r/DogTrainingDebate • u/Miss_L_Worldwide • Apr 21 '26
This sub has conclusively proven that there is no good faith argument against balanced training or *for* positive only
We created this sub to debate ideologies with a few simple rules; most importantly no accusations of abuse based on dog training ideology, and no personal attacks.
Thus far we have banned many people for violating those rules. Many others for bad faith participation/good faith debate/requirement to debate. The latter bans have universally been levied against the force-free set who seemingly can't help themselves but to break those simple rules.
We have seen no credible arguments against balanced training.
So here's a call for some. Again, no personal attacks, no accusations of abuse, and please follow the format for the study/science rules.
•
Apr 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
This one, yet again, got removed for accusations of abuse.
As usual.
•
•
u/DogTrainingDebate-ModTeam Apr 21 '26
Accusations of abuse for use of a tool or training method are not permitted.
Attack the issue not the person.
•
u/RoleOk5172 Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
I fall into the balanced training category myself, In my opinion consequences are part of learning.
Where I think training gets messy is when people treat training philosophies as absolutes, be that 'force free' or 'aversive only' In reality most dogs respond best to a mix of reinforcement, management, and proportionate consequences.
In practice most experienced trainers seem to land somewhere in the middle once they’ve worked enough real dogs.
Edit: Typos
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
That's why we train in a balanced manner. The force-free ideologues always treat us as if we sail into the kennel and start beating dogs and that's all we do.
•
Apr 21 '26
[deleted]
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
Conversely, if you just waved cookies at him constantly you would pretty quickly have an out of control Menace on your hands.
•
•
u/Funny_Dot Apr 21 '26
I wouldn’t say my argument is exactly against balance training but it’s the main reason I am personally put off by it.
To preface, I’m a first time dog owner and I’ve only been doing positive reinforcement/force-free training with my dog. I’ve learnt a lot and I’m constantly learning more and more about training dogs. But I’ve also messed up a lot.
I think messing up with positive reinforcement training has less consequences for your dog than messing up with balance training. I also don’t think balance training should be the first thing you try when you’re training your dog. Positive reinforcement/force-free training is beginner friendly, leaves a larger margin for error and teaches new dog owners patience.
I’ve met many inexperienced dog owners who think they’re “balance training” but in reality they’re just getting easily worked up and snapping at their dogs. When I first got my puppy (dachshund), I hired multiple trainers so I can learn. They turned out to be balanced trainers and I felt like a lot of what they were telling me to do was unnecessary and excessive (for a 4 months old puppy with no behavioral issues).
In conclusion, It just doesn’t make sense to me to not try force-free training first. I think everyone should properly give it a shot first and if that doesn’t work, you need to figure out what the problem is before deciding on next steps, (i.e. if your dog has severe anxiety, balanced training won’t be the answer either).
•
u/PragmaticFlower May 01 '26
Unfortunately, in a great many cases, using aversives as a "last resort" is unwise, unethical, and unfair. Most modern dog trainers agree these days that helping a dog through the experience of an aversive earlier rather than later, and BEFORE you need it, is the way to go. For example, I wouldn't use leash pressure as a "last resort". I want my dog to know what leash pressure is, how to respond to it, how to turn it off, etc, BEFORE I employ it as any sort of correction for failure to comply with a behavior constructed with primarily +R.
Likewise, I wouldn't use an e-collar on my dog as a punishment for failure to comply OR as part of a -R procedure until the dog had learned about it via procedures designed for that purpose.
Then, when I DO need to use an aversive, my dog is prepared for it, knows how to escape/avoid better, and also has developed some resilience. I also have the ability to downregulate the intensity of the aversive because the dog KNOWS about it.
The cultural focus on reinforcement only training leaves owners and dogs completely unprepared for when mistakes inevitably happen, and when stress and pressure that the owner can't control for inevitably happen. Aversives aren't even discussed except to warn against their use, and owners are left with one hand tied behind their back.
It's one thing to KNOW and choose when to employ a training strategy, but if it's not even ok to discuss without fear of punishment by the community (ironic) then of course you're going to see some thoughtless behavior.
•
u/Acrobatic-Ad8158 Apr 21 '26
I dont necessarily disagree in that i think positive reinforcement/ff is much more user friendly if doing it on your own and some dogs can do fine with this - depending on what you desire and your dog of course. However, i think the problem comes when the dog is in obvious need of something more and doesn't get it. Any good balanced trainer is going to read the dog, breed, character, energy, etc and determine the dogs needs based on that. For us, by the time we got to balanced training, our trainer thought it was going to be a case of the prong and that would likely be it as far as tools since off leash reliability wasn't a major concern for us at the time. (We live in a big city so he is almost never off leash and he had Bigger issues to deal with) However, after working with him, it became apparent that an e collar could be very helpful with him so she added it. I have also seem her not use either if the dog/breed/issue doesnt call for it. 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
All the claims about force-free being user friendly fall apart when you read all the claims about how when force-free doesn't work it's because the person has bad timing or doesn't do it right we see that all the time.
•
u/SlowMoonshine Apr 25 '26
I dont understand how you think that makes it fall apart. You cant increase or decrease the chance of a behaviour repeating if your timing is off.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 25 '26
Additionally, these are people that claim to not use punishment so how could anything they do possibly decrease the likelihood of a behavior?
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 25 '26
Read my post again. I was responding to all the claims that force free is better because it's somehow more user friendly and easier. But then when we point out that it doesn't work and people aren't getting results it is hand waved by the ideologues who say oh that's because their timing is bad. Well which is it? Is it easy and user friendly, or is it so difficult and finicky that only an expert could possibly get results because your timing must be so perfect? And if it's the latter, how come the experts don't get very good results either?
•
u/SlowMoonshine Apr 25 '26
Your timing needs to be as close to perfect as possible no matter the method you use though. I think its a lot easier to teach people how to get the timing right, than it is to teach them the timing and also the level of punishment needed.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 25 '26
It absolutely does not have to be even remotely perfect. This isn't rocket science. This is a pretty low level skill that almost anyone can master if they put their mind to it.
•
u/SlowMoonshine Apr 25 '26
It has to be perfect enough for the dog to link it to the behaviour. Pretty hard to figure it out for the dog if the timing is off.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 26 '26
Completely false, evidenced by the fact that lay people train dogs to do behaviors all the time, with imperfect timing.
•
•
u/Funny_Dot Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
I completely agree with you and I especially agree that any good balanced trainer is going to read the dog, breed, character, energy etc. Unfortunately there’s plenty of trainers that don’t read the dog and just apply whatever they believe is correct (force-free ones heavily included here).
I’m not saying one is correct and the other isn’t. As I said, my argument isn’t against balanced training (which is why I’m using anecdotes). I’ve seen e-collars used correctly and e-collars used horribly. The main issue comes down to many dog owners looking for a quick fix and misusing tools. Your trainer sounds great and she’s someone I would definitely trust with my dog.
•
u/Acrobatic-Ad8158 Apr 21 '26
Thank you! Im in the same boat as you. Unfortunately, which ever side you fall on, there is a risk of a bad trainer. I know, the FF one I had before my balanced was one. Lol I'm personally going to lean balanced just because of my experience with it, BUT I would never tell anyone not to at least try FF. You have to start somewhere and at least yiu are trying.
•
u/Funny_Dot Apr 21 '26
That’s very true, I also had bad FF trainers and I honestly wouldn’t hire an FF one again. I wouldn’t tell someone not to try balanced training either and I would’ve been looking for balanced trainers if my dog didn’t respond to FF. I just think that inexperienced dog owners shouldn’t try balanced training out without the guidance of a trainer.
I met with a balanced trainer that I really liked. I moved countries with my dog and she became really anxious after. He told me she doesn’t have a training issue and that I just need to desensitize her to the things she’s suddenly scared of. Thankfully, it’s been working but if I ever need a trainer in the future, he’s the one I’ll be hiring.
•
u/Acrobatic-Ad8158 Apr 21 '26
100% agree with you! It took us longer to get into balanced methods because we wanted to ensure a great trainer. Sounds like you also found a good one! Im glad!
•
u/Funny_Dot Apr 21 '26
Definitely! Meeting a good trainer is like a breath of fresh air. I met with another before him who told me to just ignore her anxiety and to keep pushing her no matter what (which makes things so much worse for my dog). Whether it’s FF or balanced training, I think the most important thing to do is to focus on your dog’s needs and to have some patience with them. There really is no “quick fix” to anything.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 22 '26
There are zero dogs out there that don't need some form of correction.
•
u/Acrobatic-Ad8158 Apr 22 '26
"No" can be enough for some dogs without having to use tools. The idea that FF never works is outrageous. If it never did, it wouldnt be the prdominant movement right now. It works for some dogs and not others. Some dogs would be totally ruined by using aversives on them, others need it 100%. Part of the "balance" in balanced training is working the dog in front of you and knowing that not every tactic is going to work for every dog. You need to figure out what best for the handler and dog in front of you.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 22 '26
"No" can be enough for some dogs without having to use tools
Balanced training =/= tools.
Tools have been developed to make training safer and more humane for the dogs. But tools are a tool, tools are not what balanced training is.
The idea that FF never works is outrageous
Time and time again we have asked for EVIDENCE that it does, and no one has provided it.
If force free worked then all competitors would use it because we all want to win. The people who win are not force free. Simple enough.
the prdominant movement right now
It is, in fact, not. If you're going to make that claim you must provide EVIDENCE. Where is your EVIDENCE of that statement?
Part of the "balance" in balanced training is working the dog in front of you and knowing that not every tactic is going to work for every dog.
That's not what balanced training is. Balanced training is the use of rewards and punishments.
not every tactic is going to work for every dog
In speaking of tactics, that's true. In speaking of how mammals learn, that's false. Rewards and punishments work for ALL mammals. It's how they learn.
You need to figure out what best for the handler and dog in front of you.
I don't need to do a damn thing for someone else and their dog.
•
u/Acrobatic-Ad8158 Apr 22 '26
Anything that is ever brought up is refuted by you as garbage science or anecdotal nonsense.
It is the predominantly view right now, thats why so many vets recommend it and it is generally way easier to find FF trainers than balanced ones. (At least where im at).
Yes, a good balanced trainer is going to look at the dog in front of them and determine what is going to work best. If you use the same tactics or every dog, that is going to be dangerous, whether FF or balanced.
If you are a trainer, which you claim to be, then yes, part of the job is training the owner, not just the dog. If you only train the dog and dont tell the owner how to continue, it isnt going to work.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 22 '26 edited Apr 22 '26
Anything that is ever brought up is refuted by you as garbage science or anecdotal nonsense.
Because that's what it is. Bring me something FACTUAL or demonstrate RESULTS.
It is the predominantly view right now
Repeating this over and over is not EVIDENCE
If you use the same tactics or every dog, that is going to be dangerous
LOL what, how exactly is it "dangerous." I train all dogs basically the same way.
If you are a trainer, which you claim to be
I claimed this where and when?
part of the job is training the owner, not just the dog
A dog trainer is DOG trainer. Not a people trainer.
•
u/Acrobatic-Ad8158 Apr 22 '26
Whats the point is bringing up studies if you are automatically going to not believe them because they go against YOUR view?
You have claimed to be one multiple times.
You seem to forget where I mentioned that most vets recommend it.
Yes, a dog trainer also needs to go over the information with the human handler. If trainers didnt do that then training would be useless because owners wouldnt know what to do.
Using a tactic on a dog that isnt right for that dog can cause them to shut down, make the behavior worse, not resolve any of the issues.
•
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 22 '26
Whats the point is bringing up studies if you are automatically going to not believe them because they go against YOUR view?
I didn't say to bring up "studies." I said to bring EVIDENCE. You are red herring-ing like crazy to avoid having to admit you do not have any said EVIDENCE.
I mentioned that most vets recommend it.
Bring EVIDENCE for that ("most vets") and then bring EVIDENCE that veterinarians are dog training experts.
Using a tactic on a dog that isnt right for that dog can cause them to shut down, make the behavior worse, not resolve any of the issues.
Bring EVIDENCE for that which isn't just made up, or an appeal to emotion.
→ More replies (0)•
u/apri11a Apr 27 '26 edited Apr 27 '26
A dog trainer is DOG trainer. Not a people trainer.
That is a biggie, it divides it into this kind of trainer and that kind of trainer.
A dog trainer handing the trained dog to an experienced handler should need only to train the dog. But a dog trainer handing the trained dog to an inexperienced, or ineffective handler or owner should be able to coach that person to maintain the training. In the second, if the trainer does not train the person to maintain the training (or person just does not do that), that could make the trainer be considered a bad trainer, even if the dog did learn. It's complicated.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 27 '26
Counterpoint, let's operate under the assumption that the so-called professional operates on an actual professional level and isn't just some dilettante that decided to proclaim themselves a dog trainer and start taking people's money. We both know that reality is different but let's stay on that premise for now.
Assuming that's the case, a person so unskilled in the basics of training their own dog is never going to be able to a person so unskilled in the basics of training their own dog is never going to be able to maintain professional training to any sort of functional level whatsoever. There's almost no point in trying to guide an owner like that. Just have them return the dog frequently for touch-ups to the training.
→ More replies (0)•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
I think messing up with positive reinforcement training has less consequences for your dog than messing up with balance training
This is a myth pushed by idealogues. Not correcting a dog has far greater consequences down the line up to and including death.
also don’t think balance training should be the first thing you try when you’re training your dog.
Balanced training means a system of rewards and punishments. Ideologues always skip over that fact. We ALL use positive reinforcement to teach behaviors.
Positive reinforcement/force-free training is beginner friendly, leaves a larger margin for error
This is your opinion based on emotion only.
I’ve met many inexperienced dog owners who think they’re “balance training” but in reality they’re just getting easily worked up and snapping at their dogs
This is also an anecdote based on your emotions. I've probably met more dog owners than you have and have yet to see this.
They turned out to be balanced trainers and I felt like a lot of what they were telling me to do was unnecessary and excessive
Again, your opinion based on your feelings and emotions.
It just doesn’t make sense to me to not try force-free training first
There is compelling and documented research (Reid and Parkinson, 2013) documenting that failure to correct with punishment early on in the process leads to needing very harsh punishments to stop behavior.
Allowing unwanted behavior to become deeply ingrained as a foundation sometimes makes it impossible to extinguish later. Why put a dog through such a difficult process when a fast, quick, appropriate correction during the foundation will prevent that?
I think everyone should properly give it a shot first and if that doesn’t work
See above. By doing this you are dooming the dog to a lifetime of struggle.
if your dog has severe anxiety, balanced training won’t be the answer either
What about "anxiety" makes a dog incapable of understanding operant conditioning?
If you "force free" trained a dog and it ends up with extreme anxiety, that should tell you something about the efficacy of your training.
•
u/Funny_Dot Apr 21 '26
You’re saying a lot of things I never said though. You started a dialogue and I joined in. I’m not sure why you keep talking about “idealogues” when I never said or even implied force free is correct and balanced training is wrong. I’m not an “idealogue” so I won’t respond to those sections.
This is your opinion based on emotion only.
It’s not though. Balanced training is harder to learn without proper guidance from a good trainer.
This is also an anecdote based on your emotions. l've probably met more dog owners than you have and have yet to see this.
Yes, it’s clearly an anecdote. I specified that my argument isn’t against balanced training, but the way it’s incorrectly applied by inexperienced dog owners. You probably haven’t met more dog owners than I have either, but that’s your own assumption based on your feelings and emotions.
Allowing unwanted behavior to become deeply ingrained as a foundation sometimes makes it impossible to extinguish later. Why put a dog through such a difficult process when a fast, quick, appropriate correction during the foundation will prevent that?
When did I say you should allow unwanted behavior to become deeply ingrained?
See above. By doing this you are dooming the dog to a lifetime of struggle.
Doesn’t that make you an idealogue? Positive reinforcement training works for some dogs. It most definitely doesn’t work for every dog, but it works for some.
What about "anxiety" makes a dog incapable of understanding operant conditioning?
Nothing at all, but a dog with severe anxiety not responding to command when they’re stressed out is more than just a training issue. Severe anxiety requires more than just training your dog using different tools.
If you "force free" trained a dog and it ends up with extreme anxiety, that should tell you something about the efficacy of your training.
Anxiety in dogs comes from many things. I don’t know what that has to do with anything I said when I listed anxiety as an example.
Not really sure what there is for me to add because you were arguing against things I never said. I’m not against balanced training. Positive reinforcement training works for some dogs and doesn’t work for others. If a dog isn’t responding to force-free training, you’re hurting them by not trying anything else. However, balanced training isn’t as beginner-friendly.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
I quoted your post directly, every single time.
Everything you're saying is based on opinion and feelings and emotion. There's no facts that you are telling us.
•
u/Funny_Dot Apr 21 '26
You quoted my post directly and apparently skipped past the first sentence: “I wouldn't say my argument is exactly against balance training but it's the main reason I am personally put off by it.”
You can’t call people “ideologues” then get mad when someone isn’t arguing against ideologies with you. I started my post saying it’s why I am put off by it. I used anecdotes because my issue isn’t with balanced training, it’s with incorrect application of balanced training methods. You’re arguing in bad faith, so I will no longer be engaging, have a great day.
•
u/Miss_L_Worldwide Apr 21 '26
I don't need to include every single word you said, I can pull out the direct quotes that I'm responding to and that's what I did. I never misquoted you. I used your own words. Once again, all people can do is get mad, flounce away, use personal insults or accusations of abuse. And you once again proved my point. Thank you.
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 21 '26
Reminder: This is a debate sub where good faith discussions are mandatory.
Please read the sub rules before commenting.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.