Aligning "positive reinforcement" with "use of aversives" dog trainers.

Can it be accomplished?

Synopsis

The pathway to aligning the “positive reinforcement/force-free” dog training methodology with the “necessity of using aversives” (coercive techniques) training regimes lies in each side of the debate accepting certain key mind shifts, not least of which is listening and dissecting the arguments rationally, rather than belligerently and passionately jumping to the worst case, extreme scenarios, on both sides.

The “force-free/positive reinforcement” community needs to agree a set of definitions of aversives, come to a better understanding of the military/police and protection sports dog training requirements (as the “aversives advocates” are very often referencing those specialized training scenarios) and finally – and possibly the greatest challenge – distance itself from the arguments surrounding banning of certain dog training equipment, as that is a separate debate and when joined at the hip with the positive reinforcement concepts just achieves sending the debate off on an aggravated diversion.

For the “aversives are essential” community, there needs to be understanding that the positive reinforcement advocates will never accept that electric shock collars and prong collars are essential, valid training tools, so the aversives cohort needs to work through a set of definitions of aversives that might be agreed between the parties, excluding those devises and actions that are unacceptable, just so a common starting point can be defined. Then - work hard in the protection/bite sports, military training and even gun dog training arenas, to think through the requirements and popular protocols and explain these to all participants in the debate – being ready to revise the “current wisdom” when faced with emerging alternative training practices.

Introduction

There is a global debate between the “positive reinforcement/force-free” dog training community and those who contend that the “use of aversives in dog training” is imperative (the “coercive cohort”). The overview, foundation arguments and recent discussions have been covered in companion articles published on this website (see “Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer’s perspective” and “AVSAB vs Balabanov analysis”)[1] and so, as far as possible, repetition of the points made therein will be avoided – although some overlap will obviously occur, as one can’t seek alignment without retelling the key elements of the position statements.

This dog training methodology and efficacy debate is played out on social media between numerous “high profile dog trainers”, in scientific publications reporting deductions from research scientists/psychologists[2], industry bodies representing certain interested parties, but also at the unpublished level between trainers (instructors) and dog guardians on the fields of dog sports and dog training clubs, covering the full gamut of dog training personnel with varying qualifications, backgrounds and experience.

One can readily conclude that the debate is getting us nowhere, not advancing good dog training and generally confusing (and even frustrating) any individuals in the general public interested in doing the right thing by their dogs and wanting to achieve training outcomes – whatever they might be.

A large part of the challenge in any hope of resolving the issues and aligning the two sides is in two parts, categorised below as Part A and Part B:

1.      Part A - that the discussions are so often at cross purposes, due to failure to set the “ground rules” (the arena for the debate) in terms of defining exactly what is being discussed –

(a)   Dog training scenarios:

·        Breed and type of dog - high drive/sensitive/etc.;

·        Age of the dog (pup, adolescent, adult, geriatric) and importantly;

·        Has the dog already been trained and shown that it understands the cue – or is this the introduction of a new action/response.

·        Aim of the training - pet dog manners/competition Obedience, Agility, Hoops, Dock Diving, Frisby, etc., service dog to aid, for example, the disabled guardian, protection/bite sports/police/military[3], or undesirable behaviour modification;

·        Is this an emergency/safety situation in which intervention/redirection/correction is urgently/instantly required?

(b)   Definitions of basic terms: 

·        Especially meaning, timing, application and severity of aversives;

·        Clarity about situational training – as above, is this dog behaviour management strategy versus dog behaviour training – or simply training to achieve “desirable dog manners and general obedience”.

Then, most guardians who turn to some form of dog training are engaging in the effort based on either a desire to teach their pet dog manners, as a hobby or with a passion to become more deeply engaged in dog competition sports such as Obedience, Agility, Hoops, or the protection dog sports, etc. (and, by extension, military and police dog training). So, then the challenge is -

(c) The split of the “average dog guardian” from the “elite experts” – what guidelines apply in each case, or is there a single platform or training ethic across the board?

This links to the dilemma for the average dog guardian/trainer, viz., who’s giving the advice, is it relevant to what the guardian is trying to do and who are you going to believe?

2.      Part B - that the advocates are so often passionate and forceful in holding forth their position and views –

(a)   Scientific evidence and personal experience are vehemently quoted by both sides of the positive-only versus use of aversives debate, but that still leaves the question for the average dog trainer of “do the science experiments/deductions and specialized views apply to my dog training goals?”.

(b)   Fallacious arguments - the arguments presented are very often arguable, even though presented convincingly (at least to some). A common example is drawing parallels between human psychology and dog psychology – understandable, in that this is obviously how the average person understands the world, through human eyes and the workings of the human brain – but the leap to the canine psychology is tenuous at best.

Both of these Part B issues have been covered in companion articles on this website – namely “Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer’s perspective” and “AVSAB vs Balabanov analysis” - and so will be left for interested readers to follow the arguments in those articles.

So – let’s break this down to set the foundations for the discussion and (maybe) define pathways to alignment.

What exactly needs to be defined or categorised?

Surprising as it may seem, given the difficulty of bringing the debate to a sensible common ground, as broadly referred to above, what exactly needs to be set out in any discussion are the following basic parameters (although also explained in the companion article “Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer’s perspective”, they bear repeating here to make sense of the following discussion):

• Are we discussing dog behaviour management strategy or dog training strategy?

• What is the objective?

• Changing behaviour, turning around an undesirable behaviour.

• Teaching the dog a new skill, action or trick. 

• Safety issue, for which urgent action (of whatever type) is required.

• Is the subject training for a “service dog”- either as a personal helper to the guardian or for protection/military/police service?

• To what level are we teaching/training – high level competition or simply household manners?

• What “category” of dog is under management/training – is this a tough, strong willed, confident, high drive, athletic dog, or a shy, compliant, sensitive dog? Clearly, breed will define part of the answer, but every dog is different, so the individual character/personality/confidence of the dog needs to be accounted for.

• What exactly is the core thesis in the management/training we are undertaking? Are we solidly in the “no stress of any kind whatsoever force-free” camp, or are we considering “teach the dog with positive reinforcement until we are certain it has the cue and required action down pat, then go on to correct, redirect, or apply (mild/severe?) aversives, if the dog does not comply/conform to the cue?”. 

• So – what stage of training is the dog at – and does this impact the use (or absence) of aversive methods?

• Define what we mean by aversives – is having a tight leash momentarily because the dog pulls ahead of the trainer an aversive “no-no”? Or is an aversive defined by some explicit forceful action by the trainer, such as a “leash pop/jerk” and are there gradations within that, or are they all the same? For example, we might agree that jerking a dog off its feet with the leash is definitely aversive (overlooking any “requirement related to a safety matter”) but what about verbalizing a cue to the dog and then applying a low-pressure on the leash?

o   As mentioned elsewhere (article on this site Reinforcement vs punishment: A dog trainer’s perspective) this is not as simple as “aversive means aversive”[4]. AVSAB (American Veterinary Behaviourist Society)[5] define aversive in the dog behaviour context as “anything unpleasant (emotionally or physically) that is used to decrease an unwanted behaviour”. Examples of an aversive may include verbal reprimands, pushing an animal into a position (alpha rolls, dominance downs) threatening body language, shaker cans, spray bottles, citronella collars, leash corrections, choke chains, prong collars, or shock collars. This list really covers the field at the extreme end and does not leave room for “yes, but….”. However, the “milder” aversives, over which ardent force-free protagonists also hold sway, is left undefined (such “aversives” as a momentary tight leash, a leash “pop”[6], a “Hey, stop that”, or a “Nope/Oops/Wrong….” if the wrong action is displayed in response to a cue).

What can be agreed upon?

A major stumbling block in finding a pathway to reconciling the two sides of the discussion is defining what might be deemed an “acceptable aversive” and what aversives are absolutely “out of bounds”? This discussion might end right here if a force-free reader maintains that no aversives are acceptable under any circumstances (even in safety emergency situations?) or after the next couple of paragraphs if the protagonists just will not listen to placing some sideboards on the discussion – so keep an open mind and bear with me.

Foundation contention in defining, prohibiting or accepting aversive tools and methods:

“Unacceptable” aversives are (mostly, but not entirely, in concert with the AVSAB position):

o   Forcefully pushing an animal into a position (alpha rolls, dominance downs, stamping on the leash to force the down – sometimes colloquially referred to as “parking the dog”) threatening body language, shaker cans, spray bottles, “noise pressure cans” (emitting a hoot or hiss) citronella collars, abrupt and severe leash corrections (with or without a verbal warning or cue), choke chains, prong collars, shock collars, slip leads (with no stop position to prevent choking), head/nose halters and front attachment harnesses - effectively any action causing fear and/or pain in the dog.

o   Note that very many “force-free” trainers do not regard head/nose halters and front attachment “no-pull harnesses” as aversive (certain of these tools are labelled “gentle leaders”) but they are classed in this category here due to their design being specifically to pull on a sensitive part of the dog (nose or shoulder) and cause redirection through uncertainty, imbalance, fear or pain (depending somewhat on how abruptly and forcefully they are applied and whether the dog is “conditioned” to the tool, but that argument might be applied to any tool – even electric shock collars – so a line needs to be drawn). Although I am not in favour of front attachment “gentle leaders/no-pull harnesses,” I can accept that, if used with thought and training, they might be acceptable. Part of the challenge which remains, however, is that guardians are fooled into thinking that “a tool fixes their training problems”, rather than “training fixes their training problem”.

“Acceptable” aversives are regarded as:

o   Pausing the forward dog walk and verbally warning the dog to slow down or wait before the leash tightens, then (with a verbal and/or body language cue) proceeding with the walk in the same or different direction; using a “non-reward marker” (“Wrong/Oops/Ah-ah/No”) in a mild tone to indicate that the dog’s action is not what was desired from the cue given; use of a Martingale collar (properly adjusted for size so that they may tighten but not choke the dog).

o   Note that:

§  These mild aversives still require correct timing, warning (i.e. verbal – or otherwise audible and/or body language cues giving warning immediately prior to application) and sensible mildness in delivery and

§  That the inclusion of the Martingale collar in this category is certainly contentious, give that choke chain collars and slip leads fall in the aversives category – the key is the non-choking nature of a proper Martingale collar. Note that elsewhere (article on this site, “Training equipment used (and misused) in dog training”) the slip lead and Martingale collar have been discussed in terms of possible justification for uses and then proper design – which most/many lacks, such that these tools are then indeed strongly aversive due to poor design and misuse.

What cannot be agreed upon?

All of the above categorization and rationalization still leaves the two questions as to:

·        Whether aversives are actually necessary? The debate which ranges from “aversives facilitate better/faster training” through to “can’t be done without”.

·        Whether the lists of “acceptable/unacceptable” aversives could be (albeit reluctantly) acknowledged as a place to start?

Unfortunately, the most likely outcome is that those who believe in the need for aversives in training will hold to that position and those totally opposed to the use of any aversives will be equally adamant in sticking to their position and both camps may well disagree with the categorizations above. But – really – we have to start somewhere if this is going to be an open minded, sensible discussion attempting to rationalise the opposing sides. If that is of no interest to the reader, then don’t bother reading further, as the mind trap has already been sprung.

Where to from here – is there a pathway at all?

There is absolutely no way forward UNLESS both sides of the debate take a long hard look at their ideals and are willing to modify their “fundamentalist” mantras – there is not a “winner takes all” outcome. Protagonists on both sides of the debate need to avoid using the arguments to promote their own social media presence – the numerous “likes” gained from the faithful is not proving the arguments and certainly not helping good dog training practices. Both sides of the divide need to realise that there are a lot of dog training elements the various advocates can actually agree upon. So, what is required to move forward?

The “force-free/positive reinforcement community” needs to accomplish at least the following key mind shifts:

1.      Distance itself from the ideals of banning certain dog training tools – in particular electric shock collars and prong collars – just because that does not (a) help their fundamental argument regarding positive training methods, but actually diverts the conversation into unproductive fields of passionate debate and (b) because bans simply don’t work and in fact send the tools “underground”, so that sensible debate and training of better methods are taken off the table (see article on this website “Should certain dog training devices be banned?”). Embark instead on a rational open discussion of the benefits of positive reinforcement training and behaviour management[7].

2.      Better appreciate the protection/bite sports, military training and even gun dog training requirements and popular protocols, as these fields appear to have come to place reliance on these tools. Can the positive-only advocates come up with better methods to accomplish the aims in these arenas?

3.      Recognise a comprehensive definition of “aversives” in terms of type, severity, timing, training objectives, nature/personality of the dog, management vs training scenarios, safety situations, to name just the key differentiators. This will verge on recognizing certain situations in which mild/defined “aversives” may play a role.

The “aversives are essential community” needs to accomplish at least the following key mind shifts:

1.      Recognise that the “force-free/positive reinforcement” community will never accept that prong collars and electric shock equipment are appropriate training tools in any scenario. This is probably the biggest challenge, as the protection/bite sports, military trainers and even gun dog trainers have come to place reliance on these tools, but understand that the question as to whether these tools are essential remains (see further at Point 3 below).

2.      Recognise a comprehensive definition of “aversives” in terms of type, severity, timing, training objectives, nature/personality of the dog, management vs training scenarios, safety situations, to name just the key differentiators - nonetheless understanding the advocacy against certain tools. This will require recognizing situations in which aversives play a key role (by their reconning) but also finding areas in which aversives are either not really adding value to the training program or are marginal to the outcome. Admitting this – recognizing the differentiation – is not weakening nor giving up the “pro-aversives” position, it is simply refining it so a sensible discussion can occur.

3.      Work hard in the protection/bite sports, military training and even gun dog training arenas to think through the requirements and popular protocols[8] – are there viable positive reinforcement/force-free techniques to accomplish the goals with replacement of the “aversive tools and techniques”, recognizing that certain requirements, in especially the military fields, will mean that dogs come under definable pressures and must develop “insensitivities to (ability to cope with) aversive external and psychological stimuli” just to do their job (and protect human lives) – and then explain these requirements rationally and dispassionately to the positive-only advocates[9].  There are a number of signs that protection/military/police dog training is becoming more aware of positive reinforcement techniques[10] and those who doubt this might benefit from watching the documentary “Healing Dakota”[11].  

Summary and conclusion

The debate regarding the use or total avoidance of aversives in dog training is failing in the quest to advance good dog training and is – what’s worse - generally confusing (and even frustrating) any individuals in the general public interested in doing the right thing by their dogs and wanting to achieve training outcomes – whatever they might be. Isn’t it finally time to calm the tempest of passionate debate and look for an outcome which actually benefits the canine population and clarifies for dog trainers the “rights and wrongs” (or at least shades of grey) in this field?

What is suggested here is that the pathway to aligning the “force-free/positive reinforcement” dog training methodology with the “necessity of using aversives” training regimes lies in each side of the debate accepting certain key mind shifts, not least of which is listening and dissecting the arguments rationally, rather than passionately, on both sides.

There needs to be agreement by the “positive reinforcement/force-free” community as to a set of definitions of aversives (for example the first pass made in this article) then come to a better understanding of the military/police dog training and protection sports dog training requirements and finally – and possibly the greatest challenge – distance itself from the arguments surrounding banning of certain dog training equipment – that is a separate debate and when joined at the hip with positive reinforcement just achieves sending the debate off on an aggravated tangent.

For the “aversives are essential” community, there needs to be acceptance that the positive reinforcement advocates will not accept training tools which are specifically designed to cause fear and pain reactions and so this “aversives cohort” must work through a set of definitions of aversives that might be agreed between the parties (again, see the list above). Then - work hard to think through the requirements and popular protocols of their specific training regimes and explain these to all participants in the debate – being ready to revise the “current wisdom” when faced with alternative training practices.

Easy? Hardly! Not at all surprising that a resolution and even moderate alignment has not been forthcoming – but the constant bickering across social media, with each side presenting their own interpretations of science, doesn’t appear to be helping.

The two camps need to regroup and reposition their platforms with a more “open for discussion” approach and attitude. A recent monologue by the well-known dog trainer Michael Ellis[12] (previously commonly advocating “balanced training” - including the use of aversives such as electric collars) gives some hope that at least one internationally recognised dog trainer is listening and also thinking about the issues discussed in this article, positioning to avoid future “hostile debate” and pleading for an open dialogue[13].

Bottom line - there must be some agreement as to the fundamental definitions and what is acceptable and what is not. But – be warned – despite the pleas for open mindedness, there will remain fringe dwellers – cohorts who will always be adamant in their strict views. The trick is to discount the lunatic fringe and the spurious arguments and seek the firm common ground, or the whole discussion will be lost forever in the quicksand.

References

[1] In these articles the positive reinforcement side was argued – however, there was also acknowledgement that not all “aversives” are coercive – at least a step onto the platform of this current article.

[2] Focused on both the human and canine elements and often drawing conclusions or parallels between these human and canine deductions – not always, in fact rarely, with validity.

[3] There are some who would argue that any protection/bite sports are bad/inappropriate and should not be pursued; also, those who would argue that any dog training at all is wrong as it removes the dog’s “agency”. This has been covered in another article on this website (“Do we unfairly manipulate dogs?”) and will be left out of this discussion as more extreme views which deserve their own debates.

[4] Oxford Dictionary/Oxford Languages: causing strong dislike or disinclination…..relating to or denoting aversion therapy, a type of behaviour therapy designed to make patients give up an undesirable habit by causing them to associate it with an unpleasant effect. "a program of aversive treatment for criminal offenders".

[5] American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (2021) Glossary of Terms used in AVSAB Position Statements: www.AVSAB.org 

[6] The “leash pop” suffers from a lack of definition in itself, as to some it does mean a brief, quick and light leash tightening whereas to others it means a harsh snap with force enough to administer a chocking impact.

[7] Note that dog training clubs have every right to specify that they will, or will not, allow certain training tools (such as prong or electric collars) to be used within training sessions or on their club grounds – assuming they are observing State/Federal laws on these elements. This is not unreasonable and when clearly stated participants can choose or not to participate in that particular club training.

[8] Note that there will always be those who advocate that military/protection/ police/gun dog training is not justified in any case – that will be a debate very difficult to maintain on a rational plane.

[9] At least as far as is practical in the police/military training constraints on disclosure of information.

[10] Palman D (2020) Not Using Force in Police Dog Training; Maine Warden Service; United States Police Canine Association; URL https://uspcak9.memberclicks.net › assets › Resource (PDF); Haverbeke, A. et al  (2008)  Training methods of military dog handlers and their effects on the team's performances; Applied Animal Behaviour Science Volume 113, Issues 1–3, September 2008, Pages 110-122.

[11] By the K9 PTSD CENTER at YouTube https://youtu.be/pIaw34QdqyQ?si=g5NIIknbhJZBZ5cZ especially commentary by James Lamonte and Dr. Kathleen Morgan (mostly in first 10 minutes of the video).

[12] Ellis, M. (January 2025) An appeal for an open conversation; YouTube https://youtu.be/9eYlS5Gl2TE?si=RG_tW5kEUaYM6cfo

[13] An “open dialogue” does not mean challenging nor bantering the opposition and quoting pseudo-science to prove the advocate's position – that is bullying, not discussing.