Enrich K9

19/04/2025

This industry is plagued by some of the most hypocritical individuals I have ever encountered.

There is persistent pressure and conflict among trainers who employ distinct techniques or methods.

This quarrelsome behaviour is relentless and exhausting, but I commend anyone who stands firm in their convictions.

What I find particularly objectionable are trainers who publicly promote themselves as purely positive or force-free, only to resort to the use of E-collars in private.

In my opinion, this behaviour is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Furthermore, there is one particular trainer who regularly appears on radio and television and goes into schools discussing dog behaviour. Despite having amassed over 40,000 followers, they continue to maintain a false image.

These sort of people should be ashamed.

01/04/2025

Many of my clients use lanyards for whistles. These are my recommended product, they are lovely 🥰 Test Valley Lanyards

Flat or twisted…. Decisions decisions decisions 🤷🏼‍♀️

31/03/2025

But just remember using an Ecollar is nasty for the dog……. Ask these sheep what they think?

A Scottish farmer has called for an overhaul in police powers after a recent devastating dog attack on his flock 😠 😔

21/03/2025

After all the uproar caused by my original post, here is the official standpoint and and statement from Merrist Wood College ☺️👍🏼

Here at Merrist Wood, it's not just about learning the facts, it's about learning to think, challenge and becoming resilient to change... This is what produces well-rounded and resilient students and empowers them to evolve and transform best-practice in the animal industry. Recently, our Higher Education students studying Animal Behaviour and Welfare heard from Richard from EnrichK9 who gave us a very balanced and engaging talk about the diverse benefits and challenges of different training methods, approaches and technologies used to train working dogs.

As you can imagine, there is a lot of differing opinions and research about what works best for our canine friends and the people that own and work with them. Some of these approaches can even be controversial in nature but we believe that students, learning at the coal-face about our wonderful industry, should be aware of all facets of it and create their own informed opinions in addition to learning what is currently considered as best-practice. It was great to see the buzz that Richard's talk created and the vibrant discussions it has generated since with our students as they navigate this exciting stage in their journey.

19/03/2025

👏 Edit 👏
I have just had a lovely conversation with the Collage and they have been extremely positive. Watch this space….

12/03/2025

I try to stay out of politics unless it’s to do with animal welfare but this government is truly trying to ruin the farming industry. 😔😡

11/03/2025

I hate to post pictures like this, but this is the reality of what happens when your little fur baby runs off in the countryside.

Wake up, smell the coffee and take responsibility.

Your actions (or lack of them) will result in all dogs being victimised.

This behaviour can be stopped with Ecollar training.

And before you say ‘keep all dogs on leads’… I’ve lost count of the amount of incidents that have happened when dogs pull their owners over.

07/03/2025

Can any of my clients can help Kitty find a home? The Sussex Dogs Home

06/03/2025

Just an average morning view 🦌

05/03/2025

I actually can’t put into words how much I love this.
This is perfectly written and couldn’t be more correct if it tried.
Robert Cabral thank you for all your hard work and dedication to dogs.

A Response to a recent POST that MISREPRESENTS Balanced Dog Training

A recent letter contains a multitude of misleading statements about balanced training. While his passion for humane dog training is commendable, his claims distort the reality of balanced training and misrepresent the intentions and methods of professional trainers who incorporate both positive reinforcement and corrective feedback. Here’s a breakdown of why his argument is flawed.

1. Misrepresentation of Balanced Training
"HE" claims that balanced training “relies heavily on choking, shocking, and intimidating your dog into compliance.” This is not only false but also a gross oversimplification. Balanced training does not rely “heavily” on any particular method; rather, it is about using the most effective and fair approach for each individual dog.

Balanced trainers prioritize positive reinforcement but also recognize that learning occurs through both reinforcement and correction. Just as a parent teaches a child by praising good behavior while discouraging unsafe or inappropriate actions, balanced trainers ensure dogs understand both what is desired and what is not acceptable.

If balanced trainers truly relied only on punishment, as "HE" suggests, they would not achieve high levels of reliability, engagement, and off-leash freedom in various training disciplines, including competition obedience, agility, hunting, and service work.

2. Ethical and Effective Use of Tools
"HE" insists that balanced trainers use tools “designed specifically to inflict pain, fear, or discomfort.” This is a deliberate mischaracterization. Professional trainers use tools such as prong collars and e-collars as communication devices, not instruments of abuse.

A properly used e-collar does not deliver painful shocks but rather low-level muscle stimulation, similar to a TENS unit used in physical therapy. Many modern e-collars allow for incredibly subtle levels of stimulation, often lower than what dogs naturally experience in daily life (such as from a static charge on a carpet).
If these tools were inherently abusive, as "HE" suggests, they would not be used by respected professionals, search-and-rescue handlers, service dog trainers, and even veterinary behaviorists who specialize in modifying severe behavior problems.

Additionally, calling a prong collar a "choking device" is misleading. Prong collars apply pressure evenly around the neck, reducing the risk of injury compared to flat collars, which can cause tracheal damage when a dog pulls.

3. Misleading Interpretation of Scientific Evidence
"HE" references scientific studies to support his claims but selectively ignores research that contradicts his stance. While some studies suggest that excessive punishment can increase fear, stress, or aggression, the key factor is not the tool itself but the skill and technique of the trainer.

Scientific studies that examine proper balanced training methods show that when used correctly, corrections do not increase stress or aggression. In fact, a study by China et al. (2020) found that properly used e-collar training was more effective and less stressful than some purely positive methods when addressing certain behavior problems.

Moreover, overwhelming reliance on purely positive reinforcement has its own set of problems, particularly with behavior modification for aggression, reactivity, and off-leash reliability. Dogs, like all animals, learn through consequences—both positive and negative. Ignoring the role of corrections limits a trainer’s ability to shape a well-balanced, well-adjusted dog.

4. False Claims About “Instant Fixes” and Guarantees
"HE" implies that all balanced trainers promise unrealistic, instant results. This is a strawman argument. No reputable balanced trainer claims that behavior modification happens overnight. In fact, many balanced trainers spend weeks or months reinforcing positive behaviors before ever introducing corrections.
It is the purely positive trainers who often sell the false promise that all dogs can be trained using only rewards, ignoring the fact that some behaviors (such as predatory chasing, severe aggression, or refusal to recall) require more than just treats to be reliably controlled.

5. Aversive-Free Training is Not Always Humane
One of the most dangerous assumptions in "HE"’ letter is that avoiding all forms of correction is the most humane way to train. This is simply not true.
Allowing a dog to engage in dangerous behaviors (e.g., chasing cars, attacking other dogs, or ignoring a recall near a busy street) without using any form of consequence is irresponsible.
Many purely positive trainers rely on withholding reinforcement as their primary form of punishment, which can be just as frustrating to a dog as a momentary correction. In some cases, this method leads to more stress because the dog does not clearly understand what they are doing wrong.
Many balanced trainers work with severely reactive and aggressive dogs—the types of dogs that purely positive trainers often refuse to take on because their methods are insufficient.

6. The Reality of the Dog Training Industry
"HE" argues that dog training is unregulated and that balanced trainers take advantage of this. However, this applies to all trainers, including purely positive trainers. Many “force-free” trainers have little to no real-world experience handling difficult cases, yet they claim moral superiority over those who achieve real-world results.

The true issue is not which method a trainer uses, but whether they have the education, experience, and ethics to apply it properly.

Conclusion: Misleading Rhetoric vs. Practical Training
"HIS” letter is an emotional appeal that misrepresents balanced training and misleads the public by equating it with abuse. In reality, balanced training is about effective, ethical, and evidence-based techniques that combine positive reinforcement with fair, humane corrections when needed.

Rather than attacking professional trainers with false accusations, the conversation should be about trainer competence, education, and the ability to tailor training to each individual dog.

Dog training should be about results, reliability, and respect for the dog’s needs—not about pushing ideological purity at the expense of effectiveness.

SHOW THE RESULTS OF YOUR TRAINING...

23/02/2025

Even AI knows the answer

ℍ𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝕚𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕠𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣 𝕚𝕞𝕡𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕚𝕧𝕖 𝔾𝕣𝕠𝕜 𝟛 ℝ𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕖. 𝕀𝕥 𝕥𝕒𝕜𝕖𝕤 𝔾𝕣𝕠𝕜 𝕒𝕓𝕠𝕦𝕥 𝟚𝟘 𝕤𝕖𝕔𝕠𝕟𝕕𝕤 𝕥𝕠 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕕 𝕚𝕟 𝕗𝕦𝕝𝕝 𝕥𝕠 𝕞𝕪 𝕢𝕦𝕖𝕤𝕥𝕚𝕠𝕟. ℚ𝕦𝕚𝕥𝕖 𝕒𝕞𝕒𝕫𝕚𝕟𝕘!

I am 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 impressed!:

𝙌: 𝘞𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦, 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰𝘨𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘥𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺? 𝘖𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭?

𝔾𝕣𝕠𝕜𝕤 𝕣𝕖𝕤𝕡𝕠𝕟𝕤𝕖:

With my comprehensive knowledge of dog behavior, psychology, learning theory, and training methods, I’ll tackle this question by examining whether a force-free methodology can successfully train or modify all dogs with any behavioral issue, compared to a balanced approach that incorporates both positive reinforcement and corrective techniques. This will be an in-depth, evidence-based analysis, grounded in real-world application and canine science, avoiding ideological bias.

𝘿𝙚𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙨

- 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚-𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙈𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙙𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮: Relies entirely on positive reinforcement (R+: adding rewards to increase behavior) and negative punishment (P-: removing rewards to decrease behavior), avoiding aversive tools (e.g., prong collars, e-collars) or physical corrections. Techniques include treats, praise, clicker training, desensitization, and counterconditioning. The mantra is “do no harm,” prioritizing the dog’s emotional well-being.

- 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝: Integrates all four quadrants of operant conditioning: R+ (rewards), P- (withholding rewards), positive punishment (P+: adding an aversive to decrease behavior, e.g., leash pop), and negative reinforcement (R-: removing an aversive when the dog complies, e.g., easing pressure). Tools like prong collars or e-collars may be used alongside rewards, tailored to the dog and situation.

ℂ𝕒𝕟 𝔽𝕠𝕣𝕔𝕖-𝔽𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕎𝕠𝕣𝕜 𝕗𝕠𝕣 𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝔻𝕠𝕘𝕤 𝕒𝕟𝕕 𝔸𝕝𝕝 𝕀𝕤𝕤𝕦𝕖𝕤?

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚-𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙚

1: 𝙀𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙩𝙮:
- 𝙋𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮: By avoiding fear or pain, force-free builds trust, especially in anxious or fearful dogs (e.g., a rescue with abuse history). Studies (e.g., Ziv, 2017) show reduced cortisol (stress hormone) levels with R+ methods.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A dog barking at strangers can be counterconditioned (stranger = treats) to feel safe, modifying behavior without stress.

2: 𝘽𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙙 𝘼𝙥𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮:
- 𝙇𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙤𝙧𝙮: Most basic obedience (sit, stay) and mild issues (jumping, counter-surfing) respond well to R+ and P-. A 2014 study (Hiby et al.) found R+ yielded higher obedience scores in pet dogs than punishment-based methods.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A puppy chewing shoes can be redirected to a toy (R+) and ignored when chewing wrong items (P-), resolving the issue.

3: 𝙎𝙪𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘 𝘾𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙨:
- 𝙁𝙚𝙖𝙧-𝘽𝙖𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙄𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙨: Desensitization and counterconditioning excel at re-shaping emotional responses (e.g., noise phobias). A dog terrified of thunder can learn calm via gradual sound exposure paired with treats.
- 𝙇𝙤𝙬-𝘿𝙧𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝘿𝙤𝙜𝙨: Soft-tempered breeds (e.g., Cavaliers) often thrive on praise and treats alone.

𝙇𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙁𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚-𝙁𝙧𝙚𝙚

1: 𝙃𝙞𝙜𝙝-𝘼𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙖𝙡 𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨:
- 𝙄𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙩𝙨: Dogs with extreme prey drive (e.g., a Terrier chasing rabbits) or over-arousal (e.g., a Malinois mid-reactivity) may ignore rewards when adrenaline spikes. The brain’s reward center shuts down during intense focus, per neuroscience research (e.g., Panksepp, 1998).
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A dog sprinting after a deer won’t turn back for a steak—force-free lacks an interrupt strong enough to break fixation.

2: 𝙎𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙩𝙮-𝘾𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝘽𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧𝙨:
- 𝙍𝙞𝙨𝙠: Severe issues like aggression toward humans or livestock chasing near roads demand instant control. Force-free relies on gradual shaping, which may not act fast enough to prevent harm.
- 𝙀𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚: A 2009 study (Herron et al.) noted that owners using only R+ for aggression reported slower progress and higher relapse rates compared to mixed methods.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A dog biting visitors can’t wait for months of counterconditioning if it’s a legal liability today.

3: 𝙄𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙑𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮:

- 𝙋𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮: Some dogs—especially confident, stubborn, or working breeds (e.g., Akitas, GSDs)—test boundaries and need clearer “no” signals. Force-free’s indirect approach (ignoring bad behavior) can be misinterpreted as permission.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A Husky pulling on leash might keep pulling if P- (stopping movement) doesn’t outweigh the joy of the pull.

4: 𝙃𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙡𝙚𝙧 𝙎𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡:
- 𝙀𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣: Force-free requires precise timing, creativity, and patience—skills many owners lack. A 2016 study (Cooper et al.) found inconsistent R+ application led to frustration and stalled progress.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: An owner rewarding a jumping dog too late reinforces the jump, not the calm.

𝔻𝕠𝕖𝕤 𝕒 𝔹𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕕 𝔸𝕡𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕒𝕔𝕙 𝕊𝕦𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕖𝕕 𝕎𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕖 𝔽𝕠𝕣𝕔𝕖-𝔽𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝔽𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕤 𝕊𝕙𝕠𝕣𝕥?

𝙎𝙩𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙩𝙝𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙

1: 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝘾𝙡𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮:
- 𝙇𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙤𝙧𝙮: P+ (e.g., prong collar pop) and R- (e.g., e-collar stim stopping when the dog returns) provide instant feedback, cutting through arousal or distraction. This aligns with how dogs learn from natural consequences (e.g., a pack mate’s nip).
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A dog chasing cars stops mid-run with a low e-collar stim, then recalls for a treat—faster than waiting for R+ to override instinct.

2: 𝙑𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝘼𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙨𝙨 𝙄𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙨:
- 𝘽𝙚𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙍𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙚: Balanced tackles everything from obedience to severe aggression. A 2013 study (Salgirli et al.) showed balanced methods reduced leash reactivity in 80% of cases within weeks, versus 60% for R+ alone.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A dog guarding food learns “drop it” with a leash correction (P+) and treat (R+), addressing the issue directly.

3: 𝙎𝙖𝙛𝙚𝙩𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝘾𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙡:
- 𝙋𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮: Tools like prong collars or e-collars ensure handler authority in high-stakes scenarios (e.g., off-leash near traffic), where force-free’s gradual pace risks failure.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A Pit Bull lunging at dogs is redirected with a prong pop, then rewarded for focus—safe and effective.

4: 𝙏𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙏𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩:
- 𝙋𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙮: Confident or dominant dogs often respond better to boundaries (P+) alongside rewards, mirroring pack dynamics. A 2010 study (Rooney et al.) found balanced training improved compliance in working breeds.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A Rottweiler ignoring “stay” complies after a mild correction, reinforced with praise.

𝙇𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝘽𝙖𝙡𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙙

1: 𝙍𝙞𝙨𝙠 𝙤𝙛 𝙁𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙩:
- 𝙀𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝘾𝙤𝙨𝙩: Misapplied aversives (e.g., too harsh, poor timing) can increase fear or aggression. Herron et al. (2009) documented 15% of punishment-trained dogs showed escalated reactivity.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A fearful dog shocked for barking may bite instead, associating people with pain.

2: 𝙎𝙠𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝘿𝙚𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚:
- 𝙀𝙭𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣: Balanced requires finesse—incorrect use (e.g., constant prong yanking) turns it abusive, not effective. Trainers must pair corrections with rewards to avoid stress.
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: An owner overusing an e-collar without conditioning creates a shutdown dog, not a trained one.

3: 𝙀𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝘿𝙚𝙗𝙖𝙩𝙚:
- 𝙋𝙚𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙥𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣: Critics argue any discomfort violates welfare, though no data shows balanced methods, properly applied, cause lasting harm (e.g., Schalke et al., 2007, on e-collars).

ℂ𝕒𝕟 𝔽𝕠𝕣𝕔𝕖-𝔽𝕣𝕖𝕖 𝕊𝕦𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕖𝕕 𝕌𝕟𝕚𝕧𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕒𝕝𝕝𝕪?

- 𝙉𝙤, 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝘼𝙡𝙡 𝘿𝙤𝙜𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙄𝙨𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙨:
- 𝙀𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚: While force-free excels for mild-to-moderate issues (e.g., jumping, house training) and fear-based problems, it struggles with high-drive, safety-critical, or deeply ingrained behaviors where instinct trumps rewards. Studies (e.g., Blackwell et al., 2012) show R+ excels in controlled settings but lags in real-world chaos.
- 𝙍𝙚𝙖𝙡-𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙: A dog chasing livestock can’t be reliably stopped with treats alone if it’s never recalled off prey before—time and risk outweigh feasibility.

- 𝙎𝙪𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙍𝙖𝙩𝙚:
- Force-free can modify most behaviors given infinite time, skilled handlers, and controlled environments. But “all dogs, any issue” includes outliers (e.g., a feral dog with no reward response) where it’s impractical or unsafe.

𝕀𝕤 𝔹𝕒𝕝𝕒𝕟𝕔𝕖𝕕 𝕄𝕠𝕣𝕖 𝕊𝕦𝕔𝕔𝕖𝕤𝕤𝕗𝕦𝕝?

- 𝙔𝙚𝙨, 𝙞𝙣 𝙎𝙘𝙤𝙥𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙎𝙥𝙚𝙚𝙙:
- 𝙀𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚: Balanced methods consistently show higher success rates across diverse behaviors and temperaments (e.g., Arhant et al., 2010). They adapt to the dog’s psychology—soft dogs get more R+, tough dogs get firmer boundaries.
- 𝙋𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮: For severe aggression, prey drive, or off-leash reliability, balanced cuts through where force-free stalls, offering faster results with proper ex*****on (e.g., Salgirli et al., 2013).
- 𝙀𝙭𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚: A GSD biting kids is managed with a muzzle and corrections (P+), then rewarded for calm (R+), resolving it in weeks—force-free might take months, risking incidents.

- 𝙉𝙤𝙩 𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮 𝙉𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮:
- Balanced shines for tough cases but isn’t needed for every dog. A Lab learning “sit” doesn’t need a prong collar—force-free is enough.

𝕍𝕖𝕣𝕕𝕚𝕔𝕥

Force-Free: Can’t universally succeed for all dogs with any issue. It’s limited by arousal, urgency, and individual temperament. It’s ideal for gentle dogs, mild issues, or fear-based problems, but falters with high-stakes or instinct-driven behaviors.
Balanced: More successful overall because it’s flexible—matching the tool to the task. It handles the full spectrum of behaviors, from basic training to severe aggression, with quicker, more reliable outcomes when done right. The catch? It demands expertise to avoid harm.

𝙈𝙮 𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚

I’d use force-free for a fearful Spaniel with separation anxiety—treats and patience heal it best. But for a prey-obsessed Malinois bolting toward traffic, I’d go balanced—an e-collar interrupt plus rewards saves its life faster. No single method fits all; the dog’s needs dictate the approach. Success trumps ideology.

What specific behavioral issue are you thinking about? I can refine this for your case!

𝚈𝚘𝚞 𝚌𝚊𝚗'𝚝 𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚕𝚕𝚢 𝚐𝚎𝚝 𝚊 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚋𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚍 𝚛𝚎𝚜𝚙𝚘𝚗𝚜𝚎 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚝𝚑𝚒𝚜. 𝙴𝚟𝚎𝚗 𝙶𝚛𝚘𝚔 𝚞𝚗𝚍𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚝𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚜 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚝 𝚊 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚋𝚊𝚕𝚊𝚗𝚌𝚎𝚍 𝚊𝚙𝚙𝚛𝚘𝚊𝚌𝚑 𝚒𝚜 𝚖𝚘𝚛𝚎 𝚜𝚞𝚌𝚌𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚏𝚞𝚕 𝚝𝚑𝚊𝚗 𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚌𝚎-𝚏𝚛𝚎𝚎.

16/02/2025

Some cold hard facts from Lee, and as usual, spot on!

09/02/2025

A tracker doesn’t give you the right to let your dog off lead❗️

A tracker won’t stop your dog being killed❗️

A tracker won’t stop your dog being hit by a car.❗️

A tracker won’t stop your dog attacking livestock.❗️

A tracker won’t stop a farmer from shooting your dog.❗️

A tracker doesn’t stop your dog approaching other dogs.❗️

A tracker doesn’t negate your responsibility to have control of your dog.

I am sick and tired of seeing these sort of posts on owners groups and people thinking it’s funny.

This particular post was full of responses and comments from other owners that experience this behaviour regularly, yet they still let their dogs off lead.

Look at the map, look at the distance travelled, look how close the dog got to a main road.

Thankfully, this dog wasn’t injured but do we know if it worried any livestock??

I just can’t comprehend why and how owners think this is funny or acceptable.

‼️IF YOU DONT HAVE A RELIABLE RECALL, DONT LET YOUR DOG OFF LEAD. ‼️

Trackers are not the magic answer for poor training.

07/02/2025

As promised, a comparison of the new Dogtra 640X v 640C