I've never really been in the pet dog world so what I see of it on Reddit is absolutely wild. I theorize that most of these dogs never get the chance to act like actual dogs, because they are thought of as being, and treated, like human children instead. So when they do act like a perfectly normal dog, the owners have no idea what to do because they have never seen an actual dog acting like an actual dog either. This is why people are so immediately out of their depth when they get a puppy that has absolutely no training on it and they are responsible for putting the training on. They have no idea what a puppy actually acts like and they expect it to act like a human child and develop mentally like a human child. Most likely all of their friends treat their dogs like human children as well. And then they are even more susceptible to the misinformation from the positive only cult, which reinforces the idea that dogs are like human children. And then they are off and running on the behavior problem cycle and can never get out of it, because they simply don't know what a normal dog acts like.

Sub rules will apply.

The other mods will handle the modding.

Someone get word to Will.

Let's see if he has the stones.

I currently have a dog walking/pet sitting business and am interested in adding training to my services. I have so many people that view me as a “professional” with dogs and expect me to know how to train them, but beyond the very basics, I do not. I’ve seen a lot of online courses offered but have no idea which ones are actually good. I know there is a lot of debate about the best methods, and would like to hear your experiences. I am in Virginia and would appreciate any recommendations.

What the title says: is a trainer who claims success with a dog that they just drugged up until it was compliant someone people should go to for advice?

People claiming "success" when really they have just turned to pharmaceuticals are rampant in dog training. What do you think?

I pulled this out of a comment (with permission) as a debate topic:

>I'm sorry I ever did get training treats for [my dog]....he didn't need them, I succumbed to marketing or whatever. Dogs don't need treats, we are the ones that introduce them, we teach the dogs to perform for them and then wean them off of them.

I thought this was a very interesting statement with some truth to it.

Are we doing our dogs a disservice by bribing them with food rewards and then removing the food rewards?

Aside BE and medications, how do you train a dog that is actively aggressive?

I recently ran into a dog trainer who said they are certified force free and don’t use any corrections. I think force free training is great for a lot of training! But do you think there are situations where force free is not adequate? If not, how do you handle situations like this

This is AI generated and I found it interesting. What are your thoughts?

When dog training ideologies become rigid and reject biological realities in favor of a one-size-fits-all narrative, the results can indeed be damaging—and sometimes dangerous.

Challenging the "all aggression is fear" paradigm is a critical step toward better animal welfare and public safety. When trainers or owners are forced to view every aggressive act through the lens of anxiety or trauma, several major issues arise:

1. The Danger of Misdiagnosis

If a dog is lunging at a child because it has a high, unchanneled predatory drive, treating that dog as if it is simply "afraid" of the child is a recipe for disaster. Tossing treats to counter-condition a "fear" that doesn't exist won't stop the behavior; it might even inadvertently reward the dog's focus on the target. Understanding that the dog is operating from a place of confident arousal, not fear, drastically changes the safety protocols and training required.

2. The "Unfixable" Dog Myth

One of the most tragic outcomes of rigid training ideologies is what happens when the ideology fails. If a professional operates strictly under the belief that all aggression can be cured by relieving fear (using distance, treats, and avoiding stressors), what happens when they encounter a dog with confident, offensive aggression? Because their specific toolkit doesn't work on that dog, they often conclude that the dog is broken, rather than their methodology. This leads to confident, highly-driven dogs being recommended for behavioral euthanasia simply because they didn't fit into a specific ideological box.

3. Ignoring Canine Genetics

Modern pet culture often tries to strip away a dog's genetic history to treat them like furry humans with complex emotional traumas. But form follows function. A livestock guardian breed was genetically selected to make independent, aggressive decisions to kill predators. A terrier was bred to kill vermin with zero hesitation. Denying the reality of genetics—and insisting that any manifestation of these drives is just "anxiety" or a "lack of socialization"—does a massive disservice to the dog.

4. The Loss of Accountability

When aggression is always framed as an involuntary emotional reaction (fear/stress), it removes the concept of the dog making a choice. However, confident dogs absolutely make choices. They learn that intimidation works. If a dog realizes that snapping makes you drop a piece of steak, and they confidently choose to snap at you the next time you have steak, treating them for "fear" ignores the fact that they simply learned a highly effective, bullying behavior.

By pushing back against these blanket statements, you are advocating for a more ethological, reality-based approach to dog behavior—one that looks at the dog in front of you, rather than the narrative we want to project onto them.

Breaking this out from the other service dog topic:

It seems that many prominent "assistance dog" organizations have a hidden force-free agenda. They will not validate any trainer or organization that uses tools "at any time, for any reason."

That leads me to ask:

1. Should any talented service dog trainer be barred from validation despite the capabilities of the dogs they produce, simply because they use tools?

2. Should a viable, well trained, and validated service dog be barred from service simply because it was trained with tools?

3. What is more important, the capability of the assistance dog in easing someone's disability, or the way it was trained?

Example: Trainer opts to use a prong collar to train a boisterous juvenile dog to walk more appropriately on a leash. The tool is used for about a month and the dog goes on to exhibit a high level of reliability in its service dog task. Should this trainer and dog be barred from certification/accreditation/participation in the service dog industry?

Reminder, all sub rules still apply.