u/Potential_Analyst371

What is a reasonable amount of time to expect an owner to pay for professional training? At $200 an hour once per week, the owner would be looking at 5K for 6 months of training.

Is this reasonable? If an owner comes in with a reactive dog and is told it may take 6 months to a year, or longer, to train the dog (5-10K), might the owner just give up and drop that dog at the shelter?

We can look at what we believe are "ideal" training methods, I guess, but if those methods end up with the dog being dropped at the shelter, that's not doing anybody any good, is it?

Do trainers have an obligation to try to get resolution (or at least significant improvement) in the presenting complaint within around 6-8 weeks?

We have huge numbers of homeless dogs in the United States. For those in countries without this issue, why do you think your country has been so successful? Was there a homeless dog problem in the past? If so, how was the problem addressed?

For those familiar with US style animal shelters and rescues, how can we improve adoption success? Medical issues are probably mostly a resource allocation problem, so let's focus more on factors that can be modified without requiring an increase in operating budget.

What would be most beneficial in finding homes for these dogs, and then keeping them in the new homes?

We have a lot of "positive' dog and puppy training and advice communities on reddit who purport to hold the welfare of the dog/puppy as a primary consideration when allowing which comments or advice to allow.

Yet, it is common advice to crate a puppy for 18-20 hours a day.

Now, I am all for trying to do what's best for dogs and puppies. I appreciate that these communities consider the animals' well-being to be of primary importance.

How can they allow advice like this?

When one advises to put a puppy in a crate every time it gets zoomie or starts play-biting, that is effectively using the crate as positive punishment (+P.)

Calling it "management" or claiming the puppy is "over-tired" are just excuses.

Zoomies and play-biting are normal and necessary, developmentally appropriate behaviors.

If you put a puppy in the crate every time he displays these normal behaviors, he will learn to stop. He will learn that because he has been punished (+P) for displaying these normal puppy behaviors.

Why is this advice allowed in areas where +P is prohibited? It is more intrusive and harmful than many other options for handing a playful puppy.

The article Sleep Duration and Behaviours: A Descriptive Analysis of a Cohort of Dogs up to 12 Months of Age is available free on PubMed.

It indicates that puppies 16 weeks of age sleep a median of 3.5 hours during the day, and a mean of 11.2 hours in every 24 hours.

That is a whole lot less than the common recommendation.

Frustrated greeter behavior is considered a type of reactivity, but it's not based in fear or aggression. The puppy or dog is excited and over-aroused by triggers in the environment, such as people or other dogs. These feelings lead to unwanted behaviors such as barking, lunging, and pulling toward the trigger.

What is the best training approach for these dogs? Do you think aversive training methods should be used?

How long will it likely take to resolve these behaviors with your method? Will underlying emotions be addressed?

Let's have a discussion on best practices for frustrated greeters.

I am a big fan of a lot of FF concepts. I absolutely believe there is an ethical imperative to prevent pain and suffering for animals. I don't believe the "end justifies the means" or that results are the primary method by which we should evaluate dog training practices.

I don't consider myself FF, though. I'm LIMA. Why? Because I just don't see the sense in avoiding +P and -R that is completely non-painful and does not cause fear or any distress beyond maybe slight frustration at not being able to engage in a desired misbehavior or unsafe behavior.

Now, I am not a trained behavioral scientist, so let me know if you disagree with my characterization of any of these. Here are a few examples in humans to show that +P and -R do not have to be painful or scary:

A speeding ticket, having a teen who was rude to Auntie write an apology note, adding extra chores if a child skips some, picking up and removing a toddler every time they step on the hearth of the hot wood stove, the nagging beep that reminds you to buckle up.

In puppies, it might be something like putting your hand up to block your puppy from knocking over your toddler.

Or, training (with +R) response to a very light pressure on the leash. Then, using that light leash pressure with a cue like "nope" to guide the puppy away from unwanted behavior.

For -R, a classic example would be recall. Teach recall with +R and practice a ton when you know you have the puppy's attention. To proof the recall, though, you need distractions. If puppy ignores you, where's the harm in using that same light leash pressure described above as -R to remind pup to recall? Allowing a puppy to blow off recall is not a good option. Puppies need reliable recall for safety, and it's just general good practice for a trainer to be sure the puppy's recall is solid. I think using mild -R is overall a better choice than letting puppy learn that recall is optional.

The benefit of using very gentle methods like these with puppies is that you can get just really excellent behavior from puppies when they are quite young, and they are happy to do it. They learn the house rules quickly and don't need to be "managed" in a crate or behind a gate for long periods throughout the day. Social isolation is intrusive and detrimental for social species like dogs. It removes a puppy's bodily autonomy and agency. It restricts their ability to play and learn. Using gentle +P and -R results in happier puppies and happier humans.

A LIMA trainer should consider the intrusive aspects of social isolation as a result of common "management" techniques, weigh that against the very mild aversive nature of techniques such as those described above, and choose mild and gentle +P and -R instead of social isolation. In my view, FF trainers should make the same choice,

Would you agree with the idea that we should work to change the definition of FF to simply avoiding pain, fear, intimidation, and other harsh methods in our training? I think that would result in happier puppies.

Social Media algorithms are promoting Animosity between Balanced Trainers and Force Free Trainers and Regular Dog Owners are caught in the Crossfire.

Dog training content on social media can be so toxic. Claims that:

Force Free Trainers would "rather kill dogs than train them" and promote BE.

Balanced Trainers "string dogs up by prong collars" or "windmill" them.

What's really going on here, though? Has anybody seen this stuff in real life? Was it one trainer or an exceptional situation? Was it a large organization with resource allocation issues? Do you really believe that there are masses of people who are either stringing dogs up or insisting they be killed for fixable behavior problems?

Or are the trainers in your own local community normal people who are neither torturing dogs nor recommending BE willy-nilly.

Did anybody catch Zuck testifying before Congress? The whistle-blower testimony that the company's own research shows the algorithms reward conflict?

So what's really going on here? Are we all being played for fools?

These social media personalities are trying to make their living off social media. Social media algorithms reward conflict. Therefore, in order to do well, these people need to promote conflict to drive engagement. Outrage pays these days. The more inflammatory the content, the more it gets shared. The more it gets shared, the more $ is made. This is the social media business model. It's not real life.

Consider talking to real trainers in your own local community if you have questions or concerns about dog training. Try to find someone old enough or experienced enough to not be caught up in all the social media outrage.

(This pertains to a lot of social media content, not just dog training.)

Very subjective, of course, but it's something I thought about based on a couple of comments, and I would value everyone's input. My own thoughts are not well-developed, and I am very open to changing my mind.

First, for me, it is not "just results." The "end justifies the means" just doesn't make sense for me when we're talking about sentient beings who can feel pain, fear, and general distress. Yes, if you're a dog trainer, you have to train the dog. But results are not the only factor, for me.

I am leaning towards something like this:

1. Results: You have to train the dog. You have to train the dog in a timeframe that is reasonable industry-wide. You have to get good results with no fallout.

2. Training style: For me, personally, the training needs to work fundamentally by motivating the dog. Helping the dog and owner have a relationship where the dog habitually looks to the owner for guidance and wants to "be on the same team," follow the rules, and engage in behavior that is wanted by the owner. The results need to go beyond specific obedience tasks and elimination of specific unwanted behaviors and set the team up for future success where they can work through new problems on their own, without needing a professional trainer.

And not,

Pain avoidance as a primary straining strategy - throw in a few cookies for good behavior and call yourself balanced.

3. Avoid overly harsh punishment, non-contingent punishment, overly frequent punishment. Overall levels of pain, fear, and general distress experienced by the dog must be considered and, to the extent possible, minimized.

These are the minimal requirements I can think of in the moment; I am sure there are more and many of you may disagree.

What do you think distinguishes "good" balanced training from "bad" balanced training?

Raising a puppy well can prevent many behavioral problems from becoming established. Well-behaved dogs are more likely to have stable homes, happy families, and rich and fulfilling lives as they participate in community activities with their families.

How do we get there?

Everybody can teach a puppy to sit, but how do we prevent unwanted behavior?

How do we prepare the puppy to be relaxed and happy when guests visit the home, strangers approach in the community, or the vet does an exam?

Are there puppy raising techniques that can reduce the likelihood of a genetic predisposition to reactivity from being expressed?

Are there ways to potentially prevent separation anxiety?

Aggression?

Please share your ideas about puppy training and raising best practices. Share the best advice you ever got, or the advice you, as a trainer, regularly give to new puppy families.

I invite all to participate in this discussion and this sub. Rules 4 and 5 have been eliminated. There are no unrequested flairs. No censorship. Free and open discussion and debate in this sub. All the mods of this sub are committed to free and open debate.

There is a healthy dog euthanasia crisis in the United States. Real numbers are impossible to find but a very rough estimate is several hundred thousand dogs per year.

Should all these dogs receive every possible ethical training intervention possible before being euthanized?

From a moral perspective? Sure.

From a practical perspective? Impossible.

The vast majority of these dogs are killed through the shelter system or dog rescue organizations. Most organizations make decisions based on safety, adoptability, and space. This is basically a financial/resource allocation decision.

What about owner requested euthanasia? First, this is the smallest category of behavioral euthanasia, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus on these cases if you want to save dogs. Instead, start yourself a rescue organization for taking in aggressive dogs and attempting to rehab and rehome them.

Nevertheless, I submit that the following factors are important considerations:

Does the family want to keep the dog? This is a big one. If they don't want the dog anymore, their lives have been constrained too long, they and their families are afraid, there are young children in the home? Whelp, we can't make them keep the dog. We can judge them if we think they didn't "try hard enough," I guess, but we can't make them keep the dog.

So, here's the problem. There is nothing to do with these dogs if they have severe bite histories and the original owner doesn't want them anymore. Most shelters will put the dog down, most rescues won't take the dog. Private rehoming is unethical without full disclosure and mostly impossible with full disclosure.

So, should we be making some kind of ethical pronouncement about these owners? Sure, if you want to. I agree that some of these decisions are probably unethical if the dog is not truly a risk to the owners or anyone else. I am sure it happens. Other owners struggle mightily with large and very aggressive dogs, and probably keep that dog with their children longer than I would consider ethical. These are tough situations, and though individual cases are heartbreaking, many, many more dogs every year are being killed by large organizations.

So, are FF trainers to blame in any of this? Honestly, even if every single FF trainer recommended BE for every dog who can't learn to roll over? If they are not the ones bringing the dog into the vet, they don't have primary responsibility for the death of the dog. Is it unethical for a FF trainer, or any trainer, to recommend BE just because they can't "fix" the dog or don't believe it is "fixable."? Case by case, for sure.

But you know what? All those owners have access to the internet. A couple of clicks and they will see that huge numbers of people believe that balanced training can save at least some of these dogs.

If the owners choose not to try that, I really don't think that is the fault of the individual FF trainer. Moreover, off the internet, I just don't think many FF trainers are insisting dogs should be killed. Maybe if an owner says something like, "I love this dog, but my child needed stitches twice." But if an owner is saying, "I love this dog, I don't have kids, why isn't your training helping?" a FF trainer is not likely to say, "You need to kill your dog." They will likely say something like, "I am sorry I couldn't help. Good luck."

Supporting a tough decision to BE made by a frightened owner is very different from being responsible for the death of that dog.

Edited to remove the specific user I invited to participate, as that may have been misunderstood. It was meant in good faith.