This is perhaps a slightly more technical article than many I post but it's an important one, considering as it does the connection between training methods and welfare.
Despite the efforts of many canine professionals and
widening body of scientific evidence, aversive training techniques remain in
use. Discussions surrounding the use of these tools are often acrimonious and
highly divisive. Supporters insist some dogs need them, some breeds apparently
too stubborn or high drive for management any other way. Reward-based training is
denigrated as ‘cookie-pushing’ or permissiveness, allowing the dog to be in
charge, when what dogs ‘need’ is to know their pack leader. This is despite the
fact alpha theory is outdated, based on observations from the 1940s now
recognised as flawed.
Using aversive techniques carries significant risks to the physical health and well-being of dogs, and the human-canine relationship. By definition, aversive methods are things dogs actively try to avoid. They find them unpleasant, painful, or scary, and want to reduce the likelihood of encountering that stimulus again. This raises serious ethical questions. In addition, if we are causing distress or pain to dogs, what effect will that have on their view of us?
