17/09/2024
Finally. Ik ben het moe om altijd belachelijk gemaakt te worden omdat ik wetenschappelijke inzichten volg in honden begeleiding en geen ouderwetse methoden volg die al lang hun geldigheid verloren hebben. Als hondenprofessional moeten wij beter weten en het welzijn van we honden die we volgen bewaken. Ik heb opleiding gevolgd en heb me frequent bijgeschoold. Het is voor mij geen optie meer om braaf te knikken omdat anderen vinden dat ze weten wat ze zeggen als ze pijn en angst in hondentraining promoten, terwijl er duidelijk evidentie is die zegt dat dit achterhaald is en niet klopt. Ja ik weet beter door opleiding en bijscholing.
Ik ben hier niet akkoord mee. Het wordt tijd dat mensen die de wetenschappelijke inzichten niet willen volgen uit egotripperij hun legitimiteit als hondenprofessional ook verliezen. Laten we het beroep beschermen en enkel diegene toelaten die zich willen bijscholen. Dan zullen alle misvattingen rond honden misschien gaan verdwijnen. Geloof me: het zijn er veel.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/SMzX4NxEfd8rgoKc/
Over the last few days, it feels like a firestorm has been unleashed. It’s clear that outdated dog training practices will no longer go unchallenged.
The release of a study using shock collars (cited below) has sparked unprecedented backlash and even made national headlines, and triggered a major reckoning within the dog training community. The study, seen by many as politically motivated, appears to have put dogs in harm's way to prove a point.
Professionals across the field agree that it should never have been approved by the ethics committee - and their fears were substantiated, given that every single dog in the shock collar group is documented to have yelped in pain while receiving shock collar “corrections”.
The outcry continues to build as more people in our field demand accountability and transparency. Reputations are being hit hard, institutions are facing scrutiny, and balanced trainers like Ivan Balabanov have been fully unmasked, revealing the harmful and outdated methods still being promoted under the guise of expertise.
This glaring evidence underlines what we’ve known all along: pain and fear have no place in professional dog training.
Let this serve as a stark reminder to those in our field who continue to promote outdated methods and deny the overwhelming scientific consensus. The community will no longer remain silent. The evidence is clear and we are moving beyond these harmful practices. Trainers who continue to use pain, fear, and intimidation in their methods do not deserve legitimacy in this field.
Ivan Balabanov, once considered a leader among "balanced" trainers, now faces intense scrutiny following his involvement in this study. It is now scientifically verified that 25% of the dogs he and his mentee worked with in the shock collar group could not be trained effectively, and 100% of those dogs yelped in pain.
This once again undermines the narrative propagated by many trainers who use shock collars and falsely claim that their methods "don’t hurt."
The reality is, the tools they promote rely on pain as a teaching mechanism, and better alternatives exist that teach dogs to comply enthusiastically without the need for fear or discomfort, and without the risks associated with using pain and fear to change an individual’s behavior.
For too long, the welfare of dog trainers has been placed above the welfare of dogs and the public. This has got to stop.
The campaign to expose outdated training methods, like those Ivan Balabanov will likely promote in his upcoming UK workshop, is gaining momentum. Even members of his own community are stunned by the facts that have come to light in this study.
This is not an effort to embarrass an individual but to stand up for the public and make it clear that the propaganda surrounding shock collars is just that — propaganda.
Below is a newly published article from Psychology Today that lays out the facts on the recent shock collar study. For those who think this is about social media “clout” or personal opinions, this article should clarify that our advocacy is rooted in concern for public and canine welfare.
I’ve always said, don’t take my word for it—look at the evidence. This article does just that: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/animal-emotions/202409/is-balanced-training-fair-to-dogs-or-is-it-a-cop-out
And here is a link to the study in question: Johnson, A.C., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2024). “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.” Animals, 14(18), 2632. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14182632
Based on the reaction to this study, another major domino has fallen in support of aversive dog training methods. This so-called "landmark study" will likely be remembered not for the efficacy of shock collars, but for exposing the unnecessary use of pain in dog training as a legitimate strategy.
We are prepared to provide support and education to those willing to update their methods in the interest of public health and safety. But make no mistake—those who refuse to be unequivocal in rejecting pain-based methods will face increasing scrutiny.
The livelihood of trainers promoting harmful practices is not our concern when it comes at the expense of dog welfare and public trust.
The time to end the misrepresentation of science-based training and to uphold welfare and ethics in dog training is long overdue. We are standing together for a better future for our industry, our dogs, and their guardians.
