The veterinary behavioural space, once rooted in the principles of rigorous scientific inquiry, has fallen victim to ideological capture. This phenomenon occurs when a particular belief system takes over, pushing aside alternative viewpoints and suppressing open debate. This is exactly what we’re seeing in how various influential organizations, such as the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the British Veterinary Association (BVA), have wholeheartedly embraced and promoted purely positive, force-free training methods. These organizations base their sweeping endorsements on studies that rely heavily on owner-reported surveys—data that, while useful for gauging public opinion, is far from the robust, empirical evidence needed to make definitive claims about dog training. This selective endorsement of flawed data reflects an ideological bias that not only undermines scientific integrity but also limits the options available to dog trainers and owners, ultimately to the detriment of the animals they seek to protect.

Owner-reported surveys are problematic because they capture perceptions rather than objective outcomes. These surveys are susceptible to various biases, such as the tendency for respondents to report what they think is the "correct" or socially accepted answer, rather than their true experience, and they rely on the owner’s ability (or, more commonly, the lack thereof) to accurately interpret their dog’s behaviour. This can lead to skewed results that do not accurately reflect the effectiveness of different training methods. Despite these well-known flaws, organizations that advocate for purely positive training present these surveys as ironclad evidence of their approach’s superiority. This is not only misleading but a clear indication of ideological capture—where evidence is cherry-picked to support a predetermined narrative, rather than being evaluated on its merits.

What’s overlooked in these discussions is that the improper use of any training tool—whether it’s an e-collar, prong collar, no-pull harness, or head halter—can lead to unwanted behaviours or unnecessary stress in a dog. The key issue isn’t the tool itself, but how it is used. For instance, Dr. Richard Polsky’s study (2000) raises valid concerns about the potential for e-collars to cause aggression if used incorrectly. However, this risk is not unique to e-collars. Any tool, when misused, can lead to adverse outcomes. This is why skilled trainers emphasize the importance of using these tools responsibly, ensuring that the dog fully understands what is expected before any form of correction is introduced.

Trainers who advocate for a combination of positive reinforcement and aversive tools understand that no single method works for all dogs in all situations. They agree with purely positive trainers that new behaviours should be taught using positive reinforcement. However, they also recognize that some behaviours, particularly those that are dangerous or deeply ingrained, may require the careful and humane use of corrections to be effectively managed. This approach is supported by studies like Schalke et al. (2007), which found that e-collars, when used correctly by trained professionals, do not increase stress levels in dogs and can be an effective part of a comprehensive training strategy; though it should also be noted that avoidance of all stress is not necessarily a laudable training goal.

Despite this evidence, the lack of longitudinal studies that assess the long-term effects of different training methods on a dog’s overall quality of life remains a significant gap in the research. Most existing studies, especially those favouring purely positive methods, focus on immediate outcomes—the quality of the moment—without addressing how these methods impact a dog’s well-being over time - the quality of life. This is a critical oversight. Without long-term studies, the conclusions drawn from short-term surveys are at best incomplete and at worst, misleading.

The fact that these flaws are well-known but consistently ignored by purely positive advocates is further evidence of ideological capture. By promoting a narrow, ideologically driven view of dog training, these organizations risk leaving trainers and dog owners without the full range of tools necessary to address complex behavioural issues. This leads to negative outcomes for dogs, including increased frustration, persistent behavioural problems, and in extreme but increasingly common cases, the unnecessary euthanasia of dogs that could have been rehabilitated with a more comprehensive approach.

The ideological capture of the veterinary behavioural space, driven by a selective endorsement of flawed survey-based studies is a troubling trend and a direct threat to the well-being of the dogs these organizations are supposed to protect. It’s time to push back against this dogma and advocate for a more nuanced, evidence-based approach that considers all available data, including the long-term effects of different training methods themselves, as well as the long-term benefits of having been properly trained using aversive tools. Science demands open inquiry, rigorous testing, and a willingness to challenge prevailing assumptions. Anything less is not just unscientific—it’s a disservice to the animals in our care.