THE GLOBAL CONSENSUS
Global Consensus on Humane Training
Across countries and independent professional bodies, the direction of guidance is remarkably consistent: teach with rewards, protect welfare, and avoid all methods designed to cause pain, fear, intimidation, or significant distress.
The impact of a training method extends beyond whether your dog’s behavior changes in the moment. Your dog’s physical and emotional welfare matters throughout the process.
Explore: AVSAB statement (PDF) · Professional positions · Clinical guidance · Practice standards · Government reviews · Current law · Comparative research
Professional position statements
These are adopted positions from veterinary behavior, specialist, national, and international veterinary organizations.
Veterinary behavior and specialist bodies
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB)
AVSAB’s position statement covers dog training and behavior modification. It recommends reward-based methods and rejects methods that rely on force, pain, or emotional or physical discomfort.
American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB / DACVB)
ACVB’s position statement covers humane, effective, evidence-based training. It addresses aversive methods that cause pain, discomfort, fear, or intimidation.
European Society of Veterinary Clinical Ethology (ESVCE)
ESVCE’s position statement covers electronic training devices, including remote, bark-activated, and boundary systems.
National and international veterinary bodies
British Veterinary Association (BVA)
BVA’s policy covers electric shock collars and other training aids. It calls for an electric-shock-collar ban and recommends reward-based training.
British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA)
BSAVA’s position statement addresses a broad range of aversive methods, including shouting, hitting, lead jerking, shock collars, prong collars, spray collars, choke chains, and electric containment.
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA)
CVMA’s position statement broadly discourages aversive techniques and devices and recommends reward-based methods.
Australian Veterinary Association (AVA)
AVA’s dog-training policy says punishment and negative reinforcement should not be used to change behavior and recommends positive reinforcement.
New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA)
NZVA’s position statement covers electronic behavior-modifying collars, including remote, anti-bark, and boundary systems.
FVE, FEEVA, FECAVA, and WSAVA
This joint international veterinary position paper covers dogs, cats, and horses. It addresses species-specific behavior, veterinary responsibility, reward-based training, and opposition to aversive techniques.
Clinical guidance
Clinical guidelines translate evidence and professional experience into care recommendations.
American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA)
AAHA’s clinical-practice guideline covers behavior management for dogs and cats. Its behavior-modification guidance opposes aversive techniques.
Practice standards for trainers and behavior consultants
These standards matter because they define what participating professionals agree to do. Their authority is real but limited to members, registrants, or certification programs.
Pet Professional Guild (PPG)
PPG’s membership standards and position statements oppose shock and require members to work within force-free principles.
APDT International
APDT International’s standards prohibit intentional aversive punishment across training and behavior cases. Active members agree to avoid methods and tools designed to cause fear, pain or startle.
Association of Pet Dog Trainers UK (APDT UK)
APDT UK’s binding membership code prohibits members from using aversive or outdated training methods.
Fear Free
Fear Free’s certification curriculum and ethical pledge apply to certified trainers, groomers, and other participating professionals. They emphasize preventing and alleviating fear, anxiety, and stress in veterinary and home-care contexts.
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC)
IAABC’s standards apply to its members and endorsing organizations. They make positive reinforcement primary, oppose intentional pain, fear, or intimidation, and require members to refrain from shock.
Animal Behaviour and Training Council (ABTC)
ABTC’s public practice standard applies to registered practitioners. It calls for science-led, compassionate, non-punitive methods and rejects programs based on positive punishment or the creation of anxiety or fear.
Government reviews
Government-commissioned reports can evaluate evidence and recommend policy.
Scottish Animal Welfare Commission
This independent, government-commissioned report recommends against the unregulated status quo and finds insufficient ethical justification for the use of handheld remote-controlled electronic collars in dog training. It is a report and recommendation, not itself a ban.
Scottish Animal Welfare Commission
This independent, government-commissioned report examines dog-training devices other than handheld remote-controlled electronic collars. It considers additional aversive training aids and makes recommendations to ministers.
Current law
The laws below show policy adoption, not additional scientific votes.
The police and military exceptions below matter. An institutional exemption does not change what a dog experiences. I examine those exceptions and the systems they protect in my writing on dog-trainer legislation.
Wales
The 2010 regulation prohibits attaching to a cat or dog an electronic collar designed to administer an electric shock. Its scope includes shock-based remote, anti-bark, and containment collars.
Germany
Section 2(5) of Germany’s federal dog-welfare regulation prohibits prong collars and other means painful to dogs in training, education, or exercise. This is not an undefined ban on every aversive device.
Denmark
Section 4 of the national regulation prohibits remote or automatic dog-worn devices that cause electric shock or other substantial discomfort. Section 5 prohibits collars with spikes or metal projections but allows a narrowly specified collar for Danish Security and Intelligence Service dogs.
Norway
The national regulation generally prohibits electrical-current training equipment, with a narrow exception for qualified aversion training involving livestock, reindeer, and hoofed game.
Austria
Official federal legal guidance states that pain-causing collars and electrical or chemical training devices may not be used. A limited exception allows a specified coral-style collar when specially trained people train security-authority or armed-forces service dogs, subject to proportionality.
Switzerland
Official federal veterinary guidance states that aids causing pain, injury, strong irritation, or anxiety are prohibited, including electrical, unpleasant-sound, and chemical devices.
Finland
Animal Welfare Act section 18 prohibits marketing, manufacture, sale, transfer, use, and possession of prong collars, electric collars, and comparable devices that clearly cause unnecessary pain or suffering.
What the comparative research shows
Available comparative studies have not shown aversive training to be more effective overall than well-designed reward-based training. The literature is not equally strong for every method, behavior, or setting, and some studies are observational rather than randomized. The welfare evidence is nevertheless consistent enough that major professional bodies recommend reward-based methods and caution against, discourage, or reject aversive methods within their stated scope.
Ziv (2017), The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs: A review
This peer-reviewed literature review examines 17 studies on dog welfare, behavior, and effectiveness across aversive training methods.
Vieira de Castro et al. (2020), companion-dog welfare
This peer-reviewed, quasi-experimental study compared 92 companion dogs attending reward-based, mixed, or aversive-based training schools, using behavioral, cortisol, and cognitive-bias measures.
Vieira de Castro et al. (2021), research protocol
A peer-reviewed protocol for comparing reward-based and mixed training methods in Portuguese military and police dogs.
Read the 2021 PLOS ONE research protocol
China, Mills, and Cooper (2020), remote collars and positive reinforcement
This peer-reviewed field study compared remote electronic-collar training, non-electronic comparison training, and a reward-focused approach for dogs referred for off-lead obedience problems.
Cooper et al. (2014), remote-collar welfare and efficacy
This peer-reviewed, controlled field study compared remote electronic-collar training with non-electronic training for dogs with recall and chasing-related problems, examining both welfare and efficacy measures.
Why this matters beyond visible behavior
Across the comparative research linked above, aversive exposure has been studied in relation to several welfare outcomes:
- Stress-related behavior and physiological measures such as cortisol in some study settings
- Fear, anxiety-related behavior, and changes in recovery or interaction
- Aggression risk or suppressed warning behavior in some contexts
- More pessimistic responses in a cognitive bias task, a measure used to investigate affective state, in one companion dog study
Available comparative studies have not shown aversive methods to be more effective than well-delivered reward-based approaches within the specific tasks and samples studied.
DOES this still feel controversial?
Arguments about tone, intent, and delivery can shift attention away from the welfare question: what is the training doing to your dog? I examine that dynamic in DARVO, Tone Policing, and False Balance.
Continue reading
The Evidence overview explains the welfare and learning principles behind this approach. The Source Library holds the larger running citation record.
Browse the Source Library for studies and references from specific posts.
Watch the discussion: Left Behind! The Dog Training Industry Just Drew a Line.
For practical help with your dog, start the free 30 Day Perfect Pup course. For original footage, records and reporting, browse the Cops + Dogs cases.
Monthly support starts at $2 USD. Choose the amount that works for you.