Trust Is Earned: Why Choice-Based Handling Matters

The deep-rooted mindset that animals are somehow obligated to tolerate us just because we want to touch them is entitlement, plain and simple.

I was recently made aware from one of my advisory board members of someone who said, “Build trust first, then do choice-based handling.” This completely misses the point. Choice-based handling is how you build trust. It is the mechanism by which trust is earned, not a reward granted after coercing an animal into submission. Forcing daily handling is the opposite of trust. Forced interactions (barring emergencies) teach the animal that their behavior and body language don’t matter—that they will be touched, held, or moved regardless of how they communicate discomfort. That is not a relationship; that is conditioning for compliance. Brando and Norman (2023) advocate for evidence- and ethics-based approaches to training, emphasizing agency, respect, and the avoidance of coercive practices. Their work supports the ethical imperative behind choice-based interactions. Mancini and Nannoni (2022) argue for the importance of consent and autonomy in animal welfare and research, creating a framework based on the concept that disregarding autonomy undermines wellbeing.

The idea that “my snake doesn’t require it” is sad. Why don’t they “require it”? Because they’re “fine”? That’s the same as saying, “My animal isn’t visibly distressed, so what I’m doing must be okay.” These sentiments ignore everything science informs us about subtle stress signals, body language, and long-term behavioral fallout like shutdown, apathy, or chronic stress. In their paper Born to Choose, Leotti et al. (2010) outline how the ability to exert control is a basic psychological need, and lack of control can lead to stress. It is important to remember that the absence of visible distress doesn’t equal wellbeing.

Assuming wellbeing just because the snake isn’t currently striking or hiding is a complete disregard for agency and positive welfare. That mindset creates obedience, apathy, or learned helplessness. Regarding people who pat themselves on the back for believing that lack of outward defiance is a win, they feel successful while the animal quietly loses its autonomy. That’s not easier. That’s just more convenient for the human. People who say animals “don’t require” choice-based management are failing to respect animals’ autonomy and are saying a whole lot more about themselves than their animals.

Delving in Deeper

Choice-based handling is about building a relationship that respects the snake’s (or other animal’s) signals and needs. It’s about communicating safety through predictability, patience, and responsiveness (Torrini, 2022; Williams et al., 2022). That is kindness. That is partnership. And it should be the standard, not the exception. Choice-based interactions are how we build trust. Forcing interactions on an animal that’s already displaying clear avoidance or defensive signals doesn’t teach trust—it teaches that their signals don’t matter. It teaches obedience or tolerance, not confidence or connection.

Believing that a snake or other animal doesn’t require choice-based management because they’re not striking, hiding, or attempting to flee doesn’t mean they’re comfortable. It might just mean they’ve given up trying to communicate. That is called learned helplessness. It’s easy to interpret passivity as calm when really, it might be resignation. For example, Hill’s 2024 case study discusses using assent-based protocols with waterfowl, highlighting how animals may appear compliant while still experiencing stress, reinforcing the caution against misinterpreting resignation as calm.

Goldiamond (1974) was among the first to describe constructional approaches that emphasize building positive behavioral repertoires rather than suppressing unwanted behavior. He warned against the risks of coercion and learned helplessness—concepts that later informed assent-based models of care (Abdel-Jalil et al., 2023; Linnehan et al., 2023; Hill, 2024; Morris et al., 2024).

It is tempting to go for what feels easier, especially when the uninformed say things like snakes “don’t mind” or “don’t care.” But they do. Reptiles are capable of communicating what they’re comfortable with if we’re willing to pay attention and learn their body language and behavior (Williams et al., 2022). Choice-based handling isn’t about never touching your snake. It’s about offering them predictability, consistency, and a chance to opt in or opt out. Low-stress care and choice-based interactions equates to respect (Abdel-Jalil et al., 2023; Linnehan et al., 2023).

Trust is built through choice.

Trusting relationships are built through the ability to opt in or opt out of interaction without consequence. Not through daily forced handling, not through ignoring defensive behavior, and definitely not through “conditioning tolerance.” That’s not trust, that’s coercion which often results in obedience, shutdown, or learned helplessness. This can also sometimes lead to increased defensiveness and an escalation of fight-or-flight behaviors, not comfort (Morris et al., 2024).

Saying that “my snake doesn’t require choice-based handling,” what one is really saying is, “I don’t believe my snake deserves agency.” Just because an animal is quiet doesn’t mean it’s content. Silence isn’t consent. It is important to be able to notice observable behaviors, no matter how subtle, that indicate whether they are assenting or experiencing discomfort (Morris et al., 2024). Lack of resistance is not the same thing as willingness. Choice-based handling isn’t a luxury or a later step—it’s the foundation of a relationship rooted in respect. It’s about recognizing that even animals without eyebrows or vocal cords have ways to say “no.” And when we ignore that, what exactly are we teaching them? That rather than kind people we are bullies.

We need to stop confusing convenience with kindness. Our animals don’t owe us touch, interaction, or trust just because we want it. Animals did not evolve for humans to do with as they please. It’s not about what’s easiest for us. Kindness is about what the animal experiences and whether they have a say in it. If you truly want a relationship with your animal based on trust, start by honoring their autonomy, not by overriding it.

Lori A. Torrini, MPS, BSC, AAS, UW-AAB, FFCP, CPDT-KA

Director of Behavioral Husbandry, Spirit Keeper Animal Sanctuary

Professor of Animal Health and Behavior, Unity Environmental University

References

Abdel-Jalil, A., Linnehan, A. M., Yeich, R., Hetzel, K., Amey, J., & Klick, S. (2023). Can there be compassion without assent? A nonlinear constructional approach. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1-12.

Brando, S., & Norman, M. (2023). Handling and training of wild animals: evidence and ethics-based approaches and best practices in the modern zoo. Animals, 13(14), 2247.

Goldiamond, I. (1974). Toward a constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and constitutional issues raised by applied behavior analysis. Behaviorism, 2(1), 1-84.

Hill, K. (2024). An Assent-Based Training Programme for Waterfowl: Eye Examination Without Physical Manipulation or Restraint. Animal Behaviour and Welfare Cases, (2024), abwcases20240018.

Leotti, L. A., Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: The origins and value of the need for control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 457-463.

Linnehan, A. M., Abdel-Jalil, A., Klick, S., Amey, J., Yeich, R., & Hetzel, K. (2023). Foundations of Preemptive Compassion: A Behavioral Concept Analysis of Compulsion, Consent, and Assent. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1-8.

Mancini, C., & Nannoni, E. (2022). Relevance, impartiality, welfare and consent: principles of an animal-centered research ethics. Frontiers in Animal Science, 3, 800186.

Morris, C., Oliveira, J. P., Perrin, J., Federico, C. A., & Martasian, P. J. (2024). Toward a further understanding of assent. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 57(2), 304-318.

Rogers, N. (2022). The importance of consent behaviors for veterinary procedures. The IAABC Foundation Journal, 23.

Torrini, L. (2022). Potential neural consequences for snakes under captive management. The IAABC Foundation Journal, 23. https://doi.org/10.55736/iaabcfj23.2

Williams, M. L., Torrini, L. A., Nolan, E. J., & Loughman, Z. J. (2022). Using classical and operant conditioning to train a shifting behavior in juvenile false water cobras (Hydrodynastes gigas). Animals, 12(10), 1229.