The dog training industry thrives when it stays grounded in results, safety, and honest science. It suffers when smooth talking presenters, like Michael Shiksio, with thin track records, questionable ethics, and a disregard for intellectual property are elevated by organizations that should know better. The International Association of Canine Professionals' (IACP) recent collaboration with Michael Shikashio is a textbook example of this problem.

---

LIMA: Redefined Under His Watch

The International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) has been crystal clear about the danger of rewriting Steven Lindsay’s original concept of LIMA:

“Unfortunately, there are organizations in the canine industry that seek to eliminate the use of some effective training tools by redefining Steven Lindsay’s model of Least Intrusive Minimally Aversive (LIMA) to fit their organization’s goals.”

This is not an abstract warning. Under Michael Shikashio’s presidency at the IAABC, that is exactly what happened. LIMA was incorporated, dismantled, and redefined into something it was never meant to be: a political slogan to justify tool bans and sideline balanced training.

Michael Shikasio's words (The Canine Classroom Podcast):

"It's interesting how it's (LIMA) been adapted and evolved over the last decade or so or even longer than that now, and some organizations have adopted it and I was actually part of that when I was president of the IAABC. We were working on the iteration that the IAABC wanted to adopt."

---

The Tool Ban Contradiction

Another core pillar of the IACP is its defense of training tools:

“The International Association of Canine Professionals strongly opposes legislation that bans or limits the humane use of any training tool. It is our conviction that limiting the humane use of training tools would result in a higher incidence of nuisance and dangerous dog behavior, and more dogs being surrendered to already over-burdened public shelters.”

Now compare that to Shikashio’s record:

• His name was at the top of the list of supporters when an e-collar ban was pushed in San Francisco.
• He has openly supported e-collar bans in forums and podcasts.

The contradiction could not be clearer. Yet the IACP recently gave him a prime speaking slot at their conference. By doing so, they handed credibility to someone who actively undermines the very policies they claim to fight for.

---

Who Does Michael Shikashio Promote?

Shikashio consistently aligns himself with organizations and figures who share his anti-tool leanings. In a Reddit Q&A, he advised new trainers to pursue programs like Karen Pryor Academy, Academy for Dog Trainers, and CATCH, while also recommending groups such as APDT, IAABC, and PPG, all known for pushing restrictive tool policies while misrepresenting scientific fact.

His circle of “friends” and collaborators includes a long list of enemies to the ethical professional, including:

• Victoria Stilwell – long criticized for fraud and misleading marketing.
• Eduardo Fernandez – who tried to replace LIMA with his own “LIFE model,” based on misrepresenting Lindsay’s work.
• Daniel Mills – a controversial academic with a history of government-funded conclusions against training tools regardless of scientific integrity.

This is not about being “open minded.” It is about openly collaborating with people who misrepresent science and twist frameworks for their own agendas.

---

The Experience Gap

Shikashio’s practical résumé is full of holes:

• No record of higher education in dog behavior.
• No completion of a reputable trade school on dog training.
• No training facility, no official position of accountability as a professional trainer handling aggressive dogs, and no dog training staff under his management, ever...
• Scant evidence of consistent, high quality outcomes, increased quality of life, or control with truly aggressive dogs.

Instead, his rise has been built on PowerPoint slides, stuffed animal demonstrations, and concepts scraped from the work of others with legitimate professional experience. These presentations became his credentials, which in turn opened more speaking gigs and collaborations, creating a self-perpetuating cycle and self-acclaimed expert status.

To be fair, presenting other people’s work is not always wrong if it is framed as education, contains valid information, and credited properly. The problem is when it comes without the real-world depth needed to spot flaws, fix errors, and preserve critical safety details. That lack of lived experience means the mistakes often go unchecked until they reach the hands of an unsuspecting student or dog owner.

---

Why This Matters

The IACP did more than book a presenter when they chose Shikashio. They elevated a figure whose pattern is to adapt his message to whatever circle gives him the greatest advantage. That authority carries consequences: it reinforces bans, distorts frameworks like LIMA, and erodes the hard work of trainers who fight to protect both effective methods and scientific honesty.

This is not just bad optics. It actively undermines the fight to preserve safe and effective training choices for every dog and every owner.

---

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale

Michael Shikashio’s story is not about innovation or progress. It is about how charisma and politics can override craft and results. For trainers and organizations who value integrity, safety, and choice, his collaborations are a cautionary tale.

The time for tolerance is over. Trainers and organizations who value our profession must reject anyone who trades integrity for influence. Our future depends on it.

Dive Deeper:

(Michael Shikasio's ethics are explored deeper at the 20 minute mark of the video at this link).

IAABC and Michael Shikasio- A History of Unfair, Unethical, and Discriminatory Practices Against Dog Trainers?

Update: August 23 Post and Legal Threats

On August 23, Michael Shikashio made a post aimed at me but deliberately hid the source so his followers would not see the full story. His new promotion, the Canis Conference, has also sent me legal threats in an attempt to silence me.

Here are the facts, with screenshots to back them up (at the end of the post):

---

The Strawman Argument

Michael Shikashio wrote on August 23 (in response to this post):

“Of all the things I get hate for, now it’s for using stuffed dogs for defensive handling practice instead of real dogs. 🤷‍♂️
Punching bags in boxing classes. Targets at shooting ranges. Mannequins for CPR practice.
Flight simulators for pilots.
There are substitutions for a reason.
But please by all means let’s use real dogs to practice straight arms or leash muzzles for the first time. 🤦‍♂️” – Michael Shikashio

The real "hate"

That was never the issue. The issue is when someone without real-world experience uses props to teach techniques they did not develop or test out in real life, they leave out critical safety details. This creates false confidence and sets up countless handlers for failure and injury. If flight simulators are created by those that have never landed a plane disaster will happen.

---

The Timeline and Evidence

• Before November 2016
  The only visible evidence of Shikashio’s work were simple housecalls where he tossed treats at dogs through doorways and held leashes wrapped around his wrist like any average housecall trainer.
• November 2, 2016
  Shikashio sent me a Facebook friend request. In his message, he asked to shadow me and attend large group classes while I worked with aggressive dogs and offered to pay me. I declined payment in exchange for the obvious collaboration.
• November 19, 2016
  He visited me in person. I gave him special access because he was president of the IAABC at the time. My intent was to share humane, scalable methods that I had developed and teached others through 2 decades of daily work with the most aggressive dogs in society in a professional facility from start to finish. These were techniques designed to help trainers safely apply and teach the responsible use of punishment in training. If licensing for trainers were ever required, I wanted these gentler, teachable methods to be part of the conversation. Screenshots show this was the conversation.

Instead, after visiting me, he never mentioned the intent to repackage what he observed in a full day of large group classes working with real aggressive dogs as his. He could have easily asked me to formally teach him or others and that was his only interest.

• November 27, 2016
  Only ONE WEEK LATER, he released his first promotional video for his "defensive leash handling class", using my teaching technique and terminology close to verbatim. (Screenshots are in the link at the end of this post). He never had a chance to verify he was doing anything correctly with me, ask for permission to present it as his development, or test on real dogs. I would have never agreed to the misappropriation of my work at this scale.
• After 2016
  He then built those techniques into the foundation of his conference tours along with other basic information that can be found on the internet. He traveled to multiple cities and countries presenting them as if they were his own innovations. That conference became his only and main credential to suddenly market himself as “THE expert on aggression.”

Beyond what he learned in person, he scraped other techniques from photos on my website. Since he had never learned them directly, he demonstrated them dangerously wrong. Safety details were missing, leaving attendees with false confidence and exposing them to unnecessary risk.

He later wrote in his own marketing material:

“In punishment-based dog training, the leash is used not just as a restraint, but as a way to inflict pain or startle… Michael Shikashio and Grisha Stewart separately noticed that important skill gap in modern dog training and have been developing and teaching their own leash handling skills.”

This was what made me originally speak up otherwise or I WOULD NOT HAVE CARED. Then after I watched some footage of his conference, I saw he was putting people in danger and finally saw he was trying to ban the very tools that trainers he stole from were using to truly help people, causing mass restraint of trade to thousands of professionals.

---

The Dangerous Add-Ons

The small amount of leash-handling techniques he did not directly copy from me included:

• Emergency Hip Turn
  A textbook perfect Koehler-style yank-and-crank about-turn, known to cause redirection on handlers (not his development). I would never recommend it.
• Leash Lasso
  A so-called leash muzzle he learned later from Alfonso Sawada, practiced only on a stuffed animal. It is unsafe and unnecessary when proven leash muzzle methods already exist.

Additionally, side-effects of hastily reteaching what he copied before he responsibly learned and experienced it included:

• A “stiff arm” technique that might work on a Maltese, but any medium-sized dog will climb the leash inflicting injury. There were key movements that needed to be added to prevent this from happening, a result from trying to copy this technique from a still photo of me teaching with a stuffed animal on my website.
• He teaches in mass another reckless mistake that WILL cause a dislocated or injured thumb causing loss of control and additional consequences. Also an error of not paying attention to detail, but easily discoverable if you did use the technique on a dog that is truly attacking you.

He basically totally butchered something very useful to suit his own needs while being in a position that should hold the highest degree of ethics.
There is nothing in any presentation that he ever "developed" but he did insert major errors into other trainers’ developments.

---

A Pattern of Behavior

This was not an isolated case. Shikashio also helped mishandle and censor Steven Lindsay’s proprietary concept of LIMA, stripping it of context and its true beauty and ethical use, spreading it through his own organization.

On a podcast he bragged about being involved with reshaping the definition of LIMA while president of the IAABC. In the same interview he admitted he still was not even sure if Steven Lindsay had created LIMA, showing a total disregard a person in his position should have to source material. Instead a butchered and censored version of LIMA has been taught by various presenters of force free organizations, damaging Steven Lindsay's professional opportunities and causing confusion about his original work. This is apparent in the fairly recent paper done by Eduardo Fernandez, promoted to replace LIMA:
https://dogtraining.world/.../dr-eduardo-fernandezs-life.../

---

Why I Am Speaking Up

In the same August 23 thread, after receiving about 1,000 reactions of sympathy from his followers, he wrote:

“This week I’m too balanced for FF and at the same time too FF for balanced.”

That is another strawman. It is not the core of anyone’s statements. The truth is that this week, and every week, he is too unethical for any trainer who does even a small amount of research.

I would prefer not to get involved in this. But in the world of social media, 99 percent of dog trainers, even skilled ones who are otherwise good people, eventually find a point where they are willing to be “sell outs” and ignore unethical behavior if it means more opportunity for themselves. Since we all know, Michael Shikasio is an expert at promotion and politicking, if not anything else.

So no one really shares this type of information besides individual trainers who are in the trenches and know what Michael Shikashio and the organizations he is involved with represent, and what that means to their livelihood. So if you are an individual trainer who is frustrated with the false narrative, SHARE the truth. If anyone thinks this is about getting credit, followers, or selling something, they do not know me very well. I have nothing to sell nor rely on followers or internet for my main source of livelihood.

Any trainer whose lifestyle largely depends on their social media presence and conferences will care to a point, but you cannot rely on much awareness from them, once they may piss off an organization that may host them as a speaker. I know of maybe two in this category that have a sense of integrity at that level. I think it is sad and why there needs be more awareness of the trainers in the actual trenches out there getting results where it counts.

That silence is part of the problem. It is why I am speaking up.
His behavior toward me and how he handled LIMA are EXACTLY what is causing discrimination and an unfair marketplace in the industry on a GLOBAL scale.

---

Proof and Screenshots

Proof and screenshots for anyone that has an actual attention span beyond a Facebook post are located on an old podcast link page I did about the 20 minute mark:
https://dogtraining.world/knowledge-base/iaabc/