04/11/2026
The dog world loves to get dragged down into an argument about “positive reinforcement” vs “balanced” training. If you’ve ever asked for trainer recommendations on the internet, you’ve probably had some sort of comment about “make sure they are force free and don’t use punishment methods”. There’s international media articles about the “war” in dog training between the different camps and endless posts from trainers s**t talking the other camp (or their own camp if they’re not exactly the right amount of force free!) and telling you why they’re all wrong and suck.
Quite frankly, if we have to divide trainers into good and bad - this is the absolute dumbest factor to split it by. Here’s why.
Understanding learning theory - including positive and negative punishment and reinforcement, as well as pavlovian/classical conditioning - at a deep level IS important for all dog trainers. It’s the explanation for how certain training techniques work and gives clear language and measurable standards to what otherwise can be very subjective. I believe this so much that I recently flew down to Melbourne and spent four days listening to what is likely the nerdiest breakdown of learning theory you’ll find anywhere in the dog training space - education of a really high standard, using language which I’d probably use 0.5% of in actually discussing behaviour with regular pet owners in the day to day.
The problem is when dog people get hung up on these scientific terms (which were originally used in laboratory settings as objective measures of behaviour - not emotions) to the absolute exclusion of other more valuable measures. Behaviourism is JUST ONE FLAWED LENS we can look at behaviour through, and by far the least helpful measure of true animal welfare in my view.
Our dogs genuinely don’t know the difference between if something is positive punishment or negative reinforcement, beyond whether they have done something more or less as a result. That’s the actual definition of these terms. Simply did we add something or remove something, and did that make the behaviour happen more/stronger or less/weaker.
What THEY care about is how they FELT about that. A factor purposely excluded from these scientific terms by design. How clearly they understand what is being asked of them, and how they can succeed. Whether they’re living a good life - one of health, freedom, fulfilment and a healthy relationship with their people, or one of friction, restriction and frustration.
Reinforcement and punishment can look like a lot of things. Two trainers may both be technically using punishment or reinforcement, but the emotional affect of the dog can be so wildly different depending on the approach.
Where one trainer may correct a dog in a harsh frustrated manner, another may turn it into a game the dog loves to play. The difference between “you do this because I said so damnit” and a game of tag. Or a single piece of a kibble handed to the dog in a transactional “pLuS onE rEinForcEmenT to this behaviour” vs breaking out into a highly engaging and fun game through play with toy or food that is worth a million times more for a job well done. Same quadrants. Totally different feelings and outcomes for the dog.��What may be reinforcing to one dog, may be absolute punishment to another learner or in another context - because it’s always measured by the outcome of the dogs behaviour, not the intentions of the trainer going into it. For the right dog in the right context, a delicious treat can be a punishment, genuine conflict can be HIGHLY reinforcing, and losing access to the things they love to do can be more punishing than any level of physical correction available on whatever tool is trendy that day. The LEGS (learning, environment, genetics and self) of the individual are always at play, and they don’t fit neatly into little squares.
When we get into these nuances, grouping trainers by reinforcement or punishment is an absolute waste of time and tells me nothing of the quality of their work, how their dogs feel or how full the dogs lives are.
Having personally invested many years and tens of thousands of dollars in learning from trainers across the entire spectrum of dog training, the difference between the great and the terrible has never been how open someone is to technical reinforcement vs punishment and how staunchly they defend that. It’s always been about the dog over ego. Clarity over showmanship or pandering to a fanbase. The big fulfilling life for human and dog built on solid relationship and communication, over jamming dogs through rigid if-this-then-+/-that protocols.
Yes - we should absolutely make efforts to understand the science (the actual science, not the s**tty interpretations). At a deep level as professionals working in this space day in and day out. It has a lot of value when used in context and I am grateful for the educators passing on this important knowledge. But above all, the dogs and owners we work with tell us more than pissy arguments and hashtags digging at the other team ever will. ��All that said, I’m in camp “get on with helping dogs and owners live bigger, happier lives” - whatever quadrants that falls into.
