animal friendly teaching

yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

FUCKIN YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

no BULLSHIT I KID YOU NOT! Look what I found while walking Home…..

OH MY GOD

OH MY F*CKIN GOD

THIS POST FUCKIN WORKS?!?!?! THIS IS PAST A COINCIDENCE NO WAY!??! NO FRIGGIN WAY!!! 

X X X X X

I have to be a pedant here but this infographic is getting training terms wrong again. Striking a dog or putting their nose in poop is positive punishment, because you’re adding something to try to decrease the behavior happening again. People get positive punishment confused with negative reinforcement all the time (seriously it’s one of the hardest things for trainers to define sometimes), but they’re not the same. (Negative reinforcement involves removing something to make a behavior happen more frequently - it’s often called pressure and release training, and can be used with positive punishment but is not always). 

“We travel not to escape life, but for life not to escape us.” – Anonymous

Travel is an experience to be savored. Enjoy every minute in comfort and style by booking VIP airport lounge access with @loungebuddy.

Guests: “She’s gonna make them do jumps and stuff!!” 

Me: *dips sample bottle into water, walks away*

Guests: “Oh the whales are gonna have a show!”

Me: *Gets down on knees, scrubs scum line*

Guests: “It’s feeding time!!”

Edit: Since this keeps getting so many notes just making extra clear that this isn’t mine and this is the source>

(Src: My sister wanted me to take photos of her and her white shepherd Luna last night. It was freezing cold and pitch black, but it made them kind of magical.)

As I’m sure you’ve heard by now SeaWorld announced that they’re partnering with The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and ending the breeding of captive orcas, effectively phasing the species out of their facilities over the next ~50 years. This announcement was sudden and shocking - hell, most SW staff found out the same way we did, with the morning news - and has caused lots of yelling all around. The animal rights people are rejoicing that it’s the first victory in a long war, the zoo world is generally acting like the sky is falling, and the rest of us are kind of stuck sitting here trying to figure out if this is a move we should support. Basically every article out there is biased to one degree or another and that makes it really #*$&ing hard to find reliable sources on the different parts of an issue. So… I’m going to write you a breakdown of as much as I’ve been able to suss out. I’m not going to tell you what conclusions to draw or what side to support - I’m just going to give you the best informed discussion of all of the different sides that I can.

There are two issues really being discussed with this announcement - the cessation of breeding and the partnership with HSUS are both pretty monumental and controversial moves. This post will cover the HSUS and SeaWorld partnership - a subsequent one will talk about the specifics of the choice to cease breeding captive orcas. This is simply because they’re both such long topics to cover that for accessibility they shouldn’t be in one post.

What is HSUS?

The Humane Society of the United States is an organization with a pretty shady past, present and future. Despite what you might think from the words ‘humane society’ in the organization’s name, they’re not actually associated with with animal shelters nor do they run spay/neuter programs (source), take in animals, or do any of the outreach and community support the term implies. Very little of the money they bring in actually goes to any sorts of animal care - even though their most successful ad campaigns involve tugging on the heartstrings of viewers with images of animals in shelters. They’ve got $195 million in assets at last count, which is basically enough to fund animal shelters in every state, but… they don’t. 

Instead, they spend “millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics” (source). They’ve shown a distressing lack of institutional ethics: they’ve been caught lying to congress (source), bribing witnesses (source), and then paying out to settle a subsequent racketeering charge (source). There’s also an investigation into the conduct of a Kentucky congressman who may have illegally been lobbying for HSUS (source). HSUS is “a radical animal rights group that inaccurately portrays itself as a mainstream animal care organization” (Source).

While HSUS originally started as an animal welfare organization in the 1950’s, it changed focus in 80’s to animal rights after a vote at that year’s national conference. This process involved a large personnel change within the organization, and HSUS hired staffers from all over the animal rights movement to high positions, including former PETA staffers (source) (who took on roles such as VP of investigations, investigations section staffers, and international affairs) and most notably an Animal Liberation Front member named John Goodwin (source)(source). 

There’s an important difference between animal welfare and animal rights:

“Animal rights organizations, which emerged in the early 1980s, seek to end the use and ownership of animals. Animal welfare organizations, on the other hand, have existed for decades and seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.”

It’s hard to tell why, exactly, HSUS chose to change their charter and radicalize so quickly. While it’s possible that the members at the time were genuinely convinced of the need for their new viewpoint, it’s likely it was motivated by money. HSUS’s president (1970-1996) John Hoyt was recorded as remarking: 

“PeTA successfully stole the spotlight… . Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency (…) have been ignored. (…) Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing” (source).

In general, HSUS’s modus operandi is to appeal to people while being incredibly misleading with their intent and the usage of the money that comes in. HSUS informercials state that for $19 a month you can help them care for abused animals - but, as an organization that doesn’t run any actual shelters or rescue organizations, just $1.03 out of the suggested $228 yearly donation would actually reach an animal shelter (source). They don’t disclose anywhere in their shelter-feels based ads that the money people are donating does not go to pet shelters or local humane organizations. They exploit animal abuse cases to boost fundraising but they rarely keep track of the animals they’re exploiting, much less ever donate the money raised to the care of those animals (Source). The list goes on and on, but the gist is that HSUS is very two-faced in many of their operations. They’ve supported Michael Vick, influenced community legislation and school curricula in backhanded ways, and often don’t speak out about the ‘humane’ treatments they claim to support. They filed a lawsuit against Ringling Bros over alleged elephant abuse in the year 2000, which was reported by an employee that turned out to have been paid off by multiple animal rights groups (source). They’ve been called out by news sources like the Washington Times as a ‘deceptive, predatory organization’ and in 

An article written in 2009 compared the operating ethos of organizations such as PETA and HSUS pretty deftly:  

“[Institutions such as HSUS] prefer to erode your rights slowly, over decades, rather than terrorizing you into a quick change of behavior against your will.  But their goals are the same as PETA’s: No meat or dairy, no hunting or fishing, no zoos or aquariums, no fur or leather, no pet ownership, no medical research using lab rats, and the list goes on.

In 1993, UC San Diego microbiologist Dr. Patrick Cleveland spelled out how PETA and HSUS share a “philosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals.” But their different “tactics and timetable for that abolition,” he wrote, are like the difference between a mugger and a con man. “They each will rob you — they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.” (source)”

How does HSUS feel about zoos and aquariums?

Officially, the HSUS statement on the existence of zoos and aquariums is this:

“The Humane Society of the United States believes that under most circumstances wild animals should ideally be permitted to exist undisturbed in their natural environments. Zoos are, however, a currently established part of our society and a fact of life. Some of them provide benefits for animals, such as financially supporting conservation programs and the preservation and restoration of threatened and endangered species, as well as promoting the education of people to the needs of wild animals and their role in ecosystems” (source).

That sounds pretty reasonable, and in-line with the Association of Zoo and Aquarium (AZA) accreditation standards (which all SeaWorld facilities have received). The AZA requirements are best summarized in the preamble of their 92-page standards document:

“Zoos and aquariums accredited by the Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA) are continuously evolving. A primary goal of AZA institutions is to achieve the highest standard of welfare for the animals in our care. Standards are constantly being raised, ensuring that animals in AZA institutions are receiving the best possible care from highly qualified staff, in modern facilities that represent best practice in our profession. 21st century AZA-accredited institutions and certified related facilities are expected to be leaders in the field and to embrace the highest quality facilities, programs, and staff available. Animals must be well cared for and housed in appropriate settings that provide an educational experience for visitors, and meet the animals’ physical, psychological, and social needs. Animals must be managed as appropriate for long-term genetic viability of the species, which means careful planning of resource allocation, exsitu breeding, and ex-situ/in-situ conservation and research” (source).

Except, then, the HSUS statement goes on to say this:

“Sadly, though, the antiquated zoo of yesteryear did not disappear with the advent of state-of-the-art exhibits that now dominate publicity about modern zoos. The dark side of the story is that thousands of wild animals, many endangered, continue to languish in roadside zoos and menageries. Often the care for these creatures barely meets even the minimal federal requirements for exhibiting animals. Unfortunately, only about 10 percent of the more than 2,000 animal exhibitors licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are also accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). Even some AZA-accredited zoos contain forgotten and outdated exhibits. These inadequate displays are often obscured by the multimillion-dollar exhibits that tend to focus on the more glamorous species and habitats.

Instead of being focused only on entertainment and profits, zoos and other facilities housing captive wild animals should be organized around a core mission that educates the public about the needs of the animals and the threats they face. Such zoos should maintain animals in conditions simulating their natural habitats as closely as possible, and treat the animals in their care with the highest degree of humaneness and professionalism. Achieving these requirements is imperative not only for the welfare of the animals, but also because inhumane or inappropriate conditions when viewed by an impressionable public, especially children, provide a negative learning experience by seeming to condone indifference or cruelty toward animals. And they do not teach anything about the lives of these magnificent creatures in the wild.

The HSUS works with zoos desiring to improve and having the capability to do so. We also urge zoos to act as sanctuaries for wild animals, providing facilities for animals in need rather than breeding them for exhibition purposes or acquiring them from the wild or from exotic animal dealers.”

That’s a pretty damning statement of intent couched in ‘but if they can do this we’ll say they’re probably okay’, and it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how zoological facilities work. Reputable facilities, such as the ones certified by AZA, do not import animals from the wild or buy them from exotic breeders. It’s often impossible to provide the highest standards of care in fully naturalistic exhibits due to such things as cleaning exhibits regularly, the difficulty in keeping animals from destroying naturalistic elements of exhibits such as horticulture through their natural behaviors, and the need for varied and plentiful enrichment during the entire life of an animal.

Remember how HSUS has a habit of being really misleading? Well, there’s one specific sentence in this statement that exhibits that perfectly. They say that “inhumane or inappropriate conditions when viewed by an impressionable public, especially children, provide a negative learning experience”, etc. That makes it sound like people learn bad things, right? Nope. In the realm of education research, a ‘positive learning experience’ means that the people learned what you wanted to teach them. ‘Negative learning experiences’ mean that the subjects learned the wrong thing or did not learn anything at all. This particular statement is likely to be a perversion of a study by Eric Jensen in 2013, since it’s the only one I’ve seen anti-cap and anti-zoo organizations attempting to back up claims that zoological institutions don’t teach kids things. What Jensen’s study actually found was that children who explored a zoo on their own, as opposed to with a guide or facilitator of the educational experience, tended to have negative learning outcomes - aka, if you let kids run around a zoo without an educator, they’re probably going to not read the signs and draw their own conclusions about what they’ve seen. That’s very different from ‘zoos provide children with negative experiences’ as portrayed in this statement. 

Why the HSUS and SeaWorld Partnership makes professionals uncomfortable:

It’s hard to start talking about the HSUS and Seaworld partnership from an optimistic standpoint because there’s a major red flag with the PR about it - SW claims the organizations are in a partnership, but HSUS only says that SW was working ‘in cooperation’ with them and is ‘joining HSUS in advocacy campaigns after negotiations’ (source). Seaworld’s announcements focus on how the HSUS collaboration will improve extant conservation and educational movements, but the tone of the HSUS press release is very self-congratulatory and derogatory of how much more SW needs to change. This has a lot of people in the zoo and aquarium field worried, given the organization’s precedent for prioritizing its animal rights agenda over facts, prior agreements, and ethical conduct (source). 

Although the HSUS and SeaWorld partnership involves a lot of collaboration on sustainable seafood, ending whaling and shark-finning, promoting conservation, and increasing education, the biggest focus put on the announcement from all sides has been the cessation of breeding for orcas under their care. It’s been a really big talking point. Some people believe it’s the best course of action so the company can focus on improving welfare for the existing animals, some people like it because it’s the beginning of removing whales from captivity, some people think it’s inhumane to remove the natural sexual and mothering behaviors from what the whales can engage in, some people worry this is just a toehold for the animal rights coalitions to take over all zoological facilities, and some people feel that this means the end of awareness for orcas once they’re no longer accessible to the public for them to fall in love with and learn about. They’re all valid concerns and viewpoints, honestly.

Seaworld’s statement on the topic acknowledges the pressure from animal rights activists and the decreased attendance rates since the release of Blackfish, but it also frames the choice as one on their terms that allows the company to grow and change as necessary. 

“This was a very difficult decision.  We love our whales and so do our guests. But, we faced a huge paradox. Whales are a reason why people come to SeaWorld. But it is also a growing reason why they don’t.  More and more people are uncomfortable with these very large and majestic animals in environments that they perceive as not big enough.  Evolution and change have always been part of SeaWorld, and this is no different.  As society changes, we need to change with it” (source).

We’re changing because attitudes about animals under human care have evolved and we need to evolve with them. And make no mistake: we have all played a big part in why society has evolved on this issue. When we opened our doors more than 50 years ago, killer whales were feared and hunted. Now, orcas are among the most beloved marine mammals on the planet. One reason why is more than 400 million people came to our parks and fell in love with our whales” (source).

A non-Seaworld associated fan site, Awesome Ocean, wrote pretty eloquently about what they feel are the driving factors behind this change. (It’s important to note that, while they sound official, there’s no evidence they’re receiving any information from anyone at Seaworld and all opinions stated are not necessarily those of the company). 

“We all must realize that Americans’ attitudes about orcas have changed. 50 years ago, killer whales inspired fear and motivated hunting expeditions. As time went on, they became some of the most beloved marine mammals on the planet. SeaWorld did that. One company single-handedly changed public opinion and welcomed millions of visitors to their parks, allowing guests to come face to face with wild animals and grow to love them. Now, orcas in captivity and under human care inspire not just love and admiration, but also concern. SeaWorld isn’t afraid to change, and we must not be afraid to let them. (…) To say the partnership between SeaWorld and the HSUS comes as a surprise is probably the understatement of the year. (…) From a practicality standpoint, this decision makes sense. In order to best protect orcas and other marine mammals, SeaWorld needs allies – not enemies. They need someone on the other side of the spectrum to band together, change with the times and protect the killer whales we all love” (Source).

A number of other media sources outside of SW and HSUS have acknowledged this as well. A contributor for the Dallas News wrote an incredibly snarky (but accurate) op-ed on it, commenting:

“Today, people care more — and know more — about how animals are treated. (…) SeaWorld wasn’t caving to PETA. It was catering to the average soccer mom who started realizing her choices for a family vacation were either SeaWorld (where she’d seen something about a dead trainer and bloody whale battles) or Universal (where Harry Potter finds freedom every day, escaping Gringotts)” (source).

Awesome Ocean seconded (and cited) that in a response to the backlash SeaWorld was getting from fans who felt betrayed:

“SeaWorld did not cave, they made a decision that will allow them to keep their doors open. The decided to be able to continue to employ tens of thousands of people. They decided to be able to continue to pay to operate the world’s most important rescue and rehab operation in the world. They decided to be able to be the world’s foremost zoological institution” (source).

Overall, SeaWorld seems confident that this partnership is a good decision for the parks and for the whales in captivity. They also present it as a partnership where HSUS supports their ongoing conservation, rescue and education efforts (source)(source).  Meanwhile, HSUS documents seem to imply this is only the beginning of the changes they want to see SW make - and they frame the changes as SeaWorld supporting their radical advocacy campaigns rather than putting more effort into SeaWorld’s own extant programs. This is from the rather self-aggrandizing and self-promoting blog post by the current HSUS president Wayne Pacelle:

“In a sign that the humane economy is an unyielding force, exerting its influence on companies in all sectors of commerce, SeaWorld announced in cooperation with The HSUS today that it will end all breeding of its orcas and it won’t obtain additional orcas from other sources—policies sought by animal advocates for many decades. (…) Joel Manby, SeaWorld’s CEO, is banking on the premise that the American public will come to SeaWorld’s parks in larger numbers if he joins our cause instead of resisting it, and if SeaWorld is a change agent for the good of animals. (…) During my discussions with Manby, I was clear that the agreement we forged should deal with all animals – not just orcas. That’s why this announcement not only promises more help for manatees, sea lions, and other marine creatures in distress, but it also connects consumers to these issues through their diets. Starting soon, all SeaWorld food offerings will be cage-free for eggs and gestation-crate-free for pork, all seafood will be more sustainably sourced, and there will be more vegetarian and vegan options” (source)

Okay, an important note that literally none of the animal rights folk seem to ever get right: Seaworld has not been bringing in ‘new’ orcas since the 70’s. No facility in the United States has because there’s this thing called the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), created in 1972, that prevents the capture of marine mammals, period. Any ‘new’ whales coming into any facility in the country would be rescues, but no orca calves have been rescued and brought to any SeaWorld facility. It makes it sound better for animal rights outrage purposes to say ‘we’re stopping them from getting more!’ so they keep reiterating that incredibly misleading point.

It’s pretty obvious that to the President of HSUS this is just the beginning of a far-reaching agenda to change how SeaWorld operates. It’s never just been about orcas, like Blackfish made it out to be - now it’s about all mammals AND humane food AND ethical eating agendas. This partnership gives HSUS more credibility and a national spotlight, and everyone in the zoological field is kind of rightfully worried that, given their history, they’ll try to exploit it or force more change that’s not in touch with the realities of the institutions they’re affecting.

Both Zoonation and The Alliance for Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums (AMMPA) released statements shortly after Seaworld’s announcement decrying it. The AMMPA’s statement did not specifically mention HSUS, but the implications that it was involved in the attacks on the organization it’s now professing to be working with were definitely present, and the distrust of the organization’s agenda rampant:

“For more than two-and-a-half years, SeaWorld has been savagely attacked with misinformation and lies promulgated in the deceitful film Blackfish, and by its animal rights supporters through coordinated social media attacks, protests, petitions and other tactics. No company, no matter how great, could withstand such a withering, prolonged and well-funded assault without sustaining damage to its reputation and bottom line.  However, when such pressure campaigns succeed, they can have very serious and unfortunate consequences. (…) The organizations behind the assault on SeaWorld, calling on it to end its public display of killer whales, are not just opposed to killer whales in human care.  They are part of an animal rights movement that does not believe there should be any animals at all in human care for any reason—not in zoos and aquariums, not as service animals, not in sports, movies or the circus, and not even as pets. For this reason, it is unlikely their pressure campaigns will end after this decision.  Instead, they will step up their assaults on other species of animals on public display in zoos, aquariums, and marine parks. (…) If the anti-SeaWorld campaign that culminated in today’s announcement was really all about orcas, we call on animal rights groups that participated in it to immediately end their assaults on all of the other species in zoos and aquariums and instead focus their formidable financial resources on helping animals in the wild threatened by toxins, disease, marine debris entanglement, ship strikes, scarcity of prey, and a host of other threats. SeaWorld has done its part, now they should, too” (Source).

Meanwhile, Zoonation’s response to the HSUS partnership was short and direct:

“ZooNation does not and cannot condone the recent decision by SeaWorld leadership to partner with an organization that is fundamentally opposed to all zoological efforts and facilities. Even if the HSUS doesn’t take direct action against zoological facilities, they monetarily support organizations that do, therefore we feel SeaWorld leadership has made a fundamental misstep in accepting this partnership with what is, at best, an antipathetic organization.

The main issue that has come about is that SeaWorld leadership has accepted the conversation that their orca breeding and human care program is wrong somehow, and that is tragic and untrue. We have supported SeaWorld through all the controversy surrounding their orca human care programs, before, during and after the Blackfish mockumentary, and we feel SeaWorld leadership has lost its way, and fundamentally misunderstands the central issue; human care is no longer about “entertainment” but about education, conservation and saving our oceans from the abuse human beings are subjecting it to” (source).

Where it goes from here:

It’s hard to project how this potentially volatile partnership is going to play out. Two major players working together on important conservation initiatives and acting together to cease the endless yelling that has heretofore characterized the captive cetacean conversations could be really beneficial. It also could turn into a farce where HSUS attempts to force SeaWorld to continue to shift towards it’s radicalized agenda by weaponizing the public opinion. HSUS definitely has a shifty past but it would be jumping the gun to say they’re definitely going to be causing problems for SeaWorld in the future. It’s possible the partnership really is in good faith. There’s not really going to be any way to tell until farther down the line. 

What to take away from this:

Take everything you hear with a couple grains of salt, and search out multiple sides of the story when you hear new information come out about SeaWorld/HSUS actions. It’s entirely possible that the way one side presents a story is going to be really different from what the other is saying for quite a while. Different agendas mean different spins and different responses to media and public backlash. Remember - one source is going to be a company that has to ensure it can stay in business and provide for the animals in it’s care, and the other is going to be from the perspective of a radical group with no investment in the business and no monetary worries. 

It’s an uneasy partnership to say the least for everyone involved with the zoological world. Here’s hoping that HSUS is actually invested in the well-being of the whales and isn’t attempting to use this as a jumping-off point to try to end all animal captivity (and with it, vital research, conservation and education efforts). It could be, though. We just kind of have to wait and see. 

*Teaches their new owners how to train them humanely and effectively*

*Comes home and logs onto tumblr*

*Sees endless pro-aversive posts and photos of dogs in shock and prong and choke collars*

Thank you. And to others like you.

Okay, so, my dog Echo is a 11 month old GSD. Since she was 10 weeks we’ve been doing R+ only training and poured money into every local class we could take, going so much as 5 nights a week to different events. Our trainer was lovely, classes were well structured, and everything felt great. And you want to know something? Before this last month or so I couldn’t get her to sit on command if my life depended on it. And you want to know something else? We were thinking she might not live to 2 years old because she was out of control and I had to consider putting her down (at several people’s suggestion). She barked at everything, bit people who were in the house, and almost killed anyone who took her outside because she dragged them around (literally dragged someone down our ¼ mile long gravel driveway once). She wasn’t happy and everyone living with her was effectively miserable as well. I was the only one able to control her and it was draining, but I still spent every second outside of work focused on making her better.

Every time we tried something new it would work for a day, then she’s go right back to her terrible self. And then I tried an e-collar. She’s still far from perfect but now I’m proud to call her mine. We can do long distance sit-stays, recall off “prey”, and so much more… just because she has that clear feedback of what I want.

I know these tools are not for everyone and their dog, in fact I encourage positive reinforcement as a first step in training, but for some dogs that just WON’T WORK. PLEASE stop thinking that people who use these tools are bad people and that we’re all using them incorrectly. There is already such a stigma around these tools and there is no need to add to it.

Positive reinforcement training is often criticised for being ‘one size fits all’, when it is a highly adaptive approach to training, and can be adjusted to suit dogs of any breed, temperament, age and training history. To clarify - I am not trying to tell you how to train, you can train your dog however you want! But I do not like it when misconceptions about force-free training are spread.

My dog training mentor has been training for over 30 years, and is specifically involved in German Shepherds. She set up her GSD training club in 1984, which is still going to this day. During the early days of the club, some of the other trainers promoted choke chains. But my mentor has NEVER recommended a choke chain to her clients. She has been showing people for a very long time that tools and corrections are not necessary, and has been helping improve the relationship between people and their dogs with reward based training. Never has she met a dog that ‘needed’ a choke, prong or shock collar.

Remember, positive isn’t permissive. You can still communicate to your dog what you don’t want without using a correction.

And while I do think it is important to listen to other people’s ideas about training, even if you don’t necessarily agree with them, please understand that this isn’t going to change our minds. After reading your reply, I still don’t agree with aversives. Similarly, if I wrote about how much I dislike aversives on posts about prongs/e-collars, I wouldn’t change anyone’s mind either. I would just make a LOT of people angry, and likely receive a lot of hate. (But apparently it is okay for people to promote aversives on force-free posts… I digress.)

I also fear that, with all the promotion of aversive tools on the internet, people who do not know much about training will end up causing very serious damage to their dogs. The average, inexperienced owner will probably make behavioural issues much worse if they were to try and use a prong/choke/shock on their dog. I must agree with Dr Ian Dunbar on this one: “To use shock as an effective dog training method you will need: A thorough understanding of canine behavior. A thorough understanding of learning theory. Impeccable timing. And if you have those three things, you don’t need a shock collar.”

Another issue is patience. Positive reinforcement training takes longer than aversion training. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t effective, however.

Use whatever methods you want on your dog. Unless you are actively seeking my training advice, any suggestions I could give would certainly be unwarranted, which is fine. And to clarify, I do not think that someone who uses aversives is ‘evil’. There are lots of people who I have incredible respect for as trainers and dog owners, who use these tools. I just reserve the right to my opinion that they are not a necessary part of training. In fact, they can be detrimental.

If anyone is interested in why I do not agree with aversives, I’ve added some links and research on the topic:

This page talks about the different types of fallout that use of punishment in training can lead to for the learner, drawing information from a variety of references.

This study compares punitive and aversive dog training methods with reward-based methods as approaches to behavioural modification. ((Penn Uni) Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours)

‘In conclusion, confrontational or aversive behavioral interventions applied by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive responses in many cases…  Ultimately,reward-based training is less stressful or painful for the dog,and, hence, safer for the owner.’

Patricia McConnell’s review of the above study. ScienceDaily’s review of the above study.

The University of Lincoln’s research into welfare concerns about electric shock collars.

Analysis of an experiment of military trained dogs and punishment.

‘Consistent with previous research, the dogs that received punishment showed signs of stress…  they found that the dogs who received the most punishment were significantly more likely to be in the low performance group. In other words they did not learn as well….. dogs who received more discipline and punishment were found to be more distracted, paying less attention to their handler and the tasks that they were supposed to complete.’

Absolutely not. I was anti when baby Norway showed up and as far as I can recall only one other anti actually had the common sense and compassion to actually publicly want that calf rescued. It honestly was the most emotional, frustrating time I had ever had in the captivity debate, and it was absolutely the last straw I could take from the anticaptivity movement, so ultimately that was one of the several pushes I had towards becoming a procap.

For those who missed it, some highlights of Baby Norway’s short life include;

- Orca “experts” / “researchers” flat-out saying that they would not allow the whale to be rescued – “Indeed, put this orca in a tank/aquarium is not even an option!! Norway does not want to see “Morgan’s case” happening again!“

- Morgan, who entered into captivity an absolute skeleton and looked like a neonate at two years old, and is now a beautiful, vibrant, healthy adult female. They don’t want… that to happen again. Okay. Speaks volumes of the anticaptivity agenda, because what did happen with baby Norway, is that she stranded, barely alive after a prolonged period of starvation, and got a round of bullets in her head (exactly like another Norwegian calf that stranded a year before her).

- They completely ignored this fragile starving, injured, INFANT CALF. Oh, but they “talked about a plan” so that’s fine.

- The infant (Let me stress that. This was a neonate calf, days old at best.), visibly starving already when it was first seen, should have at the VERY least been secluded into a small pen and started on a nutritious formula. Instead, they tossed it fish. And I directly quote, “Its body needs milk of course, but at least some calories!”. The optimism is disgusting, considering what this calf was going through, on its own, without help.

- Baby Norway went missing for a while – it wasn’t known if she “found her family” like activists had been hoping, simply wandered off, or if she died. But she showed back up. This time she stranded and she was barely alive. She was given a lethal injection via her dorsal (the only warm place left on her body that had entirely gone cold) and then shot in the head with a shot gun, “just in case”. And that was it.

Baby Norway vocalizing underwater.

Baby Norway’s last moments.

Rest in peace, beautiful little girl.