04/05/2025
Many terms have been used to attempt to describe the type of training a trainer uses. Training methods exist on a continuum that ranges from compulsion with aversive methods and tools to "force-free" on the other end of the spectrum.
Trainers who want the prerorgative of choosing any tool available usually refer to themselves as "balanced" trainers, meaning they use both punishment and positive reinforcement to achieve their training goals.
Let me stop right here to advise trainers to read the Posting Guidelines and refrain from technical arguments using technical terms.
Continuing on....
On the other end of the spectrum, there are trainers, like myself, who choose to refrain from compulsion or coercion, aka "force." In other words, we do not believe in using intimidation or aversive methods or tools to get a dog to obey.
Those methods and tools include pushing on a dog's rear end to get it to sit, "leash corrections," which involve sharp snaps of the dog's leash attached to the collar, any kind of electrical shock, choke chain collars, prong/pinch collars, or pinching a dog's ear or toes to get it to take an object in its mouth.
Now, some trainers in the "force-free" camp are purists who consider the use of a head collar, "force," which admittedly, it is. Used correctly, it can work either by "punishing" pulling on leash (speaking strictly in behavioral terms), or through negative reinforcement - taking something aversive (albeit mildly) away to reinforce a desired behavior. I've posted on this before, so will just refer readers to a well-written article on the subject by the late Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, CAAB (Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist): https://cattledogpublishing.com/blog/gentle-leader-head-collar-reinforcement-or-punishment/
The Gentle Leader ("GL") is a head halter or head collar invented by the late Dr. R.K. Anderson. Dr. Anderson was a board-certified veterinary behaviorist who designed the GL, along with a trainer, Ruth Foster, to be an alternative to choke chains, prong collars, and other more aversive devices and training methods.
Dr. Anderson was a professor at the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Minnesota and director emeritus of its Animal Behavior Clinic.
Unfortunately, the Gentle Leader, which used to be marketed by Premier Pet Products, a company that promoted positive, humane dog training methods, was sold to PetSafe, in about 2010. PetSafe, as you may know, also markets shock collars ("e-collars, remote training collars). The thought at the time was that PetSafe would move in a more humane and positive direction.
When introduced, fitted, and used correctly, the head collar, specifically, the Gentle Leader, is a safe and effective way to manage pulling. It is NOT a substitute for training, in my opinion. However, people with shoulder injuries and the elderly can benefit from the use of a head collar, whether the Gentle Leader or another similar device.
Because of the need for proper introduction, fitting, and use, I no longer recommend the Gentle Leader. There are better alternatives on the market with less room for user error. They still need to be used properly, and I only recommend them to select clients.
"Balanced" trainers ~ and I used to be one ~ use different forms of punishment as well as reinforcement. A quick review here, for those who don't want to read the Dr. Yin article, and are not familiar with these terms: "punishment" is anything that serves to stop a behavior and "reinforcement" refers to anything that increases the likelihood a behavior will be repeated. It's not quite that simple, but I want to stick to the point of this post and keep it simple for my readers.
The American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, comprised of board-certified veterinary behaviorists, does NOT advise against head halters or "collars" but does advise against shock, choke chain collars and prong collars. All are potentially aversive. This cannot be argued, but it can most definitely be argued that a properly introduced, fitted, and used head halter, of any brand, is usually less aversive than any of the other aforementioned collars, which by the way, are usually used to make "leash corrections," which are harsh and dangerous.
I fully recognize that head collars, such as the Gentle Leader and other brands, can be dangerous when not fitted and used correctly, and I have sometimes thought these devices, at least the Gentle Leader, should not be sold over the counter. I have seen some horrible uses of this device!
Besides the terms, "force-free" and "balanced," I hear the term, "purely positive" or "positive only" thrown around by "balanced" trainers. There is no such thing is "purely positive!" I have never heard a trainer in the force-free or positive reinforcement training camp ever use that term to describe what they do.
Not being "purely positive" doesn't imply the trainers are using force or anything aversive! It's a matter of understanding behavior science and knowing that the term, "punishment" does imply that anything aversive was used as a consequence to stop unwanted behavior. Punishment could be something as simple as removing attention when a puppy sinks its sharp teeth into your skin. The removal of attention involves taking something away (attention) that the puppy wants to stop an unwanted behavior (biting).
In addition to aversive tools that "force-free" trainers avoid, they also do not scold a dog verbally or withhold food (which is just inhumane) in the name of training. A 2009 study done at the University of Pennsylvania showed that approximately 15% of dogs whose owners attempted to modify their dogs' behavior through the use of the word, "No!" went on to develop aggression.
You will hear a lot of back and forth argument about the LIMA (Least Intrusive Minimally Aversive) model of dog training. There are other models now, LIFE (Least Inhibitive Functionally Effective) and most recently, introduced just last month by the IAABC (International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants), the FREE (Functional, Reinforcing, Enriching, Effective), model.
Introduction of the FREE model was met with controversy because it resembled the LIFE model, and an article about this new model was removed from the IAABC website this month while undergoing revision ( https://journal.iaabcfoundation.org/iaabc-free/ ).
As a side note, many of you know I am a healthcare professional, and so I personally see no problem with various models being proposed to better define best practice. This is what I am used to in the healthcare profession. There is plenty of room for new and better standards of care. It's the nature of science.
Trainers have tried out various terms over the years to describe what they do. I think a more useful way to describe training method or approach is to describe it by the specific tools used and the standards of practice (for example, specific codes of ethics) a trainer abides by. It is also useful to know which tools and methods or approaches a trainer doesn't use, e,g, shock, forced down, ear pinching, prong collars, leash corrections.
I currently describe the training I do as "evidenced-based best practice" and I say that I use methods and tools that do not hurt or frighten a dog. The term, "evidence-based," a term that originated with the medical profession, and one I am intimately familiar with, seems to have finally caught on in the dog training industry.
I wrote an article on the subject in a 2018 issue of the Chronicle of the Dog, and at that time, the term was scarcely being used. In that article, I attempted to explain the levels of evidence, but I can see, from posts on this page, that there are many who do not yet understand or appreciate scientific "evidence."
I also say that I teach "cues" rather than "commands." Those two terms tells you a LOT about the way a trainer trains. Cues represent opportunities for reinforcement, whereas commands are orders with an implied threat - do it or else! The "or else" could be a sharp jerk on the collar in the form of a leash correction or a shock, administered by a remote training collar.
Neither do I use the term, "obedience," because this term to me implies a one way street. To me, "obedience" sounds like my goal is to train a dog to "obey" me. While I may have a similar goal, I don't think of the training I do as "obedience." It's more like teamwork.
Trainers who want the freedom to choose any tool necessary to achieve their training goals I do not think really understand the Humane Hierarchy. The Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers has published a simplified reference sheet explaining this:https://www.ccpdt.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Application-of-the-Humane-Hierarchy-Position-Statement.pdf
While the Humane Hierarchy is a good guideline, the problem I see with it is that it can be interpreted and implemented differently by different trainers. Implementation of the guideline is wholly dependent on a trainer's knowledge and skill level.
If I were to sum up my training philosophy in one sentence, I would have to borrow the words of Dr. Gray Stafford: "Training should be about helping animals succeed in the world we've created for them, not boosting our egos."
Cindy Ludwig, MA, BS, RN, KPA-CTP, CPDT-KA
Owner, Canine Connection LLC
Voted Best Springfield, Missouri Dog Trainer
