❗️ This episode discusses various training approaches. We believe examining different perspectives contributes to thoughtful decision-making for dog owners.
__
Jack Tutty from J&P Canine Academy returns to defend the most controversial tools in dog training, arguing they're kinder than alternatives we accept without question.
This conversation challenges how we think about training tools and animal welfare. Jack breaks down what "aversive" actually means and questions why we accept certain methods whilst condemning others that may be less harmful.
He argues our emotional reactions to specific words prevent objective evaluation of what actually helps dogs.
The discussion reveals the gap between expensive "positive" solutions and the reality of working with difficult cases. Jack examines the billion-pound industry built around these distinctions and questions whether our standards are based on evidence or emotion.
We explore what separates good trainers from exceptional ones, the culture around competitive dog sports, and why Jack believes some dogs need clear boundaries backed by consequences.
The conversation touches on regulation, expertise, and who gets to decide what's ethical in animal training.
Jack's perspective forces uncomfortable questions about the difference between what makes us feel good and what actually serves dogs.
Whether you agree with his methods or not, his arguments challenge assumptions about kindness, control, and effectiveness in training.
The question isn't whether you'll use these tools. It's whether you're willing to examine why certain approaches make you uncomfortable whilst others don't.
