10/28/2026
Training should never involve pain, fear, or intimidation. Period.
"...I don’t believe there can be any tolerance for those who knowingly choose “training methods” that use force, pain and fear. It is physical and psychological abuse. Someone who says that they hit their spouse only when it is “really necessary” is still hitting their spouse. Would you tolerate that and look for common ground with them?"
What The Actual?
I find myself saying this increasingly these days.
Despite deliberately not following the social media pages of (un)balanced trainers to save myself the distress of witnessing abuse which I am unable to do anything about, I have still stumbled upon some things which I just cannot get my head around, mostly on dog training advice forums, which my algorithm seems to think I need to see.
In the last week I have come across:
• Someone who’s two Rottweilers escaped the property - and I use that phrase loosely, as the dogs were fitted with boundary fence e-collars and there was no actual physical barrier – defending their impeccable status as responsible dog owners, because it is not their fault that the shock collars malfunctioned – there aren’t enough facepalm emojis in the world……
• A man garrotting a small breed dog with a slip-lead for about 10 minutes in an attempt to teach the dog to sit, because clearly that is the easiest method. In the time it was taking him to achieve precisely nothing, we had taught 9 puppies to sit, down, stand and come only that morning, with completely novice owners and a clicker and treats – and no dogs needed their air supply cut off to achieve that – who would have thought….
• A man advocating keeping dogs in kennels for extended periods, because you need to deprive them of basic freedom and enjoyment so that they are more “grateful” to you when you take them out and work with them, because otherwise, they will be like spoiled children – we all know that children deprived of their basic needs are so much better off.
• Someone asking for advice about their dog’s attempts to shake off the shock collar that has not just one box with a set of prongs to zap the dog, but two – you know, so you can distribute the electric shock more evenly around the neck. Seriously. Do people not hear themselves?
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I know that people will ask what the point of writing about this is or say that I am preaching to the choir or in an echo chamber, but I think these things actually do need to be aired from time to time, because there is so much emphasis on “tolerance” towards trainers we may disagree with and finding common ground with the “other side”, because “we all love dogs”, that I think we forget just what the other side’s ideology breeds.
Yes, of course there are degrees of force, degrees of pain, degrees of intimidation and different intensities of aversives. Yes, you will get some trainers who use aversives with good timing and some trainers who use aversives with bad timing. You will get some trainers who believe aversives are only justified occasionally and others who use them for everything and you will get some trainers who add lots of positive stuff to the scale and others who add very little.
However, at the end of the day, once you make a conscious, calculated decision to apply force or pain as part of a training plan, it is a slippery slope to increasing that force and pain when you aren’t getting the results that you want. If you believe that there is a scenario that justifies you deliberately hurting or frightening a dog to teach them a behaviour, there will always be justification for increasing the fear or pain for some other behaviour and this is how we end up with the ridiculous scenarios I recounted above.
The conflict between balanced trainers and force free trainers is not really about efficiency, practicalities or scientific research (although these support force free training), it is about a fundamental moral belief: Either you believe that animals deserve to experience pain and fear during the training process or you believe that they have a right to be protected from the deliberate application of pain and fear.
I keep using words like “deliberate”, “intentional”, “calculated”, because I am referring to those who act with the intention to apply force, pain or intimidation as part of the planned training process and not the person who gets a fright or has a bad day and yells at their dog occasionally or who has to restrain their dog with force in an unexpected emergency. Yes, life happens and we are all imperfect human beings in an imperfect world, but the occasional grumpy moment with a family member (which is what our dogs should be) where we act with less kindness than we should is a far cry from deciding that it is totally justified to routinely hurt and frighten that canine family member to get what we want. It is the difference between a normal family relationship and an abusive one.
And this is why I don’t believe there can be any tolerance for those who knowingly choose “training methods” that use force, pain and fear. It is physical and psychological abuse. Someone who says that they hit their spouse only when it is “really necessary” is still hitting their spouse. Would you tolerate that and look for common ground with them?