There's No Place for Shock and Prong in Dog Training

Two professional organizations recently updated their policies. Only one made a commitment to reward-based training.

Dog training methods need to be effective and safe for dogs (and their guardians). As the evidence on aversive training methods builds up, many organizations have adopted positions that only allow the use of reward-based approaches (sometimes called force free or positive). Now, two more organizations have updated their policies.

Photo: Danielle W. Press/Shutterstock

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants is to be congratulated on its decision to rule out the use of aversive methods by its members.

Unfortunately, the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers decided to still allow aversives, including shock and prong collars, in some circumstances.

More on this in a moment, but first, here’s why it matters.

Professional associations’ positions on dog training matter

In this day and age, for a professional organization to update its policies and still allow shock and prong collars is something of a surprise.

It matters because ordinary dog guardians may look to professional associations to find dog trainers, and they should know that the people they find will use modern methods that don’t involve fear or pain.

We should be able to refer people to members of organizations without having to add a caveat that you need to check they will only use reward-based methods.

In my book Bark! The Science of Helping Your Anxious, Fearful, or Reactive Dog, I wrote,

“Given the mounting evidence against aversive training, it’s past time for every organization of professional dog trainers to ban membership or certification to anyone who uses these methods. Not doing so gives legitimacy to those trainers and helps them find more clients. It makes it difficult for ordinary people to find a good dog trainer, because they can’t rely on those certifications to mean the training will be humane. And it makes it difficult for dog guardians to find good sources of advice.”

Position statements by professional organizations are important to show that members will use appropriate, up-to-date methods. And of course, dog trainers and animal behavior consultants should be proud to be members or certificants of the organizations they join.

These position statements are also part of the wider landscape of dog training that helps ordinary people understand the importance of using force-free methods to train dogs (Todd, 2018).

Let’s look briefly at the reasons why aversive methods are bad for dogs, and then at these two organizations’ positions on training methods.

The risks of aversive methods

The scientific evidence on dog training methods finds that a number of risks are associated with their use, including an increased risk of fear, anxiety, stress, and aggression. Aversive methods are also associated with reduced levels of optimism and with a worse relationship with the guardian (see e.g. Ziv, 2017; de Castro 2019; China et al, 2020; Masson et al, 2018, for starters).

At the same time, it’s possible to get great results with reward-based methods. There is simply no need to use aversive methods; it’s a choice. Anyone who thinks they need to use aversive dog training methods should be referring the case to someone with more expertise.

Background

Previously, CCPDT and IAABC had joint standards of practice based around LIMA (Least Invasive, Minimally Aversive) and the Humane Hierarchy. This approach allows the use of positive punishment in some circumstances. (For criticisms of LIMA and an alternative, see Fernandez (2024)).

For the past several years, IAABC added a specific requirement for any member who wanted to use a shock collar to get in touch with them for a conversation about it; they say that no one was authorized to use one as a result of this policy.

What is the IAABC position?

The new position from the IAABC makes it very clear that aversive methods are no longer allowed by their members.

The IAABC Board of Directors told me in an email,

“The IAABC has been working hard over the past few years to update our standards of practice to include frameworks and language that are generative and accessible to not only the behavior professional but also caregivers, referring partners and the public. It has been our goal to clarify our stance on aversive methods, tools and the use of punishment and to remove any ambiguity around their use.

“We needed to clarify that the use of aversive stimuli is not consistent with our stance and organizational ethics. We stand against the intentional use of pain, fear, discomfort and intimidation in any behavior change procedure. In doing so we have worked to not use minimizing and restrictive language and instead focus on what to DO, not what not to do. The IAABC embraces up-to-date evidence in animal welfare and participate in shifting the focus beyond welfare to wellbeing.”

Thank you to IAABC for taking this stance that is so important for dog welfare.

What is the CCPDT’s position?

Their current position seems like a tightening up of the rules, since it puts restrictions on the use of shock and prong collars, including that shock should not be used on dogs under 1 and prong collars should not be used on dogs under 6 months, along with a requirement to monitor the dog for stress.

But, as mentioned above, there are risks associated with the use of aversive tools, so they should not be used on any dog.

Allowing the use of aversives in some circumstances helps to promote the myth that they are sometimes needed as a last resort. There is no evidence for this.

You don’t just have to take my word for it. The AVSAB position statement says that,

“There is no evidence that aversive methods are more effective that reward-based methods in any context.”

And here’s Masson et al (2018):

"There is no credible scientific evidence to justify e-collar use and the use of spray collars or electronic fences for dogs."

Some countries already ban the use of electronic shock collars in dog training because of concerns about those risks.

I would like to see CCPDT update their position and outlaw the use of shock collars and other aversive methods by their members.

The CCPDT told me in an email,

"The decision to update CCPDT’s policies was driven by a need to improve clarity and enforceability. The previous LIMA framework encouraged trainers to prioritize less intrusive methods, but it was broad, inconsistently interpreted, and challenging to enforce. The HBCP is a long-standing part of the CCPDT Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics. The CCPDT is maintaining professional adherence to the HBCP because its principles are grounded in well-established behavioral science and are supported by a substantial body of research. The HBCP also provides a clear and more structured decision-making model for behavior change that emphasizes reward-based training and welfare.

"With these updates, we established explicit limitations and parameters around the use of tools in our Prohibitive Practices Policy. These updates to the policy have strengthened and clarified existing CCPDT policies, not created new policies that now allow previously prohibited practices."

(Note: HBCP means Susan Friedman's Hierarchy of Behavior Change Procedures, part of the previous guidelines, which allow aversive methods in some circumstances).

It’s important to remember that many trainers who use only reward-based methods have the CCPDT certification. Just because a trainer is CPDT-KA or CCPDT-KSA doesn’t mean that they will use aversives. But you cannot take the certification itself to mean that they won’t, because the rules allow it.

Modern standards in dog training

Because of the research that shows risks to aversive methods, many organizations have position statements against the use of aversive methods to train dogs. They include the Academy for Dog Trainers, American Veterinary Society for Animal Behavior, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, AnimalKind, Association of Professional Dog Trainers International, Association of Professional Dog Trainers UK, Association of Professional Dog Trainers NZ, BC SPCA, Canadian Association of Professional Dog Trainers, the Animal Behaviour and Training Council, Dogs Trust, Karen Pryor Academy, Pet Professional Guild, Pet Professional Guild Australia, Victoria Stilwell Academy, and more.

It's great to now be able to include the IAABC in that list.

Reward-Based Certifications

For dog trainers and behaviour consultants wanting a credential that is reward-based only, there are a couple of options.

The Pet Professional Guild has had a force-free approach since the beginning. The Pet Professional Accreditation Board offers Canine Training Technician Accreditation (CTT-A), Professional Canine Trainer Accreditation (PCT-A) and Professional Canine Behaviour Consultant Accreditation (PCBC-A). It’s possible to transfer existing certifications to them.

The IAABC offers a number of credentials including Certified Dog Behaviour Consultant (CDBC), Accredited Dog Trainer (IAABC-ADT), and Shelter Behaviour Affiliate (SBA).

These credentials are independent of dog training schools which require their students and graduates to only use reward-based methods (such as the Academy for Dog Trainers, Karen Pryor Academy, Pat Miller's Peaceable Paws Academy, Victoria Stilwell Academy).

Modern dog training

Modern dog training doesn’t use aversives. It involves making changes to the dog’s environment (aka management), training with reward-based methods, and sometimes, the use of pharmaceuticals as recommended by a veterinarian or veterinary behaviourist.

These days, there are so many educated trainers who are able to get the job done using only reward-based methods. We’ve really come a long way—and it’s time for all dog training organizations to recognize this.

In the meantime, if you want to hire a dog trainer, the easiest way to ensure a trainer will only use reward-based methods is to find them via an organization with a clear position statement that does not allow the use of aversives.

Further reading

If you'd like a summary of the evidence on dog training methods, you'll find one in my book Bark!.

Note: An earlier version of this article said that I reached out to CCPDT for comment but they did not get back to me by deadline. They subsequently sent me a comment, and the piece has been updated to reflect that, and to explain what they mean by HBCP.

References

de Castro, A. C. V., Barrett, J., de Sousa, L., & Olsson, I. A. S. (2019). Carrots versus sticks: The relationship between training methods and dog-owner attachment. Applied animal behaviour science, 219, 104831.

China, L., Mills, D.S. & Cooper, J.J. (2020) Efficacy of dog training with and without remote electronic collars vs. a focus on positive reinforcement. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

Fernandez, E. J. (2024). The Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 71, 63-68.

Masson, S., de la Vega, S., Gazzano, A., Mariti, C., Pereira, G. D. G., Halsberghe, C., Leyvraz, A.M., McPeake, K. & Schoening, B. (2018). Electronic training devices: discussion on the pros and cons of their use in dogs as a basis for the position statement of the European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE). Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 29, 71-75.

Todd, Z. (2018). Barriers to the Adoption of Humane Dog Training Methods. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research. 25C(28-34).

Ziv, G. (2017) The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs – a review. Journal of Veterinary Behaviour, 19:50-60.