03/14/2025
My intention isn’t provocation for its own sake; it’s about clarity, transparency, and genuine progress.
Dog guardians and professional trainers deserve straightforward, evidence-based information. Yet confusion spreads like wildfire because the ‘balanced’ training approach is riddled with contradictions. My direct challenges aim not at individuals, but at exposing flawed logic, so trainers and guardians can clearly see the truth.
Let’s dissect and dismantle some of the common inconsistencies:
Balanced trainers say, “Shock/prong collars don’t hurt; they’re just communication tools,” yet they also concede, “Corrections must be uncomfortable enough to change behavior, especially during high prey drive.”
Both statements can’t coexist truthfully. If pain or discomfort isn’t involved, exactly what motivates the dog to stop?
Some balanced trainers argue, without evidence, that “Force-free training only works on easy dogs.” However, ample research shows aversive methods often escalate aggression, fear, and anxiety, worsening the very behaviors they aim to correct.
Recently, balanced trainers have claimed dogs experience “auditory exclusion,” meaning they physically can’t hear during high-arousal situations.
The truth is simpler: dogs aren’t going situationally deaf; they just haven’t been effectively trained under high distraction levels, something positive reinforcement and neuro-affirming teaching excels at.
Euphemisms like “balanced corrections,” “communication tools,” “used properly,” and “feedback” camouflage reality.
Calling shock collars “e-collars” doesn’t change that they administer electric shocks. Rebranding pain doesn’t lessen its impact.
They say, “Balanced corrections build trust.”
However, scientific evidence supports that trust is eroded when dogs experience intentional discomfort, fear or pain from their caregivers.
They will often insist positive reinforcement creates unreliable dogs.
Real-world data overwhelmingly shows otherwise. Positive reinforcement excels in activities like search and rescue, service and guide dog work, detection tasks (including explosives, and medical conditions), competitive dog sports (frisbee, agility, obedience), behavioral rehabilitation, cooperative veterinary care, entertainment industry training, and cooperative grooming and veterinary procedures.
They claim that harsh corrections are natural consequences dogs understand.
But shock, choke and prong collars aren’t natural, they’re artificial punishments imposed for human convenience, prioritizing quick compliance over long-term dog welfare, often leaving guardians to manage the fallout of anxiety, fear, or aggression long after the trainer has left, throughout the next 10 to 15 years of the dog’s life.
They’ll argue that dogs don’t experience lasting harm from corrections.
Extensive behavioral research reveals lasting emotional suppression, anxiety, and fear responses in dogs (and other animals) repeatedly subjected to aversives.
“Corrections earn respect from your dog.”, they will say.
In reality, True respect and cooperation stem from compassionate, clear communication, not from intimidation.
They claim that “balanced” trainers use all quadrants.
But observation shows that they overwhelmingly rely on punishment and negative reinforcement, rarely demonstrating skillful positive reinforcement, despite evidence supporting its greater efficacy and ethical superiority.
Even within balanced training, trainers themselves can’t agree.
Some say corrections should be rare; others rely on them daily.
Some label corrections a last resort, yet others advocate shock or prong collars from day one.
A few integrate modern behavioral science partially; others hold tight to outdated, debunked dominance theories.
“Balanced” trainers often try to distance themselves from compulsion trainers, yet both share the same fundamental flaw: a willingness to inflict pain, fear, and intimidation to force compliance, prioritizing control over compassion and convenience over welfare.
Highlighting these contradictions isn’t about personal attacks. It’s about clarifying confusion for guardians and trainers committed to the well-being of dogs in their custody.
Corporal punishment fell out of favor in parenting when its harms became undeniable. Bloodletting vanished from medicine once compassionate, evidence-based treatments emerged. Dog training must undergo the same evolution.
Provocations towards trainers advocating for physical punishments have purpose. They invite balanced trainers to publicly profess, and inevitably expose, the logical and ethical flaws in their methodology.
To ‘balanced’ trainers and newcomers alike, quality trainers evolve, embracing evidence-based, compassionate methods, join us in shaping a brighter, more humane future for dogs and their guardians. You are always welcome here.
IAABC ADT (International Association of Animal Behaviour Consultants) Positive Reinforcement dog training.
