In a provocative chapter titled “Choosing the Right Method: Reinforcement vs Punishment” from the textbook Zoo Animal Learning and Training (Wiley-Blackwell, 2020), Ken Ramirez—a leading figure in animal training and Executive Vice President and Chief Training Officer at Karen Pryor Clicker Training (KPCT)—raises essential questions about the prevailing methods in animal training. Notably, while his role at the Karen Pryor Academy (KPA) emphasizes a strictly positive reinforcement approach, his scholarly work in accredited educational settings presents a far more nuanced picture. This duality highlights a tension between institutional dogma and scientific inquiry and calls into question the influence of professional organizations and public relations on the ethical application of training techniques and professional regulations.
The Trend Toward Positive Reinforcement: A Question of Science or Public Perception?
For many years, positive reinforcement has been heralded as the ethically superior approach to animal training, embraced wholeheartedly by leading organizations such as the Association of Professional Dog Trainers (APDT), the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC), and the Karen Pryor Academy. However, Ramirez challenges this conventional wisdom in his chapter. He asks pointedly:
“When choosing a training method you may be inclined to ask whether this trend is based on perception and public relations or is there a solid scientific basis for the popular support for reinforcement over punishment?”
This question is at the heart of his argument. While many training institutions have adopted positive reinforcement as a cornerstone of their practice, Ramirez emphasizes that such trends may be driven more by image and public expectation than by rigorous scientific evaluation. He cautions that when faced with “the many types of reinforcers and punishers, however, even an experienced trainer can get confused and feel uncertain about how to apply them.” In other words, the simplistic division between reinforcement and punishment belies the complexity inherent in behavioral modification techniques.
The Scientific Case for Punishment and Aversives
Ramirez does not advocate for an indiscriminate return to punishment-based methods; rather, he argues that both reinforcement and punishment have their place when applied with precision and expertise.
To illustrate his point, Ramirez offers a practical example while training zoo animals. Consider the scenario of moving an animal into a new enclosure. Adding a net, board, or similar aversive device constitutes a form of positive punishment—the animal learns that staying put results in an unpleasant consequence. Alternatively, ending the training session (and thereby removing the opportunity for food reinforcement) serves as negative punishment. The aim in either case is to decrease the likelihood of an undesired behavior through carefully timed and measured interventions.
Furthermore, Ramirez discretely draws a compelling parallel with equine training. He describes the use of head halters on horses —which also happen to be a popular tool in dog training marketed under the guise of being “gentle” and a tool of positive reinforcement-based trainers. In truth, these devices operate on principles strikingly similar to the reins used by riders on horses:
“The rider gives the horse direction through the use of reins… The horse will feel the pressure of the reins on one side of his face and will move in the opposite direction to relieve the pressure. This is an example of a mild aversive… and is an example of negative reinforcement because the likelihood of moving in the direction indicated is likely to increase in the future.”
By drawing attention to this mechanism, Ramirez exposes a critical irony: tools celebrated as non-aversive in one species may, by scientific standards, involve the same fundamental processes of aversion as those more overtly labeled as punishment.
Competence Versus Rigid Guidelines
A central tenet of Ramirez’s argument is that the efficacy of any training technique—whether based on reinforcement or punishment—hinges on the trainer’s competence and understanding. He warns against a one-size-fits-all approach dictated by professional associations, noting:
“The fact that it is possible to train animals to perform the desired behaviour in so many different ways adds to the dilemma of which methods to choose and which will be most effective? Part of the challenge in using any method is in recognising that its effectiveness is based on using it properly and understanding that misuse can make even the best technique ineffective.”
This observation is particularly poignant given the current trend in many formal dog training academies, where adherence to strict, often dogmatic, guidelines has led to a growing lack of competence in the use of aversives. Ramirez and any of their education partners are not allowed to teach the use of aversive training techniques according to the Karen Pryor Academy's code of conduct and Education Partnership Policy (see attachments below). When professional organizations base their guidelines largely on public perception rather than robust scientific principles, they inadvertently restrict trainers from developing the necessary skill set to apply aversive techniques safely and effectively.
Ramirez is clear in his criticism of these constraints:
“Many who train animals are bound by rules and guidelines put in place by their respective organisations. These guidelines may be based on scientific principles, but in many cases they are influenced by other outside factors:
He continues to list...
- Professional organisations: many people who train are bound by rules and guidelines put forth by professional associations and groups designed to manage a species or a breed of animal. These guidelines are often derived through compromises and discussions by many professionals with a wide range of skills, knowledge, and agendas.
- Public relations: sometimes organisations make choices based on appearances, and public perception. These are not usually scientifically based decisions, but they are important to most organisations and can have a huge impact on what choices are available to those who train animals.”
In this framework, ethical decision-making should not be sacrificed on the altar of public relations. Instead, trainers need the freedom—and the requisite training—to choose the most effective methods for each individual animal, based on an in-depth understanding of behavior and learning theory.
Ethics, Compassion, and the LIMA Principle
Despite the controversy surrounding the use of aversive techniques, Ramirez does not advocate for their indiscriminate application. He underscores that ethical animal training is about more than just efficacy; it is also about compassion and the overall quality of life for the animal. As he puts it:
“Generally, we as humans are a compassionate species. We train animals in an attempt to give them better care and help them live in our world safely. The methods that we choose to use must be governed not only by efficacy but also by ethics. Just because we can train something doesn’t mean that we should.”
Ramirez acknowledges that personal ethics, professional guidelines, and even employer policies all play a role in shaping training decisions. Yet he brings attention to approaches that are both flexible and competency-based. He refers to Stephen Lindsay’s “Least Intrusive and Minimally Aversive (LIMA)” principle—a framework that advocates for reinforcement-based training while recognizing that, on occasion, the judicious use of aversive tools may be necessary:
“Least intrusive and minimally aversive (LIMA) principle (Lindsay 2005): Stephen Lindsay describes what he refers to as a cynopraxic (dog friendly) approach to training that is reinforcement based, but recognises that the need for aversive tools may at times be necessary… any ethical approach must be competency based, because it requires skill and experience to know when to use a more aversive approach.”
Notably, the LIMA guidelines demand a level of competence that many formal dog training academies currently lack—especially regarding the safe and effective use of aversive techniques. The absence of such competence risks not only the misapplication of training methods but also the broader misrepresentation of what effective and ethical animal training truly entails.
A Personal Choice Informed by Science
Despite his acknowledgment of the scientific validity of both reinforcement and punishment, Ramirez makes it clear that his own training practices—especially within the zoo community—are guided by personal preference and ethical judgment. He stresses that while he predominantly employs positive reinforcement techniques, he recognizes that aversive methods can sometimes achieve results more rapidly and unambiguously when used by a skilled practitioner. He emphasizes that such techniques are strictly the domain of experienced trainers who understand the nuances of a balanced approach.
In his own words:
“The skilled trainer should find that the need to purposely use punishment in training is rare, but having full knowledge about the use of punishment and reinforcement will always be critically important in making an informed decision.”
This statement encapsulates the core of his argument: effective animal training is not about dogmatically adhering to a single method, but about possessing a deep, science-based understanding of a full repertoire of tools. In a landscape increasingly defined by rigid organizational guidelines and public relations concerns, such an informed and flexible approach is more crucial than ever.
Conclusion
Ken Ramirez’s chapter in Zoo Animal Learning and Training serves as a clarion call for a re-examination of the prevailing trends in animal training. By highlighting the scientific legitimacy of both reinforcement and punishment—and by critiquing the influence of professional organizations that prioritize public perception over scientific rigor—Ramirez's chapter invites trainers, educators, and policymakers to embrace a more balanced, competence-driven approach. In doing so, he reminds us that ethical animal training must be practical, adaptable, nuanced, and ultimately guided by a deep respect for science and compassion while recognizing that organizations with specific agendas may cloud the scientific integrity of policies.
In an era where training guidelines risk becoming outdated relics of public relations rather than living documents informed by ongoing scientific discovery, Ramirez’s insights are both timely and essential. For the sake of the animals we train—and the professionals entrusted with their care—a renewed focus on comprehensive competency and ethical flexibility is imperative.
Download the restrictive documents below:
Great article! Too often, too many ‘professional’ organizations wrap themselves in the mantle of ‘science’ to mask their financial self interest and intellectual/emotional prejudices. Then they use weasel words to propagandize against trainers who do things differently. For example saying any form of positive punishment at any stage of the training process means you use fear and force to make an animal do what you want. But, by the same token, I could say that cookie-based training means you are using hunger and deprivation to make an animal do what you want.
You need to login in order to like this post: click here