Well, I think you can contact ID if you get to Dog Star Daily. Why not ask him?

Wys
x

as I said before I use a positive interuptor (kissy noise) to call them away from it
also I kick myself for not puppy proofing my house - because in general my dogs wouldnt have access to things they shouldnt chew until I can trust them not to chew them

I would then teach them to ignore cables - and make sure they didnt have access to them

I dont have to screen off my bin - and I can leave food out on my kitchen counters - now - because I trained when I first got them and made sure they couldnt self reward when they were learning by not leaving yummy stuff around

exactly
I remember last summer my friends dog started acting up loads
When he looked at it closer he realised it was only on the hottest days - they dog did bad things to get cooled down with a nice squirt of water

Um...physical corrections fall under the positive punishment quadrant. I can't even think of a way to physically correct a dog without punishing it Physical corrections are things like hitting, kicking, jerking, throwing water in the face etc.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? What do you mean by being 'too soft' on inappropriate behaviours and what 'stronger' methods do you mean?

Don't worry,
...

I think that was me. Speaking generally, it is accepted to mean "punishment" whether verbal or physical. That is what is has meant, historically really, in dog training.

Sometimes, it can be used to mean "instruct" the dog but even that can sometimes involve things like picking up a dog who has moved in the Stays and plonking it back down in place again.

A more objective view; Melissa Alexander who worked with some of the people who brought us an understanding of what "training" is, says in her book Click for Joy:

"Correction - a euphemism for the application of a physical aversive. The aversive is intended to communicate that the dog did something wrong. In some cases the trainer then guides the dog through the desired behaviour. The application of an aversive followed by the desired behaviour is considered instructive, thus the euphemism "correction".
...

I think it depends how you've lived your training life with respect (and not meaning to be judgemental). Certain word such as "correction" are used generally by dog trainers and mean certain things, therefore if you use them...

Unless you have altered their core meaning, in which case again there is confusion...

What you say (in boldened text) illustrates my point. I think we all have to be very clear and not try to use words differently.

If you now feel you don't use "corrections" then obviously you can say so

Wys
x

In a crowded, noisy environment, if the person whose attention you want to attract is stood right by your side, it's unlikely that you would need to pull/push them off balance or even tap them on the shoulder to get their attention. Dogs on lead are right by our side. If we can't get their attention without knocking them off balance, then surely the training is insufficient and the dog does not know what is required. I doubt anyone is happy to see a person being pulled off their feet by a dog and most would advise training loose lead walking in this circumstance. I don't think it's particularly fair to a dog to yank, jerk or knock off balance when the exercise can be trained without deliberately applying any of them

I'm confused again, on the one hand, I think you are talking about training the dog and yet I read again and think you are talking about emergency situations. The two are very different although with the first, the second would be unlikely to occur

Dogs aren't as stupid as many think they are. I can understand where you might get away with the vegetable plot example, but in the case of yanking, jerking, pushing and pulling the dog very quickly learns that it is the handler who is applying the discomfort

Firstly...Please, please let me reassure anyone here who may have misunderstood any of my examples or comments.....
I do not use or condone ANY rough or harsh handling of dogs. ethier mentally or physically.

I hope this is understood rather than to defend all the various questions thrown at me....unless anyone still feels very strongly of course I am happy to explain but I'd rather keep the thread on track

My question was about how these methods/words/products are portrayed in the media, the issue of media bias and the confusion this may present.

Thanks

WT as you suggest in your post yanking, pushing, poking are forms of physical correction and for me as such they should play no part in the training of dogs.
....that is because many here see it as negative, what would you call it , positive? ...

Please see my posts below..
...I would appreciate a reply please.
really,
It seems to me from your previous posts that you are suggesting 'yanking, pushing, poking etc' are acceptable methods of dog training and to me they are unnecessary harsh forms of handling .
Waggytail you introduced various examples in your posts in a thread which you started, therefore I think members are entitled to question you about your examples.