08/21/2026
I find it absolutely appalling that anyone calling themselves a dog trainer would deliberately cause fear or pain to their client’s “best friend”.
Why Are Aversives Still Recommended by some Dog Trainers.
I think it's important to acknowledge something first: what is experienced as aversive is also individual to the dog.
A lead being clipped on may be aversive to one dog.
A treat not arriving quickly enough may be frustrating or aversive to another.
Something we consider completely neutral may have a very different emotional meaning for an individual dog.
I absolutely understand that.
But my ethos and belief is that acknowledging that doesn't mean I want to deliberately introduce fear, pain, intimidation or discomfort into training simply because aversives exist.
The idea that dogs need consequences
This is probably one of the most persistent arguments I hear:
Life is aversive, so dogs need to learn to deal with aversives.”
There is a kernel of truth being stretched into an entire training philosophy.
Dogs absolutely encounter things they don't like. Life isn't consequence-free.
But that doesn't logically mean we need to deliberately create unpleasant consequences to teach them.
A dog learning that traffic is dangerous is very different from deliberately frightening a dog so that it stops approaching a road.
Natural consequences and deliberately applied training consequences aren't automatically equivalent.
Suppression can look like success
This is probably one of the biggest reasons aversives remain popular.
They can produce very visible behavioural change.
The dog stops barking.
Stops pulling.
Stops approaching another dog.
Stops stealing food.
From the outside, that can look like:
“The training worked.”
But behaviour stopping doesn't necessarily tell us why it stopped.
Did the dog learn an alternative behaviour?
Did the emotional response change?
Did the dog become more comfortable with the situation?
Or did the dog simply learn that performing that behaviour results in something unpleasant?
Those are very different outcomes.
People often confuse obedience with emotional wellbeing
A dog can be extremely obedient while still struggling emotionally.
“Look, he sits when I tell him.”
It doesn't tell us whether the dog feels safe, relaxed, confident or capable of coping with the environment.
This is why I think we need to be careful about celebrating compliance as the ultimate measure of successful training.
A quiet dog isn't necessarily a comfortable dog.
Aversives can become hidden behind language
Words matter.
“Correction.”
“Pressure.”
“Stim.”
“Tap.”
“Touch.”
“Communication.”
Sometimes changing the word makes the method sound considerably less unpleasant than the actual experience might be for the dog.
And once something is given a softer label, people can become less inclined to question what is actually happening.
Some trainers genuinely believe aversives are necessary
I think it's important to acknowledge this too.
There are trainers who genuinely believe reinforcement alone isn't sufficient for every situation.
Their reasoning may be based on their own experience, their interpretation of learning theory, safety concerns, or the belief that dogs need boundaries established through consequences.
But good intentions don't automatically make a method necessary or harmless.
The “balanced” argument can become circular
One common argument is:
“I use aversives because sometimes reinforcement doesn't work.”
Then the failure of the reinforcement strategy is used as evidence that an aversive was necessary.
That doesn't necessarily follow.
Perhaps the reinforcer wasn't sufficiently valuable.
Perhaps the environment was too difficult.
Perhaps the behaviour had been rehearsed extensively.
Perhaps the dog was over threshold.
Perhaps there was pain or another underlying issue.
Perhaps the training criteria progressed too quickly.
Perhaps the behaviour isn't primarily a training problem at all.
This approach didn't work” isn't the same as “therefore punishment was required.”
And perhaps most importantly, I think we should ask a bigger question:
If we can teach a dog without deliberately adding fear, pain or intimidation, why wouldn't we want to?
For me, positive reinforcement isn't about pretending dogs live in a consequence-free world.
It isn't about having no boundaries.
It isn't about letting dogs do whatever they want.
And it certainly isn't about being “soft.”
It's about asking whether the unpleasant experience is actually necessary, rather than automatically assuming that because aversives exist in life, we should deliberately incorporate them into training.
Because yes, dogs will experience things they don't like.
They will encounter frustration.
They will experience disappointment.
They will sometimes have to tolerate things they would rather avoid.
That's life.
But I don't believe that means we need to deliberately make training unpleasant.
I dont believe a dog needs a consequence that hurts or frightens them simply because life contains things that can hurt or frighten them.
(Picture of Tesla being queen of her castle ) 🏰
