By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

I use the IAABC website to find trainers and when I can not find one in the area an adopter lives, I will use CCPDT website but I check all web pages for information on training practices and methodology before recommending them.  

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

CCPDT has recently published a position statement allowing the use of aversives in dog training.  Certified trainers of CCPDT are starting to switch over to the Pet Professional Guild because of this. In case you have not seen much about this. CCPDT now requires applicants to be mentored by trainers who use shock collars before the applicant can take the test with CCPDT.  There has been numerous well known trainers speak out about this.  There are trainers who have dog training education without having a credential.  While dog training is unregulated,  there are good trainers out there with or without credentials. There are also trainers who are mentors for Animal Behavior College students who do not hold any credentials. 

The Association of Professional Dog Trainer International is another source to find L.I.M.A. compliant trainers.  

Asking the right questions when speaking with a "trainer" is the most important thing you can do.  You can also ask to watch a training session with the trainers.  Being transparent is also important for dog trainers. 

I use the IAABC website to find trainers and when I can not find one in the area an adopter lives, I will use CCPDT website but I check all web pages for information on training practices and methodology before recommending them.  

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

So the CCPDT requires that if a trainer certified by them decides to use an e-collar, they must have mentored under another trainer who does first. There is no requirement to use e-collars at all, thus no requirement to mentor under a trainer who does, in order to get your certification. Just want to clear that up. 

Like mentioned above, the industry is completely unregulated, so the only way to know for sure is to look into trainers yourself.

CCPDT has recently published a position statement allowing the use of aversives in dog training.  Certified trainers of CCPDT are starting to switch over to the Pet Professional Guild because of this. In case you have not seen much about this. CCPDT now requires applicants to be mentored by trainers who use shock collars before the applicant can take the test with CCPDT.  There has been numerous well known trainers speak out about this.  There are trainers who have dog training education without having a credential.  While dog training is unregulated,  there are good trainers out there with or without credentials. There are also trainers who are mentors for Animal Behavior College students who do not hold any credentials. 

The Association of Professional Dog Trainer International is another source to find L.I.M.A. compliant trainers.  

Asking the right questions when speaking with a "trainer" is the most important thing you can do.  You can also ask to watch a training session with the trainers.  Being transparent is also important for dog trainers. 

I use the IAABC website to find trainers and when I can not find one in the area an adopter lives, I will use CCPDT website but I check all web pages for information on training practices and methodology before recommending them.  

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

CCPDT has recently published a position statement allowing the use of aversives in dog training.  Certified trainers of CCPDT are starting to switch over to the Pet Professional Guild because of this. In case you have not seen much about this. CCPDT now requires applicants to be mentored by trainers who use shock collars before the applicant can take the test with CCPDT.  There has been numerous well known trainers speak out about this.  There are trainers who have dog training education without having a credential.  While dog training is unregulated,  there are good trainers out there with or without credentials. There are also trainers who are mentors for Animal Behavior College students who do not hold any credentials. 

The Association of Professional Dog Trainer International is another source to find L.I.M.A. compliant trainers.  

Asking the right questions when speaking with a "trainer" is the most important thing you can do.  You can also ask to watch a training session with the trainers.  Being transparent is also important for dog trainers. 

I use the IAABC website to find trainers and when I can not find one in the area an adopter lives, I will use CCPDT website but I check all web pages for information on training practices and methodology before recommending them.  

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

Actually, this is not quite true.  The CCPDT put forth limitations and some guidelines that they had not done before.

As someone who has been a CBCC-KA through the CCPDT for 10 years and worked with multiple veterinary behaviorists, research, and shelter behavior, including pioneering enrichment programs for all species in large scale cruelty cases since 2010, please do not write off all of us under CCPDT.  I would lose any credibility and certainly any connections with the DACVB veterinarians I have worked with.  The CCPDT leads wtih the Humane Hierarchy -- which puts positive punishment at the very bottom.  And quite honestly, if you get to that point, it's  time to refer up to someone who knows more than you.

Just as a doctor may pass their boards, if they don't study disparities  in health outcomes  for diverse communities or pain management for gyncological procedures,  not all trainers or behavior consultants are equal. 

I do not have the time to convert to another professional organization right now and will remain with the  CCPDT for the foreseable future.

CCPDT has recently published a position statement allowing the use of aversives in dog training.  Certified trainers of CCPDT are starting to switch over to the Pet Professional Guild because of this. In case you have not seen much about this. CCPDT now requires applicants to be mentored by trainers who use shock collars before the applicant can take the test with CCPDT.  There has been numerous well known trainers speak out about this.  There are trainers who have dog training education without having a credential.  While dog training is unregulated,  there are good trainers out there with or without credentials. There are also trainers who are mentors for Animal Behavior College students who do not hold any credentials. 

The Association of Professional Dog Trainer International is another source to find L.I.M.A. compliant trainers.  

Asking the right questions when speaking with a "trainer" is the most important thing you can do.  You can also ask to watch a training session with the trainers.  Being transparent is also important for dog trainers. 

I use the IAABC website to find trainers and when I can not find one in the area an adopter lives, I will use CCPDT website but I check all web pages for information on training practices and methodology before recommending them.  

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

IAABC is a great resource.

Although this wouldn't help in your area, another great resource for folks in the mid-Atlantic is Animal Positive Coalition. From their website:

"Animal Positive Coalition is a group of trainers and other animal care professionals in the Mid-Atlantic region (MD, VA, DC, PA, WV, DE) who are committed to the use of positive, reward-based training and handling methods. Animal Positive Coalition members teach, handle and motivate animal companions and their people through science-based training and handling, utilizing the principles of learning theory. Members pledge to use force-free, non-aversive, animal-friendly methods without intimidation, force or coercion and do not use or condone the use of shock collars, choke, pinch or prong collars, leash correction, physical correction or harsh verbal correction.

We recommend local trainer found on their site to our adopters, and have a OR code leading to their site for not-so-local adopters to find their own. 

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

As I have been keeping up with conversation, I have noticed a trend.  

1. Anyone can rescue an animal and call themselves a rescue.  Is rescue and shelters regulated? 
2. Anyone can start training dogs and call themselves a dog trainer.  We all know this is not regulated. 
3. Can a rescue organization take a free course on "Fear Free Sheltering" and call themselves "Fear Free"?  
4. There was a free course from Fear Free for shelters and rescues for this. It is a certificate of completion and does not make you fear free certified. People don't know the difference.

For those of you who do not know.  There are on demand courses from KPA, APDTI, and many other dog training resources for someone to actually have "education" in dog training without having a credential.  Those certificates of completion count for more than you think.  

To see the way this conversation has gone on to dismiss dog trainers without a credential is sad.  When you search for a trainer on APDTI, you will find trainers who are only an AKC CGC Evaluator.  Most people don't look at that a credential. 

Last thoughts.  To dismiss people who have a natural repour with animals who do not use aversive methods but use positive bonding, lure training, capturing, and shaping skills, is the same thing as dismissing someone in rescue.

IAABC is a great resource.

Although this wouldn't help in your area, another great resource for folks in the mid-Atlantic is Animal Positive Coalition. From their website:

"Animal Positive Coalition is a group of trainers and other animal care professionals in the Mid-Atlantic region (MD, VA, DC, PA, WV, DE) who are committed to the use of positive, reward-based training and handling methods. Animal Positive Coalition members teach, handle and motivate animal companions and their people through science-based training and handling, utilizing the principles of learning theory. Members pledge to use force-free, non-aversive, animal-friendly methods without intimidation, force or coercion and do not use or condone the use of shock collars, choke, pinch or prong collars, leash correction, physical correction or harsh verbal correction.

We recommend local trainer found on their site to our adopters, and have a OR code leading to their site for not-so-local adopters to find their own. 

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

As I have been keeping up with conversation, I have noticed a trend.  

1. Anyone can rescue an animal and call themselves a rescue.  Is rescue and shelters regulated? 
2. Anyone can start training dogs and call themselves a dog trainer.  We all know this is not regulated. 
3. Can a rescue organization take a free course on "Fear Free Sheltering" and call themselves "Fear Free"?  
4. There was a free course from Fear Free for shelters and rescues for this. It is a certificate of completion and does not make you fear free certified. People don't know the difference.

For those of you who do not know.  There are on demand courses from KPA, APDTI, and many other dog training resources for someone to actually have "education" in dog training without having a credential.  Those certificates of completion count for more than you think.  

To see the way this conversation has gone on to dismiss dog trainers without a credential is sad.  When you search for a trainer on APDTI, you will find trainers who are only an AKC CGC Evaluator.  Most people don't look at that a credential. 

Last thoughts.  To dismiss people who have a natural repour with animals who do not use aversive methods but use positive bonding, lure training, capturing, and shaping skills, is the same thing as dismissing someone in rescue.

IAABC is a great resource.

Although this wouldn't help in your area, another great resource for folks in the mid-Atlantic is Animal Positive Coalition. From their website:

"Animal Positive Coalition is a group of trainers and other animal care professionals in the Mid-Atlantic region (MD, VA, DC, PA, WV, DE) who are committed to the use of positive, reward-based training and handling methods. Animal Positive Coalition members teach, handle and motivate animal companions and their people through science-based training and handling, utilizing the principles of learning theory. Members pledge to use force-free, non-aversive, animal-friendly methods without intimidation, force or coercion and do not use or condone the use of shock collars, choke, pinch or prong collars, leash correction, physical correction or harsh verbal correction.

We recommend local trainer found on their site to our adopters, and have a OR code leading to their site for not-so-local adopters to find their own. 

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

Only seven states require a rescue to be licensed. I'm in Missouri. I have a rescue. Rescues must follow strict laws and are inspected once a year or more often if there are complaints. Some states are more strict than others. Missouri and llinois are very strict.    Yes, anyone can call themselves a dog trainer.  And yes, anyone can take the Fear Free course and calll themselves Fear Free. A local not-for-profit  did that very thing with all of their staff.  Then declared their shelter fear free. 

As I have been keeping up with conversation, I have noticed a trend.  

1. Anyone can rescue an animal and call themselves a rescue.  Is rescue and shelters regulated? 
2. Anyone can start training dogs and call themselves a dog trainer.  We all know this is not regulated. 
3. Can a rescue organization take a free course on "Fear Free Sheltering" and call themselves "Fear Free"?  
4. There was a free course from Fear Free for shelters and rescues for this. It is a certificate of completion and does not make you fear free certified. People don't know the difference.

For those of you who do not know.  There are on demand courses from KPA, APDTI, and many other dog training resources for someone to actually have "education" in dog training without having a credential.  Those certificates of completion count for more than you think.  

To see the way this conversation has gone on to dismiss dog trainers without a credential is sad.  When you search for a trainer on APDTI, you will find trainers who are only an AKC CGC Evaluator.  Most people don't look at that a credential. 

Last thoughts.  To dismiss people who have a natural repour with animals who do not use aversive methods but use positive bonding, lure training, capturing, and shaping skills, is the same thing as dismissing someone in rescue.

IAABC is a great resource.

Although this wouldn't help in your area, another great resource for folks in the mid-Atlantic is Animal Positive Coalition. From their website:

"Animal Positive Coalition is a group of trainers and other animal care professionals in the Mid-Atlantic region (MD, VA, DC, PA, WV, DE) who are committed to the use of positive, reward-based training and handling methods. Animal Positive Coalition members teach, handle and motivate animal companions and their people through science-based training and handling, utilizing the principles of learning theory. Members pledge to use force-free, non-aversive, animal-friendly methods without intimidation, force or coercion and do not use or condone the use of shock collars, choke, pinch or prong collars, leash correction, physical correction or harsh verbal correction.

We recommend local trainer found on their site to our adopters, and have a OR code leading to their site for not-so-local adopters to find their own. 

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

I've recently had to change my "never" view on aversive tools and techniques after discussions with trainers and veterinarians followed by digging into the literature. Bottom line, I am now willing to try anything and everything before euthanizing a pet for behavioral reasons. So my view now adds nuance: It's not about if but under what conditions, which techniques to be used and how, and for how long such techniques are to be used. Personally, I also include the "heavier" behavioral meds in the category of "aversive" tools.

The goal is to have the dog become "stable" in the home, with no continual or repeated need for aversive behavioral tools, techniques or drugs. Which, to me, means such tool use must always be carefully considered as a temporary and emergency phase with a planned endpoint. And it shouldn't even start without first consulting with a veterinarian with a behaviorist specialization. The use of aversive tools, techniques and drugs should be viewed as medical-level interventions.

While dog owners can give their pet prescribed meds at home, the prescription itself must come through a vet, and directions must be carefully followed. Similarly, while trainers and owners can learn to use aversive tools and techniques, their use and duration should be treated just like a prescription, with a behaviorist veterinarian in the loop.

Given the above, I am 100% against starting training with any such tools! I am totally Positive Only, Force Free and Fear Free (POFFFF) for all work with dogs until behavior problems become (or remain) so bad that the dog's continued safe presence in the home becomes an issue. No exceptions. Every dog (and owner!) must be given time and resources in order to learn and grow, with zero expectations for instantaneous or miraculous changes.

I do want all dog trainers, independent of their particular preferences in practice, to know about and understand aversive tools and techniques, and their correct use (even if they don't use them themselves). Ignorance is harmful, as trainers may encounter owners who have already started using such things with their dogs, and must know how to deal with that when planning the path forward (including the choice to accept such owners as clients).

So, how can we best filter individual trainers before interviewing them? How can we assess if and when they would use aversive items, especially as their default approach? So far I have three specific items to check before interviewing the trainer:

1. Many trainers post an Amazon shopping list of recommended or suggested products on their site. I'd be very wary if it contains a prong collar.
2. Many trainers post videos of their individual and/or group classes. Look for use of "leash pops" as an initial warning hint of their preferred training style, especially in puppy classes.
3. Many trainers post videos of them training their own dog(s). This may be the best indication of their preferred techniques.

I've found only one trainer situation that seems to strongly indicate a distinct preference for POFFFF: Does the trainer also provide Board & Train services? I'm still digging into this (and learning more about Board & Train overall), but this has been the case with every local trainer I've contacted so far.

That brings me to another consideration: What does the use of aversive tools and techniques mean for the dog owner? It's one thing for such techniques to be used in an interventional situation with/by a behaviorist, but it's a very different thing when they are brought into the home. Should children who walk the dog also be expected to learn and regularly use aversive techniques? Can using aversive techniques with the family dog blur the line on using harsher techniques with other family members?

There's my bottom line: Aversive tools, techniques and meds have no permanent or enduring place in the home. Period. It's not just bad for the dog, it's bad for everyone involved. That's another reason why I feel such techniques should be viewed as a last resort before euthanasia. I'd also prefer rehoming be seriously considered before the use of aversive items, as not all dogs and owners are good matches, and it's clearly wrong to blame only the dog!

Where I'm coming from: I volunteer at my local Human Society shelter as a dog walker. I've encountered dogs from every imaginable situation. I've also seen kennel stress turn great dogs into unadoptable dogs, mainly when fostering and rescue resources are insufficient to meet the demand. As volunteer dog walkers, we are explicitly trained to detect, assess and minimize FAS (Fear, Anxiety and Stress). We are also explicitly not trainers, with only minor exceptions for SWAG (Sit, Wait, Attend, Generalize), and to challenge dogs with our outdoor agility course (ramps, platforms and a tunnel). We are trained to use treats as 1) distractions (interruptions from bad behavior), 2) rewards (for good behavior) and 3) as limited inducements (simple luring) to accept new challenges. We are also trained to read a dog's disposition from their body language. We are also trained to give dogs choices for their activities (e.g., play yard vs. long walk), and to give them the time to perceive, understand, consider, then make their choice, which we always encourage and respect!

Most importantly, we are trained to keep ourselves safe, such as to not get pulled off our feet by unexpected pulls on the leash, to not provide bite opportunities, and so on. Beyond this, we are counselled about emotional reactions and attachment, the leading cause of burnout among both volunteers and staff.

This training does not prepare us for everything. Here's one example relevant to the topic of aversive tools and techniques:

I have had several shelter dogs cower when I picked up a ball chucker. I intend to play, they fear punishment. It destroys my heart every time. This is one consistent endpoint for improper and misused aversion tools and techniques, as ignorant folks may view beating or lashing as an acceptable training technique, and fear as an acceptable trained reaction. It's not black and white, it is a spectrum of training techniques, from extremely gentle to torturous, that must be given firm boundaries, especially when it comes to aversive training tools and techniques, and when they may even enter consideration.

In closing, I'd like to share a thought on "negative punishment" (NP), which is taking something away from the dog's environment (the "negative") in order to discourage ("punish" in training psych terminology) an undesired behavior. For me, this is the beginning of the very fuzzy journey toward aversive tools and techniques (as not all aversive techniques, such as making loud noises or threatening violence, involve direct contact), and must be considered as such before making minimal use of it. At the shelter, we are allowed to use NP in only a single situation as part of SWAG, specifically as part of portal (door, gate) training under the Wait element of SWAG, to limit charging through kennel gates and shelter doors (and damage to volunteers!). And this is allowed only after the dog has had their morning potty break, as "potty panic" is not a good time to train a dog for patience and self-control! (Yes, the first morning walk can be quite the challenge.)

Despite being physically harmless, closing a door in a dog's face is not an emotionally kind or psychologically positive thing to do, however necessary it may be for a specific training goal. Specifically, it actively and intentionally increases FAS. This is a good place to start to distinguish where "aversive" and "abusive" differ. Drawing lines is hard, though minimizing/limiting use is much simpler policy.

In the specific case of a dog automatically going through an opened door, what other training techniques would you use instead? Is using NP (by momentarily closing the door when forward motion occurs) the best way? Now, generalize this to all of dog training. The slope is real, and it is slippery! I personally bias my choice by first seeing if the NP (or any other training technique) can be applied gently, without the application itself causing sudden shock.

------------------------------
Bob Cunningham
Volunteer
San Diego Humane Society
CA

Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2025 07:31 AM
From: Kim Lees
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

#Behavior,TrainingandEnrichment

------------------------------
Kim Lees
Operations Director
Chautauqua County Humane Society
NY
------------------------------

I'm honestly a little concerned about your post and undestanding of learning quadrants as well as dog behavior modification goes far beyond the quadtrants -- although that is important to understand.

Anything added (+) that decreases a behavior (punishment)

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Dunbar, you should only use a shock/prong collar if you have a good understanding of dog behavior, how dogs learn, and impeccable timing.  And if you have all that, you don't need a shock/prong collar.

If you are using shock, prong, slamming doors, spray bottles, shaker cans, weighted bean bags, harsh leash corrections you simply need to refer to someone who is better than you.

First, rule out medical issues and have a qualified veterinarian or veterinary behaviorist determine if medication is helpful or needed

-- Medication is not an aversive.  If the constant state of anxiety makes the patient unable to learn, how can we modify a behavior?

Second, manage the environment to lessen the behavior

Third, teach alternate behaviors and consent training

Fourth, work on modifying the undesired behavior

--- If you are not successful at this point, refer up!--

Trying "anything and everything" to make an animal (parrot, horse, cat, dog, rabbit, whatever) placeable is not humane or safe for our communities.  

The suppression of a behavior requires the adopter to have the same level of competency AND consistency or greater.

The core function of the mammalian brain is similar across species.    If 3-5% of humans have serious mental illness and 1.1% have treatment resistant mental illness 2.9% of those 4-6%  have mental illness that includes violent episodes, we can expect that there will be a similar set of mammals that are definitively unsafe and not appropriate for placement.

However - diagnosis alone is not an indicator of  unsafe or unsound behavior, we (the training/behavior/shelter rescue community) have to look at the totality of the observable behavior of animals in our care and determine if placement -- or even continuing to work with -- animals whose behaviors pose serious bite risk or leave the animal in a point of irredeemable mental suffering that includes self-injury is humane in any way and if BE is the most compassionate thing we can do.

There are appropriate medications and techniques to use for an owned animal with committed owners and appropriate considerations regarding unowned animals available for placement.  It is not fair to place that burden on the average owner because our own egos don't want to admit we can't undo maternal nutrition and stress, what animals experienced during their critical development periods, undersocialization, progressive desocialization, or genetics.

CBCC-KA, Fear Free Certified Professional, 19 years multi-species behavior modification

------------------------------
Melissa Miller

Director

St. Clair County Animal Control

Original Message:
Sent: 07-26-2025 09:30 AM
From: Bob Cunningham
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

I've recently had to change my "never" view on aversive tools and techniques after discussions with trainers and veterinarians followed by digging into the literature. Bottom line, I am now willing to try anything and everything before euthanizing a pet for behavioral reasons. So my view now adds nuance: It's not about if but under what conditions, which techniques to be used and how, and for how long such techniques are to be used. Personally, I also include the "heavier" behavioral meds in the category of "aversive" tools.

The goal is to have the dog become "stable" in the home, with no continual or repeated need for aversive behavioral tools, techniques or drugs. Which, to me, means such tool use must always be carefully considered as a temporary and emergency phase with a planned endpoint. And it shouldn't even start without first consulting with a veterinarian with a behaviorist specialization. The use of aversive tools, techniques and drugs should be viewed as medical-level interventions.

While dog owners can give their pet prescribed meds at home, the prescription itself must come through a vet, and directions must be carefully followed. Similarly, while trainers and owners can learn to use aversive tools and techniques, their use and duration should be treated just like a prescription, with a behaviorist veterinarian in the loop.

Given the above, I am 100% against starting training with any such tools! I am totally Positive Only, Force Free and Fear Free (POFFFF) for all work with dogs until behavior problems become (or remain) so bad that the dog's continued safe presence in the home becomes an issue. No exceptions. Every dog (and owner!) must be given time and resources in order to learn and grow, with zero expectations for instantaneous or miraculous changes.

I do want all dog trainers, independent of their particular preferences in practice, to know about and understand aversive tools and techniques, and their correct use (even if they don't use them themselves). Ignorance is harmful, as trainers may encounter owners who have already started using such things with their dogs, and must know how to deal with that when planning the path forward (including the choice to accept such owners as clients).

So, how can we best filter individual trainers before interviewing them? How can we assess if and when they would use aversive items, especially as their default approach? So far I have three specific items to check before interviewing the trainer:

1. Many trainers post an Amazon shopping list of recommended or suggested products on their site. I'd be very wary if it contains a prong collar.
2. Many trainers post videos of their individual and/or group classes. Look for use of "leash pops" as an initial warning hint of their preferred training style, especially in puppy classes.
3. Many trainers post videos of them training their own dog(s). This may be the best indication of their preferred techniques.

I've found only one trainer situation that seems to strongly indicate a distinct preference for POFFFF: Does the trainer also provide Board & Train services? I'm still digging into this (and learning more about Board & Train overall), but this has been the case with every local trainer I've contacted so far.

That brings me to another consideration: What does the use of aversive tools and techniques mean for the dog owner? It's one thing for such techniques to be used in an interventional situation with/by a behaviorist, but it's a very different thing when they are brought into the home. Should children who walk the dog also be expected to learn and regularly use aversive techniques? Can using aversive techniques with the family dog blur the line on using harsher techniques with other family members?

There's my bottom line: Aversive tools, techniques and meds have no permanent or enduring place in the home. Period. It's not just bad for the dog, it's bad for everyone involved. That's another reason why I feel such techniques should be viewed as a last resort before euthanasia. I'd also prefer rehoming be seriously considered before the use of aversive items, as not all dogs and owners are good matches, and it's clearly wrong to blame only the dog!

Where I'm coming from: I volunteer at my local Human Society shelter as a dog walker. I've encountered dogs from every imaginable situation. I've also seen kennel stress turn great dogs into unadoptable dogs, mainly when fostering and rescue resources are insufficient to meet the demand. As volunteer dog walkers, we are explicitly trained to detect, assess and minimize FAS (Fear, Anxiety and Stress). We are also explicitly not trainers, with only minor exceptions for SWAG (Sit, Wait, Attend, Generalize), and to challenge dogs with our outdoor agility course (ramps, platforms and a tunnel). We are trained to use treats as 1) distractions (interruptions from bad behavior), 2) rewards (for good behavior) and 3) as limited inducements (simple luring) to accept new challenges. We are also trained to read a dog's disposition from their body language. We are also trained to give dogs choices for their activities (e.g., play yard vs. long walk), and to give them the time to perceive, understand, consider, then make their choice, which we always encourage and respect!

Most importantly, we are trained to keep ourselves safe, such as to not get pulled off our feet by unexpected pulls on the leash, to not provide bite opportunities, and so on. Beyond this, we are counselled about emotional reactions and attachment, the leading cause of burnout among both volunteers and staff.

This training does not prepare us for everything. Here's one example relevant to the topic of aversive tools and techniques:

I have had several shelter dogs cower when I picked up a ball chucker. I intend to play, they fear punishment. It destroys my heart every time. This is one consistent endpoint for improper and misused aversion tools and techniques, as ignorant folks may view beating or lashing as an acceptable training technique, and fear as an acceptable trained reaction. It's not black and white, it is a spectrum of training techniques, from extremely gentle to torturous, that must be given firm boundaries, especially when it comes to aversive training tools and techniques, and when they may even enter consideration.

In closing, I'd like to share a thought on "negative punishment" (NP), which is taking something away from the dog's environment (the "negative") in order to discourage ("punish" in training psych terminology) an undesired behavior. For me, this is the beginning of the very fuzzy journey toward aversive tools and techniques (as not all aversive techniques, such as making loud noises or threatening violence, involve direct contact), and must be considered as such before making minimal use of it. At the shelter, we are allowed to use NP in only a single situation as part of SWAG, specifically as part of portal (door, gate) training under the Wait element of SWAG, to limit charging through kennel gates and shelter doors (and damage to volunteers!). And this is allowed only after the dog has had their morning potty break, as "potty panic" is not a good time to train a dog for patience and self-control! (Yes, the first morning walk can be quite the challenge.)

Despite being physically harmless, closing a door in a dog's face is not an emotionally kind or psychologically positive thing to do, however necessary it may be for a specific training goal. Specifically, it actively and intentionally increases FAS. This is a good place to start to distinguish where "aversive" and "abusive" differ. Drawing lines is hard, though minimizing/limiting use is much simpler policy.

In the specific case of a dog automatically going through an opened door, what other training techniques would you use instead? Is using NP (by momentarily closing the door when forward motion occurs) the best way? Now, generalize this to all of dog training. The slope is real, and it is slippery! I personally bias my choice by first seeing if the NP (or any other training technique) can be applied gently, without the application itself causing sudden shock.

------------------------------
Bob Cunningham
Volunteer
San Diego Humane Society
CA

Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2025 07:31 AM
From: Kim Lees
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

#Behavior,TrainingandEnrichment

------------------------------
Kim Lees
Operations Director
Chautauqua County Humane Society
NY
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 7/28/2025 11:05:00 AM
From: Kim Jackson
Subject: RE: Trainers using Aversive Methods

Trauma is trauma.  Whether it is in animals or humans.  We have seen multiple cases of owned pets and rescue animals with trauma. The owned pets were taken to veterinarian's for observation and over all health.   With owned pets, we have seen bad breeding or overbreeding to the point of the dog coming into heat, triggered aggression.  Yes, aggression.  This was seen by a veterinarian. An emergency spay was done but the dog had to be put on a cocktail of medications for 6 weeks. Now there is a risk of the dog having withdrawals from coming off medications. We have seen this more times than I can count.  Never once did we recommend or use any aversive tools.  No, we are not behavior specialist and you can not find one in our area.  Research, working the veterinarian, the owner, and trying to consult with other trainers is what we did.  When I say trying to consult with other trainers, I mean other trainers did not want to speak with us or want to take the case.  Knowing where your knowledge begins and ends is the best thing you can do for any animal and their owners. 

Rescue animals were not taken to a veterinarian for over all health checks and the first thing that was put on the "dog" in this case was a shock collar.   We were called for this case and strongly recommended that the dog be seen by a veterinarian.  After 3 attempts of getting the dog seen by a veterinarian because of what we witnessed with the dog, we stopped for our safety.  It is not right to put a shock collar on this dog because the dog was trying to tell us something.  Another trainer was paid $2k to take the dog.  The dog has yet to be seen by a veterinarian.   

I have to disagree with trying "anything and everything".    We also "had to learn" about shock collars because clients were bringing dogs, puppies in for training with not only a shock collar, but also prong, and choke collars on the dogs.  The dogs have learned they can not do anything without all the pressure around their neck.  I immediately take all that off the dog.  Is it more work to communicate with the dog because of all of this correction?  Yes. But, we take our time and understand the dog and introduce clicker training so the dog can think for himself by making choices to have us click the clicker for a reward.  Handing an owner a remote to their dog is not the answer.  You must first respect the dog (species), understand the communication,  body language from nose to tail, and all in between.  If you do not have the knowledge or understanding of any of that, you should be educating yourself a lot more before training dogs.  

Side note: I was not the one to call myself a "dog trainer".  I was only fostering for a rescue and doing the same things I have always done with all my dogs.  Bond with the dog.  Play and teach the dog how to have fun in different situations.  It sounds so simple.  At this point, I did not know anything about "tools" and quadrant's.  Only to respect the dog as a living and breathing being who deserves respect before they respect me.   Numerous other people called me a "dog trainer" and I fought it for months. The business was opened for me.  I didn't know if this is what I wanted to do.  I just enjoyed working with different dogs, cats, and other animals as a hobby. It was my peaceful place.  Here I am 7 years later.  It only took one person to tell me I couldn't do it before I decided I would do it.  

------------------------------
Kim Jackson
AKC CGC Evaluator
President/Founder For The Puppies Foundation Inc.
Corinth, MS
kimj@forthepuppiesfoundation.org
www.forthepuppiesfoundation.org

Original Message:
Sent: 07-28-2025 05:14 AM
From: Melissa Miller
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

I'm honestly a little concerned about your post and undestanding of learning quadrants as well as dog behavior modification goes far beyond the quadtrants -- although that is important to understand.

Anything added (+) that decreases a behavior (punishment)

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Dunbar, you should only use a shock/prong collar if you have a good understanding of dog behavior, how dogs learn, and impeccable timing.  And if you have all that, you don't need a shock/prong collar.

If you are using shock, prong, slamming doors, spray bottles, shaker cans, weighted bean bags, harsh leash corrections you simply need to refer to someone who is better than you.

First, rule out medical issues and have a qualified veterinarian or veterinary behaviorist determine if medication is helpful or needed

-- Medication is not an aversive.  If the constant state of anxiety makes the patient unable to learn, how can we modify a behavior?

Second, manage the environment to lessen the behavior

Third, teach alternate behaviors and consent training

Fourth, work on modifying the undesired behavior

--- If you are not successful at this point, refer up!--

Trying "anything and everything" to make an animal (parrot, horse, cat, dog, rabbit, whatever) placeable is not humane or safe for our communities.  

The suppression of a behavior requires the adopter to have the same level of competency AND consistency or greater.

The core function of the mammalian brain is similar across species.    If 3-5% of humans have serious mental illness and 1.1% have treatment resistant mental illness 2.9% of those 4-6%  have mental illness that includes violent episodes, we can expect that there will be a similar set of mammals that are definitively unsafe and not appropriate for placement.

However - diagnosis alone is not an indicator of  unsafe or unsound behavior, we (the training/behavior/shelter rescue community) have to look at the totality of the observable behavior of animals in our care and determine if placement -- or even continuing to work with -- animals whose behaviors pose serious bite risk or leave the animal in a point of irredeemable mental suffering that includes self-injury is humane in any way and if BE is the most compassionate thing we can do.

There are appropriate medications and techniques to use for an owned animal with committed owners and appropriate considerations regarding unowned animals available for placement.  It is not fair to place that burden on the average owner because our own egos don't want to admit we can't undo maternal nutrition and stress, what animals experienced during their critical development periods, undersocialization, progressive desocialization, or genetics.

CBCC-KA, Fear Free Certified Professional, 19 years multi-species behavior modification

------------------------------
Melissa Miller

Director

St. Clair County Animal Control

Original Message:
Sent: 07-26-2025 09:30 AM
From: Bob Cunningham
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

I've recently had to change my "never" view on aversive tools and techniques after discussions with trainers and veterinarians followed by digging into the literature. Bottom line, I am now willing to try anything and everything before euthanizing a pet for behavioral reasons. So my view now adds nuance: It's not about if but under what conditions, which techniques to be used and how, and for how long such techniques are to be used. Personally, I also include the "heavier" behavioral meds in the category of "aversive" tools.

The goal is to have the dog become "stable" in the home, with no continual or repeated need for aversive behavioral tools, techniques or drugs. Which, to me, means such tool use must always be carefully considered as a temporary and emergency phase with a planned endpoint. And it shouldn't even start without first consulting with a veterinarian with a behaviorist specialization. The use of aversive tools, techniques and drugs should be viewed as medical-level interventions.

While dog owners can give their pet prescribed meds at home, the prescription itself must come through a vet, and directions must be carefully followed. Similarly, while trainers and owners can learn to use aversive tools and techniques, their use and duration should be treated just like a prescription, with a behaviorist veterinarian in the loop.

Given the above, I am 100% against starting training with any such tools! I am totally Positive Only, Force Free and Fear Free (POFFFF) for all work with dogs until behavior problems become (or remain) so bad that the dog's continued safe presence in the home becomes an issue. No exceptions. Every dog (and owner!) must be given time and resources in order to learn and grow, with zero expectations for instantaneous or miraculous changes.

I do want all dog trainers, independent of their particular preferences in practice, to know about and understand aversive tools and techniques, and their correct use (even if they don't use them themselves). Ignorance is harmful, as trainers may encounter owners who have already started using such things with their dogs, and must know how to deal with that when planning the path forward (including the choice to accept such owners as clients).

So, how can we best filter individual trainers before interviewing them? How can we assess if and when they would use aversive items, especially as their default approach? So far I have three specific items to check before interviewing the trainer:

1. Many trainers post an Amazon shopping list of recommended or suggested products on their site. I'd be very wary if it contains a prong collar.
2. Many trainers post videos of their individual and/or group classes. Look for use of "leash pops" as an initial warning hint of their preferred training style, especially in puppy classes.
3. Many trainers post videos of them training their own dog(s). This may be the best indication of their preferred techniques.

I've found only one trainer situation that seems to strongly indicate a distinct preference for POFFFF: Does the trainer also provide Board & Train services? I'm still digging into this (and learning more about Board & Train overall), but this has been the case with every local trainer I've contacted so far.

That brings me to another consideration: What does the use of aversive tools and techniques mean for the dog owner? It's one thing for such techniques to be used in an interventional situation with/by a behaviorist, but it's a very different thing when they are brought into the home. Should children who walk the dog also be expected to learn and regularly use aversive techniques? Can using aversive techniques with the family dog blur the line on using harsher techniques with other family members?

There's my bottom line: Aversive tools, techniques and meds have no permanent or enduring place in the home. Period. It's not just bad for the dog, it's bad for everyone involved. That's another reason why I feel such techniques should be viewed as a last resort before euthanasia. I'd also prefer rehoming be seriously considered before the use of aversive items, as not all dogs and owners are good matches, and it's clearly wrong to blame only the dog!

Where I'm coming from: I volunteer at my local Human Society shelter as a dog walker. I've encountered dogs from every imaginable situation. I've also seen kennel stress turn great dogs into unadoptable dogs, mainly when fostering and rescue resources are insufficient to meet the demand. As volunteer dog walkers, we are explicitly trained to detect, assess and minimize FAS (Fear, Anxiety and Stress). We are also explicitly not trainers, with only minor exceptions for SWAG (Sit, Wait, Attend, Generalize), and to challenge dogs with our outdoor agility course (ramps, platforms and a tunnel). We are trained to use treats as 1) distractions (interruptions from bad behavior), 2) rewards (for good behavior) and 3) as limited inducements (simple luring) to accept new challenges. We are also trained to read a dog's disposition from their body language. We are also trained to give dogs choices for their activities (e.g., play yard vs. long walk), and to give them the time to perceive, understand, consider, then make their choice, which we always encourage and respect!

Most importantly, we are trained to keep ourselves safe, such as to not get pulled off our feet by unexpected pulls on the leash, to not provide bite opportunities, and so on. Beyond this, we are counselled about emotional reactions and attachment, the leading cause of burnout among both volunteers and staff.

This training does not prepare us for everything. Here's one example relevant to the topic of aversive tools and techniques:

I have had several shelter dogs cower when I picked up a ball chucker. I intend to play, they fear punishment. It destroys my heart every time. This is one consistent endpoint for improper and misused aversion tools and techniques, as ignorant folks may view beating or lashing as an acceptable training technique, and fear as an acceptable trained reaction. It's not black and white, it is a spectrum of training techniques, from extremely gentle to torturous, that must be given firm boundaries, especially when it comes to aversive training tools and techniques, and when they may even enter consideration.

In closing, I'd like to share a thought on "negative punishment" (NP), which is taking something away from the dog's environment (the "negative") in order to discourage ("punish" in training psych terminology) an undesired behavior. For me, this is the beginning of the very fuzzy journey toward aversive tools and techniques (as not all aversive techniques, such as making loud noises or threatening violence, involve direct contact), and must be considered as such before making minimal use of it. At the shelter, we are allowed to use NP in only a single situation as part of SWAG, specifically as part of portal (door, gate) training under the Wait element of SWAG, to limit charging through kennel gates and shelter doors (and damage to volunteers!). And this is allowed only after the dog has had their morning potty break, as "potty panic" is not a good time to train a dog for patience and self-control! (Yes, the first morning walk can be quite the challenge.)

Despite being physically harmless, closing a door in a dog's face is not an emotionally kind or psychologically positive thing to do, however necessary it may be for a specific training goal. Specifically, it actively and intentionally increases FAS. This is a good place to start to distinguish where "aversive" and "abusive" differ. Drawing lines is hard, though minimizing/limiting use is much simpler policy.

In the specific case of a dog automatically going through an opened door, what other training techniques would you use instead? Is using NP (by momentarily closing the door when forward motion occurs) the best way? Now, generalize this to all of dog training. The slope is real, and it is slippery! I personally bias my choice by first seeing if the NP (or any other training technique) can be applied gently, without the application itself causing sudden shock.

------------------------------
Bob Cunningham
Volunteer
San Diego Humane Society
CA

Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2025 07:31 AM
From: Kim Lees
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

#Behavior,TrainingandEnrichment

------------------------------
Kim Lees
Operations Director
Chautauqua County Humane Society
NY
------------------------------

Coming from a country where shock and prong collars are both against the law, I still (21 years later) struggle to understand the "need" some seem to have for inflicting pain in their training processes. If you can get Orcas, Lions, Hippos, Gorillas, etc., to offer behaviors without the use of aversives, that really should tell you something about the lack of understanding of training principles, motivators, reinforcers, and bridging communication of the person relying on it. Do aversives "work"? That all depends on how you define your process and the well-being of everyone involved in the process. 

Some other resources you can use to find trainers that have been taught how to train without pain are:

Karen Pryor Academy - https://karenpryoracademy.com/find-a-trainer/#!directory/map

Victoria Stilwell Positively - https://positively.com/find-a-trainer

Family Dog Mediation - https://www.familydogmediation.com/lfdm-directory/

I know these do not guarantee that a trainer will not use aversives, but at least they have received the knowledge of how to train without pain. 

------------------------------
Lina Eklof
Director of Operations
San Antonio Humane Society
TX

Original Message:
Sent: 07-28-2025 08:26 AM
From: Linda Moore
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

Original Message:
Sent: 7/28/2025 11:05:00 AM
From: Kim Jackson
Subject: RE: Trainers using Aversive Methods

Trauma is trauma.  Whether it is in animals or humans.  We have seen multiple cases of owned pets and rescue animals with trauma. The owned pets were taken to veterinarian's for observation and over all health.   With owned pets, we have seen bad breeding or overbreeding to the point of the dog coming into heat, triggered aggression.  Yes, aggression.  This was seen by a veterinarian. An emergency spay was done but the dog had to be put on a cocktail of medications for 6 weeks. Now there is a risk of the dog having withdrawals from coming off medications. We have seen this more times than I can count.  Never once did we recommend or use any aversive tools.  No, we are not behavior specialist and you can not find one in our area.  Research, working the veterinarian, the owner, and trying to consult with other trainers is what we did.  When I say trying to consult with other trainers, I mean other trainers did not want to speak with us or want to take the case.  Knowing where your knowledge begins and ends is the best thing you can do for any animal and their owners. 

Rescue animals were not taken to a veterinarian for over all health checks and the first thing that was put on the "dog" in this case was a shock collar.   We were called for this case and strongly recommended that the dog be seen by a veterinarian.  After 3 attempts of getting the dog seen by a veterinarian because of what we witnessed with the dog, we stopped for our safety.  It is not right to put a shock collar on this dog because the dog was trying to tell us something.  Another trainer was paid $2k to take the dog.  The dog has yet to be seen by a veterinarian.   

I have to disagree with trying "anything and everything".    We also "had to learn" about shock collars because clients were bringing dogs, puppies in for training with not only a shock collar, but also prong, and choke collars on the dogs.  The dogs have learned they can not do anything without all the pressure around their neck.  I immediately take all that off the dog.  Is it more work to communicate with the dog because of all of this correction?  Yes. But, we take our time and understand the dog and introduce clicker training so the dog can think for himself by making choices to have us click the clicker for a reward.  Handing an owner a remote to their dog is not the answer.  You must first respect the dog (species), understand the communication,  body language from nose to tail, and all in between.  If you do not have the knowledge or understanding of any of that, you should be educating yourself a lot more before training dogs.  

Side note: I was not the one to call myself a "dog trainer".  I was only fostering for a rescue and doing the same things I have always done with all my dogs.  Bond with the dog.  Play and teach the dog how to have fun in different situations.  It sounds so simple.  At this point, I did not know anything about "tools" and quadrant's.  Only to respect the dog as a living and breathing being who deserves respect before they respect me.   Numerous other people called me a "dog trainer" and I fought it for months. The business was opened for me.  I didn't know if this is what I wanted to do.  I just enjoyed working with different dogs, cats, and other animals as a hobby. It was my peaceful place.  Here I am 7 years later.  It only took one person to tell me I couldn't do it before I decided I would do it.  

------------------------------
Kim Jackson
AKC CGC Evaluator
President/Founder For The Puppies Foundation Inc.
Corinth, MS
kimj@forthepuppiesfoundation.org
www.forthepuppiesfoundation.org

Original Message:
Sent: 07-28-2025 05:14 AM
From: Melissa Miller
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

I'm honestly a little concerned about your post and undestanding of learning quadrants as well as dog behavior modification goes far beyond the quadtrants -- although that is important to understand.

Anything added (+) that decreases a behavior (punishment)

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Dunbar, you should only use a shock/prong collar if you have a good understanding of dog behavior, how dogs learn, and impeccable timing.  And if you have all that, you don't need a shock/prong collar.

If you are using shock, prong, slamming doors, spray bottles, shaker cans, weighted bean bags, harsh leash corrections you simply need to refer to someone who is better than you.

First, rule out medical issues and have a qualified veterinarian or veterinary behaviorist determine if medication is helpful or needed

-- Medication is not an aversive.  If the constant state of anxiety makes the patient unable to learn, how can we modify a behavior?

Second, manage the environment to lessen the behavior

Third, teach alternate behaviors and consent training

Fourth, work on modifying the undesired behavior

--- If you are not successful at this point, refer up!--

Trying "anything and everything" to make an animal (parrot, horse, cat, dog, rabbit, whatever) placeable is not humane or safe for our communities.  

The suppression of a behavior requires the adopter to have the same level of competency AND consistency or greater.

The core function of the mammalian brain is similar across species.    If 3-5% of humans have serious mental illness and 1.1% have treatment resistant mental illness 2.9% of those 4-6%  have mental illness that includes violent episodes, we can expect that there will be a similar set of mammals that are definitively unsafe and not appropriate for placement.

However - diagnosis alone is not an indicator of  unsafe or unsound behavior, we (the training/behavior/shelter rescue community) have to look at the totality of the observable behavior of animals in our care and determine if placement -- or even continuing to work with -- animals whose behaviors pose serious bite risk or leave the animal in a point of irredeemable mental suffering that includes self-injury is humane in any way and if BE is the most compassionate thing we can do.

There are appropriate medications and techniques to use for an owned animal with committed owners and appropriate considerations regarding unowned animals available for placement.  It is not fair to place that burden on the average owner because our own egos don't want to admit we can't undo maternal nutrition and stress, what animals experienced during their critical development periods, undersocialization, progressive desocialization, or genetics.

CBCC-KA, Fear Free Certified Professional, 19 years multi-species behavior modification

------------------------------
Melissa Miller

Director

St. Clair County Animal Control

Original Message:
Sent: 07-26-2025 09:30 AM
From: Bob Cunningham
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

I've recently had to change my "never" view on aversive tools and techniques after discussions with trainers and veterinarians followed by digging into the literature. Bottom line, I am now willing to try anything and everything before euthanizing a pet for behavioral reasons. So my view now adds nuance: It's not about if but under what conditions, which techniques to be used and how, and for how long such techniques are to be used. Personally, I also include the "heavier" behavioral meds in the category of "aversive" tools.

The goal is to have the dog become "stable" in the home, with no continual or repeated need for aversive behavioral tools, techniques or drugs. Which, to me, means such tool use must always be carefully considered as a temporary and emergency phase with a planned endpoint. And it shouldn't even start without first consulting with a veterinarian with a behaviorist specialization. The use of aversive tools, techniques and drugs should be viewed as medical-level interventions.

While dog owners can give their pet prescribed meds at home, the prescription itself must come through a vet, and directions must be carefully followed. Similarly, while trainers and owners can learn to use aversive tools and techniques, their use and duration should be treated just like a prescription, with a behaviorist veterinarian in the loop.

Given the above, I am 100% against starting training with any such tools! I am totally Positive Only, Force Free and Fear Free (POFFFF) for all work with dogs until behavior problems become (or remain) so bad that the dog's continued safe presence in the home becomes an issue. No exceptions. Every dog (and owner!) must be given time and resources in order to learn and grow, with zero expectations for instantaneous or miraculous changes.

I do want all dog trainers, independent of their particular preferences in practice, to know about and understand aversive tools and techniques, and their correct use (even if they don't use them themselves). Ignorance is harmful, as trainers may encounter owners who have already started using such things with their dogs, and must know how to deal with that when planning the path forward (including the choice to accept such owners as clients).

So, how can we best filter individual trainers before interviewing them? How can we assess if and when they would use aversive items, especially as their default approach? So far I have three specific items to check before interviewing the trainer:

1. Many trainers post an Amazon shopping list of recommended or suggested products on their site. I'd be very wary if it contains a prong collar.
2. Many trainers post videos of their individual and/or group classes. Look for use of "leash pops" as an initial warning hint of their preferred training style, especially in puppy classes.
3. Many trainers post videos of them training their own dog(s). This may be the best indication of their preferred techniques.

I've found only one trainer situation that seems to strongly indicate a distinct preference for POFFFF: Does the trainer also provide Board & Train services? I'm still digging into this (and learning more about Board & Train overall), but this has been the case with every local trainer I've contacted so far.

That brings me to another consideration: What does the use of aversive tools and techniques mean for the dog owner? It's one thing for such techniques to be used in an interventional situation with/by a behaviorist, but it's a very different thing when they are brought into the home. Should children who walk the dog also be expected to learn and regularly use aversive techniques? Can using aversive techniques with the family dog blur the line on using harsher techniques with other family members?

There's my bottom line: Aversive tools, techniques and meds have no permanent or enduring place in the home. Period. It's not just bad for the dog, it's bad for everyone involved. That's another reason why I feel such techniques should be viewed as a last resort before euthanasia. I'd also prefer rehoming be seriously considered before the use of aversive items, as not all dogs and owners are good matches, and it's clearly wrong to blame only the dog!

Where I'm coming from: I volunteer at my local Human Society shelter as a dog walker. I've encountered dogs from every imaginable situation. I've also seen kennel stress turn great dogs into unadoptable dogs, mainly when fostering and rescue resources are insufficient to meet the demand. As volunteer dog walkers, we are explicitly trained to detect, assess and minimize FAS (Fear, Anxiety and Stress). We are also explicitly not trainers, with only minor exceptions for SWAG (Sit, Wait, Attend, Generalize), and to challenge dogs with our outdoor agility course (ramps, platforms and a tunnel). We are trained to use treats as 1) distractions (interruptions from bad behavior), 2) rewards (for good behavior) and 3) as limited inducements (simple luring) to accept new challenges. We are also trained to read a dog's disposition from their body language. We are also trained to give dogs choices for their activities (e.g., play yard vs. long walk), and to give them the time to perceive, understand, consider, then make their choice, which we always encourage and respect!

Most importantly, we are trained to keep ourselves safe, such as to not get pulled off our feet by unexpected pulls on the leash, to not provide bite opportunities, and so on. Beyond this, we are counselled about emotional reactions and attachment, the leading cause of burnout among both volunteers and staff.

This training does not prepare us for everything. Here's one example relevant to the topic of aversive tools and techniques:

I have had several shelter dogs cower when I picked up a ball chucker. I intend to play, they fear punishment. It destroys my heart every time. This is one consistent endpoint for improper and misused aversion tools and techniques, as ignorant folks may view beating or lashing as an acceptable training technique, and fear as an acceptable trained reaction. It's not black and white, it is a spectrum of training techniques, from extremely gentle to torturous, that must be given firm boundaries, especially when it comes to aversive training tools and techniques, and when they may even enter consideration.

In closing, I'd like to share a thought on "negative punishment" (NP), which is taking something away from the dog's environment (the "negative") in order to discourage ("punish" in training psych terminology) an undesired behavior. For me, this is the beginning of the very fuzzy journey toward aversive tools and techniques (as not all aversive techniques, such as making loud noises or threatening violence, involve direct contact), and must be considered as such before making minimal use of it. At the shelter, we are allowed to use NP in only a single situation as part of SWAG, specifically as part of portal (door, gate) training under the Wait element of SWAG, to limit charging through kennel gates and shelter doors (and damage to volunteers!). And this is allowed only after the dog has had their morning potty break, as "potty panic" is not a good time to train a dog for patience and self-control! (Yes, the first morning walk can be quite the challenge.)

Despite being physically harmless, closing a door in a dog's face is not an emotionally kind or psychologically positive thing to do, however necessary it may be for a specific training goal. Specifically, it actively and intentionally increases FAS. This is a good place to start to distinguish where "aversive" and "abusive" differ. Drawing lines is hard, though minimizing/limiting use is much simpler policy.

In the specific case of a dog automatically going through an opened door, what other training techniques would you use instead? Is using NP (by momentarily closing the door when forward motion occurs) the best way? Now, generalize this to all of dog training. The slope is real, and it is slippery! I personally bias my choice by first seeing if the NP (or any other training technique) can be applied gently, without the application itself causing sudden shock.

------------------------------
Bob Cunningham
Volunteer
San Diego Humane Society
CA

Original Message:
Sent: 07-17-2025 07:31 AM
From: Kim Lees
Subject: Trainers using Aversive Methods

By any chance, is there a publicly published list of trainers who do use aversion methods in their training practices.  We live in NYS and with the Animal Standards Act aversion methods are now legally prohibited within a shelter setting and we would like to ensure we do not unintentionally use one.  FYI .... we do not and have not used aversion methods in our trainings.

#Behavior,TrainingandEnrichment

------------------------------
Kim Lees
Operations Director
Chautauqua County Humane Society
NY
------------------------------