18/07/2024
I always find it bizarre it’s not obvious how illogical this is when the more extreme Force Free trainers use this as an argument against any type of aversive training method…
“If you can train Lions, Tigers (insert any dangerous wild animal you choose) to give blood, or do a multitude of behaviours with Positive Reinforcement alone, then we can do the same with our dogs”.
The thing about comparing training methods across different groups, is that it’s not just the training method & target behaviour that need to be the same, but the conditions the training takes place in also.
Otherwise, you can’t claim it’s only the training method that’s effective, because you haven’t controlled for numerous other variables that may be contributing to the effect.
Let’s list some of those confounding variables, shall we?:
- Captive wild animals live in a sterile environment with significantly less environmental enrichment than in the wild so the animals are likely to crave stimulation via training more.
- The trainer has complete control over the training environment, which in dog training we try to do also, but at some point we do need to train in real world environments where we have less control and there are more competing motivators (like prey animals to chase).
- Captive animals are ‘captive’. Trainers have bars/glass blocking the animal from them. No need to handle them. If they do need to directly access or handle them, guess what method they use? A dart gun. Not really a positive reinforcement method now is that.
There are numerous other factors that make this argument fall flat, but only so many characters on social media.
No one with any genuine love of animals wants to cause their dog unnecessary discomfort or stress, but, there are some scenarios where long term quality of life for a dog AND their owner may mean a short term aversive could mean higher quality of overall welfare (veterinary procedures aren’t all force free are they 🤷🏼♀️).
