Should the dog training industry in the USA be regulated?I’ve been asked this over and over again, and the answer is not as simple as people think.In this episode, I break down what regulation could improve, what it could destroy, and the one line that matters most if this industry ever gets “controlled” by outside forces.Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.

In this episode, I sit down with Dr. Ana Catarina Vieira de Castro, a researcher at the University of Porto (Portugal) specializing in canine behavior, welfare, and human–animal interactions, for a thoughtful discussion about one of the most contentious issues in modern dog training.

Catarina is well known for her research comparing reward-based (positive reinforcement) and aversive or mixed training methods. Her work is frequently cited within the force-free community, often as scientific support for calls to restrict or ban certain training tools through legislation.

Rather than dissecting individual papers line by line, our conversation focuses on the bigger and more difficult questions:

Do aversives have a place in dog training?

Are they effective, and under what conditions?

What are the welfare risks of using them improperly?

And just as importantly, what are the risks of removing them entirely through policy and legislation?

We explore how science, ethics, and real world practice intersect, especially in cases where idealized training models often break down.

Catarina’s published work including Carrots vs. Sticks (Applied Animal Behaviour Science), her PLOS ONE studies comparing training methods and welfare, and her contributions to the literature on stress, obedience, and the dog–owner bond forms the background context for why these questions matter beyond academic debate. These studies are widely referenced in discussions around regulation, bans, and professional standards, making it essential to talk not only about findings, but also about interpretation, limits, and unintended consequences.

Importantly, Catarina is also a dog trainer herself, which allowed this conversation to go beyond research settings and into the practical realities of working with real dogs.

This was also the first time a scientist whose work is so frequently cited in these debates was willing to sit down with me for an open, long form conversation, something that hasn’t been done in this space.

This episode is for trainers, behavior professionals, policymakers, and dog owners who want a deeper, more honest conversation about effectiveness, welfare, and the real risks on both sides of the training method debate.

In this solo podcast, I address the broader argument against aversive tools in dog training promoted by the AVSAB and the R+-only movement.Recently, Dr. Michael Bailey, President of the American Veterinary Medical Association, commented on the use of electronic collars in dog training. That comment triggered backlash and a strong response from Dr. Lisa Radosta, President of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists.But this presentation is not about personalities.It’s about the claim that aversives never have a place in dog training.Using peer-reviewed research, learning theory, and real-world outcomes, I examine whether the “no aversives ever” position is actually supported by evidence and what happens to dogs when ideology overrides results.At the end, I invite you, the trainers and owners, to share stories of dogs who are alive today because balanced training worked when nothing else did.Outcomes matter.