Nope. I'm saying that nothing is going to work for every dog.
In theory, you shouldn't need physical aversives, but it's just that, theory.
There's a place for those methods because of the few dogs that won't respond to it.
I advocate being positive, believe me, going to aversives is a last resort kind of thing to me but I do see a place for it.

Here's a video, you can watch the entire video but it's not really relevant to the point I want to make. The story he tells about his Malinois is what I'm talking about. There's a percent that will need aversives. Not every dog, and it shouldn't be a go to method, but it shouldn't be completely thrown out the window either.

http://youtu.be/-15QnSF_tZ8?t=6m45s

For balance it should be remembered that ideally all the TV training/behavioural programmes should mention ruling out medical reasons and this is a point not frequently stressed on other programmes either. That doesn't make it right in any case, but it isn't exclusive to Milan's shows that this is often overlooked or not mentioned.

Although of course we do not know if this has also already happened behind the scenes and some issues in programmes are clearly training problems from the history and presentation, rather than health-dependent behavioural issues.

It should however be remembered for balance that positive methods can also cause harm. If a method is a powerful training technique then mis-timing can powerfully strengthen the behaviour that is intended to be reduced/removed which can be dangerous e.g if dealing with aggression, or getting a dog over excited to overcome fear can lead to over reactivity, rather than calm acceptance.

If owner mis-timing of reward is combined with self reward factors of the undesirable behaviour, that can be a very potent reward indeed, and as we all know, intermittent reinforcement is another powerful technique, so this could happen, even if they only sometimes mis-timed it.

Mis-timing (of positives or negatives) of course also contributes to miscommunication and inconsistency which can add to anxiety.

So unfortunately it is not necessarily the case that reward or "positive" methods does no harm either.

I am not against positive methods, or pro aversive methods (I think every case should be assessed and treated as individually appropriate to all its considerations), but there are plenty of others here putting the pro positive/anti aversion side so there is no need for me to add to that, as it is already pretty fully covered, unlike this aspect.

And he blames the owners.............for their negative energy

Have you seen the whole episode?

That's quite a long video, and thankfully he does say alpha rolls are not good. ( I am always very suspicious of anything from Leerburg as Frawley used to recommend the most horrible "corrections" and uses the collar that chokes dogs until they pass out).

Can you point out on the timeline which bit you are referring to, please?

Wys
x

That's strange. The link should have sent you to the correct time I was talking about.
6:45 is the time where he tells the story. I'll edit my original post so people reading it won't be confused.
Edit: It seems I can no longer edit that post. Strange.

Leerburg recently has been endorsing a lot of more positive methods. I keep track of the site and of his videos and I see a lot more about marking, clickers, treats than before.

Just tried to 'add reputation' for the above post but apparently I can't add second reputation to the same poster without praising somebody else in between.

So I will praise you here and now!

Excellent, informative, articulate post. But then I don't expect anything less than that from you.