07/01/2025
Well said Zak
Dear Black Kraken K9,
You are latest trainer on social media to insist that aversive methods, those causing pain or fear, are necessary in professional dog training. But there’s a twist this time: you’ve also accused me of supporting terrorism. We’ll get to that later.
First, it’s crucial to address the harm caused by your narrative and the deeply flawed logic and lack of evidence behind it.
It’s not my place to dictate how individuals train their own dogs, that’s their choice. However, when a so-called professional promotes advice to an unsuspecting public—people who trust them to follow ethical, science-based animal behavior standards—that contradicts modern science and puts public safety at risk, it becomes a serious concern.
You claim that “the only antidote to a bad idea is a better idea,” yet instead of engaging in actual evidence-based discourse, you dismiss the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community by complaining that the evidence isn’t good enough. Meanwhile, you make wild, unsupported assertions typical of those who train dogs as you do, with no credible backing.
For example, where is your evidence that positive reinforcement training leads to higher rates of euthanasia? Where is your evidence supporting the use of aversive methods on any animal in any branch of behavior science? What modern textbooks or studies from the last 15 years can you cite? Have you considered looking beyond dog behavior studies to animal behavior research across species? Do you find any of that relevant?
You frequently dismiss survey studies as “invalid.” Do you trust vaccines for public use? If so, are you aware that survey studies are a critical complement to experimental data in evaluating vaccine safety and efficacy just as they are in the behavior science field? They also play a vital role in shaping public health policies, understanding mental health trends, and addressing societal issues like smoking. Dismissing their value ignores a fundamental component of evidence-based decision-making.
Tearing down a consensus (which you are failing to do) is not the same as showing aversive methods are necessary.
If your approach requires causing discomfort or fear to achieve compliance, it’s not ethical or progressive, no matter how you dress it up and it presents a public health and safety risk.
Train your own dogs however you choose. But when you promote these methods to the public, be prepared for scrutiny and criticism to follow as long as this continues.
You often cite your partner, a PhD-level animal behaviorist, to bolster your credibility. There’s nothing wrong with dissent. Science thrives on questioning assumptions. However, credentials alone don’t make someone correct, and when the majority of experts align on a position, it warrants serious consideration. What we’re seeing here, from both of you, isn’t thoughtful dissent but a broad dismissal of the behavior science community’s established consensus.
Your partner stands virtually alone among her colleagues in her field, and no major behavior science organization supports her assessment, or yours. Not one. I can provide a list of over two dozen organizations if you’d like, or are they all part of some “big positive reinforcement conspiracy” rooted in “ideological capture”?
I’ve seen your partner dismiss studies with claims like “this study is bad” or “that study is flawed,” yet I’ve seen no alternative evidence from her that has gained widespread support in the scientific community. Why should the public listen to you two instead of the broader scientific community?
The burden of proof rests on those defending aversive dog training methods, as they contradict the established scientific consensus on humane and effective practices. If you believe pain and fear are necessary, provide evidence, let it undergo rigorous scientific scrutiny, and only if the consensus shifts should you consider advising their use on the public’s dogs.
Now, let’s talk about intersectionality. You accused me, a Lebanese person, of supporting terrorism, a deeply ignorant and harmful claim.
Just as you’d likely blame an aversively trained dog for biting a person, you blame the Palestinian people for fighting back as their culture is erased from land they’ve inhabited for thousands of years by a settler colonial force that has been there only since 1948. 
Aggression breeds aggression, whether in dogs or people. Both of these are rooted in a culture of dominance and colonization, a culture you continue to uphold by continuing the cycle in the very profession in which we both work.
The inability or unwillingness to see this parallel reflects a culture that values dominance over understanding, perpetuating harm to both people and dogs.
I ask you and the balanced dog training community to begin connecting those dots.
The problem isn’t just ‘balanced’ dog training, it’s the culture that enables and normalizes it.
Zak George
