Critical Thinking in Dog Training:
- RuffStartDogTraining
- Jul 4
- 7 min read
Why Our Dogs Deserve Better Than Social Media
Just one day this week I've seen:
A trainer suggesting removing all of an aggressive dog's healthy teeth instead of considering behavioural euthanasia.
Claims that force-free trainers are always telling owners to put their dogs to sleep.
Every other post saying about the scientific method.
A trainer talking about skinners pigeon experiments and how it shouldn't apply to dogs.
A prominent positive reinforcement trainer sharing videos of obvious animal abuse and claiming, "This is what balanced trainers do." Ironically, this is also someone who recommends head halters—equipment I personally choose not to use because of concerns about the forces they can place on a dog's neck if a dog lunges suddenly or they're used incorrectly. That said, I completely understand why some trainers and owners choose them as a management tool.
None of these things represent reality.
Before anyone jumps to conclusions, this isn't an attack on force-free trainers, balanced trainers or positive reinforcement trainers. It's an attack on lazy thinking.
I believe there are exceptional trainers—and poor trainers—across every methodology. My concern isn't what someone calls themselves; it's whether they're willing to think critically, follow the evidence, admit when they don't know something, and always put the welfare of the dog first.
The biggest problem in the dog training industry today isn't balanced trainers. It isn't force-free trainers. It isn't positive reinforcement trainers.
It's the growing tendency to choose ideology over evidence.
Social media has created an environment where people are rewarded for being the loudest, not the most accurate. Nuance doesn't get shared. Outrage does. Algorithms reward conflict because conflict keeps people scrolling.
As owners, trainers and behaviour professionals, we have a responsibility to be better than that.
Removing Teeth Doesn't Fix Aggression
One of the most shocking suggestions I saw this week was that removing all of an aggressive dog's healthy teeth—often referred to as "defanging"—is preferable to behavioural euthanasia.
At first glance, it might sound compassionate. After all, the dog stays alive.
But aggression isn't caused by teeth.
Teeth are simply the tool a dog uses. The reasons behind aggression—fear, anxiety, pain, frustration, genetics, neurological disease or previous learning—remain exactly the same.
Removing healthy teeth doesn't stop fear. It doesn't stop anxiety. It doesn't change the dog's emotional state. It simply removes one means by which the dog can cause injury.
We have to ask ourselves a difficult question:
Are we improving the dog's quality of life, or are we simply making the dog safer for us?
Personally, I believe that's the right question to ask. The conversation should always begin with welfare.
There are legal and ethical considerations too. In the UK, removing healthy teeth purely to prevent biting would raise serious concerns under animal welfare legislation. Procedures that amount to unnecessary mutilation are tightly restricted, and extracting healthy teeth without a genuine veterinary justification would be extremely difficult to defend.
Behavioural Euthanasia Is Never an Easy Decision
Few subjects create more emotion than behavioural euthanasia.
Many people believe that if a dog is physically healthy, it should always be kept alive.
I understand that viewpoint.
Nobody wants to lose a dog.
But welfare is about more than simply keeping an animal alive.
While getting Ruff Start Dog Training established, I've been working part-time in a residential care home carrying out maintenance. Although I not involved in direct care, I spend a great deal of time around residents living with chronic pain, advanced dementia and significant emotional distress.
These experiences inevitably have shaped how I think about quality of life.
I'm not comparing dogs to people.
What I am saying is that seeing that suffering has taught me that keeping someone alive isn't always the same as preventing suffering.
The same principle applies to dogs.
If a dog is living in a constant state of fear, anxiety or neurological dysfunction, and poses a significant risk despite appropriate behavioural intervention, veterinary assessment and management, behavioural euthanasia may sometimes be the kindest option available.
That isn't giving up.
It isn't taking the easy option.
And it certainly isn't a decision that ethical trainers or veterinary professionals recommend lightly.
Science Isn't About Being Right
One phrase I hear a lot in dog training is, "The science says..."
As someone who spent over twenty years working in science, I find that argument difficult to take seriously.
Science isn't a collection of facts carved in stone. It's a process.
In the twenty years I worked in science, I saw ideas challenged, theories refined and accepted "truths" updated as new evidence emerged. That's not a weakness of science—it's its greatest strength.
Good science doesn't begin with, "I know I'm right."
It begins with, "I wonder if I'm wrong?"
Science is about curiosity.
It's about looking at the world through a child's eyes and asking, "Why?"
It's about testing ideas, questioning assumptions and following the evidence wherever it leads—even when that evidence challenges your own beliefs.
Some of the best people I've worked with were the ones who were genuinely excited to discover they were wrong, because being wrong meant they had learnt something new.
That's a mindset I think the dog training world could benefit from.
Too often, people use the phrase "science says" as if it ends the conversation.
It doesn't.
Science isn't a weapon to win arguments.
It's a method for asking better questions.
The evidence we have today is the best evidence available today. That doesn't mean it's the final answer. Tomorrow we may have better research, better technology or a deeper understanding that changes how we think.
That's exactly how science is supposed to work.
As trainers, we should be willing to do the same.
If new, high-quality evidence shows that something I believe today isn't correct, I hope I'll have the humility to change my mind.
Because my goal isn't to be right.
My goal is to help dogs.
If that means changing my approach as our understanding evolves, then that's not failure.
That's growth.
What have pigeons got to do with dogs.
The Psychology Behind Dog Training
Much of dog training comes from psychology, physiology and behavioural science. Ivan Pavlov was studying digestion, not dog training, when he described classical conditioning. B.F. Skinner's work with rats and pigeons explored operant conditioning and the four quadrants. Edward Thorndike developed the Law of Effect working with cats. David Premack described the Premack Principle, where a highly probable behaviour can reinforce a less probable one was done on children and rats. Other important concepts include habituation, sensitisation, desensitisation, counterconditioning, extinction, generalisation, discrimination and reinforcement schedules.
e training
Stop Judging Entire Training Philosophies
Another trend I've noticed is people taking the worst example they can find and pretending it represents an entire training philosophy.
A force-free trainer recommends euthanasia in one difficult case?
Suddenly, "Force-free trainers kill dogs."
Someone abuses a dog while calling themselves balanced?
Suddenly, "Balanced training is abuse."
Neither statement is true.
Every training philosophy has ethical professionals.
Every training philosophy has people I disagree with.
The label someone uses tells you very little.
Their knowledge, humility, ethics and willingness to continue learning tell you far more.
My Thoughts on Head harnesses
Want to start an argument ask online about Head halters. My preferred oxymoron at the moment is gentle leaders.
Personally, I don't like or use them.
My concern is the potential forces that can be placed on a dog's neck if they hit the end of the lead unexpectedly or if the equipment is misused. Some dogs also find them highly aversive unless they are introduced gradually and positively.
However, I completely understand why some trainers, behaviourists and owners choose them.
The important thing is recognising what they are.
They are a management tool, not a training solution.
No collar, harness, head halter or lead changes a dog's emotions.
Training changes behaviour.
Understanding changes behaviour.
Building trust changes behaviour.
Equipment simply helps us manage situations more safely.
Keep Learning
Throughout my journey I've learnt from force-free trainers, balanced trainers, veterinary professionals, behaviourists and, perhaps most importantly, from the dogs themselves.
Good ideas aren't owned by one label.
Dogs certainly don't care what title we give ourselves.
They care that we understand them.
They care that we communicate clearly.
They care that we help them succeed.
If there's one thing I'd encourage every dog owner to do, it's this:
Question what you read.
Ask where the evidence comes from.
Challenge your own beliefs.
Be cautious of anyone who claims to have the only ethical approach.
And be especially cautious of anyone who builds their reputation by attacking everyone else.
A good trainer isn't the one who wins arguments online.
A good trainer is the one who keeps learning, is willing to change their mind when new evidence emerges, and always puts the welfare of the dog ahead of their own ego.
At Ruff Start Dog Training, that's the philosophy I try to follow.
Not ideology.
Not internet popularity.
Not labels.
Just doing what's in the best interests of the dog standing in front of me.
Critical thinking isn't about proving you're right. It's about being willing to change your mind when the evidence—or the welfare of the dog—demands it.
Our dogs don't care whether we're balanced, force-free or somewhere in between.
They care whether we understand them.
That's what our dogs deserve.
References & Further Reading
I don't expect everyone to agree with me—and that's okay. My aim is to encourage discussion based on evidence rather than emotion. If you'd like to explore these topics further, here are some starting points.
UK Legislation & Professional Guidance
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007
Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) – Guidance on legal and ethical veterinary procedures.
Behavioural Euthanasia
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behaviour (AVSAB) – Position statements on humane behaviour management.
British Veterinary Behaviour Association (BVBA) – Resources on behavioural medicine and welfare.
Head Halters & Walking Equipment
British Veterinary Nursing Association (BVNA) – Articles discussing the benefits and limitations of collars, harnesses and head halters.
Pet Professional Guild (PPG) – Guidance on force-free equipment and handling.
The point of sharing these isn't to tell you what to think.
It's to encourage you to read, question, compare different viewpoints and make informed decisions.
Because that's what critical thinking is all about.
Comments