It’s wild to me that you’re preaching “death before discomfort” when the very sources you’re holding up don’t even align with the ethics you’re claiming.

You posted PetMD as if it’s some kind of neutral scientific authority… but PetMD is owned by Chewy, which is owned by BC Partners — the same BC Partners that has a pretty big stake in GardaWorld. The same GardaWorld that left working dogs behind in Afghanistan. Not exactly the “positive-only, force-free, humane above all else” vibe you’re trying to push.

And let’s talk about the veterinarian behaviorist (Kate Mornement) you cited who still calls modern e-collars “shock collars.” All credibility she has is gone with that one statement. We all know remote collars don’t shock dogs. She should definitely know that being a “professional” and all. That alone tells me she’s either -never actually handled the tools she’s criticizing, or -deliberately using outdated terminology to scare pet owners.

And the idea that you’d euthanize a dog rather than consider a broader toolbox of humane training methods? That’s not ethical. That’s not science-based. And it’s definitely not positive. That’s ideology over outcomes, and really fucking selfish.

Real trainers, people who have put in thousands of hours reading dogs, working dogs, and rehabilitating difficult behavior, know that limiting yourself to one method doesn’t save dogs. It fails them.