition it claimed to evaluate. You cannot make this up, really.

No one can demonstrate control of predatory control of predatory. No one can demonstrate control of predation without allowing the predation to occur. Without the triggers activating that system. And that's not a minor limitation. It completely invalidates the study. It uses evidence for claims about real-world chase behavior. Despite this, the paper continues to be cited in the force-free community as proof that reward-based training is equally effective even though the central question was never tested. By contrast, Johnson and Wayne, in 2024, published the paper in Animals, did what Cooper et al. did not dare to do. They allowed the dogs to actually chase. They tasted real behavior and their real motivation. And the result was not subtle. They called our group rapidly inhibited chasing. The non-aversive groups did not. That difference matters. Because dogs are not injured or killed in laboratories. They are injured or killed outside on the streets, on the fields. Alright, let's go to claim number four. The claims that shock collars are a last resort and they must be used for animals who have severe behavior problems just isn't supported by the literature or my clinical experience, right? The standard of care is to refer those animals to a board-certified veterinary behaviorist, a certified applied animal behaviorist, partnering with a force-free dog trainer. Oof. This claim collapses when studies actually test high motivation behavior. Again, in the Johnson and Wayne, 2024, demonstrated that e-callers rapidly and reliably inhibited chase behavior, while non-aversive methods failed under the same conditions. And that's very important. Also importantly, the authors reported no significant differences in urinary cortisol between groups. And even more importantly, no evidence of ongoing welfare impairment beyond the brief discomfort during the learning stage. The last resort only doctrine on its own is also just a dangerous one. It allows undesired, dangerous behaviors to rehearse and strengthen, while owners and trainers are told to keep trying methods that are clearly not working. The last resort is to keep trying methods that are clearly not working. Early, fair, skillful boundaries prevent escalation. It's very simple. Waiting until a dog becomes unmanageable, that's not humane. That's my opinion.

Okay. Let's go to, I believe it's claim number five. The class action lawsuit for one point million whatever dollars. It sounds really good. The class action lawsuit was recently settled for one point nine million dollars that was filed against a shock collar company for marketing their products as humane and safe. When the people using those products were noticing that their dogs were more fearful, more aggressive, had skin damage or even burns on their skin. Well, let me tell you this. A lawsuit is not scientific evidence. The cited class action settlement concerned marketing claims and consumer complaints. The company settled without admitting wrongdoing. So just classical routine business decision. There was no court found that e-callers, when properly used, cause inherent behavioral harm. If a lawsuit determined the opposite, then we would ban medic- like if lawsuits determined truth, we would ban medication. The harnesses, the gentle leaders, and countless other things. And the thing is science is not conducted in courtrooms. It's conducted in data, it's conducted in real-life training and evaluations. So there is nothing, there is just absolutely nothing in there to holding a straw. Claim number six. This one's a good one. There is a reason why cities, counties, provinces, entire countries have banned shock collar use. There is a reason why veterinary organizations across the globe and dog training organizations have come out to speak out against shock collar use. The evidence is just overwhelming that these particular ways of training dogs increase stress, fear and aggression. There is a reason cities, countries, counties, provinces have banned shock collar use. All right. This argument relies on the implication that bans reflect overwhelming scientific consensus. And they do not. Okay? The majority of countries in the world have not banned e-callers. Most countries, including the United States, still permit the use. The majority of countries in Europe, even when restrictions exist in some countries in Europe, they are often narrow. And guess what? Filled with exemptions. Well, this is bad, but this group can use it. Or this military unit can use it. Or whatever. There is a reason for that. There is a good reason for that. So these bans did not arise from new scientific discoveries.

They came from political pressure, lobbying campaigns and emotional framing. Not from evidence demonstrating unavoidable welfare harm under skilled use. In the United States, attempts to ban electric collars are often introduced quietly and opportunistically attached to broader welfare bills or pushed at the municipal level where public security is low. These attempts fail every single time. And they fail because trainers, owners, and working dogs handlers, conservation groups, and actually many veterinarians push back with real world outcomes. Fewer bites, fewer livestock deaths, fewer dogs that are being surrendered, fewer dogs that are being euthanized. If the science was truly overwhelming, these bans would easily pass. Well, they do not. And when legislation fails again and again, it tells us something important. When the full picture is presented, outcomes, welfare, and risk, the case for prohibition collapses. You are seeing these three dogs here. They are not an exception. There is many more of them. Zeke, Tina, Sami. These dogs were not theoretical. These are real dogs. They were failing. They were running out of time. Balance training saved them. Not because it's harsh. Not because it ignores welfare. But because it allowed boundaries to exist alongside reinforcement. Clarity alongside compassion. And again, these dogs are not exceptions. Every single week, trainers and owners quietly save dogs that were labeled too much, too dangerous, unfixable, and so on. They don't make headlines. They don't publish papers. They just go home with dogs that are alive. So here is what I want to do next. If you're a trainer or a pet owner and balance training helped your dog when nothing else worked, I want to hear from you, share your story, share a photo, share the dog that is alive today because someone was willing to step outside that ideology and do what actually worked.

These stories matter not to win arguments but to remind people that behind every policy, every position statement, and every restriction, there is also a dog who whose life matters. I'm going to close this with the postcard that I got for Christmas and Happy New Year from Zeke. I'm getting goosebumps as I'm showing the card that I have read already numerous times. This dog is alive today. When the force-free community failed it, he was going to be euthanized. Think about that. I'm getting goosebumps. Thank you. Thank you.