I'm certainly not going to defend everything in the article (and I think the article is a bit too hasty to group all positive trainers into their term «
aversive free», and there is a differenc), but I think it's worth a read and would love to hear your thoughts.
You may or may not agree with this, but it's an article calling out «
aversive free» dog trainers for sometimes not using all the tools available that might help rehabilitate shelter dogs — leading to their deaths in shelters.
As they note: «Even in situations where
an aversive free only approach can work, it often takes a very long time, and time is something that many shelter dogs just don't have».
One of the main reasons that
aversive free training probably works so well is that it prevents dogs from «freezing up» through fear of consequences.
Fortunately, there is now ample evidence to prove that
aversive free training is effective.
Not exact matches
In fact there seems to be a taste receptor for
free fatty acids, CD36 [2], but this may be an
aversive sensor for decayed food.
And this is the theme that runs through all these different terms — whether we say «positive», «positive - only», or «force -
free», we are talking about training without
aversives.
The HDN closes the door on the perceived need and advisability of using punitive or
aversive methods to train our pet dogs, offering a clear, easy - to - use force -
free alternative to some of the most popular teaching paradigms now available.