01/03/2025
Despite my strong stance against aversive dog training methods, I understand their appeal. They can often get quick results, and punishment for the dog’s behaviour, may be reinforcing for the human. However, my concerns are twofold: Firstly, for me dog training/behaviour isn’t just about getting the behaviour I want; It’s about seeking the dog’s willing participation. This means they actively want to engage, rather than being compelled to go along with it. Secondly, no behaviour occurs in a vacuum; there is always a plethora of other effects. Everything that happens to them changes how their mind works and their emotional responses to the world around them.
An example: I saw a trainer recently shocking a dog to teach them to leave food on cue. It’s an instant result and people find that impressive. For me, I’d like to teach it in a way the dog finds pleasant. If that’s possible, why not do it? Leaving ethical arguments aside, the shock training is probably faster, but how might it affect how their dog sees the world? Might they be more anxious while eating? Might they be more likely to act aggressively if somebody (possibly a child) brushes past them while eating?
Because of the vast number of different scenarios, there are no certainties here, but do we want dogs acting through fear and discomfort, or do we want to increase optimism and reduce fear?