It is a well-documented fact that animals, whether in the wild, in zoos, or lounging on the couch eating stolen snacks, are naturally defiant creatures who require strict discipline to keep them in check. Without firm guidance— ideally through force, intimidation, and a complete disregard for modern science— how else can we expect to control them?
And so, in an effort to restore order to the world of animal training, I propose a return to the time-honored tradition of adversive methods. Forget all that nonsense about “positive reinforcement” and “cooperative care.” The old ways worked just fine— well, aside from the biting, the injuries, and the total breakdown of trust between humans and animals, but who’s counting?
Now, before anyone tries to argue that “science” and “ethics” have led us to better, safer training methods, let us take a look at some of the best (read: worst) ways to train zoo animals— methods that will definitely (absolutely not) make your job easier.
Step 1: Show the Animal Who’s Boss (Because That Always Works So Well)
The first rule of outdated training is to establish dominance, preferably in the most ridiculous way possible.
Stare down the gorilla until it submits. (Best of luck.)
Shove the elephant into a corner to make sure it knows you are in charge. (Your next of kin will appreciate the effort.)
Carry a stick at all times. Not because it helps, but because people who rely on force love carrying sticks.
Of course, modern zoo trainers— those radical free-thinkers— insist that animals aren’t trying to “dominate”us at all. They claim that animals, much like humans, simply respond better to trust, consistency, and rewards. They even go so far as to suggest that an animal will willingly cooperate if it has a choice in the matter.
Which is obviously absurd. If we start allowing animals to make choices, next thing you know, they’ll be asking for fair wages and weekends off.
Step 2: Punish the Behavior, Not the Confusion
Some naive individuals believe that animals don’t always know what we’re asking of them. That when a tiger refuses to enter its holding area, it might not be “stubborn” but rather confused, fearful, or simply unmotivated. That when a bear hesitates to step onto a scale, it might not be defiant, but rather unfamiliar with the process.
Luckily, we true trainers know better.
If the polar bear won’t move, slam the enclosure door loudly until it panics.
If the dolphin does’t jump when you tell it to, cut off its food supply.
If the rhino hesitates, just hit it a little harder— eventually, it’ll get the message!
And sure, we could try using positive reinforcement— offering food, praise, or access to something the animal values to encourage cooperation. But that requires patience and understanding, and let’s be real: it’s so much easier to just scare them into submission.
(Just ignore the minor side effects, like chronic stress, refusal to work, and the occasional mauling.)
Step 3: Ignore Modern Zoos, They’re Ruining Everything
Unfortunately, the world’s leading zoos have abandoned these proven (i.e., disastrous) training methods in favor of evidence-based, humane approaches.
They claim that animals can be trained through choice-based learning— that when given autonomy, they will actually want to participate in their own care.
Apparently, lions can voluntarily extend their paws for blood draws. Elephants will walk onto scales without a fight. Even gorillas can be trained to present their shoulders for vaccinations— all without fear, force, or pain.
If true, this poses an existential crisis for those of us who believe that animals must be controlled with dominance and punishment. Because if even the most dangerous, unpredictable animals in the world can be trained with patience and positive reinforcement…
… then why the hell are we still shocking our dogs?
Step 4: Panic, Because This Means We’ve Been Wrong About Dogs All Along
And here we arrive at the most dangerous implication of modern zoo training:
If lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) can learn without pain, then how do we justify shock collars, prong collars, and leash yanks on dogs— the domesticated animals who have lived alongside humans for thousands of years?
If a grizzly bear can be trained to voluntarily stick out its arm for a blood draw, why are we still pinning Labradors to the ground to teach them “respect”?
If an 8,000-pound elephant can willingly step onto a scale, why do we think a 25-pound terrier needs to be jerked on a prong collar to walk politely?
If a literal man-eating tiger can be trained to calmly enter a transport crate, what possible excuse remains for shocking a family pet for barking?
This is a catastrophe. If modern zoo trainers are right, it means we may actually have to admit that all those “dominance-based” dog trainers have been—gasp—wrong this whole time.
And we simply cannot have that.
Final Thoughts: A Call to Preserve Tradition (Or Maybe Just Common Sense?)
So, my dear readers, I leave you with a choice.
Option 1: Ignore all modern evidence and continue insisting that dogs— our domesticated companions— require more force and intimidation to learn than a wild tiger.
Option 2: Accept the reality that if a grizzly bear can be trained with positive reinforcement, then your Golden Retriever can probably learn to sit without a shock collar.
The choice is yours. But just remember— if you pick the first option, I invite you to try your training methods on a zoo animal and see how that works out for you.
Let me know how the “alpha roll” goes with the gorillas.
Comments