Pawsitive Companions

Pawsitive Companions 15+ years forging stronger bonds between dogs & owners. 28 years with Rottweilers. Smarter breeding regs, harder penalties. Boxing fan, Edinburgh based.

01/09/2026
I’m not here to tell you what to think. I’m here to ask you to think more.Dog training is full of opinions, labels and a...
31/08/2026

I’m not here to tell you what to think. I’m here to ask you to think more.

Dog training is full of opinions, labels and absolutes. I’d rather look at the evidence, question what I’m told and be willing to change my mind when the evidence says I should.

You don’t have to agree with me. Just think. 🐕🐾❤️

“E-collars don’t hurt.”Next time you hear that claim, remember this study.Six dogs received e-collar stimulation. All si...
29/08/2026

“E-collars don’t hurt.”

Next time you hear that claim, remember this study.

Six dogs received e-collar stimulation. All six yelped.

You can debate whether e-collars have a place in training, but pretending the stimulation is incapable of causing pain isn’t supported by what happened in this study.

The data is the data.

🐾 New in our Members Area: Show Us Your Dog!We’ve just launched a new group where you can share photos of your dog — tra...
29/08/2026

🐾 New in our Members Area: Show Us Your Dog!

We’ve just launched a new group where you can share photos of your dog — training wins, silly moments, or simply your dog being brilliantly themselves. 🐶

Not a member yet? Join for free and get notified whenever we publish a new blog too.

👉 www.pawsitivecompanions.co.uk

My thoughts on vaccines. 🐾This is based on my own experiences, conversations I’ve had with vets, and the evidence and da...
27/08/2026

My thoughts on vaccines. 🐾

This is based on my own experiences, conversations I’ve had with vets, and the evidence and data currently available.

Not telling anyone what to think — just sharing what I’ve learned and how I look at it.

There is something happening in the dog world at the moment that concerns me more than people questioning vaccines.It's the way social media has turned a complicated subject into a simple one.Dog has a reaction after a vaccine?The vaccine did it.Dog doesn't have the vaccine?The owner is irresponsibl...

27/08/2026

Look at this 👌🏻
Dogs in the distance, birds nearby and distractions everywhere, but she chooses to disengage and come back to me and the task at hand.

Beautiful to see. 🐕🐾❤️

Hot take: If you haven’t put hands on them, have you really worked with them?Just asking. 😂🐾
26/08/2026

Hot take: If you haven’t put hands on them, have you really worked with them?

Just asking. 😂🐾

Punishment: what does it actually teach?I’ve been thinking about punishment this week.Does punishment actually teach a d...
21/08/2026

Punishment: what does it actually teach?

I’ve been thinking about punishment this week.

Does punishment actually teach a dog anything other than “don’t do that or something unpleasant happens”?

For me, that’s where things get interesting.

Punishment can suppress a behaviour. It can teach avoidance. It can change what a dog chooses to do in a particular situation.

But it’s doesn’t automatically teach the dog what we want them to do instead. And that’s particularly important with reactivity.

Once a dog is already reacting, we have potentially missed the point at which we could have effectively taught the alternative behaviour. Learning a new response becomes much harder once the dog is over threshold.

So the work I want to do is before that point. My training starts at home. Then the garden. Then the street. Then the park. We gradually increase the difficulty while continually reinforcing the behaviour we actually want.

And we don’t stop practising just because the dog is doing better, we build the relationship. We build enjoyment in being around each other. Most importantly, we build value in trusting the handler.

Sometimes that means avoiding certain situations or environments for the first month or two while we work. That seems like failure but it’s not, it is simply management while we’re changing the behaviour and setting the dog up to succeed.

And this is where the owner’s contribution becomes absolutely massive.

Because I can give someone the best training plan in the world, but if they come home from work exhausted, can’t be bothered practising, are constantly busy or only want to work with the dog when they’re already frustrated, we’re probably not getting very far.

Then there’s the question of control.

Does punishment have a place in dog training?

Honestly, I don’t know.

What I do know is that having control in the moment can be incredibly important, particularly when we’re dealing with a physically strong dog and an owner who simply cannot safely manage them. That’s where I’d first look at management and equipment that gives the handler more control and confidence.

For example, an anti pull harness can be a fantastic tool for someone struggling to physically manage a strong dog during those difficult moment. It doesn’t necessarily change the underlying emotional response, but if it gives the owner enough control to prevent rehearsal of the behaviour and enough confidence to keep working, that’s valuable.

Then we get the dogs that aren’t merely reacting. They are actively looking for the smoke.

The harness is still useful, but perhaps it doesn’t give us everything we need to keep everybody safe before that reaction happens.

So do we use equipment that can deliver an aversive consequence?

A prong, a grot, an e-collar? I’ve used a grot and an e-collar in the past.

And I’ll be honest: They work.

But “it works” isn’t the end of the conversation for me, how often do we actually see these tools being phased out?

Social media would have us believe that a dog can go from being completely out of control to perfectly behaved and somehow the tools magically disappear.

Sometimes they probably do.
Sometimes they don’t.

And there’s an important distinction between having a tool available and actually using it.

With something like a prong or grot collar, the opportunity for physical pressure is always there whenever the lead is used. An e-collar gives you considerably more control over when the aversive is actually delivered.

But even then, the question shouldn’t simply be:
“Does this tool work?”

It should be:
“Why am I using it, what am I trying to achieve, and what am I teaching alongside it?” Because tools aren’t the only things that can be aversive.

My voice can be aversive.
A loud clap can be aversive.
An “eh-eh” can be aversive.
Even my facial expression can be aversive to a particular dog depending on the dog, the situation and the relationship between us.

That’s just life with another living creature.

The important thing, for me, is understanding what we’re actually doing rather than pretending that putting a particular label on ourselves makes every interaction automatically positive or automatically harmful.

I’m not interested in pretending punishment doesn’t work. I’m also not interested in pretending that because something works, we’ve automatically demonstrated that it is the best way to train that dog.

Control matters. Management matters. Learning matters. The relationship matters. Welfare matters.

And sometimes the hardest part of dog training isn’t deciding which tool to use.

It’s knowing when not to use one at all.

THIS ISN’T ABOUT SIDES. IT’S ABOUT STANDARDS.I’ve been involved with dogs and rescue for more than 15 years, and I’ve be...
19/08/2026

THIS ISN’T ABOUT SIDES. IT’S ABOUT STANDARDS.

I’ve been involved with dogs and rescue for more than 15 years, and I’ve been saying for a very long time that the dog training industry needs proper regulation.

So I want to make something very clear.

I don’t care whether you’re force free, balanced, traditional, modern, whatever label you’ve decided to put on yourself.

If you’re making claims about dogs, training, qualifications or research, I expect you to be able to substantiate those claims.

Recently, Will Bangura publicly stated that there are almost 10,000 force free professionals with legitimate certifications compared with fewer than 300 balanced trainers with any type of certificate.

Those figures have subsequently been repeated by Rob Wright as evidence supporting the argument that balanced training represents an almost negligible part of the professionally credentialed industry.

There is also an exact 39:1 ratio attached to those figures.

So I asked a very simple question:

Where is the data?

I wasn’t arguing that the figures were wrong.

I wasn’t defending balanced training.

I wasn’t attacking force free training.

I wanted to see the source and understand how the figures had been calculated.

Rob’s response was:

“It’s public information.”

So I asked where I could find it because I couldn’t.

Will Bangura subsequently blocked me.

The original post is now unavailable to me, which is why I’m posting the screenshots here.

And this is where I have a serious problem.

If you tell people that information is publicly available, but don’t provide the source when someone asks for it, that isn’t transparency.

If you publish an exact ratio based on two deliberately imprecise figures, I’d like to know the actual numbers used to calculate it.

If you’re going to categorise thousands of professionals as force free and hundreds as balanced, I’d like to know:

Which organisations were included?
What counted as a legitimate certification?
How were “force free” and “balanced” defined?
How were duplicate qualifications handled?
What countries and organisations were included?
When was the data collected?

And what are the actual figures behind that 39:1 ratio?

These aren’t unreasonable questions.

They’re basic questions about methodology.

And here’s why I’m being so fu***ng serious about this.

I’ve been calling for regulation of the dog-training industry since I started working in rescue more than 15 years ago.

I want better standards.
I want properly educated professionals.
I want accountability.
I want dogs protected from poor practice.
I want this industry to become better.

And I will not sit quietly while people on either side of the argument make unsupported claims, exaggerate statistics or present something as established fact when they aren’t willing to show people how they arrived at it.

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth:

Every time someone does this, they hand ammunition to the opposing side.

A balanced trainer can point at an unsupported force free claim and say:

“See? This is what these people do.”

And suddenly a legitimate argument about welfare and evidence gets dragged into another fu***ng tribal war.

That’s how an already poorly regulated industry becomes even harder to regulate.

So no, this isn’t me defending balanced training. And it isn’t me attacking force free training.

It’s me defending evidence.

If your argument is good, evidence will make it stronger.
If your statistics are accurate, showing the methodology won’t hurt them.
If the information really is public, show people where it is.

And if someone asks you a legitimate question in good faith, blocking them isn’t a particularly good look, especially when that person may actually agree with parts of your broader argument.

I don’t want an industry where one side gets to make claims because they’re “the good guys.”

I want an industry where everyone has to show their working.

Because dogs deserve better than tribalism.

And frankly, so does the profession.

Show us the data.



EDIT:
Well, an answer finally came. Still not the best but at least we know where the figures might come from. Screenshots in comments.

Address

Edinburgh

Opening Hours

Monday 8:30am - 8:30pm
Tuesday 8:30am - 8:30pm
Wednesday 8:30am - 8:30pm
Thursday 8:30am - 8:30pm
Friday 8:30am - 8:30pm
Saturday 8:30am - 8:30pm
Sunday 8:30am - 8:30pm

Telephone

+447407279768

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pawsitive Companions posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category