The training method used with dogs has significant welfare implications — with positive reinforcement methods delivering better outcomes and lower stress than aversive approaches.
The welfare case against aversive training is both ethical and empirical. Ethical: deliberately causing pain or fear as a training mechanism to an animal that cannot consent or understand the purpose violates basic welfare principles. Empirical: studies consistently find that dogs trained with aversive methods show higher chronic stress indicators, reduced learning efficiency, and higher aggression toward both humans and other dogs than reward-trained counterparts. The claim that aversive methods are more effective or necessary for difficult dogs is contradicted by the evidence. Positive reinforcement training is not just kinder — it produces better-behaved, better-adjusted dogs.