Some people, especially “balanced trainers”, will insist that punishment-based training methods are necessary sometimes, often equating “emergency management” with “teaching”, using the example of yanking on the leash if a dog is about to run into traffic. I strongly argue that “management” is not the same as “teaching.”
Humane and effective management to prevent unwanted behaviours is an important part of a good training plan, but management is not the same as teaching.
If a dog is about do a behaviour that is dangerous, such as run into traffic or bite someone, and the person holding the leash pulls back on it to prevent the dog from doing the dangerous behaviour, I consider the actions of the person as “emergency management” and not “teaching.”
Setting up a dog to fail is not ethical, humane, or effective training
If someone is training in a way that puts a dog into this situation — on purpose or because of incompetence — then this trainer needs to reconsider how they are training. Setting a dog up to fail and then be corrected is less effective than using positive reinforcement training, and it has a high risk of negative fallout. A person who can recognize subtle canine stress signals is better able to remove a dog from the situation before the dog escalates to extreme and dangerous behaviours.
Dog Training Fallacies
The use of aversive methods and equipment is often claimed to be necessary because of [insert emergency situation here]. The “emergency measures” defence is a common argument that promoters of aversive training methods (including “balanced trainers”) use to defend their actions. I have encountered this false argument many times over the years from people who insist that the use of coercion, force, and aversive tools is needed to effectively train dogs.
Often the person claims that the aversive method or tool is necessary to save the dog’s life (e.g., to prevent dangerous behaviours or behavioural euthanasia). The argument is usually framed in a way to suggest that anyone who is opposed to aversive methods or tools in dog training would rather see the dog face death (a straw man fallacy). But this argumentative defence relies on false claims. One popular false idea is that dogs that have been euthanized due to severe behavioural problems could have avoided this fate if they had only been trained with aversive methods (shock collars, for example); this is unfounded and is in direct opposition to the massive efforts force-free trainers have been doing to successfully rehabilitate dogs that have suffered from the fallout of aversive training methods.
It is also incorrect to assume that aversive methods and tools are more effective in addressing severe behaviours that would lead to a dog facing behavioural euthanasia. The fact is, many highly regarded organizations, including the AVSAB (American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior) and the BC SPCA, have explicitly stated that that aversive training methods are not necessary and should be avoided, the main reasons being efficacy in training, safety, and the welfare of the dog.
Another popular example that proponents of aversive methods use is their insistence that the only way to prevent a dog from performing dangerous behaviours such as chasing cats or wildlife is to use aversive methods or tools. This is absolutely false. See Predation Substitute Training for an example of how to humanely train a dog not to chase wildlife.
People all over the world are successfully training dogs to high levels of performance without resorting to shock collars and other assorted aversive tools and methods that rely on discomfort, coercion, and fear. It’s a choice. When people know better, they do better.
Certified Professional Dog Training 