Take a Stand - An Important Statement on Training Practices
In light of recent events within the professional dog training world, we feel it is necessary and appropriate to reaffirm the Victoria Stilwell Academy’s and Positively’s public and unwavering position regarding the use of aversive tools, methods and practices when working or interacting with dogs.
At my explicit and consistently uncompromising direction on this issue for decades, VSA and Positively continue to promote the absolute avoidance of any tool, method or practice which has the intended or unintended consequence of causing pain, fear or purposeful discomfort to any dog, regardless of behavior, history, breed type or any other factor. For the sake of clarity, this includes - but is not limited to – shock or ‘e-collars’, prong collars, choke collars, shaker cans, anti-bark spray collars, ultrasonic devices, electronic fences, hitting, kneeing, hanging, pinching, helicoptering, harsh leash corrections and yelling. We believe that there is never any appropriate time, place and/or situation in which it is ok to use such tools, methods or practices.
I have dedicated my life to -- and indeed named our primary company based upon -- a commitment to these principles on behalf of dogs around the world. The Victoria Stilwell Academy teaches its students about the dangers, limitations, ineffectiveness, and moral questionability of using aversive tools and methods, while requiring its graduates to adhere to a pledge eschewing their use.
We understand that it almost always represents a more taxing, uphill climb when an individual or company takes a stand against the long-established tradition of harsh and aversive handling when training dogs. Trainers, equipment companies, organizations and industries that continue to promote, endorse and profit from aversive, compulsion-based tools and methods can no longer ignore the overwhelming scientific and observational evidence that these tools and methods are damaging to dogs both physically and mentally, even though they continue to defend them.
It is worth considering that through all the noise, and however hard it can be to take a stand for dogs’ well-being, we do it because we must. Dogs are talking to us all the time, but many trainers do not listen or choose to turn away and do what they think is best for themselves, their needs and the livelihoods they have built. Dogs are therefore at the mercy of what trainers deem is necessary in different situations to achieve their training goals, and that is a pretty dreadful place to be.
This is why the dog training industry needs to stand up and advocate for all dogs, however uncomfortable doing so might be, and despite whatever unpleasant noise may be directed at them as a result. Because the reality is this: no dog, animal or human being thrives when they are living under threat, when they are fearful, or when they are in pain.
Proponents of LIMA suggest that while positive training is preferred in all cases, if a scenario arises where the positive training does not achieve a result deemed to be adequate, it is then permissible to employ aversive tools and/or methods to arrive at that net successful result. This is a false premise. Instead, while we agree that positive training is preferred in all cases, if the desired result is not achieved using positive training, we believe that it is the responsibility of the trainer and caregiver to find a practitioner who is more skilled at positive training to achieve the result. In short, just as a good craftsman should never blame their tools, so should any good dog trainer never suggest that positive training - when executed skillfully - is not capable of squeezing every last drop of potential from a training and behavior-related scenario. It’s not the method that’s the hindrance -- it’s the skill level of the trainer.
And just to short-circuit the tired arguments that inevitably follow such claims, of course we recognize that aversive tools and methods effect change on a dog’s behavior, even if that change is limited in its effectiveness over time. Just as if you punched me in the face repeatedly, I would change my behavior and do what you said because I would fear what you would do to me if I didn’t. Ultimately, however, I would also develop a growing resentment towards you, and any trust I may have had in your commitment to serving my best interest would erode further with each landed punch. My anxiety would probably grow whenever I was around you even if you never punched me again because I could never forget what you did to me. You wouldn’t realize that because you think that you fixed me and that my ‘good’ behavior validates your use of violence. You might see my lack of action as a success even though I am shutting down or you might be surprised if I fight back one day, and direct that towards you or to someone else. Ultimately, you will always blame me for behaving ‘badly’ and never look at what you did to cause it.
As I argued in an article on the Positively website last year in the midst of a similar debate, one’s willingness to employ aversive tools and methods comes down to a subjective judgment call, and that determination is indeed likely to be at least slightly different for various individuals. For me and all of us at Positively and VSA, we’ve made the simple choice not to cross the line into anything that causes pain, fear, or purposeful discomfort in dogs. Others may choose other lines, and that is their right. Those of us fortunate enough to serve as thought and industry leaders in the field of animal care and behavior, however, have a responsibility to help shape and encourage others to identify and support morally ethical lines in the sand.
We encourage all of our esteemed peers within the professional dog training community to join us in continuing to work towards eliminating the use, promotion and condonement of all such aversive tools and methods when working with or interacting with dogs.
