r/DogTrainingCrucible

…and approaching most dogs like that’s the case is a recipe for disaster and will inevitably harm dogs.

Learning from such a trainer is a mistake for any trainer who doesn’t have strong foundations.

If your training skill set isn’t diverse, flexible, and open-minded, you’re severely limiting yourself as a trainer.

A strong trainer can meet owners where they are and adjust their approach within reason.

Seeking enemies in the training community is actually harmful to dogs.

Ego is bad for dog training.

Focusing on the most aggressive dogs doesn’t serve the greatest good as it limits the capacity to help more dogs.

This is especially true in the shelter setting. Overpopulation, dogs not moving, limited staff and limited skills can make euthanizing for resolvable issues the correct move as it allows more resources to go to more dogs.

What counts as success in reactive dog rehab? This post describes facts in an actual case, but I won't include names.

A dog is fear reactive, barking at all sorts of things in the environment. She is clearly under-socialized and shows fear responses to various stimuli, including people at a distance, dogs, cars, stationary objects in the environment.

She is afraid of unknown people, but is amenable to meeting new people and, once she knows them, shows trust and friendliness.

The dog is sent to an e-collar board and train. Video taken during the early weeks reveal that she demonstrates trust in the trainer. She is afraid of all sorts of things in the environment, but shows zero fear or appeasement behaviors towards the trainer she just recently met.

When she is afraid of other things, she has no concern about the trainer being directly behind her. She is not concerned about his location at all. Even when he runs directly towards her in the video, she shows no fear. She demonstrates absolutely no appeasement behaviors toward the trainer in the early weeks of the program.

This all changes dramatically after he first punishes her reactive behavior with the e-collar. For several weeks we can see that she avoids him if possible, is fearful of him. only relaxes when she is allowed to move away from him.

The reactivity stops. The dog is obedient.

Yet, the owner reports that the dog now very often shows appeasement behaviors at home, such as cowering.

Is this a successful rehab?

I’ve seen this argument more and more recently from force free and positive only trainers. What do you think about this saying? Why do you think it’s become so popular and do you think there’s any validity to it? Do you think that these mindsets are damaging to dogs, owners and training?

Personally I find the saying a bit condescending. I’m an animal scientist, worked in vet med as well as the dog industry in terms of boarding—I had a positive only/FF trained dog, used positive only to help at the non profit I worked for to train guide dogs and to work with my formerly explosively reactive dog hired one force free trainer and two positive only trainers before the last recommended us to our current balanced trainer. Nothing worked for him but balanced. I can attest to doing it all right and still not getting results, but I want to hear more opinions on the topic.

EDIT : TURNS OUT DYLAN WAS NOT THER WHEN THE DOG GOT LOST, BUT LET'S TAKE THAT AS A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. ABOUT ACCIDENTS vs ABUSE.

What's the meaningful difference between these two situations?

• Denise Fenzi left her dog in a climate-controlled car. The system failed, and the dog died.
• EDIT : NOT TRUE, Dylan was NOT there when the dog got lost. Dylan Jon€s (had to write it like that because somehow it seems like I can't post with his full name in it...?) was working with a feral client dog on a long line and prong during a training session. The dog escaped and has never been found, and many assume he likely died.

As you all know, Calypso has posted a bunch of claims about Dylan Jon€s being an abusive trainer. However, when I looked at their profile, the only sources linked regarding Dylan were Gia Savocchi's posts about the Henry incident, a feral client dog that ALLEGEDLY escaped during a training session with him and was never recovered.

So I'd genuinely like to discuss this.

Why is one incident generally framed as a tragic accident while the other is often presented as evidence that the trainer is inherently abusive? (One way or the other)

Is the distinction simply that one happened during training vs management? Is it about negligence? Foreseeability? Repetitivity?

I'm interested in hearing reasoned arguments from both sides. Calypso, if you'd like to expand on your position, I'd appreciate it.

I want a debate, a thought experiment, not another talk about these two.

Regarding the new rule:

You can't make a post calling the mod's favorite trainer abusive.

But it's fine for the mod to call Denise Fenzi abusive and say she killed her dog.

Didn't take long, Swearwoofs. I see you are considering restricting "science" also.

May as well all go back to Miss L's.

Are you going to delete this one, too?

EDIT" This post is about censorship in a sub that was created for the purpose of uncensored free exchange of ideas.

It's not about the relative merits of attacking either Dylan Jones or Denise Fenzi as an animal abuser. It's about the freedom to express your own ideas about each.

EDIT 2: The topic is censorship. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks about Denise Fenzi OR Dylan Jones if we are not able to express those views due to mod censorship. If you just make a comment about Fenzi or Dylan, your reading comprehension is sub-par.

The topic is the mod, and thus the entire sub, protecting Dylan Jones by removing posts critical him, while allowing all kinds of posts calling FF trainers animal abusers and killers.

Edit 3: I am not the one who posted saying Dylan Jones is an animal abuser. I am aware that a post was removed.

LIMA means "least invasive intrusive minimally aversive".

We spend a lot of time arguing about what constitutes "minimally aversive", but what about the "least invasive" part?

How do you quantify the invasiveness intrusiveness of psychoactive drugs? They clearly affect the dogs' behavior, sometimes for the better in the context of reactivity or aggression, sometimes for the worse (lethargy, suppressed appetite, difficulty urinating).

How do you weigh the invasiveness intrusiveness of systemic drugs vs. their potential to be helpful?

edit for acronym correction!

I've been having some interesting conversations on here about the state of the research on dog training, and I’ve been genuinely surprised by how confident some interpretations of the literature seem. I’ve been reading it closely, and I've come away thinking that the evidence is considerably less definitive than online discussions often suggest.

There are a number of studies comparing reward-based and aversive-based training methods. However, the body of research remains relatively small and is characterized by significant methodological limitations, making it difficult to draw broad causal conclusions or generalize the findings.

Most research compares training philosophies while giving comparatively little attention to other variables that may have equal or greater influence on canine welfare, including trainer competence, owner behavior, genetics, temperament, environmental management, and consistency of implementation. The implicit assumption in much of the discussion is that the training method used is a primary determinant of long-term welfare, but that assumption has not yet been demonstrated. One recent study, for example, has found that owner intervention, rather than training method, was actually the strongest predictor of improvement in canine reactivity (Loughridge, 2025).

The study most frequently cited by proponents of force-free training (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020) suggests that dogs trained using aversive methods display more stress-related behaviors. However, the study has several important limitations, the most significant of which is that it was not a randomized controlled trial. Dogs were not randomly assigned to reward-based or aversive-based groups, creating a substantial risk of selection bias. It is therefore hard to know whether the observed differences resulted from the training methods themselves or from pre-existing differences among the dogs, owners, or trainers.

In addition, the training protocols were not standardized. Numerous variables differed simultaneously between the groups, including trainer skill, timing, reinforcement rate, class structure, handling ability, owner coaching, and training environment. The study also grouped a wide range of techniques, including leash pops, physical manipulation, body blocking, and yelling, under a single label, "aversive," making it difficult to determine which technique was responsible for the observed effects. The sample was relatively small and drawn from a single country, limiting generalizability across different training cultures, breed distributions, and owner demographics. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether the short-term indicators of stress it identified translated into poorer long-term welfare or behavioral outcomes, nor did it examine dogs with severe behavioral problems. While the findings are certainly relevant, I don't think they should be generalized beyond the scope of the study.

More recent research has included a randomized controlled trial suggesting that a structured e-collar protocol was more effective than a reward-based protocol, with no significant differences in measured stress (Johnson & Wynne, 2025). However, this study has also received substantial criticism, with critics noting that it compared a relatively well-developed e-collar protocol with a comparatively weak reward-based protocol rather than the strongest versions of each approach. The e-collar group also received an additional training session, complicating the interpretation of the results. Other limitations include the small sample size, the narrow training task, the relatively short follow-up period, and welfare measures that may not have been sensitive enough to detect more subtle emotional effects.

There are also several notable gaps in the literature. To my knowledge, no published studies have examined the long-term welfare outcomes of dogs trained using different methods over periods of years rather than weeks or months. Many studies reporting short-term welfare measures are frequently discussed as though they establish long-term consequences, but those outcomes have not actually been studied. Likewise, there appear to be no studies comparing the effects of high-quality versus poor-quality training regardless of philosophy, even though trainer competence is likely to have a substantial impact on both welfare and behavioral outcomes. Nor have studies examined whether different training approaches differ in how difficult they are for trainers or owners to implement correctly.

One additional question that I think deserves study is why the increasing popularity of reward-based training has coincided with changes in the prevalence of behavioral problems such as fear, anxiety, aggression, or reactivity. We know that reward-based approaches have become increasingly popular over the past several decades (Johnson & Wynne, 2024; Woodward et al., 2021; DeLeeuw & Williams, 2026), and we also know that behavioral problems remain common in companion dogs (Beaver, 2025; Beaver, 2026). No study has directly investigated whether a causal relationship exists or whether changes in training preferences have had any measurable association with population-level behavior trends. These things may be completely unrelated, but it simply strikes me as an obvious question that has yet to be examined.

My takeaway isn't that one philosophy has been proven superior to the other. It's almost the opposite. I think the current literature provides useful evidence, but it remains preliminary. Given the methodological limitations and the substantial gaps that still exist, I don't think the science yet supports the degree of certainty that often appears in online discussions.

What am I missing? I'd be interested to hear whether others who have read the literature have reached a different conclusion, particularly if there are long-term welfare studies or well-controlled trials that I've overlooked.

Please review the updated rules regarding posts that are specifically intended to call out an individual or organization for animal abuse. (Comments remain largely unrestricted in this regard.)

While call-out posts are permitted, they are now subject to stricter standards due to the seriousness of alleging animal abuse. Such posts must present a clear, evidence-based argument rather than a personal rant or attack against trainers or organizations you disagree with.

The purpose of this subreddit is to foster good-faith debate. Discussions about animal training ethics are welcome, and criticism of specific trainers or training methods is encouraged. However, if you are accusing a specific person or organization of animal abuse, your post must be structured as a formal debate proposition with clearly stated premises and a conclusion, supported by relevant evidence such as screenshots, videos, news reports, or other credible sources.

Finally, it's important to distinguish between criticizing a training method as abusive and labeling a specific individual or organization as an animal abuser. The former is a discussion about ideas and practices; the latter is a serious factual allegation that requires a much higher standard of evidence.

My hot take is muzzles are way overused and result in people taking on cases they shouldn’t. If the dog is a bite risk to humans and in a board and train, the trainer should be wearing safety gear. There is no good reason to muzzle a human aggressive dog in a board and train.

If dealing with human aggression in private lessons, muzzles are obvious for the safety of the owner, but we all need to be honest that that is management and not a full resolution to the situation. That means making it clear to the owners the limitations of the actual work being done.

The primary use case for muzzles should be dog/dog aggression, and that’s because you can’t put a dog in a bite suit.

Come at me with why I’m wrong!