Why Zak George* Is Ruining The Dog Training Industry (*And Other 'Influencers')

In the past decade, the rise of the social media influencer has been felt across every industry. Fashion, beauty, politics, food, medicine…there seemingly isn’t a single niche that hasn’t been swallowed up by a swathe of individuals who give their perspectives to fuel engagement, build a following (and their bank balance), and shape public opinion.

Dog training is not immune from this influx of influencers, but the impact of online discourse on this topic has real world consequences for dogs and their owners.

Opinions, perspectives and freedom of speech are, of course, the right of those who engage on social media platforms. The danger arises when opinions masquerading as fact become the accepted norm, and when those with the biggest platforms shape mainstream thinking, irrespective of their credentials, experience, or what the scientific evidence actually supports.

The problem here is far bigger than one influencer; after all, individual influencers come and go, and often discredit themselves by using their outsized platform to stray into other topics (where, interestingly, they are also usually unqualified to offer opinions). More seriously, the bigger issue is that this constant drip of misinformation is not helpful for dog owners who want to find actual solutions to their real problems, and it clouds public thinking, even resulting in ill-thought out legislation that severely restricts the ability of owners and trainers to improve the lives of dogs and their families.

The rise of force-free absolutism

It is worth examining how force-free ideology came to be the dominant narrative on social media, but once you have an understanding of social media algorithms, it is actually pretty simple to understand.

Social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, etc.) reward content that is:

Easy to understand
Plays on emotions
Visually appealing
Shareable

Force-free messaging ticks all of these boxes. It distills dog training into a very compelling, easily digestible narrative, where positive reinforcement is the only game in town and anything else is abuse. After all, social media is the perfect space for short clips (often without context) to further build this narrative.

Social media is also the perfect place to strip nuance completely from the debate on any topic. Clips without context mean there is no time or space for detailed conversations about which approach may suit a specific dog displaying specific behavioral tendencies in a specific scenario; instead, the nature of social media paints the topic as a simplified good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, without a well-informed, reasoned debate.

False narratives about balanced training

With social media creating an unequal playing field, false narratives around balanced training have continued to gain traction. Many of the arguments are unfounded and simply play on people’s emotions as opposed to being rooted in facts and outcomes.

Balanced dog training is not abusive or an overreliance on training tools. In fact, balanced trainers use positive reinforcement on a daily basis, but they also recognize that in some cases, using all four quadrants of operant conditioning is the best way to achieve results in some circumstances. It is not a punishment-focused approach to training – instead, it is about building a strong, healthy relationship with a dog that helps to achieve training goals.

How force-free absolutism restricts outcomes

Where the rubber really meets the road on force-free absolutism is not in the public sphere of social media discussions, but in the privacy of homes across the nation where dog owners often have to manage significant behavioral issues.

The reality is that a world in which purely positive reigns supreme is a world where euthanasia and surrender would be on the increase, because some owners and trainers would simply not have the tools available to work with the ‘difficult’ dog.

The constant feed of influencers claiming that ‘purely positive is the only way’ often leaves dog owners who are dealing with reactivity, aggression and other complex issues feeling hopeless. With some dogs, this approach is simply destined to fail, because it is restricted to positive reinforcement only. In cases of aggression, you simply can’t ‘reward the good and ignore the bad’ because reinforcing the bad behavior (by ignoring it) is not enabling dog owners to make any progress.

The force-free ideology limits the approaches that can be employed, as it is only focused on one quadrant of operant conditioning – positive reinforcement. Balanced trainers understand that, while positive reinforcement can work in many settings, there are scenarios where other approaches must be undertaken to achieve any form of training progress. The hundreds of dog owners who have come to us feeling completely devoid of hope because of their dog’s behavior, only to see the transformation after a considered, balanced approach to working with their dog, is testament to the success that can be achieved.

What is welfare? What are ethics?

There is often a discussion about the ethics of purely positive vs. balanced trainers. Of course, as alluded to above, the discussion is skewed because one side dominates the conversation with soundbites as opposed to a nuanced discussion. Leaving that aside, a lot of this boils down to the welfare of the dog and what is ‘ethical’.

What is often left out of this particular debate on welfare and ethics is that a lack of clear communication is not good for a dog’s welfare. A lack of boundaries is not good for a dog’s welfare. A dog that puts themselves and others at risk is not good for a dog’s welfare. Being bounced in and out of shelters because they have behavioral problems is not good for a dog’s welfare. Behavioral euthanasia is not good for a dog’s welfare.

Balanced training actually helps to create structures and routines for dogs where the expectations are very clear, thus contributing to an improvement in their behavior. Consequently, the dog’s freedom actually increases, enabling them to live a richer, more fulfilled life. Is that ethical? Is that focused on their welfare?

What does the future hold?

Dog training is an unregulated industry, and there is a vacuum where social media influencers can enter the chat and build a following based on vibes, and vibes alone. This is problematic for our industry, as it allows myths and emotion to drive the debate, as opposed to facts and outcomes. This does a huge disservice to dogs and their families who are looking for solutions that will enable them to live harmoniously.

So what do we actually need?

We need more expert voices in our industry who are capable of robust debate based on the evidence, not on what will generate likes and views.

We need dog trainers who will rely on education and utilize real-world solutions to real-world problems, not a force-free utopia that isn’t rooted in the real problems that dog owners are facing.

We need more understanding that every dog is an individual and that there is a lot of nuance to dog training, not absolutism that ‘plays well’ on social media.

We need more professionals and fewer influencers. You can make this argument for many industries, but it is particularly prevalent in dog training. Why are we letting individuals with few credentials and limited experience drive public opinion, simply because they can build a following on social media? Why aren’t we listening to the voices of those who have been in the industry for decades; who have worked with thousands of dogs; who have studied in this field; who can articulate their case eloquently; and who have improved the lives of thousands of families?