06/04/2025
Using methods other than positive ONLY, purely positive, "force free," "fear free" or whatever you want to call it, does not mean you're unethical. And I'm sick of these trainers insinuating that it does.
🙃 Qualifications: No, I'm not qualified, and I don't hide that either. As this infographic notes, the dog training industry is unregulated. It's a good and a bad thing... it means that "non qualified" (yet highly experienced) trainers like myself are able to work. But it also means literally anyone can step onto the scene and call themselves a dog trainer. The best thing you can do is look at
- Reviews
- Training Content Posted
- Results Content Posted / Results seen in person with a rehabilitated dog
On top of that, find a trainer you vibe with. I'm not everyone's cup of tea and that's ok. The human is just as important as the dog.
Insinuating that my 12 years of experience working hands on with dogs, 8 years of those actively in a training space, is redundant because I don't have a piece of paper to say I did a course, is ridiculous. If the laws changed tomorrow and I needed a certificate, I'd go out and do it. But my lack of "qualification" does not mean I am a cowboy. I have researched canine behaviour endlessly without someone to walk me through it, of my own volition, and have thousands of hours of practical experience under my belt. Qualifications do not automatically = a good trainer.
🙃 I use positive reinforcement heavily within my training, in fact I use it as a first priority wherever I can, and I also place "teaching the dog the better behaviour" as a top priority too, above all else. I also use prong collars, e-collars and if I need to use punishment I will do that too, especially if the behaviour is dangerous. Using positive reinforcement does not mean you cannot use other tools, or vice versa. Good trainers use whatever the dog needs to move forward, and whatever the dog needs to improve their quality of life in the long term, in a fair manner. This does not equate to "using treats only" in many cases - but if it did, I would happily do so.
🙃 Wait! Now I'm confused. According to this information positive reinforcement, clicker training (tbh any secondary reinforcer should be fine though... it doesn't have to be a clicker) and "comprehensive training" is a green flag. I use these! Does that mean I'm an ethical trainer now?
🙃 Apparently if you call yourself a mere "dog trainer" (which I do) you should only be tackling things like loose leash walking, recall and life skills. Someone call the dog trainer police because I have been helping people with aggression, anxiety and fear-based issues for years. I guess I didn't get the memo? Maybe I should stop offering these services because clearly I'm out of my depth.
🙃 A "red flag" is a trainer without a qualification - I already talked about this. But personally I think a red flag is a trainer that spends their time discrediting other peoples methods rather than focusing on their own. Maybe that's just me. 🚩🚩🚩
🙃 "Balanced Trainers" use dominance theory.
That's a blanket statement if ever I've heard one. I know some "balanced trainers" stuck in their ways who still alpha roll dogs and think that's ok (it's not) - and I know heaps of "balanced trainers" who use food, positive reinforcement and confidence building in 90% of their training... it seems there's a spectrum, no?
I think every single one of my clients can attest to the fact that even though I refer to my training style as "balanced" I've never suggested you need to be dominant over your dog to have them behave for you... ever.
In order for your dog to do the things considered as desirable and safe, you need a dog to be motivated to work for you and feel safe and protected by their handler. You don't get that via domination tactics ;)
🙃 Apparently a focus on using training tools automatically means you're not addressing the root causes of issues.
Again, why does one have to cancel out the other? I use modern training tools in a fair manner. They are tools, that help you to rehabilitate the dog as part of a wider program. The goal of that program is to get to the root cause of the issue and address it.
These things can be used together very successfully.
🙃 Apparently by using these tools and not restricting myself to using food as my only training tool means I'm doing more harm than good.
Again, memo has been missed, I guess you should tell that to all the chilled out dogs sitting at my group classes every week, kicking goals and overcoming their behavioural problems.
Is there fallout with using tools incorrectly? Yep. Is there fallout from using food/reinforcement incorrectly? Also yes... education is key and that's all there is to it.
I'm not the best dog trainer out there, not everyone is going to resonate with how I do things, but I'm open minded to what the dog needs (rather than being stuck in a cookie cutter, 1 method box that realistically only helps a small percentage of dogs) I strive to be better every day, I'm helping people every day, and my #1 goal is always be fair to the dog.
YES, I realise I'm being a hypocrite because I spent the time to write this out (you caught me on a sick day it is what it is) when I really have better things to be doing. And I genuinely do believe that most dog owners in Perth are not rigid in their thinking nor does everyone see a post like this and immediately take it as gospel.
But I also feel like this is really toxic and unnecessary behaviour that should be called out. The dog training industry doesn't need to be like this - you do your thing and we will do ours. There's a small percentage of trainers who do the wrong thing, and that sucks, but half of the s**t on this list does not automatically mean you're one of those trainers and it's detrimental to the dogs of Perth to suggest that it does.
We are all doing this because we love dogs and the best thing we can do is spend time on ourselves, honing our craft so we can help even more dogs and owners to the best level possible in the future.