The Real Facts About Science-Based Dog Training by Ivan Balabanov

The Real Facts About Science-Based Dog Training by Ivan Balabanov

Introduction

This is a companion post to Ivan Balabanov’s Training Without Conflict Podcast Episode: The Real Facts About Science-Based Dog Training.

The podcast episode can be found on YouTube. It is also embedded at the bottom of this article. This episode is for anyone who wants to understand the true science of dog training. This is a straightforward overview of the peer-reviewed and validated learning science on this topic over the last 50+ years.

This article is not a replacement for watching (or listening) to this podcast. This article only provides all referenced studies, with a quick summary statement to their relevance. Most of the text is from the slides provided by Ivan in the podcast video.

I compiled these references as Ivan’s podcast is important for advancing the art of dog training. While I did the legwork on making the materials more easily accessible. The full credit for outlining the science and finding the relevant studies and materials goes to Ivan Balabanov. I encourage anyone who wants to advance their understanding of dog training to attend Ivan’s Training without Conflict Certification Course. As a TWC-Certified Trainer, I can truly say it is worth every penny.

Strawman Arguments

This podcast and the presented studies are inconvenient for the force-free community, their organizations and the veterinary groups, peddling feel-good, misinformation and lying to the public. Some know what they are doing but many simply don’t know how wrong they are in their positions. The following quote captures this well:

One of the great challenges in life is knowing enough to think you’re right, but not knowing enough to know you’re wrong. 
– Neil deGrasse Tyson

Some try to brush aside the studies presented in Ivan’s podcast because they are older. But, them being older doesn’t mean they are outdated. They are older because this understanding of learning science has existed for decades. This information isn’t new; it is established. We also don’t cast aside Newton’s law of gravity because it was discovered in 1665. The same applies to these studies.

These studies are not just peer-reviewed. All of them have been reaffirmed in subsequent experiments many times. None of them have ever been contradicted. They are an essential part of science-based dog training. That they don’t fit the predominant narrative or upset ideological bias is unfortunate … for people who don’t care about the facts.

The Problems of the Force-Free Studies

In contrast, most of what the force-free community presents are studies based on surveys and questionnaires. Peer-reviewing those, means to only review the methodology of the survey process. The survey results can’t be peer-reviewed. They will change with every new group of people interviewed. That hardly compares to scientific experiments. Surveys and questionnaires also can’t be retested or reproduced unless you survey the same people with the same questionnaire twice. It should be pretty obvious that that wouldn’t make much sense.

Anyone who has ever followed an election poll knows that surveys and questionnaires are just guesses and assumptions. One reason is that many people will interpret the questions differently, making the results suspect. Further, how you ask a question also changes the answers. There are many more reasons surveys and questionnaires aren’t worth much.

If any force-free trainer could directly contradict any of these findings, they would have by now. But they haven’t been able to … in over 50 years. That alone makes it pretty obvious where the truth lies.

How to Use This Article

There is a lot to read here, as the scientific evidence Ivan presented is overwhelming in favor of his arguments. Start with what interests you the most. I tried to make this reference page as easy to use as possible. All study sections are collapsed by default. If you click on “Review the Science” you will see all studies relevant for each area. The main sections have time codes that correspond to the podcast and the order of everything is the same as in the podcast as well. Happy learning!

References

  • Book: Punished by Rewards
  • Position Statement on Humane Dog Training from the AVSAB:
    Claim: The application of aversive methods – which, by definition, rely on application of force, pain, or emotional or physical discomfort – should not be used in canine training or for the treatment of behavioral disorders.
    Claim: Training Effectiveness: Reward-based training methods have been shown to be more effective than aversive methods. Multiple survey studies have shown higher obedience in dogs trained with reward-based methods. Hiby et al. (2004) found that obedience levels were highest for dogs trained exclusively with reward-based methods and lowest for dogs trained exclusively with aversive-based methods. Dogs trained with a combination of rewards and aversive-based methods (often referred to as ‘balanced’ in the dog training industry) produced lower obedience levels than reward-based but better than exclusively aversive-based training. Aversive training has been shown to impair dogs’ ability to learn new tasks.

The Above Statements Are Simply False

This has been documented in 100s of scientific papers.

Fact: In some cases punishment might be the ONLY option to stop unacceptable and/or dangerous behaviors to self or others.

In this article we review the actual science and some of the most important scientific papers on learning science. This information is not new and has been known for over 50 years. Certain groups just don’t like these facts and want to cast them aside. But, that is not how science works. We don’t just ignore facts because we dislike them. All of the studies on this page are peer-reviewed, validated multiple times by different scientists and have NEVER been refuted or proven incorrect EVER! These studies represent the current state of knowledge. None of these are based on questionaires or surveys, which by definition can’t be independently validated. All of these are based on actual, scientific experiments and have been independently validated many times over.

Claim: Negative Punishment is better than Positive Punishment

Start Time: 14:50
Fact: Negative Punishment (withholding a reward) increases the stress in a dog significantly more than Positive Punishment with a prong or e-collar. Negative Punishment is more stressful for dogs than other forms of punishment. — Salgirli, 2008
Review the Science
Author(s):  Yasemin Salgirli
Published in:  Dissertation at Tierärztliche Hochschule Hannover, 2008
Cited by 25 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

Claim: Timeouts Are Better Than Positive Punishment

Start Time: 18:07
Fact: In 11 studies, people preferred giving themselves electroshocks instead of just being bored for 6 to 15 minutes. Social isolation is one of the most severe forms of punishment for humans there is. However, it doesn’t work well in all cases and it doesn’t work well in dog training. — Wilson, 2014
Non-contingent release from time out may be a critical factor leading to negative associated effects. — Harris & Hershfield, 1978
Review the Science
Author(s): Timothy D. Wilson et al.
Published in: Science, July 2014, Volume 345, Number 6192, Pages 75-77
Cited by 606 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): S. L. Harris and R. Ersner-Hershfield
Published in: Psychological Bulletin, December 1978, Volume 85, Issue 6, Pages 1352-1375
Cited by 146 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

Is There a Place for Aversives in Dog Training?

Start Time: 19:13
Although positive reciprocity (reciprocal altruism) has been a focus of interest in evolutionary biology, negative reciprocity (retaliatory infliction of fitness reduction) has been largely ignored. In social animals, retaliatory aggression is common, individuals often punish other group members that infringe their interests, and punishment can cause subordinates to desist from behaviour likely to reduce the fitness of dominant animals. Punishing strategies are used to establish and maintain dominance relationships, to discourage parasites and cheats, to discipline offspring or prospective sexual partners and to maintain cooperative behaviour. — Clutton-Brock & Parker, 1995
Review the Science
Author(s): T. H. Clutton-Brock and G. A. Parker
Published in: Nature, January 1995, Volume 373, Issue 6511, Pages 209-216
Cited by 1252 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

Common Arguments Against Punishment

1. Claim: Punishment Induces Emotional Changes that Interfere with Learning

Start Time: 21:10

That would only be true when done incorrectly but also applies to positive reinforcement, or any other approach when performed incorrectly. “It’s harmful when done wrong” is not a valid argument.

Fact: Studies show the effectiveness of positive punishment in reducing problem behaviors tends to be associated with a wealth of positive side effects. — Linscheid et al., 1990; Matson & Taras, 1989
Review the Science
Author(s): Linscheid et al.
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Spring 1990, Volume 23, Number 1, Pages 53-78
Cited by 155 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Johnny L. Matson and Marie E. Taras
Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, 1989, Volume 10, Number 1, Pages 85-104
Cited by 261 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: The positive side effects tend to far outnumber any negative side effects associated with positive punishment (contingent shock). — Salvy et al., 2004; Linscheid, Pejeau, Cohen & Footo-Lenz, 1994; Linscheid et al., 1990; Matson & Taras, 1989; Carr & Lovaas, 1983
Review the Science
Author(s): Sarah-Jeanne Salvy et al.
Published in: Behavioral Interventions, April 2004, Volume 19, Number 2, Pages 59-72
Cited by 33 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Thomas R. Linscheid, Carrie Pejeau, Sheila Cohen and Marianna Footo-Lenz
Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, January/February 1994, Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 81-90
Cited by 39 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Edward G. Carr and O. Ivar Lovaas
Published in: The Effects of Punishment on Human Behavior by Saul Axelrod and Jack Apsche, 2013, Pages 221-243
Cited by 73 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Linscheid et al.
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Spring 1990, Volume 23, Number 1, Pages 53-78
Cited by 155 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Johnny L. Matson and Marie E. Taras
Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, 1989, Volume 10, Number 1, Pages 85-104
Cited by 261 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: Many studies have found that using punishment as a behavior modification technique may also increase the incidents of wanted behaviors. — Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Johnston, 2006; Israel, Blenkush, Heyn & Rivera, 2008
Review the Science
Author(s): Dorothea C. Lerman and Christina M. Vorndran
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 431-464
Cited by 445 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): James M. Johnston
Published in: Journal of Behavior Analysis, Spring 2006, Volume 29, Number 1, Pages 1-11
Cited by 16 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Matthew L. Israel, Nathan A. Blenkush, Robert E. von Heyn, and Patricia M. Rivera
Published in: The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 2008, Volume 1, Number 4, Pages 119-166
Cited by 12 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

2. Claim: Punishment Provokes Aggression

Start Time: 21:51

Aggression responses are not restricted to Positive and Negative Punishment. Aggression responses can also occur with Positive Reinforcement when fading out food (extinction).

Fact: Experiments have shown that parts of Positive Reinforcement are aversive as well and will lead to aggression. The transition from food—Positive Reinforcement—to extinction is an aversive event. Aggression is sometimes a major side effect of that extinction. — Azrin, Hutchinson & Hake, 1966; Lerman, Iwata & Wallace, 1999
Review the Science
Author(s): Nathan H. Azrin, R. R. Hutchinson and D. F. Hake
Published in: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, May 1966, Volume 9, Number 3, Pages 191-204
Cited by 777 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Dorothea C. Lerman, Brian A. Iwata and Michelle E. Wallace
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Spring 1999, Volume 32, Number 1, Pages 1-8
Cited by 350 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: Fortunately, subsequent work has suggested that the problem of elicited aggression is not really serious in most situations. Because aggression can easily be suppressed through the use of contingent punishment. — Ulrich, Wolf & Dulaney, 1969
Review the Science
Author(s): Roger Ulrich, Marshall Wolf and Sylvia Dulaney
Published in: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, November 1969, Volume 12, Number 6, Pages 1009-1015
Cited by 54 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: Further experiments, found that near-zero levels of elicited aggression could be produced by punishing each attack, even when non-contingent shocks were scheduled every 30 seconds during 2-hour sessions. — Azrin 1970; Roberts & Blase, 1971
Review the Science
Author(s): Nathan H. Azrin
Published in: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, July 1970, Volume 14, Issue 1, Pages 7-10
Cited by 71 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Carl L. Roberts and Karen Blase
Published in: Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, March 1971, Volume 15, Number 2, Pages 193-196
Cited by 23 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

3. Claim: Positive Punishment is Ineffective

Start Time: 23:23
Fact: Punishment can be highly effective for the treatment of a variety of behavior disorders. Punishment has also been proven to be more effective in many instances than treatment with positive reinforcement techniques or extinction. — Barrett, Matson, Shapiro & Ollendick, 1981; Grace, Kahng & Fisher, 1994; Hagopian et al., 1998; Wacker et al., 1990; Israel, Blenkush, von Heyn & Rivera, 2008
Review the Science
Author(s): Rowland P. Barrett, Johnny L. Matson, Edward S. Shapiro, Thomas H. Ollendick
Published in: Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 1981, Volume 2, Issue 3, Pages 247-256
Cited by 59 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Nancy C. Grace, SungWoo Kahng and Wayne W. Fisher
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Sprint 1994, Volume 27, Number 1, Pages 171-172
Cited by 40 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Louis P. Hagopian et al.
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, February 1998, Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 211–235
Cited by 474 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): David P. Wacker et al.
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 1990, Volume 23, Number 4, Pages 417-429
Cited by 510 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Matthew L. Israel, Nathan A. Blenkush, Robert E. von Heyn and Patricia M. Rivera
Published in: The Journal of Behavior Analysis of Offender and Victim Treatment and Prevention, 2008, Volume 1, Number 4, Pages 119-166
Cited by 12 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: Although the use of punishment has been controversial for number of years, research findings suggest that punishment still remains an important option for behavior problems. — Foxx, 2003
Review the Science
Author(s): Richard M. Foxx
Published in: In Behavioral Interventions, February 2003, Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-21
Cited by 38 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: The use of punishment is especially effective when the reinforcers maintaining the problem behavior can’t be identified and/or controlled.  — Fisher et al., 1993; Lindberg, Iwata & Kahng, 1999; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002
Review the Science
Author(s): Wayne W Fisher et al.
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, February 1993, Volume 26, Number 1, Pages 23-36
Cited by 375 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Jana S. Lindberg, Brian A. Iwata and Sungwoo Kahng
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, February 1999, Volume 26, Number 1, Pages 23-36
Cited by 85 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Dorothea C. Lerman and Christina M. Vorndran
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 431-464
Cited by 444 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: Punishment is the treatment of choice for life threatening behavior that must be suppressed rapidly to prevent serious harm to itself or others. — Foxx, 2003
Review the Science
Author(s): Richard M. Foxx
Published in: In Behavioral Interventions, February 2003, Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-21
Cited by 38 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

4. Claim: Punishment Does Not Teach A Desired Behavior

Start Time: 25:25
Claim: Punishment Does Not Teach A Desired Behavior. — Murray Sidman: Coercion and Its Fallout, 2000 (book)

This is a silly argument. Punishment is not supposed to teach dogs new behaviors or what to do instead of a problem behavior. That’s what Positive and Negative Reinforcement is for. Punishment is used to reduce and extinguish behaviors.

5. Claim: Punishment Creates Fear

Start Time: 25:49

This is misleading as fear of dangerous, injurous or destructive behaviors is a good thing. Appropriate fears keep all of us alive. For example, if we can teach a dog to be afraid of rattlesnakes, it will avoid them and not get killed. Fear of rattlesnakes is healthy. Fear of dangerous things is one of the most natural ways of learning not to do something that will harm or kill us (or a dog). This would be similar with car chasing, livestock predation, self-mutilation or other dangerous or unacceptable behaviors. In many instances, appropriate fear can be a powerful motivator for learning and can help dogs adopt good behaviors that keep them safe.

6. Claim: Aversives Create Learned Helplessness

Start Time: 27:50

When dogs learn how to successfully escape an aversive, they will show normal learning behavior of escape and avoidance learning. There is no negative fallout and they develop resistance to learned helplessness. Without pre-training on how to avoid aversives successfully, learned helplessness will develop. So, the key is proper pre-training.

Claim: When dogs are initially exposed to an inescapable electrical stimulus, they will not try to learn an avoidance strategy later, even when one was available. This is referred to as learned helplessness.  — Seligman & Maier, 1967
Fact: This claim is correct but represents the worst-case scenario and requires the trainer to be incompetent. The same researchers found in a subsequent study—two years later—that pre-training with an electric stimulus created resistance to the development of learned helplessness. — Maier, Seligman & Solomon, 1969
Review the Science
Author(s): Martin E. P. Seligman and Steven F. Maier
Published in: Journal of Experimental Psychology, May 1967, Volume 74, Number 1, Pages 1-9
Cited by 3454 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Steven F. Maier, Martin E. P. Seligman and Richard L. Solomon
Published in: Punishment and Aversive Behavior (The Century Psychology Series) by Byron A. Campbell, Russell M. Church, 1960, Pages 299-342
Cited by 502 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Note:The study outlining the risk was cited 3454 times, while the study outlining the solution was only cited 502 times. Seven times more people only care about the problem and not the solution. Ask yourself, why that is.
Fact: More recent studies found that exposure to aversives that can be controlled by the animal’s behavior help build increased resiliance not only to the aversive in question but more broadly to stressors in general. Therefore—theoretically—controlled exposure to aversives could somewhat paradoxically improve the long-term well-being of dogs. — Vollmer, 2002; Lerman & Vorndran, 2002; Volpicelli et al., 1983
Review the Science
Author(s): Timothy R. Vollmer
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 469-473
Cited by 52 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Dorothea C. Lerman and Christina M. Vorndran
Published in: Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Winter 2002, Volume 35, Number 4, Pages 431-464
Cited by 444 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Joseph R. Volpicelli, Ronald R. Ulm, Aidan Altenor and Martin E. P. Seligman
Published in: Learning and Motivation, May 1983, Volume 14, Number 2, Pages 204-222
Cited by 57 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

Negative Reinforcement

Start Time: 30:06
Fact: Every reinforcement includes both negative and positive aspects. It is impossible to separate positive reinforcement from negative reinforcement. — Michael, 1975; Baron & Galizio, 2005
Review the Science
Author(s): Jack Michael
Published in: Behaviorism, Spring 1975, Volume 3, Number 1, Pages 33-44
Cited by 193 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Baron and Galizio
Published in: The Behavior Analyst, Fall 2005, Volume 28, Number 2, Pages 85-98
Cited by 134 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: The results of the analysis suggest that contingent skin shock is by far the most effective procedure and has the most favorable side effect profile. — Blenkush, 2017
Review the Science
Author(s): Nathan A. Blenkush
Published in: International Journal of Psychology & Behavior Analysis, February 2017, Volume 3
Cited by 4 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

Training Equipment

Start Time: 31:50
Claim: Force-Free trainers state that head collars and no-pull harnesses are the only training tools that should be used as they are not aversive and don’t cause pain.
Fact: Head collars and no-pull harnesses are aversive tools. Additionally, these collars are alleged to work by mimicking natural dominance behaviors thereby increasing deference and obedience to the owner. — Overall, 1997; Ogburn et al., 1998; Haug, 2002
Review the Science
Author(s): Lore I. Haug et al.
Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, September 2002, Volume 79, Number 1, Pages 53-61
Cited by 10 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Karen L. Overall
Published in: Book, January 1997 (Buy)
Cited by 663 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Philip Ogburn et al.
Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, December 1998, Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 133-142
Cited by 31 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

The Electric Collar

Start Time: 37:40
Fact: … led to the conclusion that animals, which were able to clearly associate the electric stimulus with their action, i.e. touching the prey, and consequently were able to predict and control the stressor, did not show considerable or persistent stress indicators. — Schalke et al., 2006
Review the Science
Author(s): E. Schalke et al., 2006
Published in: In Applied Animal Behaviour Science, December 2006, Volume 105, Pages 369–380
Cited by 105 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: All had experienced years of failed attempts to control their aggression through large pharmacological interventions and restricting their freedom of movement via restrictive environments. The use of comprehensive multifaceted behavioral programs involving punishment resulted in dramatic and lasting reductions in aggression, the elimination or great reduction of drug use, and major lifestyle improvements. — Foxx, 2003
Review the Science
Author(s): Richard M. Foxx
Published in: In Behavioral Interventions, February 2003, Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-21
Cited by 38 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: In a study of 41 Elkhounds, 29 hunting dogs and 68 English Setters behaviors indicative of motivation for chasing or attacking sheep were examined in three different way and successfully suppressed. — Christiansen, et al., 2001
Review the Science
Author(s): Frank O. Christiansen, et al.
Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, May 2001, Volume 72, Number 2, Pages 115-129
Cited by 54 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: There is a controversy about the use of aversive stimuli for the treatment of self-injurious, aggressive, and other dangerous behaviors with individuals with mental retardation and autism. The validity of argumentation in favor of CS is, amongst others, related to safety of the electrical shock (i.e., given its effectiveness). This study adds to this argument by demonstrating that 48 (healthy) individuals who were administered a total of 480 clinical electrical shocks failed to experience any negative effects (e.g., fainting, aggressive reactions, escape). — Duker et al, 2002
Review the Science
Author(s): Pieter C. Duker et al.
Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Volume 23, Issue 4, July–August 2002, Pages 285-292
Cited by 6 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: When treatment was compared to baseline measures, results showed that with all behavior categories, individuals either significantly improved, or did not show any change. Negative side effects failed to be found in this study. — van Oorsouw et al., 2008; Linscheid et al., 1994; Rechter & Vrablic, 1974
Review the Science
Author(s): W.M.W.J van Oorsouw et al.
Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, November–December 2008, Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 513-523
Cited by 18 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Thomas R. Linscheid, Carrie Pejeau, Sheila Cohen and Marianna Footo-Lenz
Published in: Research in Developmental Disabilities, January/February 1994, Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 81-90
Cited by 39 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Emanuel Rechter M.D. and Martin Vrablic M.A.
Published in: Psychiatric Quarterly, September 1974, Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 445–449
Cited by 11 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: The study ‘Evaluation of an Aversion-Based Program Designed to Reduce Predation of Native Birds by Dogs’ is the most comprehensive study on supressing predation through aversion training ever conducted. The study spanned multiple years from 1998-2007. During this time frame a totals of six training sessions were conducted. After the fifth training session all of the dogs showed 100% avoidance towards the Kiwi birds. This result remained the same during the sixth training session. Of the 1156 dog in this study, 843 dogs stopped chasing Kiwi after only one shock. 313 dogs needed two shocks to stop. 128 needed three shocks to stop. Only 42 dogs needed four shocks to stop completely. No dog needed more than four shocks. The study included follow-ups to assess long-term effects. No negative long-term side effects were found. — Dale et al., 2017
Review the Science
Author(s): Arnja R. Dale, Christopher A. Podlesnik and Douglas Elliffe
Published in: Applied Animal Behaviour Science, March 2017, Volume 191, June 2017, Pages 59-66
Cited by 10 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.

The following three studies are a great example on how the force-free community tries to manipulate studies to create the findings they want. Unfortunately for them, they were caught in this case.

This poorly constructed study is quoted a lot by the force-free training community. The focus of the training was on training recalls from chasing sheep. However, the dogs were kept on leash and the sheep in play pens. Read that last sentence again. Yes, that is what they did to prove rewards-based training works and e-collars are unnecessary. Hardly a valid setup. Thanks to Sargisson and McLean this was called out a year later (see below).

Claim: Rewards-based training is effective in stopping dogs from livestock predation. Shock-collars are unnecessary. — Cooper, et al., 2014; China et al, 2020
Review the Science
Author(s): J. J. Cooper, et al.
Published in: PLoS ONE, September 2014, Volume 9, Issue 9, e102722
Cited by 65 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Author(s): Lucy China, Daniel S. Mills and Jonathan J. Cooper
Published in: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2020, Volume 7, Article 508
Cited by 32 other articles and studies per Google Scholar.
Fact: Fortunately, in 2021 Sargisson et al, reviewed the work of China et al, 2020 and stated: Attacks by dogs are unlikely to be initiated when the owner is within 1m (3ft) and the dog is on-lead. China et al.’s results shed no light on the possible behavior of the dog off-lead or when the owner is absent, and therefore cannot be used as an empirical justification for removing e-collars as a technique for treating dogs with behavioural problems. — Sargisson & McLean, 2021
Review the Science
Author(s): Rebecca J. Sargisson and Ian G. McLean
Published in: Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2021, Volume 8, 629746
Cited by 2 other articles and studies per University of Waikato.
Fact: The output of an e-collar tested by the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Dix, 1991) was found to produce 3000 times less electrical energy than that allowed by standards for electrical fences, six times less electrical energy than that produced by the static discharge produced by walking on a carpet, and 50 times less than what is considered necessary to reach pain thresholds. — Dix, 1991
Review the Science
Study: Investigation Of Sonic Invisible Boundaries Unit  (PDF)
Author(s): G.I. Dix
Published in: BMC Veterinary Research, 1991, Volume 8, Issue 93
Fact: The traditional measure of intensity dynamic range is the ratio of the stimulation currents required to produce sensation threshold Is and pain threshold Ip. Ip/ls typically ranges from 2-4 for unexperienced subjects and 6-8 for experienced subjects. This means when someone is conditioned to the sensation it takes about double the intensity to get a reaction. — Kaczmarek, 1991
Review the Science
Author(s): Kurt Alan Kaczmarek
Published in: Dissertation, 1991, University of Wisconsin–Madison

Category: General Information Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Watch the Video

 

Related Articles

 

You May Also Like ...

These are some of our most popular articles. You may like them as well. Check them out!

Services and Area

We are located in Southern California and train dogs nationwide. Happy Dog Training currently offers local dog training services in the following counties. Riverside County, Orange County, San Bernardino County, Los Angeles County, and San Diego County. In addition, we offer our board-and-train program nationwide and all virtual training services worldwide.

Do you want your new puppy trained right from the start? Are you looking for help for your fearful dog? Do you need to resolve a severe aggression problem? You came to the right place! We are experienced, professional dog trainers. Ralf has trained over 1500 dogs in over 18 years, and Sarah has trained over 1200 dogs in over 11 years. Consequently, we can help you with any dog training goal.

What We Offer

For many of our clients, we train their dogs from puppyhood, getting them off to a great start. However, we also have extensive experience training rescue dogs from all imaginable backgrounds and circumstances. Our Board-and-Train program is our most popular.

We can help you, regardless of your dog's challenges or training goals. Being a professional dog trainer means having experience, knowledge, and skill. Further, we developed a highly effective training program to specifically help fearful dogs gain more confidence and become the best possible version of themselves. Building Confidence is our second most popular training program.

Last but not least, we are experts in dealing with all types of aggression in dogs and are often the trainers of last resort after many other programs have failed. Most of our aggressive dog clients previously spent significant money on half-baked solutions without much improvement. This is different from us. We will give you an honest assessment of what goals are realistic for your dog. We will tell you what can be resolved reliably and what likely needs to be managed before we start.

Our flagship product is our board and train program. But our virtual dog training and coaching services have become quite popular over the last couple of years. Our setup enables us to deliver online dog training services from our indoor and outdoor training areas. This allows us to help clients worldwide.

Other Resources

Also, check out our Free Dog Training tips on Separation Anxiety in Dogs, Potty Training aka Housebreaking, and Leash Handling for expert solutions to common challenges.

Additional Services: Presentations and Q&As on Dogs | Professional Service Dog Training

Contact Us and Start Training

Finally, once you're ready to move forward, please use our dog training contact form to schedule a free phone consultation or book a paid, in-person consultation.

Terms, Conditions and Privacy Policy

By using this website you agree to all Terms and Conditions and our Privacy Policy.

About Ralf and Sarah

Happy Dog Training is the pet dog training business of Ralf Weber and Sarah Gill. We are certified professional dog trainers in Southern California. We are specialized in advanced obedience training, all forms or behavioral challenges and service dog training. For behavioral training, we are known for our work with aggressive and fearful dogs. Our service dogs, through Total K9 Focus, have a nationwide reputation for their reliability, longevity and performance.

Ralf Weber, MS, TWC CPDT, IACP CDT, CDTA

Certified Professional Dog Trainer Ralf Weber is lead pet dog trainer of Happy Dog Training. Ralf is a long-time dog owner of German Shepherds. During his career, Ralf has worked with over a 1500 dogs of many different breeds. Moreover, Ralf has a thorough understanding of all aspects of canine training. This includes evolutionary psychology, ethology, and, most importantly, learning science. Ralf is specialized in resolving dog behavior challenges—especially fear and aggression. Apart from this, Ralf trains dogs in basic and advanced obedience, service dog tasks, and GRC Dog Sports. Ralf is further certified in a broad range of other canine training areas. Last but not least, Ralf is the author of the behavioral book If Your Dog Could Talk: Understand Your Dog Like Never Before.

Ralf loves helping people have a better relationship with their dogs. He is a certified professional dog trainer in the Training without Conflict™ methodology by Ivan Balabanov (TWC CPDT). Ralf is also a member of the International Association of Canine Professionals and also holds their basic and advanced dog trainer certifications (IACP CDT, CDTA). In addition, Ralf is an AKC-approved evaluator for the AKC Puppy Star, CGC, and Advanced CGC programs and is also certified in canine first aid by the Red Cross.

Sarah Gill, Certified Professional Master Trainer

Sarah Gill, is a professional service dog trainer and handler. Sarah entered the world of professional service dog training after a car accident. As a result, she had to use a wheelchair for almost two years, trying to maneuver in a house not designed for it. No one expected Sarah would walk again. This opened her eyes and became a driving force behind pushing herself to defy the odds. When she regained some stability, Sarah attended a dog training school and learned how to train service dogs. Sarah completed her Master Trainer Certification and gained further experience by training new trainers. However, the school wasn’t accommodating to those with physical difficulties and PTSD. Hence, Sarah moved home to Dallas. In 2019, Sarah teamed up with Ralf and moved to California.

Sarah started this journey because she had a trained dog to mitigate her disabilities. But Sarah needed additional tasking for a new diagnosis. The only option she could find was getting a second dog for the new diagnosis. She knew there had to be a different way to address this. Sarah's passion is changing the ways of the service dog training industry.