Punitive Dog Training FACTS

02/03/2025

01/03/2025

A Monumental win for animal welfare in Colorado!

We work collaboratively with communities, policymakers, and advocacy organizations to effect profound, lasting change for the benefit of dogs everywhere.

01/03/2025

So many people not living in the real world. They live in imaginary worlds with imaginary dogs, trained with imaginary positive reinforcement.

27/02/2025

Someone posted this in the comments and I thought it was worth sharing here because even AI can see through this bull crap!

My mate ChatGPT says :

Criticisms:
• The tone could come across as divisive or defensive, creating an “us vs. them” dynamic between trainers who use different methods.
• It assumes that critics of aversive tools only act out of emotion, without considering that many positive reinforcement-based trainers have evidence-based reasons for avoiding those tools.
• It oversimplifies the issue by suggesting that aversive tools are the only option for preventing rehoming or lack of exercise — when in many cases, reward-based training methods can achieve the same results with better welfare outcomes.

This is so true. It’s always all or nothing. Either a shock collar or no walks. There’s simply no other option or way of helping the dog. It’s not like you could make things really easy for the dog to get right and build up gradually. It’s not like you could choose areas that are less problematic for the dog. It’s not like you could use a long line. It’s not like you could train the dog. It’s not like you could find replacement behaviours. It’s not like you could desensitise them from their triggers. It’s not like you could us predation substitute training. No, you can’t do any of that. All you have is a shock collar. That’s the only option. All Hail Sean.

24/02/2025

Great advice from Ivan; we should definitely do that

23/02/2025

Dogs don’t use force to teach each other. So why are they telling you to?

Balanced trainers, those who use both positive reinforcement and punishment through pain or fear, often claim that prong collars, shock collars, and leash pops mimic how mother dogs “correct” their puppies.

They say that because dogs sometimes growl or muzzle-grab, using force is just “speaking their language.”

This is not backed by scientific evidence or research, and it’s not even a logical argument.

Here’s what the research actually shows:

Dogs avoid physical conflict whenever possible, using body language, vocalizations, and space to communicate.

They aren’t shocking or pinning each other to “teach respect.”

When mother dogs do intervene with puppies, it’s brief, controlled, and non-damaging; nothing like the repeated and sustained pain of a prong collar correction or an e-collar shock.

Studies show that dogs trained with aversive methods exhibit higher stress levels, more fear-based behaviors, and a greater risk of aggression.

Aversive training does not enhance learning, it inhibits it and suppresses behavior through fear, which is fundamentally different from how dogs naturally communicate.

Imagine stubbing your toe hard on a table leg, and right at that moment, someone demands you solve a math problem. Are you focused on learning, or are you just trying to deal with the pain? That’s what happens when dogs are corrected with pain, they aren’t learning a lesson, they’re just trying to avoid the next hit.

When humans deliver corrections through pain or intimidation, research shows that dogs do not respond as if they are receiving a “natural consequence.”

Instead, they exhibit increased stress behaviors, avoidance, and even defensive aggression - reactions that are starkly different from how puppies respond to natural maternal guidance.

When corrected by their mother, puppies typically adjust their behavior without signs of fear or distress, as maternal cues are brief, controlled, and non-threatening.

This contrast suggests that dogs perceive human-imposed corrections not as meaningful communication, but as unpredictable, aversive events.

If corrections really worked like dog-to-dog communication, we wouldn’t see so many side effects. Yet study after study shows that dogs trained with force are more anxious, less engaged, and more likely to react aggressively.

So why do some trainers keep pushing this claim? The answer is simple: it provides a convenient justification for using outdated, harmful methods that prioritize control over effective and humane communication.

That trauma may not always be immediately obvious, but research shows it can manifest in chronic stress, anxiety, and behavioral fallout, undermining a dog’s well-being long after the training session ends.

And I don’t say this to stir controversy, but to inform the public: a trainer calling themselves “balanced” is openly admitting to a lack of modern, science-based knowledge. The industry has moved forward, but they haven’t.

Dogs learn best through trust, not fear.

The best trainers in the world don’t rely on intimidation, they rely on knowledge, skill, and ethical communication that affirms the dogs emotional state at all times.

There will no doubt be upset balanced trainers in the comments, but pay attention, because while they may resort to insults or deflections, they won’t provide peer-reviewed evidence to support their claim.

The question now is not whether this myth is false, but whether we will finally move beyond it and do right by the dogs and the public who trust us.

Sources:
1. Herron, M. et al. (2009). Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2008.12.011
2. Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs – a review.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.02.004
3. Vieira de Castro, A.C. et al. (2020). Does training method matter? Evidence for the negative impact of aversive-based methods on companion dog welfare.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225023
4. Lezama-García, K. et al. (2019). Maternal behaviour in domestic dogs.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6776987/
5. Blyth, T. (n.d.). If a mother dog snaps at her pups, why can’t we use ‘corrections’ to train?
https://www.tarynblyth.co.za/post/if-a-mother-dog-snaps-at-her-pups-why-can-t-we-use-corrections-to-train

23/02/2025

22/02/2025

💯💯💯

21/02/2025

“Positive trainers would rather see dogs be euthanized than be made uncomfortable.”

If you’ve been in the dog training world long enough, you’ve probably heard this claim, without evidence.

Insisting that aversive training is the only way to “save” dogs with severe behavioral issues is a go-to argument for those who justify using prong collars, shock collars, and harsh corrections.

But does this claim actually hold up under scrutiny? Or is it just another excuse to defend outdated, harmful methods?

Let’s look at what the research really says.

Aversive training methods, shock collars, prong collars, leash corrections, dominance-based techniques are consistently linked to increased aggression, stress, and behavioral problems.

Studies have found that punishment increases aggression. For example, in one study, at least 25% of dogs responded aggressively when subjected to confrontational training methods like leash jerks, hitting, or intimidation.

Dogs trained with aversive methods show more fear-based behaviors, higher cortisol (stress hormone) levels, and a more negative emotional state overall.

Dogs trained with positive reinforcement and related methodologies exhibit fewer behavioral problems and are at least as obedient as those trained with punishment-based techniques.

Behavioral issues are one of the leading reasons dogs are surrendered to shelters or euthanized.

If punishment truly “saved” dogs, we’d expect to see lower euthanasia rates among those trained with aversive methods. But the data shows otherwise.

Guardians who use punishment-based training methods are more likely to report increased behavioral problems in their dogs, which can contribute to considerations of rehoming or euthanasia.

Shelters that use force-free training see higher adoption and retention rates. When dogs learn in a positive, non-threatening way, they are more likely to stay in their new homes.

Aversive training doesn’t fix behavior problems, it makes them worse.

A dog that becomes more fearful, reactive, or aggressive due to punishment is at higher risk of being given up.

What About Aggression?

Aggression is not a training issue, it’s a behavioral issue that requires skilled intervention.

During an aggressive outburst, aversive handling may be necessary to manage the situation and maintain safety, but this is not the same as professionally modifying behavior.

Where amateur and so-called “balanced” trainers go wrong is intentionally provoking aggression just to correct it, or carelessly managing the environment.

Forcing a dog into a situation where they are likely to snap, snarl, or bite isn’t training. It’s reckless and unprofessional.

For example, we don’t need to witness a violent crime to rehabilitate a human offender, and we don’t need to provoke aggression to address behavioral issues in dogs.

When it comes to modifying aggressive behavior, evidence-based approaches such as desensitization and counter-conditioning involve gradually exposing dogs to triggers while pairing them with positive experiences.

Differential reinforcement means rewarding alternative behaviors instead of punishing aggression.

Functional assessments & neuro-affirming behavior therapy involves identifying and addressing the underlying causes rather than suppressing symptoms.

These methods have been scientifically validated as effective ways to reduce aggression without increasing fear or stress.

If we truly care about keeping dogs alive and in homes, we need to stop pretending that punishment is the solution.

The real solution is education, support, and evidence-based training that prevents these problems in the first place.

If a trainer tells you that you need to choose between using pain or losing your dog, they are not giving you the full picture.

You have better options, and the science backs that up.

So, is it really a choice between “death or discomfort”?

The research doesn’t support that claim.

What it does show is that aversive training increases the very problems that lead to euthanasia, while force-free training improves outcomes for dogs and their guardians.

Sources

1. Duffy, D. L., Hsu, Y., & Serpell, J. A. (2008). “Breed differences in canine aggression.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 114(3-4), 441-460.https://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/merlinos/pdf/2008breeddifferences.pdf
2. Gunter, L. M., Feuerbacher, E. N., Gilchrist, R. J., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2018). “Evaluating the effects of a temporary fostering program on shelter dog welfare.” PeerJ, 6, e6620. https://peerj.com/articles/6620/
3. Herron, M. E., Shofer, F. S., & Reisner, I. R. (2009). “Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviors.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 117(1-2), 47-54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159108003717
4. Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). “Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness and interaction with behaviour and welfare.” Animal Welfare, 13(1), 63-69. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261106650_Dog_training_methods_Their_use_effectiveness_and_interaction_with_behaviour_and_welfare
5. Marder, A., Shabelansky, A., Patronek, G., Dowling-Guyer, S., & D’Arpino, S. (2013). “Food-related aggression in shelter dogs: A comparison of behavior identified by a behavior evaluation in the shelter and owner reports after adoption.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 148(1-2), 150-156. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159113001810
6. Ziv, G. (2017). “The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs—A review.” Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50-60. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1558787817300357
7. Casey, R. A., Loftus, B., Bolster, C., Richards, G. J., & Blackwell, E. J. (2013). “Inter-dog aggression in a UK owner survey: prevalence, co-occurrence in different contexts and risk factors.” Veterinary Record, 172(5), 127. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233798832_Inter-dog_aggression_in_a_UK_owner_survey_Prevalence_co-occurrence_in_different_contexts_and_risk_factors
8. Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). “Training methods and owner-dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3-4), 169-177. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168159111000876

20/02/2025

🤣

20/02/2025

Electric collars rely on pain or fear to suppress unwanted behaviours. They deliver an electric stimulus that is intentionally unpleasant to deter the dog from repeating the behaviour. For the dog to associate the discomfort with their actions, the sensation must be sufficiently aversive to create a negative emotional response, such as fear, anxiety, or pain. Without this emotional impact, the dog is unlikely to alter their behaviour, as there would be no motivation to avoid the stimulus.

20/02/2025

The Problem With Human Need For Instant Gratification vs Dog Training (Why Aversive Methods Persist).

🧠The human brain is wired to seek quick fixes, often favoring immediate results over long-term solutions, even when those promises are unrealistic. This tendency stems from our preference for instant gratification, a behavior well documented in behavioral economics and psychology (Mischel et al., 1972). For instance, many fall victim to fad diet plans promising rapid weight loss, magic wrinkle removing creams claiming to erase years of aging overnight, or schemes guaranteeing to quadruple money in a week with zero risk.

⚠️These 𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙨 (that’s exactly what they are) prey on our desire for fast outcomes, exploiting the brain’s aversion to delayed rewards and effortful solutions. Research on decision making shows that individuals are more likely to opt for immediate rewards in moments of stress or uncertainty, which clouds judgment and leads to irrational choices (Loewenstein & Elster, 1992).

‼️Recognizing this cognitive bias is crucial to making more informed, rational decisions and avoiding common traps.

❎In today’s fast-paced world, we’re all accustomed to instant results whether it’s next day shipping or streaming a show in seconds. Unfortunately, this desire for immediate outcomes often spills over into dog training, leading many to turn to aversive tools like prong, shock, or choke collars. While these methods may provide quick behavioral changes, they come at a high cost to the dog’s wellbeing and the human-animal bond.

🦮A dog pulling on the lead or barking incessantly can be frustrating. Aversive methods often appear effective because they cause discomfort or fear that interrupts the behaviour right away. For someone seeking immediate relief, the “problem” seems solved, reinforcing their belief that the method is justified.

📖The psychology behind is the human mindset rooted in our natural bias for immediate gratification. Research shows that people often prioritize short term outcomes over long term benefits, especially in high stress situations (Loewenstein & Thaler, 1989). Our brains are wired to seek immediate rewards, even if they come at a cost to future wellbeing. When dog owners are stressed or overwhelmed by unwanted behaviors, they may be more inclined to choose aversive methods for their perceived quick fix solutions.

🔬Behavioural science highlights how humans may develop a “punishment reinforcement loop” in which the relief from stopping an unwanted behavior becomes reinforcing (Skinner, 1971). This loop can make it difficult to move away from aversive methods once they are perceived to “work,” even if they cause long term damage to the dog.

🤨What about justifying the use of aversive tools?

Many justify aversive methods by claiming that they “work” because they suppress unwanted behaviours. However, research indicates that while these methods may temporarily stop the behaviour, they can lead to increased anxiety, fear, and aggression in dogs (Ziv, 2017). There’s a significant difference between a dog who stops pulling because of fear and one who walks calmly because they understand what’s expected. The latter builds trust and confidence, while the former creates stress and potentially worsens behavioural issues.

❓What is the long term solution?

✅Education, education, education of the human end of the lead.

✅ Changing mindsets one dog person at a time.

✅Shifting the perspective.

When we’re tempted to use aversive methods, it’s helpful to pause and reflect: Are we prioritizing our need for immediate control over our dog’s long term wellbeing? By shifting our mindset to focus on the bigger picture, we can create a healthier, happier relationship with our dogs - one built on understanding, empathy, and mutual respect.

❇️In dog training, as in life, the best outcomes often come when we’re willing to invest the time and patience necessary for meaningful, lasting change.

References:
• Hiby, E. F., Rooney, N. J., & Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2004). Dog training methods: their use, effectiveness, and interaction with behavior and welfare. Animal Welfare, 13(1), 63-69.
• Loewenstein, G., & Thaler, R. H. (1989). Anomalies in intertemporal choice: Evidence and an interpretation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(2), 573-597.
• Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Alfred A. Knopf.
• Ziv, G. (2017). The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs: A review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 50-60.

18/02/2025

It really is that simple.