28/06/2025
https://www.facebook.com/share/15xXYhVqkw/
Exactly
Why is what she did any different?
If you’ve seen the video of Amy Pishner and Valor K9 Academy making the rounds, you know exactly why so many people are upset.
A golden retriever in “training” to combat resource guarding. Amy drags him across the floor by the leash, yanks him back and forth, shoves the bowl in his face, narrates: “See, he’s calm and submissive. No reason resource guarding should take months to fix.”
The reaction was significant, angry trainers, revoked credentials, statements distancing entire training camps from her methods.
I agree that she should not be working with dogs, probably in any capacity. And to preface what I am asking here, I agree that the degree to which she is engaging in that type of behavior is worse in degree.
But why is what she did any different from what so many “balanced” or punishment-based trainers do every day?
It’s not that different at all. The method is the same: force the behavior to stop. Suppress the dog’s communication. Call learned helplessness “calm.”
The only difference is in degree, how obvious it is to anyone watching. But this woman was certified by multiple institutions, had been working quite a while, and PROUDLY recorded the session for the world to see. I swear I thought it was parody.
She did it on camera.
She made it dramatic.
She bragged about it.
The dog was muzzled and fully shut down for everyone to see.
Plenty of trainers do the same thing behind closed doors:
The prong collar pop when the dog growls.
The shock collar zap to stop a bark.
The leash jerk for a defensive snarl.
All in the name of “leadership” or “balanced training.”
So why does this matter so much more? Because it blows up one of the biggest myths:
“It’s not the tool, it’s how it’s used.”
We hear this line all the time, prongs, e-collars, slip leads, “It’s fine if the person is skilled!”
But here’s the thing: This was the “skilled person.” A professional. Years in business. Clients trusted her. She was certified by major organizations. And still, this is what she did. On purpose. Proudly.
So when people say, “It’s only a problem if you don’t know what you’re doing…” Maybe pause and ask:
What happens when you hand these tools to the average owner?
I already know the answer. I see it frequently enough walking their dogs frustrated through a park or along the street, people dragging their dogs on prong collars, cranking leashes to stop reactivity, shocking dogs for barking, repeating the cycle because the real problem never got solved.
If a pro can do this on camera, what do you think is happening in backyards, parks, and living rooms when nobody’s watching?
Resource guarding doesn’t magically disappear because you yank it out of a dog. Fear doesn’t fade when it’s punished. Mistrust doesn’t heal under threat. Does anyone actually believe that sending that dog back to its owner would have been safe? The dog was growling at the owner already if the owner even held the bowl.
Force can shut a dog down, but it can’t build trust. Suppression is not resolution. Behavior is communication, and punishment doesn’t fix what the dog was trying to say.
So if you’re angry about what you saw, good. Be angry. But don’t stop there.
Look closer at what else is being sold as “training.”
Question quick fixes that break trust.
If we agree that too much force is abuse, we have to ask, why is ‘less force’ somehow acceptable in the face of other options?
One trainer got caught on camera, but the bigger lesson is about the system that says this is normal enough to teach your neighbor to copy. It shouldn’t be. The lesson learned I have no doubt wasn’t, don’t train like that. For some, it was be very careful about getting caught.
