Dog influencers debate traditional training over ‘positive’ approach

Article content

The politicization of dog training has increased thanks to woke influencers who insist the physical disciplining of canines is misogynistic and a form of “systemic oppression.”

Article content

New York Times opinion editor Alicia P.Q. Wittmeyer looks at how the different styles of dog training represent “woke” and “anti-woke” camps in the culture wars in the U.S.

Article content

The lengthy article mentioned dog training influencer Zak George, who has previously called for the industry to confront its “misogyny.”

George, who boasts 3.7 million followers on YouTube, chooses “positive” training over traditional “balanced” methods, and also covers topics ranging from “pronouns and trans rights to racism in policing to toxic masculinity and how all of these subjects, in some way, relate back to dogs,” Wittmeyer noted.

Discouraging bad behaviour in dogs has put the “positive” process lovers at odds with those who use “balanced” tactics.

“Proponents of positive reinforcement training say you stop bad behavior through a combination of management measures (drawing the curtains for a dog that won’t stop barking at passers-by) and reinforcing alternative behaviours you prefer (giving treats to reward moments of not barking),” the writer explained.

“A balanced trainer, by contrast, might suggest a bark collar — a device that emits a negative stimulus like a shock or a high-pitched sound whenever the dog gets set off.”

Article content

Article content

While it appears to be a hotly contested debate about training pets, the two sides appear to be connected through political ideology.

“Was it just coincidence that so many balanced trainers seemed to be men in tight shirts who trained Belgian Malinois in protection sports? Why did positive trainers seem to post so often about mental health (canine and human) — and why did so many balanced trainers complain about dogs being overmedicated? Why did so many positive trainers talk about following the science and so many balanced trainers talk about science having an agenda?” Wittmeyer asked in the piece.

“Each of these questions, taken on their own, had an explanation,” she wrote. “Taken together, they managed to map out the battle lines of the culture wars with unsettling precision.”

Article content

One “positive” trainer, Rachel Forday, defended the use of politicized language when it comes to dog training.

RECOMMENDED VIDEO

“The world of dogs does not exist in a vacuum of pet guardian and pet but is interconnected with systemic oppression,” Forday declared. “Systemic oppression dictates who is allowed to own a dog and what kind of dog they own.”

Wittmeyer noted one dog owner who vowed, “I will not project colonial, capitalist, or patriarchal concepts on my dog.”

Norwegian researcher Ane Moller Gabrielsen suggested dogs are just another projection of human politics.

“It’s so easy to project ideas of discipline and loyalty and obedience and all this strong leadership — it’s so easy to project that upon dog training,” Gabrielsen said.

“But at the same, it’s just as easy to project ideals of democracy, equality, reward-based, no-punishment, because it all works.”

Article content