What Is the State of the Dog Training Industry?

What’s new about the state of the dog training industry now? As the saying goes, “Next verse, same as the first.” But there's reason for hope...

Recently I’ve been asked more frequently than usual about my take on what’s going on in the world of professional dog training.

The truth? I haven’t been paying a lot of attention. 

Not because I don’t care - obviously I’ve spent most of my adult life in the public eye on TV as a dog training and behavior expert. I’ve founded one of the world’s most successful dog trainer education schools. I’ve created a global network of like-minded positive trainers. And I’ve built an immense and ever-evolving resource for dog lovers around the world in Positively.com.

Clearly these are all things directly and intrinsically tied to the world of professional dog training.

And I’m really proud of how far we’ve moved the needle toward better treatment for dogs and their guardians. I love being around fellow dog geeks. I’m inspired every day by the genius and dedication of those on my teams at Positively and the Victoria Stilwell Academy. I’m constantly humbled by the trust placed in what we’ve built by current and aspiring professional trainers learning at VSA. And I’m challenged at every turn by the awesome responsibility of working alongside amazing peers in the industry that share my passion for advocating for the wellness and welfare of dogs.

I just have little interest in the drama.

But I understand why people are still fighting for change.

What should be our goal within the dog training industry?

It would be wonderful to get to the point where there is no more need for debate, because everyone agrees that dogs’ welfare and wellbeing is the first thing that every professional must consider before they work with them. Even if the latest studies show agreement from both sides on this point, the ethical lines of what is and what is not welfare lies with each individual.  

Over the past few years, more voices have joined the call for change, and the debate over dog training methods seems to have become more vigorous. I’m busy working with our team on new TV shows, courses and other resources that we can get directly into the hands of dog lovers, so I don’t spend time in the social media trenches engulfed in flame wars arguing about why such and such training method is BS or why so and so is wrong or right.

I know these debates exist, obviously, and I’ll admit that in the earlier days of my public career I fell prey to the seemingly irresistible draw of crawling down into those trenches and lobbing missives back and forth. And god knows I’m painfully aware that plenty of people threatened by the advance of positive training really, really don’t like me or the progress that people like me represent, because I have an uncompromising stance when it comes to the welfare of dogs, including the tools and methods used when working and living alongside them. My message really is pretty simple at its core: either you’re ok introducing pain, fear, and purposeful discomfort when working with dogs, or you’re not. 

#IAmNot 

End of story. No nuance needed.

The more things change…

Even though I’ve stayed out of the fray, I still hear the usual, retread arguments from ‘balanced’ trainers saying that positive trainers are fine for fluffy little dogs but not big scary ones. That one camp saves the lives of dogs that the other camp failed to serve. That some mythical state called ‘purely positive’ exists (spoiler, it doesn’t) and is supported by trainers like me (spoiler, it’s not.) There’s the age-old, tiresome (and ethically scary) claim that no tool should be removed from a good dog trainer’s toolkit… even if it is literally designed to cause pain to get a result. That it’s better to introduce some discomfort if it supposedly represents the only path towards saving a dog’s life or providing it a better life (it doesn’t.) Not to mention the odd recent obsession amongst ‘balanced’ trainers to “show your work”, as if successful dog training can or should be measured simply by coercing a dog to do – or not do – a certain thing, in front of a camera or otherwise. (But sure, if you still insist, there are over 150 episodes of my publicly available real-world training work to choose from.)

Are there bad positive trainers that harm the reputation of qualified ones? No doubt. And that’s a real problem. It’s also one of the reasons we built the Dog Trainer Course at VSA to produce new generations of effective real-world problem solvers committed to using positive training.

What is causing the increase in dog training debates?

Of course, to the degree that ‘balanced’ trainers are being louder at the moment in making their argument, it seems pretty clear to me that we can use a relatively spot-on metaphor that is well-known from the world of animal behavior science: the extinction burst.

Often, when a dog stops being reinforced for a particular behavior, a temporary increase in that behavior’s frequency, duration or intensity can occur. This usually happens right before the dog ‘gives up’ and that behavior begins to decline and eventually stops. In the scientific world, this is called an extinction burst, and it seems pretty clear to me that if the voices on that side are getting louder right now, it’s likely because they're pushing back against the progress of what behavioral and cognitive science (and our own obvious internal ethical stances) represents for their approach to dog training and the viability of their business.

If anything, I’d suggest that if people are getting louder, it’s a promising sign that we’re closer than ever to winning the hearts and minds of dog lovers around the world who have always known that aversive training didn’t ‘feel right’, but had no language or visible exit ramps for how to do things differently. There will inevitably come a point when critical mass shifts and it becomes untenable to try and convince clients that pain, fear and intimidation (at any level) is required in order to adjust behavior and - more importantly - to reach the ultimate goal of living a harmonious and mutually enriching life while truly appreciating the fact that the dog has just as meaningful a voice in the relationship between a successful dog/human team.

We’re getting close, and to whatever degree the fever may be rising, pick your metaphor:
It’s darkest before the dawn…
The fever’s breaking…
Extinction bursts….

How (and whether) we should be debating about training methods

Of greater concern to me, however, is a trend I’ve been seeing more of lately within what used to be considered safely enlightened territory in this debate. More and more, I’m hearing reports of a degree of appeasement and compromise regarding ethical boundaries in dog training being stretched in the name of cooperation, dialogue, and openness. While cooperation and healthy discussion –  even with those with whom you disagree –  is important, it relies on everyone being open enough to listen and respect the other’s point of view, even if you don’t agree with it.  

This is a noble cause in theory, but when the discussion centers on having to find common ground with people who think it’s ok to use equipment and methods that are designed to cause dogs pain and discomfort even when ‘used properly’ (read the label) then the cause is highly flawed, because in essence, it means a certain level of validation.

Whether you like it or not, sharing space with those who still continue to use aversive tools and methods - even when twisting their rationale into some version of what is supposedly ultimately better for the dog’s welfare - without calling attention to this provides a path towards increased legitimacy that ultimately threatens the wellbeing of dogs.

I had many meaningful conversations with the late, great Sarah Fisher about this growing trend, and we shared deep concern about the louder voices within our industry providing pathways toward a backward-looking approach. I miss Sarah dearly. Her voice was such an important streak of unassailable common sense mixed with empathy and compassion - all bundled in her impenetrably uncompromising passion for advocating on behalf of dogs through the advancement of positive training. We need her now more than ever, and from our conversations about this issue I know she would share my worry about where approaches like this are pointing us.

Common ground within differing dog training camps

The problem isn’t that two equally valid points of view aren’t coming together in a spirit of openness and cooperation. It’s that positive training represents a more humane, effective, and ethically sound future for dog welfare, and introducing purposeful aversives does the opposite. Both things do not always have to be true, and the debate over dog welfare is a prime example of that. 

I’m not afraid to enter into a debate about training methods, and I have a publicly-available body of work (including early episodes of It’s Me or the Dog that I’ve since publicly and decisively condemned and provided alternatives for) due to the longevity of my TV shows that is rivalled by a very, very small number of other public figures in the dog training space. 

I’m also not one to shy away from those who share different beliefs than me. I celebrate our freedom to believe what we want to believe. But don’t ask me to support or even condone someone else’s beliefs that I feel jeopardize the wellbeing of the animals for whom we’re charged to serve as guardians.

That’s not obstinance, and it’s not being in an echo chamber. It’s allowing the strength of your ethical convictions to drive your decision-making on behalf of those who rely on your voice to be their advocates.

So, it’s great in principle to find common ground with those among whom you may not always agree. But identifying and standing on that common ground should not become the holy grail which comes at the expense of undermining the ethical and humane principles upon which your mission should be based. Some might suggest that the debate is causing a newfound epidemic of dogs that are not being listened to because humans are spending too much time arguing about training methods.

But the problem isn’t that dogs aren’t being heard because humans are arguing about training methods. The ironic truth is that one side is literally arguing that the other side isn’t listening to dogs enough!

The ‘balanced’ ideology seems to put less focus on listening and more on compliance at all costs, which means dogs are not being heard! Dogs haven’t been listened to appropriately for decades by many trainers, and this won’t change if others who are fighting for better treatment are shamed into keeping quiet.

Common ground within differing dog training camps

The good news is that I believe we’re on the cusp of a new golden age for dogs, given the newly empowered focus by progressive, ethical, science-led positive trainers on the dog’s actual real-world wellness and welfare. Appreciating the ‘dogness’ of dogs while re-examining how and why we choose to live with them in the first place is changing the landscape. It’s an exciting time of growth where we have access to so many great resources to make us even better teachers and advocates for our dogs and clients. 

The movement being led by VSA, Positively and other forward-thinking dog behavior industry peers towards recognizing that it’s our responsibility to truly listen to what our dogs are telling us they need, while balancing those needs with our own, is game changing. But that change cannot happen if we fall for the false argument that dogs are not truly being helped unless we set our ethical principles aside in the name of cooperation and human-to-human harmony. The fact is, sometimes advancing ethical principles - especially when they will knowingly trigger seismic social change - is not compatible with appeasing those whose own principles are anathema to the very advancement you’re trying to initiate.

So where does that leave us? What’s new about the state of the dog training industry now? Regarding the debate, as the saying goes, “Next verse, same as the first….” 

But there are some very cool things happening in the industry too, including at VSA where The Zones Approach is providing a new and highly impactful framework when it comes to raising, teaching and living with dogs. 

As far as our part in the debate goes, we’ll just continue doing the work required of us and let that work speak for itself in terms of how we choose to make our case on behalf of dogs. We’ll keep putting educational posts out on social media that are designed to help everyone, and avoid getting in the trenches with folks that don’t agree with us. 

VSA and Positively have an important job to do, which is to stand up for the welfare and wellbeing of dogs and to keep educating people about them. We’ll continue moving the needle in the right direction and be a supportive voice for others doing the same, and we’ll keep doing our part to make sure that our collective call for change is heard by all.