When Behaviour Changes Quickly but Welfare Pays the Price

In dog training and behaviour work, speed of change is often mistaken for quality of outcome. A behaviour stops. A response reduces. A dog appears calmer, quieter, more compliant. On the surface, this can look like success. But behaviour professionals have a responsibility to look beyond what behaviour does and consider what the dog is experiencing physically and emotionally while that change occurs, and what the long-term cost may be.

Dogs do not behave independently of their bodies or nervous systems. Behaviour is shaped by movement, pain, learning history, emotional state, and environmental pressure. When behaviour changes without those factors being assessed or addressed, it is often because expression has been suppressed rather than the underlying experience resolved.

One of the most concerning developments in modern dog training is the increasing normalisation of methods that interrupt behaviour through aversive stimulation delivered remotely. These approaches are often described as precise, controlled, or minimally intrusive. In reality, they rely on the dog finding the sensation sufficiently unpleasant to change what they are doing. That unpleasantness is not incidental. It is the functional mechanism through which learning occurs.

From a physiological perspective, exposure to unpredictable aversive stimuli activates the stress response system. This includes increased cortisol levels, activation of the sympathetic nervous system, elevated muscle tension, and reduced capacity for behavioural flexibility. Research shows that dogs subjected to these methods often display stress-related behaviours even when outward compliance improves. A reduction in visible behaviour does not necessarily indicate improved welfare. Suppression can easily be mistaken for calm.

From a learning theory perspective, these approaches operate through positive punishment and negative reinforcement. For behaviour to change, the dog must experience the stimulus as aversive enough to avoid it in the future. This does not teach emotional regulation, coping skills, or choice. It teaches avoidance. Numerous studies have demonstrated that dogs trained using aversive methods show increased stress, fear responses, and poorer overall welfare outcomes compared to dogs trained using reward-based approaches.

What is particularly problematic is not only what these methods do, but what they allow practitioners to bypass. They bypass assessment of pain and movement, despite the strong links between discomfort and behaviour. They bypass consideration of arousal thresholds and nervous system capacity. They bypass the need to teach foundational skills such as disengagement, recovery, and self-regulation. Responsibility for change shifts away from professional observation and adaptation, and onto the dog’s ability to tolerate discomfort.

This matters because behaviour that is interrupted without being understood does not disappear. It is stored. It often resurfaces later as anxiety, shutdown, learned helplessness, or behavioural fallout that appears disconnected from the original context. The absence of behaviour in the moment tells us very little about the dog’s long-term welfare.

As understanding of canine behaviour and welfare has progressed, many veterinary and professional bodies have taken a clear position on this issue. Increasingly, legislation has followed. These decisions are not driven by sentiment or ideology. They reflect an evidence-based evaluation of risk, welfare impact, and the availability of effective alternatives that do not rely on pain, fear, or suppression to achieve change.

I discussed this publicly in my interview on This Morning, where the focus was not on condemning individual tools or practitioners, but on raising the standard of how we understand behaviour. When we prioritise movement, physical comfort, emotional safety, and skill-building, methods that rely on aversive interruption become unnecessary. Not because they are prohibited, but because they are incompatible with good practice.

Ethical training is not defined by how quickly behaviour changes. It is defined by whether change is achieved without compromising the dog’s physical or emotional wellbeing. That requires observation, patience, and a willingness to work with complexity rather than override it.

If this article has prompted you to reflect on behaviour changes that seem fast or effortless, The Way They Move explores how subtle changes in posture, gait and physical comfort often explain behaviour long before escalation occurs.

If you are a professional holding these ethical questions quietly, mentoring offers a space to reflect, integrate evidence, and strengthen confidence without needing to simplify or defend your values.

References

Cooper JJ, Cracknell N, Hardiman J, Wright H, Mills DS. The welfare consequences and efficacy of training pet dogs with aversive remote stimulation compared with reward-based training. PLOS One. 2014;9(9):e102722.

Schalke E, Stichnoth J, Ott S, Jones-Baade R. Clinical signs caused by aversive stimulation tools on dogs in everyday situations. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 2007;105(4):369–380.

Ziv G. The effects of using aversive training methods in dogs. Journal of Veterinary Behavior. 2017;19:50–60.

AVSAB. Position Statement on the Use of Punishment for Behaviour Modification in Animals.

BSAVA. Policy statements on canine welfare and aversive training methods.