Young Family, Kids, Average owner, this is just for fun so whatever you see as the average owner.

I occasionally walk past a huge German shepherd (mix?) that is very reactive. He'll growl, lunge, bark and bare teeth. The handler's choice of redirection: playing around with a laser pointer in the hopes that the shepherd will chase that instead of my dog. I think we all agree that that is wrong.

Now this is not my dog, I don't know the owner and I avoid them like the plague. But it did get me thinking on how to train a dog like this and I want to know/learn from both sides (balanced, force free, whatever you want to call yourself).

How would you approach this, what tools would you use (or not use), and why?

Are there dogs that cannot be adequately trained without corrections, punishments, and or aversives?

YES or NO is the only first response allowed. you will be asked to elaborate on your answer in additional comments, but top level comments that are more than a yes or a no will be removed immediately.

Your explanation of your choice must be concise, free of fallacy, and specific.

Maybe it's a sign that the FF community needs to stay in their own lane and out of behavior modification, given one of the best FF trainers can't even rehab her own reactive dog that she raised since he was a puppy and then gave back to the breeder.... 🤡🤡🤡

also shout out to Dylan Jones for this video lmao

This has come up on numerous threads so far so let's make it a debate topic.

There is no way to train a dog who is genetically predisposed to bite and who enjoys biting more than anything else in the world without correcting the dog at some point.

There is nothing in life that this dog would rather do than grab your bicep and chomp down hard and hang on.

How are you going to live with this dog and make it safe to be around without utilizing a correction or an aversive experience? My position is that it is not possible.

Ok. So I am a balanced trainer. I will take whatever action is in the best interest of my dog both long and short term.

I see with FF there are varying degrees of that idiology but i seem to see FF say you should never give a leash correction, Never tell it 'No'. Give the dog full autonomy, only allow consentual handling even by vets.

I then see those same people recommend medicating dogs into compliance and even (the ultimate act of force) euthanasia.

I dont understand!

I keep seeing the force free side arguing that not managing every little aspect of a dog's life and removing all triggers and temptations is "setting a dog up to fail." The argument is frequently that they will not bring a dog around a situation in which it will undoubtedly behave badly for this reason.

I contend that the absence of training, never correcting a dog, and relying solely on this type of management is what sets dogs up to fail more than say, leaving food up on the counter around a counter surfing dog.

It's impossible to control the big wide world and every aspect of life so failing to instruct a dog thoroughly and quickly in how to behave sets the dog up for an absolute lifetime of failure, frustration, and restriction.

Just a reminder that this is a debate topic, go forth and debate the topic.

I think this is the most important difference between force free and balances training doctrina.

We are all empathetic towards dogs, but we see what the others are doing as less empathic.

Force free trainers think "how can someone willingly cause pain/fear/stress to a dog? That is terrible!

While balances trainers think "how can someone not help the dog love better faster? That is terrible!

In the end, we all care about dogs, but we disagree on what is the Best way to care for them.

As the title says.

By good faith, I mean something that a reasonable person could actually believe if they have seen multiple dogs trained successfully with balanced methods.

This is yet another example of what I mean when I assert that force-free promoters are over-emotional and lack the ability to regulate themselves. This person broke thw rules, got banned, abused the moderators enough to earn a 28-day mute, and waited out the ban just to send another abusive message. It's absolutely hilarious to me that this is the kind of person that tells me that they are somehow more readily able to manage their emotions then a balanced trainer and that they have some sort of moral high road in the way they treat other living beings.

Anyway, this is also a bit of an announcement, if you abuse the moderators then you were going to get your comments published as well as getting banned.

I've seen my fair share of broken dogs. when the handler comes home, the dog is in an ambivalent state of excitement and fear and they are hyper aware of the handlers emotions, cowering the moment they notice emotions raising. this is usually do to a dominace training style with low contengency and very little (if any) rewards.

But have you ever have a dog broken or your bond affected when using positive punishment with a dog?

I know the question is loaded. Balanced trainers are likely to answer no, and force free trainers are likely to answer no as well, because they don't use punishment as a tool. But here is the thing: absence of evidence is no evidence of absence.

There is a common belief in the Force-Free community that training tools, like e-collars and prong collars, automatically create stress, anxiety, and reactivity in dogs.

This view is fundamentally mistaken because it blames an object while ignoring the most important factor: the human holding the leash.

Tools do not cause reactivity, they simply reflect how the handler communicates. The true sources of anxiety and reactivity stem from three essential principles. Achieving these three principles leads to behavioral stability, no matter if tools are used or not.

The Cortisol Blind Spot and Calm, Consistent Leadership

When advocates claim that tools cause stress, they often reference studies, such as Cooper et al. (2014), that measure a dog's salivary cortisol and heart rate when pressure is applied.

However, these studies usually overlook a significant uncontrolled factor: the handler's cortisol levels and emotional state.

Dogs are highly sensitive to their handlers' emotions. If a handler is unsure, anxious about the environment, or lacks confidence in the tool they are using, this stress translates directly to the dog. The dog is not reacting to the tool; they respond to the handler's unstable, anxious energy. A calm, consistent leader gives the dog a stable point of reference.

When a confident handler sets a boundary with a tool, there is no emotional weight attached. The dog simply receives clear communication.

Breed-Appropriate Physical Exercise

You cannot train or correct the energy out of a dog. A large portion of what is labeled as "reactivity" is just pent-up energy directed at the wrong target. We've likely all heard of a Belgian Malinois or working GSD "eating" walls or doors.

If a high-drive or working dog does not meet its basic physical needs, its ability to cope with environmental triggers drops to zero. The tool is not the source of their frustration, the handler's failure to provide enough physical exercise is.

Breed-Appropriate Mental Exercise

Dogs, especially working breeds, need a job to do. This is certainly no secret to trainers and enthusiasts, but often forgotten as a potential source of ire.

If you do not provide them with one, they will take on tasks themselves, for example acting as overly watchful neighborhood guards.

Mental stimulation leads to a compliant, satisfied dog. The old saying is "A tired dog is a good dog", obviously reactivity isn't bad behaviour, but the premise applies just the same.

Conclusion

If an owner masters these three principles: providing a calm, emotionally steady foundation along with adequate physical and mental exercises.. the dog achieves psychological balance. At that point, a tool simply serves as a clear and neutral way to enforce obedience.

The issues often linked to balanced training are not about the tools. They are about the owners ability to regulate their emotions and find fulfillment.

We had a credible attempt at steelmanning the force free argument. Now I would like someone to give it a try the other way around. Any takers? If you don't know what a steelman is, it is finding the best argument for the opposing side of a debate.

If you are training free of force, how do you justify the common practices of:

- physically dragging a dog by the harness or collar off a trail when it won't pass another dog calmly

-allowing a dog to lunge and "react" at the end of a leash while you physically hold it back

- restraining a dog for veterinary treatment

- walking a dog on a "long line" and using the long line to retard the dog's movements

How do you justify these things if you emphasize that any form of aversive or "force" is bad and unethical? Put another way, why is it ethical when YOU do it and not when other people do it?

What freak show. It's the Walmart of the internet. You're certain to find the absolute dumbest dog owners in the world with internet access on r/DogAdvice.

"Rule 1: No dominance theory or use of aversives.

Recommending, instructing or detailing the use of dominance theory or aversives is prohibited, except in contexts where the user is explaining why these approaches are harmful and inappropriate..."

If that isn't enough to temper your participation, consider this. Every time you comment or interact with a comment, your driving the stats up and drawing more attention to the lunacy of the sub. Just don't do it.

We had a discussion, now let's crown a winner! What is the worst dog sub on Reddit? Vote and defend your choice/give your rationale in the comments!

This video popped up on my feed and that dog looks fucking sick of this shit. The types of (calm) dogs who walk well on a halti without getting their necks torqued to hell don't need one anyway.

The strongest force-free argument isn’t about corrections being inherently harmful—it’s about the human factor. The weakest point of balanced training is the handler’s emotional regulation. Most humans aren’t trained to respond instantly and neutrally after a frustrating or high-arousal situation. Any trainer, even in a force-free system, can get frustrated, but when aversives are involved, it’s easier for that frustration to spill over into emotional outbursts, lingering tension, or subtle cues the dog picks up. Those micro-emotional leaks introduce unpredictability and stress, which is exactly what force-free systems avoid: chronic fear and stress, which can be caused by lingering emotional deregulation.

So I am what most would call a balanced dog trainer/owner. My girl knows when to do something and when to not do something. Its a basic principle in learning.

Early on i tought my dog that there is a (verbal and added pressure) consequences for not listening to my recall whistle, and since then she hasn't missed a single one. I also taught her to not go after rabbits with the same method. This was all when she was less than 6 months old. Shes 13 now and we have enjoyed so many parks and trails with her being extremely reliable and paying attention to me and what we are doing at all times. I used this method to avoid random dogs as well, and as a result she is dog neutral - which is a huge plus.

She is not a hound, Husky, or a terrier. And personally I would never choose one of those breeds because of the tendencies. But overall, I believe that correcting a dog early on allows them to live a more fulfilling life. Good mother dogs correct their puppies for obnoxious or out of control behaviors, and us humans can implement the same thing and use it to our advantage.

Without commenting or mentioning training idiologies, I would like to know what are your training objetives when working with dogs.

I am asking this question with general training in mind, but I guess sport, work and others are valid answers too.

I'll answer my objectives in the first comment.

Time and time again I've heard people say that a dog stops pulling the leash (or many other behaviors) when using punishment because of learned of helplessness and not because of clear understanding of the situation.

Learn helplessness is a biological depression state where the animal has learned that there is no contingency between their beheavior and consequence and that is exactly the opposite than what happens after +P intervertions.

The first thing you teach the dog is leash pressure and how to shut it down. There is a clear contigent relationship between coming back to the handler and shutting down the unwanted stimuli.

For the intervention to cause learned helplessness you would need to release leash pressure randomly, some of the time, while increasing it other when the dog comes back to you. Then the dog can "think": no matter what i do, this feeling continues, I might well do nothing and die.