Expert dog training in Durban. Veterinary recommended dog, cat, and bird certified animal behaviour
22/03/2025
New Development: International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants Officially Closes the Door on Aversive Dog Training
Another domino has fallen in favor of modern, humane, and scientifically sound dog training methods.
We want to acknowledge the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) for officially moving beyond LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) as their guiding framework and explicitly rejecting the intentional use of positive punishment.
The issue with LIMA (Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive) is that while it was intended to prioritize minimally intrusive, positively reinforcing methods, it still allowed trainers to justify outdated, aversive techniques, like shock collars or prong collars, as a supposed ‘last resort.’
This effectively provided cover for outdated ‘balanced’ training practices, an approach that we now clearly understand is not supported by scientific evidence. IAABC, a prominent global certifying body for behavior consultants, has now recognized this flaw and moved beyond LIMA.
Scientific evidence clearly shows aversive methods, even as a "last resort", don’t address underlying behavior causes; for example, shocking a dog who displays aggression doesn’t change their emotional response, it simply suppresses their communication.
This loophole permitted methods based in pain, fear, and intimidation, methods clearly shown by behavior science to be ineffective at addressing underlying causes of behavior and ethically indefensible.
To be clear, LIMA is not a framework endorsed by credible behavior science. In 2025, it is pseudoscientific by definition because it incorporates unsupported, aversive techniques under certain conditions. The term has become deeply problematic in professional dog training.
True scientific professionals, behavior analysts, and animal welfare experts consistently affirm that methods using aversive tools or techniques are unnecessary, ineffective long-term, and detrimental to animal welfare.
By adopting an explicitly ethical framework, IAABC has joined organizations like the Pet Professional Guild (PPG) in setting a clearer, science-based standard.
Today, only a small number of certifying organizations still explicitly allow aversive training methods or cling to the ambiguous and outdated LIMA standard.
Quick update on major certifying bodies stance on aversives:
The Pet Professional Guild (PPG) remains committed to force-free, modern methods. https://www.petprofessionalguild.com/about-us/position-statements/
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) now explicitly rejects intentional aversive methods under their new ethical framework. https://journal.iaabcfoundation.org/iaabc-free/
Association for Professional Dog Training International (APDTI) retains the term LIMA (“Least Intrusive, Minimally Aversive”), and even explicitly states that aversive methods are not justified "in lieu of other effective positive reinforcement interventions and strategies." However, their guidelines do not categorically prohibit aversive methods, leaving open the possibility of their use when trainers determine other interventions are “ineffective”. This lack of absolute clarity can lead to confusion and indicates APDTI would benefit from adopting explicitly force-free terminology. https://apdt.com/membercertificant-announcement/?highlight=LIMA
Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, Inc. (CCPDT) still permits aversive methods as a “last resort”. Their outdated position is clearly at odds with current behavioral science, leaving significant room for improvement if CCPDT aims to gain credibility as a leading certifying organization. https://www.ccpdt.org/about-us/standards-practice-code-ethics/
