This time I sat down with Jay Jack. Jay is the mind behind GRC (Gameness, Relationship, Control) Dog Sport. If you mix bull breeds with martial arts culture, Jay is the guy who shows up. This episode is really a catch up, no script, no agenda. Just me and Jay talking dogs, and you’re the fly on the wall.

This episode is with Daisy Peel. Daisy is an agility trainer and competitor and has been part of the U.S. World Team nine times.

In this podcast, we go deeper into the sport of agility and compare it with other dog sports. We talk about what it really means to select and train dogs for the world stage versus training a pet dog simply to provide an outlet and maintain a healthy, balanced mind.

We also touch on the cultural differences between sports. Unlike protection sports, agility is a community that is predominantly force-free and yes, we talk openly about that too.

Enjoy.

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.

In this episode, I break down one of the most damaging myths in modern dog training, the idea that all resource guarding is caused by Fear.I explain why this “fear-only” narrative collapses the moment you look at real behavior, and how it leads trainers and owners to misdiagnose dogs every day.I go into the difference between fear-based guarding and competitive, status-driven guarding… and why confusing the two creates bigger, long-term problems!If you want a clear, functional understanding of resource guarding, without ideology, this episode is for you.

In this episode I’m back with Melanie Uhde for a direct and unapologetic conversation about canine behavior, animal learning, and the growing gap between popular dog training ideology and biological reality. We examine commonly cited canine studies, how they’re often misread or selectively used, and why the force-free narrative fails to explain how animals actually learn, adapt, and thrive.

A major part of our conversation centers on adversity and aversives in training, not as something to be reflexively avoided, but as information. We talk about why challenge, discomfort, and even conflict are not inherently harmful, and why some dogs don’t just tolerate adversity but actively seek it. For many dogs, especially those with strong drives, the thrill of overcoming resistance, pressure, and difficulty is part of what makes learning meaningful!

This episode challenges the idea that good training must be sterile, effortless, or free of negative experience. Instead, we explore learning as it actually occurs in real animals, through consequences, feedback, success, failure, and resilience.

This conversation wasn’t meant to protect feelings or ideology. It’s for trainers, behavior professionals, and serious dog people who are interested in honest, EVIDENCE BASED discussions about animal learning, motivation, and performance.

In this episode, Ivan Balabanov and Will Bangura sit down for a direct, honest conversation about dog training, learning theory, and the claims behind “positive-only” methods.

No scripts. No prepared speeches. Just two trainers with very different philosophies trying to understand and challenge each other.

The points of agreement matter just as much as the disagreements.

Different philosophies. Different experiences. Same goal: truth over ideology.

This is only the beginning. Part 2 is already coming.

For over 40 years, dog trainers have been fed a feel-good myth: the "jackpot" reward, championed by Karen Pryor, claims a pile of treats will supercharge your dog’s learning. But does it deliver? Did the force-free movement’s “kool-aid” mislead trainers for decades?Tune in and discover the truth!

My guest in this episode is Clemente Grosso, well respected IGP and FCI Obedience judge, has officiated at numerous World Championships. Clemente is also a member of the FCI Working Dog Commission and plays a key role in shaping the rules, decisions, and long-term vision for the future of IGP. As competitor Clemente’s breed of choice is the Giant Schnauzer.

We discuss how and why the rules evolve, the direction of the sport, and the often misunderstood relationship between what judges look for and what trainers think judges want to see. Clemente also shares his thoughts on the removal of stick hits in IGP and how this change is affecting performance, training methods, and even breeding and selection.

We didn’t always agree, which made it even more interesting to both of us.

Clemente and I go way back to my years living in Belgium, when we were both first introduced to the sport.

There will be a Part 2, because we both felt there are topics we wanted go deeper into.

Share your thoughts in the comments, we might include some of your ideas in our next conversation.