Advocating for Ethical Dog Training: Deconstructing ‘Both Sidesism’ in Animal Welfare Discourse

A recent discussion between canine behavior experts Zazie Todd and Kristi Benson illuminated the critical importance of exclusively advocating for reward-based dog training methods and strategically framing public discourse on the subject. The conversation underscored the detrimental impact of presenting harmful, scientifically disproven training techniques as equally valid alternatives, drawing parallels with journalistic ethics concerning "both sidesism" and the manipulation of public narrative.

The Evolving Landscape of Dog Training Methods

Historically, dog training methodologies have undergone significant evolution, shifting from reliance on harsh, dominance-based approaches to modern, science-backed positive reinforcement techniques. Despite this progression, the field remains characterized by a notable polarization. As Todd observed, while a clear scientific consensus favors reward-based methods, "there are still some people who use an alternate approach." This dichotomy presents a substantial challenge for advocates striving to promote best practices without inadvertently legitimizing methods that compromise animal welfare.

For decades, traditional training often centered on punitive measures, operating under the now largely debunked "dominance theory." This perspective, which falsely posited that dogs seek to dominate humans and other dogs, justified the use of force, intimidation, and pain to assert control. However, a wealth of scientific research in ethology and animal psychology has definitively refuted these theories, demonstrating that dogs respond far more effectively and humanely to positive reinforcement. This shift has led to the development of sophisticated, reward-based techniques that leverage a dog’s natural desire to learn and cooperate, fostering a stronger bond and more reliable behavior without inducing fear or stress.

Deconstructing "Both Sidesism" in Animal Welfare Discourse

The core of Todd and Benson’s discussion revolved around the concept of "both sidesism," a journalistic practice that attempts to present two opposing viewpoints with equal weight, regardless of their factual basis or scientific consensus. Benson, referencing insights from journalist Rachel Gilmore, explained how this approach can be deeply problematic. In broader media, it can lead to the manipulation of public perception and impede beneficial progress on critical issues, such as climate change, where scientific agreement is overwhelming.

Applying this analytical lens to dog training, Todd articulated the inherent disservice in granting equal platform to demonstrably harmful methods. "If you give them equal weight in your piece," she stated, "then you’re actually doing a disservice to their ideas." When one side of an argument—in this case, aversive training—is not only unsupported by evidence but also proven to cause harm, presenting it as an equally valid option misinforms the public and directly jeopardizes the welfare of animals.

Benson introduced a crucial distinction to navigate this ethical dilemma: "equal consideration, not equal treatment." This principle suggests that while acknowledging the existence of different methods is appropriate, they should not be presented as equally viable or ethical. For instance, an educational piece might note that "dogs will learn if you scare them or hurt them," but immediately follow with the severe negative consequences and the ethical imperative to avoid such methods. This approach provides consideration by addressing the alternate viewpoint, but refuses to grant it equal professional standing or endorsement. It allows for a comprehensive discussion of methods while unequivocally championing humane practices.

The Scientific Imperative: Prioritizing Canine Welfare

The scientific community and leading animal welfare organizations worldwide overwhelmingly endorse reward-based training due to its profound and well-documented benefits for canine well-being. Todd detailed these advantages, emphasizing that positive reinforcement provides dogs with "positive experiences which is really important for animal welfare." It fosters a stronger, more trusting human-animal bond, encourages enthusiasm for learning, and builds confidence in dogs.

Conversely, the use of aversive methods, which rely on fear, pain, or intimidation (such as shock collars, prong collars, or harsh verbal corrections), carries a "long list of potential side effects." Extensive research consistently links these techniques to increased fear, anxiety, aggression, and a diminished relationship between dog and guardian. Studies, including meta-analyses, have shown a significant correlation between the use of aversive training tools and higher stress levels, problematic behaviors, and even learned helplessness or pessimism in dogs. For example, a 2020 study published in PLOS ONE found that dogs trained with aversive methods exhibited more stress-related behaviors and poorer welfare indicators compared to those trained with reward-based methods. This evidence clearly demonstrates that not only are aversive methods less effective in the long term, but they also actively compromise a dog’s psychological and emotional health.

This robust scientific consensus is reflected in the strong position statements from influential professional bodies globally. Organizations such as the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), the Pet Professional Guild (PPG), Dogs Trust in the UK, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) now explicitly advocate only for reward-based methods. Many of these organizations have "relatively recently changed their positions" or "tightened up" existing guidelines over the past decade to explicitly exclude the use of aversives. This evolution underscores a critical shift from older beliefs, where aversives might have been considered a final option, to a modern understanding that positive methods are universally effective and humane, rendering punitive approaches unnecessary and unethical. As Todd noted, these organizations now recognize "there’s no evidence it’s ever needed as a last resort."

Combating Misinformation and Strategic Manipulation

The experts cautioned against the potential for "bad actors"—individuals and trainers who continue to use and advocate for aversive training—to exploit the principle of "fairness" to gain legitimacy. Benson observed that such individuals often do not operate in good faith, but rather seek to appropriate the credibility of science-backed, welfare-focused organizations. This dynamic is particularly evident in online spaces, where, as Todd noted, comments and criticisms often "come from a certain direction and they don’t go in the opposite direction really," indicating a concerted effort to undermine positive messaging.

This phenomenon aligns with the "loudest voice" issue observed in broader media, where extreme or harmful viewpoints can, if given an equal platform, "shift the narrative" and normalize previously unacceptable language or practices. Benson highlighted how this can lead to the reintroduction of terms or concepts that society had worked to reject. Todd stressed the importance of not allowing such voices to "set our agenda," but rather to proactively control the narrative and prioritize sharing accurate, beneficial information. She maintains strict social media policies, often hiding or removing comments that spread misinformation or advocate for harmful practices. "What is the point of letting yourself be used to share someone else’s misinformation?" she questioned, underscoring the responsibility of information providers to protect their audience from harmful content. Allowing misinformation to proliferate, even in comment sections, undermines the educational mission of welfare advocates and creates confusion for pet guardians seeking reliable advice.

Strategic Communication: The "Truth Sandwich" and the Overton Window

To effectively counter misinformation while maintaining a positive and informative stance, the discussion revisited the concept of the "truth sandwich." This communication strategy, designed by cognitive linguist George Lakoff, involves framing a brief mention of a falsehood (the "filling") between two layers of factual information (the "bread"). The emphasis is on dedicating the majority of communication to the truth, ensuring that cognitive effort is directed towards what is accurate and beneficial. Todd emphasized that the "filling" should be "very thin" and ideally prefaced with a clear statement that it is incorrect. For example, one might state, "Reward-based training is highly effective and builds a strong bond. (Incorrectly, some believe that harsh methods are necessary.) Reward-based methods are proven to resolve behavior issues humanely." This structure minimizes the impact of the falsehood while reinforcing the correct information.

Benson further introduced the "Overton Window," a political science concept describing the range of ideas politically and socially acceptable to the mainstream population at any given time. Moving the Overton Window implies shifting public opinion on a topic. Alarmingly, Benson noted that some extremist groups actively strategize to move this window in their favor, demonstrating the conscious manipulation of public discourse.

Applying the Overton Window to dog training, the experts traced the historical evolution of positive reinforcement. What might have once been considered "unthinkable" in a cultural context dominated by utility and control, gradually moved to "radical" (perhaps in the 1980s and 90s with pioneering works like Jean Donaldson’s Culture Clash, which challenged established norms), then became "acceptable," "sensible," and is now increasingly "popular." Todd agreed that while treating dogs well has always been present in individual relationships, the institutional and societal shift from viewing dogs primarily as tools to seeing them as cherished family members has significantly propelled reward-based training into the mainstream. This cultural transformation, often driven by increased public awareness and empathy for animals, has created a fertile ground for the widespread adoption of humane training practices.

Implications for Professional Standards and Public Policy

The current position of reward-based training, situated between "popular" and "policy" on the Overton Window, signifies a crucial juncture for the animal welfare movement. Todd suggested that while public acceptance is high, the ultimate goal is for reward-based training to become "the only acceptable professional approach" and a mandatory standard for those working in dog training. This would inevitably involve the regulation of dog trainers, a movement already underway in various regions with differing levels of progress and proposed legislative frameworks. Such regulation aims to protect both animals and the public by ensuring trainers adhere to ethical, science-backed methodologies.

The cultural shift is already tangible and impactful. Todd noted a dramatic reduction in the use of shock and prong collars in her local area, indicating a broader societal move towards humane practices. "It is now a shock if I see a dog on a prong collar," she observed, reflecting a significant change in public perception. This reflects a deeper emotional shift, where public sentiment has moved from merely tolerating different methods to being "absolutely horrified that some people think it’s okay to hurt dogs." This growing empathy and understanding of canine sentience are powerful drivers for policy change and the continued advancement of animal welfare. The economic implications are also noteworthy, with the positive reinforcement training market experiencing substantial growth as pet owners increasingly seek out ethical and effective solutions for their companions.

Enriching the Dialogue: Recommended Resources and Community Engagement

Beyond the methodological discussion, the podcast also highlighted resources for continuous learning and engagement within the animal welfare community. Listeners were directed to previous episodes discussing communication strategies like the "truth sandwich," providing practical tools for advocates. Additionally, the hosts shared their recent literary engagements, underscoring the broader intellectual and cultural context that informs and enriches the animal welfare community. Kristi Benson recommended By Strength We Are Still Indigenous Peoples and Indian Residential schooling in Inuvik, Northwest Territories by Crystal Gail Fraser, praising its poignant historical scholarship and beautifully written prose that centers Indigenous methodologies and survivor stories. Zazie Todd shared her enjoyment of Pugs and Kisses by Farrah Rochon, a romance novel featuring veterinarians and an animal rescue setting, appealing to animal lovers and fans of the genre. These diverse recommendations exemplify the holistic approach to education and advocacy that characterizes modern animal welfare discourse.

The discourse between Zazie Todd and Kristi Benson provides a robust framework for understanding and advancing ethical dog training. By strategically addressing misinformation, refusing to legitimize harmful practices through "both sidesism," and consciously working to shift the "Overton Window" towards humane, science-backed methods, the animal welfare community can continue to advance the well-being of dogs globally. This proactive and informed approach is essential for ensuring that professional standards align with undeniable scientific evidence and the public’s growing commitment to compassionate animal care.