15/09/2024
Someone had to say it. Thank you.!
Public Letter to Ivan Balabanov
Dear Mr. Balabanov,
I am writing on behalf of many in the modern dog training community to address serious concerns regarding your participation and professional conduct in the study titled “Comparison of the Efficacy and Welfare of Different Training Methods in Stopping Chasing Behavior in Dogs.”
The study revealed that 100% of the dogs in the shock collar group yelped in pain when shocked. The study notes, “We did not observe negative welfare impacts in the dogs trained with e-collars beyond presumably pain-induced yelps in immediate response to the electric shocks.” This confirms immediate distress caused by the shocks with 8 dogs in your custody.
Even more troubling is that 25% of the dogs in the shock collar group were removed because they exceeded the 20 shocks allowed, yet those attempts still failed to suppress their chasing behavior.
The details of the study indicate not only the infliction of pain but also ineffectiveness in a significant number of cases - even under controlled conditions led by “experts” like yourself. And somehow it was the two dogs who were shocked more than 20x in a session who were disqualified, and not the trainers who continued to shock the dogs until they reached the 20x threshold.
Your involvement in both shock collar training and the so-called “positive reinforcement” training groups in the study further raises concerns especially since the methods presented for positive reinforcement were not representative of established, humane training practices.
A modern approach involves marking a desirable behavior and reinforcing it consistently across different contexts, not merely “calling” a dog back with food.
The study's design misleads the public into believing positive reinforcement is ineffective by setting it up to fail without proper proofing and controlled settings. As a figure in the aversive training community, your participation in this study and its promotion raise ethical questions, especially given your awareness of the broader scientific consensus against aversive methods.
It is concerning that your involvement could mislead the public and dog guardians into believing shock collars are an appropriate and humane training tool.
The modern dog training community requests that you cease all public education efforts that promote pain, fear, and intimidation-based methods which are holding our industry back and which put the public at risk. Our understanding is that you have scheduled a workshop overseas, where based on your history you are likely to advocate for these outdated techniques. These methods contradict the ethical standards for dog welfare, especially in countries like the United Kingdom.
As a practitioner of dog training, we urge you to reconsider your approach and align your practices with scientifically supported, humane training methods, consistent with the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists and their international counterparts.
The modern dog training community stands ready to escalate public discourse and scrutiny if these unethical practices persist in the interest of public health and safety.
Zak George
We also acknowledge the involvement of Dr. Clive Wynne from Arizona State University as a co-author of this study. While Dr. Wynne’s academic standing is now under scrutiny due to his endorsement of research methods that caused 100% of the shock collar group dogs to yelp in pain, we remain focused on addressing the immediate welfare concerns this study raises.
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
