Conflicting interests in dog playgroups
Dear Ethics Committee,
At a recent dog trainer conference, I saw a video of canine socialization within a shelter context that I found troubling. A number of dogs were potentially traumatized for the sake of helping one problem dog to participate in group play. It seems like the only real benefit is to the dog with the undesirable behavior. Is that ethical?
Dear Reader,
With the proliferation of dog parks, the conspicuous growth of the dog daycare industry, and the increasing use of playgroups in shelter settings, interest in canine socialization among trainers and behavior consultants is probably at an all-time high. Along with this interest comes a new level of scrutiny regarding how off-leash groups are managed, including methods used to assess sociability and integrate new or unknown dogs into existing playgroups. Each context prompts its own set of ethical concerns, some unique and some overlapping, but the majority likely revolve around weighing the interests or welfare of one dog or group against the interests or welfare of another.
In a shelter setting, where the stakes are typically high and resources scarce, balancing conflicting interests can be particularly hard. It may be especially tempting under such conditions to rationalize shortcuts or allow emotions to drive decision making. If successful integration into playgroups is understood to increase a dog’s chances for adoption, or if playgroups represent the primary form of enrichment, there may be significant pressure to integrate new dogs quickly or to give every dog a chance, even where success appears unlikely or may come at the expense of more reliable dogs. Additionally, shelters bear a responsibility to prospective adopters, and to the community at large, to adequately assess sociability or lack thereof prior to placing a given dog into a home. In some cases, exposing friendly dogs to one that could pose a threat may be seen as a necessary or effective assessment strategy.
These pressures should not be mistaken for a blank check, however, in terms of the choices one makes. Balancing competing obligations and conflicting interests should always involve careful consideration of multiple factors as well as consideration of the full range of available options. The best choices may only reveal themselves through the effort to make a genuinely informed decision.
While we may safely assume those orchestrating the playgroup you observed had reason to believe the potential benefit to the “problem dog” outweighed the potential risk to other participants, it’s unclear what alternatives existed or whether other options were in fact carefully considered. Would critical information be lost if the problem dog were given more guidance or prior coaching? Do the resources exist to run smaller groups or facilitate slower introductions? Would other forms of enrichment better satisfy this specific dog’s needs?
It’s reasonable in this case to ask whether a different approach might be safer for all, without undermining the problem dog’s welfare or the process’s assessment value. It is also important to ask such questions, from an ethics standpoint. Otherwise, we risk settling permanently into non-ideal practices on the mere basis of tradition or instinct.
Finally, we need to remember that ethics cannot dictate the impossible. In any given context, the most ethical course depends partly on what is feasible.
The answer to your question, therefore, is that it depends: on whether competing obligations are being weighed carefully, on whether better options actually exist, and on whether serious effort has been made to understand the true scope of alternatives.
Ruth Crisler – Ethics Committee Chair
Marketing and false impressions
Dear Ethics Committee,
How does ethics affect the way behavior consultants use marketing? For example, would selling gift certificates be considered unethical for a behavior consultant if they work on a per session basis?
Dear Reader,
The ethics of marketing is a vast topic, but there are a few hard and fast rules. For example, not listing credentials that you don’t have the right to use, and not using deliberately misleading language or making promises you know you can’t keep. Principle VII of our Ethics Code covers the basics, but there’s a whole lot of specifics. If you’re really interested, I recommend this Ethics in Marketing textbook.
You ask specifically about gift certificates. In themselves, gift certificates are not unethical, but there are some pitfalls to be aware of when selling them. The main issue here is whether a gift certificate for, say, an hour of your services gives a false impression that you can make significant progress in that timeframe. Another question is whether it’s ethical to work with a client who can only afford part of the program, knowing that just part is unlikely to result in significant progress for the animal and could prejudice the client against behavior consulting because it “didn’t work.” Section 6.3 of the IAABC Code of Ethics states:
6.3 Animal behavior consultants represent facts truthfully to clients and supervisees regarding services rendered.
It’s also important to make it clear that whoever is buying the gift certificate is not buying a solution to a problem. So, for example, if a third party buys a gift certificate because their neighbor’s dog is barking excessively and they want to help in a constructive way, it’s important to find this out at the point of sale so that you clearly state that a one-hour assessment is not a guarantee of a bark-free street. From the IAABC Code of Ethics:
1.6 Animal behavior consultants upon agreeing to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third party, clarify, to the extent feasible and at the outset of the service, the nature of the relationship with each party and the limits of confidentiality.
In this case, I would recommend that you offer a gift certificate for a free assessment. State upfront, right on the certificate, that you’re offering to observe the animal and listen to its history of challenging behavior, make recommendations for management if appropriate, and give referrals to appropriate professionals. You’re not offering to “fix” the animal or even sketch out an intervention at this point, just to provide triage and be a point of reference for services they may not know about.
During the consult, if it seems like your client is invested in getting help for their animal’s behavior and if you believe you’d be able to provide that help, you can quote them a price for however many sessions you believe it would take to make progress.
Tiro Miller PhD – Ethics Committee Member
Questions in this column are based on submissions from Journal readers. Do you have a question for our Ethics Committee? Use our secure, anonymous online form to ask. We’ll try to get to as many as space allows.
SHARE
Mike is an emerging animal behaviorist sitting in Minnesota in the US. He carries an MSc in social science research methods (U. of Kentucky) and brings a passion for understanding how the methods we favor shape the knowledge we privilege. Coming from careers in teaching and non-profit program evaluation, he found companion animal behavior by accident helping anxious feline friends in a unique shelter in Ohio. It is a privilege and a joy to combine these and advance the journal in this exciting time of growth.
Alexandra is a certified dog behavior consultant and holds a PhD in neuroscience. She has spent over a decade in academic research and is author of numerous scientific articles on different aspects of brain development, including olfaction, neurogenesis, and memory formation. Her work as a behavior consultant focuses on creating trusting relationships between humans and their dogs through communication, respect, and science-based knowledge. Alexandra is very dedicated to promoting more science within the dog training world. She supports dog guardians and professionals to build a solid understanding of scientific principles and provides guidance on how to apply these to life with dogs. She runs Canine Mindscape in Alicante, Spain.
I’m an Argentinean-Italian dog trainer and CSAT who spent eight amazing years in Brazil learning and working with dogs. Now based in Europe, I volunteer with the IAABC as a translator and, in my free time, help rehomed dogs settle into their new families. I love bridging languages—and hearts—between people and their dogs.
I’m a translator, editor and journalist, as well as canine educator for children and families, specialized in canine body language. I am part of the IAABC Family since 2019, as Language Director at the IAABC and Translators Team Lead at the IAABC Foundation, at the moment. I volunteer at local shelters and promote bite prevention and animal welfare at schools and events all over my country, Uruguay.
I’m a Chilean veterinarian and certified dog trainer, based in Madrid and working at a veterinary clinic. I’ve been volunteering with the IAABC and the IAABC Foundation for over seven years. In my free time, I help dogs and their guardians strengthen their bond, and I love spending quality time with my own dogs.
Master’s Degree in Natural Sciences, with a strong interest in environmental sustainability and the protection of natural ecosystems. Passionate about writing and science communication, she collaborates with multidisciplinary teams on research projects, such as Equine International, and with non-profit initiatives in the environmental and cultural fields. She is writing for different magazines, including IAABC Foundation. Her major goal is to improve horse’s welfare through behaviour research and empirical practice.
Adrienne Hovey is the copy editor for the IAABC Foundation journal and the owner of 
I believe that knowledge from a wide range of disciplines fosters a more empathetic, curious, and engaging world. I am passionate about social, environmental, and minority rights issues (both human and non-human), and this has invariably led me down the road of multi-species anthropology. Perpetually curious about the world we live in, I hope to contribute towards making the world a kinder place for all of us earthlings to live on!
Beckie Wheldon is based in England, UK, and has been supporting the IAABC Foundation Journal team as a volunteer journal content editor since early 2025. She has a BSc (Hons) Animal Behaviour and Welfare, and has recently completed a MSc Clinical Animal Behaviour. With a passion for both practical and theory, Beckie is proud to be a part of the journal submission journey and support the process of applied animal behaviour information and research getting from our writers to the readers. As her full-time career, Beckie is currently part of the UK veterinary charity, PDSA, as a Learning and Development Business Partner for Veterinary, where she supports the professional development of people in their Veterinary Hospitals. Her last position was with the rescue charity, Dogs Trust, as a Canine Behavioural Welfare Manager, where she worked on embedding evidence-based behavioural welfare best practices throughout policy and practices, with both internal and external professional stakeholders, such as the police and military. With a varied background in kennels, caregiver education, and charity dog training classes, Beckie is also an accredited Animal Training Instructor (APDT UK) and an Associate Clinical Animal Behaviourist (APBC).
Erin Jones, PhD, IAABC-ADT, CDBC, CPDT-KA, CANZ-ATI, CANZ-ABC, is the Journal Director of the IAABC Foundation Journal. She holds a PhD in Human–Animal Studies, an MSc in Anthrozoology, a PG Dip in Animal Welfare, and a BSc (Hons) in Anthropology and Psychology. An international presenter, editor, writer and mentor, Erin’s writing bridges research and practice with a focus on the intersection of philosophy, ethics and dog-centered behaviour practice. She is the author of Constructing Canine Consent and co-editor of Topics in Non/Human Coexistence and numerous academic and trade journal publications.