Code of Conduct of the Initiative for Nonviolent Dog Training
Search And Recovery Canine Network (SARCN) is a member and supporter of the Initiative for Nonviolent Dog Training. The code of conduct for this initiative is as follows:
We base our approach on the latest scientific findings in “canine science.” Our approach to training and general interaction with dogs is therefore grounded in scientific and empirical evidence.
The dog’s well-being and health are central to our approach, as they have a significant impact on behavior and learning ability. Our individualized, highly effective training plans always aim to achieve the training goal while minimizing stress and anxiety and ensuring the dog’s well-being.
Our training approaches never involve the systematic, deliberate infliction of pain or startle stimuli, fear-inducing stimuli, intimidation, or the removal of a dog’s sense of control.
Our training approaches are based on the following models: - “Least Intrusive Principle” according to Friedman & Fritzer, 2024 (“Principle of the Least Intrusive Effective Intervention”) - “LIFE Model” (Least Inhibitive, Functionally Effective Model according to Fernandez, 2024)
For us, this means: We prioritize the dog’s well-being and health above all else. We consistently meet the dog’s basic physical and psychological needs and provide protection and safety.
We act proactively and implement management measures tailored to the situation to prevent undesirable behavior from arising in the first place (antecedent arrangement).
We focus on the causes of the behavior. When negative emotions arise, we transform them into positive ones.
We follow a needs-based approach. This means we take into account the dog’s individual, breed-specific, and natural needs.
We use interventions, learning techniques, and training methods that interfere with behavior as little as possible and instead give the animal as many choices as possible.
In addition to operant conditioning, we use other forms of learning such as observational learning, learning through insight, and social learning, as well as classical conditioning/counterconditioning, systematic desensitization, habituation, and sensitization.
We focus on teaching and reinforcing alternative behaviors to achieve lasting change in undesirable behavior.
Operant Conditioning: We work on the basis of positive reinforcement. Negative punishment is used briefly and at the lowest possible level of frustration and stress. The dog is given the opportunity as quickly as possible to display desired behavior, which is then positively reinforced. If negative reinforcement is used, the potentially unpleasant stimulus is presented at the lowest possible intensity (e.g., by increasing the distance from a fear-inducing stimulus).
In all training methods, the well-being and safety of all involved are our top priority, and we avoid startling, intimidating, or causing pain to the animal, as well as intentionally overwhelming it or creating a sense of loss of control.
For reasons of learning biology and ethics, we refrain from the deliberate use of positive punishment and thus from deliberately inflicting physical and/or psychological stimuli that trigger, for example, fear, fright, pain, and/or a sense of loss of control. In emergency situations, when the dog is overwhelmed, or in the heat of the moment, things may happen that are aversive to the dog. However, this has nothing to do with planned and deliberate training.
Interpretations of Canine Behavior: When assessing canine behavior, we rely on scientifically proven insights into body language and a benevolent interpretation. We distance ourselves from behavioral labels such as “dominant,” “disrespectful,” or “cheeky,” as well as from scientifically refuted interpretations based on the “dominance model” in the human-dog relationship (“hierarchy,” “alpha,” “pack leader”), which are used to legitimize aversive interventions (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Yin, 2007).
Continuous Professional Development: New scientific findings are constantly being published, and the details of their practical application are subject to constant adaptation and change. We are committed to continuous professional development to incorporate new findings into our work.
Collaboration with Specialists: Recognizing the limits of one’s own experience and expertise is a strength. Should we reach our limits in a difficult case (especially involving anxiety or aggressive behavior), the appropriate next step is to involve or refer the case early on to an experienced professional who adheres to the code (behavioral training, dog training, behavioral medicine, veterinary medicine, physical therapy, etc.).
Our Ethical Stance: We believe that the end does not justify the means if the means are disproportionate and better alternatives are available.
We are guided by an ethical framework in our actions. We take into account the interests and capacity for suffering of all living beings involved and always strive to improve the situation for all living beings involved in a sustainable way.
We recognize that dogs are sentient beings capable of suffering. We are in a position of power and therefore have a responsibility to meet their needs as best as possible, to protect their interests, and to strive for and maintain their emotional and physical well-being.
The Initiative for Nonviolent Dog Training reserves the right to revise this code, for example, in light of new scientific findings or to improve its wording. (As of March 2025)
Sources: - Bradshaw, J. W., Blackwell, E. J., and Casey, R. A. (2009). Dominance in domestic dogs – useful construct or bad habit? Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 4, 135–144. - Fernandez, E.J. (2024). The least inhibitive, functionally effective (LIFE) model: A new framework for ethical animal training practices, Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 71, 63–68. - Lindsay, S.R. (2005). Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training: Procedures and Protocols, Vol. Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa. Yin, S. (2007). Dominance versus leadership in dog training. Compendiumvet.com, July 2007, 414–417.
