Two years ago, I made a post on on our social pages about a topic that remains just as important today:
**The difference between experience-based and evidence-based dog training** — and the real risks that come when we trust only our own experience. Although at the time the post was primarily focused on training, it does generally apply to how we handle our dogs overall just as much.
Dog handling isn’t just about teaching obedience cues. It’s about everything we do when we live with, work with, and care for dogs: from how we touch them, move around them, manage their environments, to how we respond to stress or problem behaviors.
When someone says, "In my experience, this works," they may be speaking sincerely. But personal experience, no matter how extensive, **isn’t a substitute for scientific understanding**.
And here’s why that matters — for the welfare of the dogs we love and work with.

Experience: Valuable, But Not Infallible

There’s no denying that hands-on experience with dogs teaches lessons no book ever could.
It sharpens timing. It helps handlers recognize subtle body language. It gives a feel for the flow of real-world work.

But experience comes with blind spots.
Humans are wired to spot patterns — even when they aren't really there. It's easy to assume that because a dog stopped pulling after a leash correction, the correction was effective and ethical. Yet without structured observation and comparison, it's impossible to know whether the method truly helped or simply suppressed behavior temporarily, at an emotional cost.

Research shows that aversive techniques — even mild ones — elevate stress levels, cause pessimistic emotional states, and can damage trust between dogs and handlers (Vieira de Castro et al., 2019).

When we rely only on "what worked in my experience," we risk missing these hidden consequences.

What Evidence-Based Handling Really Means

Evidence-based dog handling isn’t about throwing away instincts.
It’s about anchoring them to research:

Studies measuring stress hormones (like cortisol)
Observations of behavior patterns under different handling styles
Assessments of long-term welfare outcomes

For example, studies of therapy dog teams in hospital settings found that even well-loved, well-handled dogs showed signs of mild stress like panting and lip-licking during visits (Clark et al., 2020).
Handlers who accurately recognized these signals were better able to protect their dogs' welfare.

In working dogs, research shows that housing conditions, handling practices, and enrichment directly affect welfare and performance — not just training protocols (Rooney et al., 2008).

Evidence-based handling means staying curious. It means asking:

Is the dog truly comfortable?
Is the behavior due to understanding — or just suppression?
Could there be a less stressful way to reach the same goal?

How "In My Experience" Can Mislead

Here's where experience alone becomes risky:

Short-term success masks long-term fallout.
A leash correction might stop pulling today — but could erode trust tomorrow.
Stress behaviors are misunderstood or missed.
Lowered posture, yawning, and lip-licking aren't always "stubbornness" — they're signs of anxiety (Deldalle & Gaunet, 2014).
Handlers focus on compliance over welfare.
Just because a dog obeys doesn’t mean they’re emotionally healthy.

Scientific studies on companion dogs reveal that handlers using aversive approaches see more stress, more fear-related behaviors, and worse cognitive outcomes than those using reward-based handling (Vieira de Castro et al., 2020).

Experience without evidence risks reinforcing techniques that "get results" while damaging the very relationships we seek to build.

Merging Experience and Evidence: The Way Forward

This isn’t about rejecting experience — it’s about enhancing it.

The best handlers are those who:

Respect what science tells us about dog emotions and learning
Reflect honestly on their own habits and biases
Stay open to evolving, even if it challenges their early beliefs

Handling dogs based on evidence doesn’t make us weak or indecisive.
It makes us more compassionate, more effective, and ultimately, more trustworthy in the eyes of the animals we care for.

Final Thoughts: Better for Dogs, Better for Us

When we say, "In my experience, this works," it's important to pause and ask:

What evidence backs this up?
Could there be unseen stress or fallout?
Is there a kinder, more effective way?

Dogs don't get to choose their handlers.
They rely on us to be both skilled and informed — and that means blending experience with science, not choosing one over the other.

In the end, doing better for dogs means always being willing to learn, question, and improve.