10/06/2026
I have a question for you all, and I’m genuinely curious to hear everyone’s take on this.
Yesterday, I did an in-home workshop with a lovely woman and her Mini Australian Shepherd. There was nothing particularly complicated about this dog. No serious behavioural concerns. No aggression. No extraordinary challenges.
Just the regular puppy stuff: Over-excitement. Jumping. Poor impulse control. Lack of follow-through. Difficulty self-regulating. In other words, the sort of foundational skills I would expect any competent trainer (regardless of training philosophy) to be able to work through.
While there I learned something interesting.
This dog had previously been enrolled in a puppy class with a local R+ trainer and had been dismissed from the program.
Why?
Because the puppy apparently had a complete meltdown when the trainer put a gentle lead on it.
Yes. The so-called gentle lead.
And apparently the Trainers solution was to remove the puppy from class rather than work through the puppy’s response to the equipment.
Now, I find this particularly fascinating because the R+/FF comunity is repeatedly crying about certain training tools that are inherently “aversive,” and that using them makes someone abusive, coercive, unethical, etc.
Yet here we have an R+ trainer’s chosen piece of equipment (the "gentle" one) producing an emotional response strong enough that the puppy had a complete meltdown and was no longer permitted to participate in the program.
So, apparently ALL equipment has the potential to be aversive. Who knew?
Maybe, perhaps the equipment itself isn't the moral issue we’ve been told it is. Perhaps the dog’s individual response to a stimulus matters more than the trainer’s ideological preference for that stimulus.
And that brings me to the part I actually want to discuss.
If I am charging someone to train their dog, I believe I have a responsibility to be competent enough to work with the dog in front of me.
Not the dog I wish had shown up.
Not the dog that fits neatly into my preferred methodology.
The actual dog.
That means understanding behaviour, learning theory, reinforcement, motivation, thresholds, arousal, communication, management. And, in my opinion, having enough practical competency across different tools and approaches to determine what is appropriate for the individual dog.
I’m not suggesting every trainer has to accept every dog, nor do I think anyone should be expected to work outside their competency or take on a genuinely unsafe case.
But this wasn't that.
This was a puppy struggling with a piece of equipment.
So here is my question:
Was it appropriate for the trainer to dismiss this puppy from class because the puppy had a strong negative response to the lead? Or was it the trainer’s responsibility to have the knowledge and skill to modify the approach, troubleshoot the problem, and teach the puppy to succeed?
And more importantly:
Where do you believe a trainer’s professional responsibility begins and ends when someone is paying them to train their dog?
Genuinely curious. I’d love to hear different perspectives, even from people who completely disagree with me.
Because if we're going to call ourselves professionals, I think we're allowed to ask what professional competency actually means.
