The APDT Chronicle of the Dog Summer 2018 | Page 41

FEATURE | TRUTH IN TRAINING ORDINANCE
and one in four men. These staggering statistics show the high
prevalence of one specific type of violence: physical violence in an
intimate setting. These statistics do not include violence against
children, pet animals or other types of violent crime. Trainers
must accept the reality that there are trainers in our midst who
are violent individuals. Only when we stop denying this fact can
we empower the victims and work to prevent dog training abuse.
Abuser Personas
Abusers understand positive punishment and are motivated to
• Abusers are controlling: Dog trainers must be controlling to be
effective, this may put our profession at risk for hiding abusers.
The dominance theory myth continues to be used to create a
foundation for dog physical abuse that can lead to injury or death.
Despite decades of professional trainers educating owners that
dominance does not apply to dog and owner relationships, the
supposed elusive and magical powers of the public’s perception of
dominance theory continue to wreak havoc. Our profession has
been unable to move the industry forward in this important issue.
“As much as professional organizations are trying to educate
trainers and the public that training is not intimidation, it
seems the dominance myth is what some abusive trainers
may leverage to obtain obedience to authority. “
avoid it; thus, often abusers develop secret lives. Some abusers
display a public persona in public settings, display a private
persona in a private setting, and a secret persona in a hidden
setting. All of us have public and private personas, but some
abusers have the hidden third, secret persona. This means that
some abusers can be missed. The victims I met and interviewed
had gone to elaborate measures to get recommendations and
do research on the trainers they hired. The trainers who ended
up killing their dogs stated they were “positive reinforcement
trainers” and in one case never showed any rough handling while
the owners interviewed the trainer in their home.
According to WebMD some traits of abusers are, I have taken
these traits and am speculating how they may be applied to dog
training:
• Abusers rush relationships: This is one way to control the
situation, dog and client. They may also tell clients that their type
of training is faster, pulling the client into a quick fix mentality
that is popular in our culture.
• Abusers try to isolate: Several of the victims I talked with
were isolated either in their homes or at a training location
when the abuse or death of their dog occurred. Of the victims
I interviewed, I noted the trainers would often separate the
dog from the owners. Abusers appear to avoid public settings,
avoiding transparency.
The next two
bullets are my
own based on the
owner interviews:
• Abusers shape
their victims:
Abusive trainers
many times did
not start with
abusing the
client’s dog, but
rather they gradually moved the client toward escalating positive
punishment techniques, in that way they made it appear as if
other things were previously tried and failed and there was no
choice but to escalate the punishment to a higher level.
• Abusers desire validation: Many of the victims described their
trainers as charismatic, friendly and charming. Abusive trainers
also often took time to get the client to ‘buy into’ their choice of
techniques.
When trainers deny the existence of abusive trainers they enable
abusers to continue their work. Each one of us must chose to stop
denying what is happening in every community. It is only when
we as professionals take responsibility for our problem that we
have a chance to prevent abuse.
Hidden Crimes
Dog abuse and deaths during training are a hidden crime for
several reasons. First, owners don’t know to report these crimes.
Second, the animal cruelty criminal justice system in most states
is not designed to address dog training deaths or abuse. The
wording in most states says the abuser must show “intent” to
do harm. This creates a gaping loop hole as the dog owner can
not possibly know the dog trainer’s intent and the dog trainer
can easily say there was no intent to harm or kill to avoid any
consequences. Furthermore, because dogs are considered property
there would only be a minor fine for killing a dog; in my state I
The APDT Chronicle of the Dog | Summer 2018
39