09/13/2024
This paper came out rather quicker than I was anticipating so I see it has generated a lot of discussion without my voice in the mix. I also don’t have the bandwidth right now for back and forth with everyone who has an opinion (and no desire to engage with some of the intemperate tones out there). We are working on a major review of the ethics of dog training and I’ll be in a better position to talk about this when that is done. But, for now, a few quick points:
People have questioned my motivation to do this study. My motivation doesn’t change from study to study: I am always trying to find ways to help dogs and their people lead the best possible lives together.
In a world where the prevalence of injury in traffic accidents is estimated at over 0.4% and more than 20% of dogs hit by cars die of their injuries (Harris et al., 2018)—aside from all the other bad things that can happen to a dog who runs away besides being hit by a car—a solid recall is a life and death measure. A lot of dog trainers on social media are saying they have successful positive-reinforcement-only methods of instilling rock-solid recalls. Good for you. I’ve never shocked a dog and I don’t plan on doing so, but we need to recognized that most people do not seek professional help in training their dogs (Johnson & Wynne, 2024), and, in any case half of even the most popular dog trainers do not have any relevant qualifications (Johnson & Wynne, 2022). Consequently, meeting people where they are, finding out what methods they use, and testing the effectiveness of those methods is, I feel, an ethical obligation.
It’s wonderful to see how our study has prompted critical thinking in so many people. I think it was Nobel prize winner, Daniel Kahneman, who pointed out how nothing engages people’s critical acumen like results that they don’t agree with. I haven’t seen anyone raise a criticism of the study that we didn’t bring up ourselves, but it’s great to see people trying. (It is, however, disappointing to see so many people forcefully expressing opinions when they obviously haven’t read the study) Now please take that critical frame of mind and apply it to the studies you do like the results of. Did they assign dogs to conditions at random? Do they describe in detail the contingencies to which the dogs were exposed? I know our study is far from perfect but I think it’s as good as any prior study on this topic (it ought to be, we read all the existing studies before we started). Once you get into the nitty gritty of designing a study like this, it turns out to be much more difficult than you’d expect. I wouldn’t recommend it to the faint of heart nor to colleagues early in their career. That’s part of why I took it on. I am convinced work like this needs doing and if an old fart like me doesn’t do it, it probably won’t get done.
Give your dog a hug from me,
Clive.
Harris, G. L., Brodbelt, D., Church, D., Humm, K., McGreevy, P. D., Thomson, P. C., & O’Neill, D. (2018). Epidemiology, clinical management, and outcomes of dogs involved in road traffic accidents in the United Kingdom (2009-2014). Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care (San Antonio, Tex.: 2001), 28(2), 140–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/vec.12704
Johnson, A. C., & Wynne, C. D. L. (2022). Training Dogs with Science or with Nature? An Exploration of Trainers’ Word Use, Gender, and Certification Across Dog-Training Methods. Anthrozoös, 36(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2062869
Johnson, A. C., & Wynne, C. D. (2024). Training Methods Used by Dog Guardians in the United States: Prevalence, Sources of Information, and Reasons for Use. Animals, 14(9), 1310.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/18/2632
