The problem with 'Corrections'

I've been noticing a shift over the past year or so, with more ‘balanced’ training videos showing up on social media, more or less explicitly extolling the benefits of highly aversive equipment such as prong and e-collars, with the caveat that they are completely harmless if the ‘timing’ of theirs use is correct.

This bothers me for several reasons, but one of the biggest ones is this: even if perfect timing existed - even if a professional trainer can deliver a correction at exactly the right millisecond - that's not the reality for most dog owners. They're the ones living with the dog. They're the ones trying to apply what they've seen online or been told by a trainer. And when timing is even slightly off, the correction doesn't just fail to work. It actively makes things worse.

Why timing matters, and why it’s problematic

The theory goes like this: if you correct the dog within half a second of the unwanted behaviour, they'll associate the correction with what they just did and learn not to do it again. Wait too long and they won't make the connection.

I fully acknowledge that there are trainers out there with years of experience who can execute this with precision. They understand timing, they read dog body language fluently, and they can minimise distress. These trainers exist, and in their hands corrections might achieve compliance with relatively minimal fallout. But they're rare, and their skill level isn't remotely replicable for the average dog owner watching YouTube tutorials or attending a couple of training sessions.

The problem is that dogs don't learn like machines: input behaviour, apply consequence at precise moment, behaviour stops. They form associations based on proximity, yes, but also on context, emotional state, what happened immediately before and after, and dozens of other variables that timing alone can't control.

Take lead pulling, which seems to be one of the favourite issues for trainers to show 'before and after' clips of on social media. A check chain correction is delivered at what appears to be the perfect moment. But the dog was also looking at another dog when the correction happened. What have they learned? That pulling is bad? Or that other dogs predict pain? Or that the handler is unpredictable when other dogs are around? The timing might have been technically correct, but the association formed isn't necessarily what was intended.

Even professional trainers can't control for all these variables every time. A dog owner trying to replicate what they've seen online has almost no chance. The margin for error is so narrow that in practice, most corrections delivered by owners are mistimed. And mistimed corrections don't teach anything useful - they just create stress and confusion.

The consequences of mistimed corrections

When corrections are mistimed, several things happen. The dog doesn't connect the correction to the behaviour you intended to punish. They associate it with something else entirely, often something in the environment. This creates fear-based responses to things that should be neutral.

If a puppy mouths your hand during play, and you deliver a verbal correction, but your timing is slightly off - the puppy has already stopped mouthing and is looking at you. Now they've learned that eye contact predicts being told off, they stop checking in with you. Recall gets worse. Engagement deteriorates.

If an adolescent dog pulls toward another dog and you correct with a lead pop (God, how I hate that phrase - it sounds so innocuous) and your timing isn't quite right - the correction happens as they're looking at the other dog, not as they're pulling. Now they associate other dogs with discomfort. They start barking and lunging to create distance. You've created reactivity where none existed.

These aren't worst-case scenarios. There is a high likelihood of this happening when owners try to apply corrections without professional-level timing. And even when timing is good, there's still risk. Stress, suppressed behaviour that looks like compliance, dogs who stop offering behaviours because they're scared of getting it wrong, damage to the relationship because the handler has become unpredictable.

What ‘balanced’ training really means

We have decades of peer-reviewed research showing that reward-based methods work better than aversive methods. Better outcomes, fewer behavioural problems, stronger handler-dog relationships, improved welfare. This isn't ideology or sentiment - it's evidence. Major veterinary and behavioural organisations worldwide recommend reward-based training and advise against aversive methods.

But social media algorithms don't reward nuance or long-term outcomes. They reward dramatic transformations. A dog who stops pulling immediately after a prong collar correction gets engagement. A dog who gradually learns loose-lead walking through positive reinforcement over several weeks doesn't make compelling content.

So balanced training gets repackaged as pragmatic and effective, and the evidence base gets dismissed as ideological or soft. People are being sold methods that cn harm their dogs because the harm isn't visible in short videos. And when those methods fail - when the dog becomes anxious, reactive, or shuts down - the blame gets placed on the owner's timing rather than on the fundamental flaws in the approach.

The Dog's Honest Truth

Perfect timing doesn't make corrections safe or effective. It just makes the damage slightly less obvious in the short term. Corrections work through fear, pain, or discomfort, and even when timed perfectly they create stress and suppress behaviour without teaching the dog what to do instead.

The real issue isn't timing, it's that we're still discussing whether corrections are appropriate when the evidence clearly shows they're not necessary and they're less effective than alternatives. Reward-based training works. It works reliably, it works without creating fear or stress, and it builds relationships rather than damaging them.

If you're seeing balanced training methods recommended online or by trainers, ask what evidence supports them. Ask whether the trainer is following the position statements of veterinary and behavioural organisations. Ask whether the quick fix you're being sold is worth the potential long-term damage to your dog's confidence and your relationship with them.

The Pupmeister training programmes use exclusively force-free, reward-based methods because the evidence supports them and because they work without causing harm. If you're navigating conflicting training advice and want an approach rooted in science rather than social media trends, get in touch any time - I’d love to have a chat.