This is USA specific as the requirements for service dogs vary by country.

USA has absolutely no controls over service dogs, their level of training, the "tasks" they perform, the person's actual need for the dog, and the reliability and veracity of the dog's performance, and whether or not the "tasks" actually mitigate a disability.

This has led to an absolute epidemic of "owner trained" dogs doing the most outlandish "tasks" and causing mayhem in public. We have fitness influencers yarding their giant dogs onto planes for clout, random dogs in grocery stores and restaurants, aggressive and disruptive dogs everywhere, with staff and management afraid to confront said owners due to the permissive laws in the USA.

We need:

• Establishment of a validating agency with authority to determine service dog standards and issue (and rescind) licenses and public access
• A ban on "owner trained" dogs with few exceptions for those with demonstrated, validated dog training expertise
• Establishment of a realistic, validated list of acceptable tasks that the dog must reliably perform in order to be a "service dog" and testing to demonstrate that the dog actually performs said tasks and that it benefits the person's actual disability.
• Breed, size, and temperament standards
• Licensing and documentation to be carried at all times after the dog has passed standardized testing, including documentation of vaccinations
• Yearly re-testing of all dogs
• Standardized vesting and badging
• A ban on MOST "service dogs" in restaurants and grocery stores
• A system by which handlers/dogs can be identified and reported for violations

It should not be left to hapless managers to monitor and assess whether a dog is a true "service" dog. The current situation in the USA is much too permissive and needs to be brought under control.

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

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.

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.

Looking for opinions from folks here..

When you use a marker - do you use a word or a non-verbal cue like a clicker?

If you use a word what do you use? ie "yes!" / "good boy/girl!" Do you think using these types of words can be confusing to the dog it reinforce poor behaviour by accident?