Over the last few months, we've seen a new trend on social media: Some of the most influential positive reinforcement trainers out there are actually justifying the use of aversive tools and techniques "in some cases". (To be clear - by "some cases", they don’t mean emergency situations such as dog fights, or untrained dogs trying to ingest dangerous objects. Instead, these trainers often refer to severe behavioral cases such as dogs attacking humans or other animals, saying that, if all fails, the use of pain and fear was justified.
Interestingly enough, the trainers taking this stance are not balanced trainers, but claim to be force free canine professionals. And yet, are they?
The above-mentioned definition of balanced training implies that all four quadrants of operant conditioning are utilized. This includes positive punishment, in other words, the premeditated use of punitive measures like corrective leash-pops on choke chains and prong collars, as well as stims from an e-collar on aversive levels.
So, the question here is: Are force free trainers who claim that aversive measures are acceptable / necessary for particularly “problematic” dogs REALLY "force free" trainers? Or are they in fact balanced trainers, working primarily with positive reinforcement? If the latter is the case, then we could say that these "force free" trainers are confusing the community of dog owners by blurring the lines between those two very distinct approaches to dog training.
To say it in the words of renowned dog training expert and television presenter Victoria Stilwell: "Either you're OK using methods and equipment when working with dogs that cause pain, fear, and purposeful discomfort, or you're not. I am not."
Trainers who blur the lines between being OK with the use of aversives in dog training in some instances are balanced trainers by definition. They are not force free trainers, and should not, in my opinion, refer to themselves as force free trainers. By the way, any experienced, skillful balanced trainer will emphasize that they are using positive reinforcement at least 90-95% of the time! Interesting, isn’t it? Now, ask yourself: Are those "fake force free trainers" who justify the use of pain and fear in some cases purposefully deceiving dog owners? Or are they merely unaware of the confusion they are causing in the minds, and lives, of pet guardians and their canine companions?
What we can say with certainty is this: Since the AVSAB position statement of 2021 on the use of aversives has come into effect, we have global scientific consensus regarding the fact that pain and fear have no place in dog training. Consequently, so-called force free trainers claiming the necessity of using aversives to purposefully cause pain & fear in certain instances (outside of strict emergencies) are in direct violation of this overwhelming scientific consensus.
To quote Shay Kelly's Facebook post from August 16th, 2024:
"There’s an ever-growing body of scientific evidence against the use of aversives in behaviour modification, for example,
https://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/p/resources.html
Aversive trainers just call them biased or say we are cherry-picking. Aversive practices (particularly shock collars) are increasingly being banned around the world. Aversive training methods are opposed by:
American Animal Hospital Association,
American College of Veterinary Behaviourists,
American SPCA,
American Veterinary Medical Association,
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior,
Animal Behavior and Training Council,
Association of Pet Behaviour Counselors,
Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT),
Australian Veterinary Association,
British Columbia SPCA,
British Small Animal Veterinary Association,
British Veterinary Association,
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association,
Companion Animal Welfare Council,
Dogs Trust,
European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology,
New Zealand APDT,
The British Kennel Club,
New Zealand Companion Animal Council,
New Zealand SPCA,
Pacific Assistance Dogs Society,
Pet Professional Guild,
RSPCA,
The Gundog Trust UK,
UK Dog Charter,
International Canine Behaviourists."
Scientific consensus in this matter is indeed overwhelming - that is not an opinion, it's a fact. "Fake force free trainers", no matter how many social media followers they have, can criticize certain studies on canine behavior and training for different reasons. What they cannot do is overthrow the well- established global scientific consensus that aversives have no room in animal training (as these trainers are neither certified animal behaviorists, veterinary behaviorists, or behavioral scientists).
Zak George, on the other hand, with his statement "Pain and fear have no place in training the public's dogs", happens to be right in line with this consensus of leading experts in the field of behavioral science as it relates to dog training. This, again, is not an opinion, but a fact. A fact that no amount of arguing, posturing, ridiculing, or criticizing by “fake force free” or balanced trainers is going to change.
The beauty about this consensus by the leading experts around the world is: It's extremely clear, and easy to understand! The message is simple: Aversives should not be used in dog training in any situation (outside of strict emergencies). Or, in the words of the 2021 AVSAB position statement: “Based on current scientific evidence, AVSAB recommends that only reward-based training methods are used for all dog training, including the treatment of behavior problems”.
Embracing this very simple statement allows us to walk the path of evolution as canine professionals (and dog guardians) with ease and clarity. By taking this statement as our guideline for all interactions with our personal pets, and our clients’ dogs, we avoid causing harm to these wonderful animals. And by letting the AVSAB statement inspire our interactions with pet guardians, we avoid misinformation which could, ultimately, destroy the precious bond of trust between a dog and their human family.
The truth, indeed, does set us free.
