And they key phrase here is "in the real world".

This is what sorts the sheep from the goats with dog trainers, ie those who live in the real world and have to work with owners who live in the real world v best practice according to the theory.

In the real world money, time, and other resources are at a premium.

You may, as a dog trainer, prefer Method A, however if you know that this method is not feasible (for various reasons) for the owner then, if we look at what is in the DOG'S BEST INTERESTS you may have to use Method B.

You have to ADAPT to suit the individual dog, owner(s) environment and that is where there is no substitute for EXPERIENCE.

I agree about it being stressfull not being told what to do....... Totally. That is why my dogs are told what to do. So they don't have to work it out themselves. Their brain power is saved for doing things that they really enjoy instead.

So can I ask, You and Wys who seem to want to use no a-ha's or anything else negative......

You notice your puppy chewing through an electrical cable, what do you do?

I totally respect your view and experiences, but can I ask how many dog packs you have personally observed in action? Denise Mcleod

Agree entirely.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear, I meant owner researching into the best dog trainer for them in the area

I fully agree that adaptation is the key when it comes to a good trainer vs a not so good, but adaptation doesn't mean resorting to yanking, jerking, pushing, pulling and all the other physically aversive means of controlling.

I quite agree. But as you said, cost is a major factor in ANY decision making process for the majority of people

Thank you for all these interesting responses!

I feel we have gone a little off track however? I think we all agree that (to a point?) all methods have varing degrees and to some extent many are acceptable so long as a dog is being treated fairly and not being trained through fear, anger or frustration.

My original point was:
Just as when CM's methods were being regulary promoted through the media, now with the pushing of VS and other "positive" trainers are we facing the same confusion and potential risks?

Example 1: Owner tries "Alpha roll" after seeing it on TV, Dog gets stressed, trust compromised-bites owner.

Example 2: Owner reads article about positive training, worried that any jerking of lead or verbal correction is deemed cruel therefore when the dog lunges out or pulls and food is not a big enough motivator they lose control- dog pulls owner into road

Example 3. Why we need a "Balanced approach"
Reading an article explaining Sound aversion an owner hides behind a bush and uses a water spray to train the dog to stay away from the vegetable patch- This is a method/product now deemed unacceptable however used correctly it is a good training tool, harmless to the dog and very effective.

I'm pleased to hear that other magazines cover more widely however it does seem that we often only get one sided views.

I visited VS website yesterday as I was interested that Channel 11 is re-running a lot of her shows which still feature "Aversion methods". VS is very keen to express that she no longer uses these techniques..??? I always felt the methods she chose were the " more accepted" ones? Whats wrong with a few "Ah-Ahs" or Cans of Air?

In her more recent shows I see her being yanked around by dogs and letting them get away with all kinds of inappropiate behaviours. I feel it seems she so badly wants to praise the dog that it doesn't matter what the dog is doing?

This IS dangerous. it is equally wrong to praise/soothe inappriopiate behaviour as it is to bully/force acceptable behaviour. Also to be "too soft" on inappropiate behaviours can build tolerance in your dog so that by the time you really mean it you have to resort to stronger methods in order to get the effect....The word again...Balance

A quick word on "physical corrections".... yanking, pushing, poking etc

This should always be a method for "getting the dogs attention" NEVER to hurt the dog.

I always liken this to getting a persons attention in a noisy or crowded place: the dog is distracted or he is faced with a strong impulse/temptation, therefore You have to be "punchy" enough to cut through this. The correct technique should put a dog "off balance" rather than to push him over or drag him along.

Equally as important..As soon as the dog responds to you, keep them with you using high value praise/rewards.

It often makes me wonder but people seem perfectly happy to see a dog pulling its owner down the street, straining on the lead, choking and spluttering. but if they see the owner jerk the dog so much as once they would say this was being cruel?

I would guess at at least partly luck to be perfectly honest Denise. That method stops most dogs from doing it when somebody is around but a hell of a lot of dogs still do it when it's safe (ie nobody there). About half the people I know who have dogs have a problem with their dog going in the bin or taking food off counters. No amount of shouting at or smacking the dog has stopped them. Not even when the punishment is delivered while the dog is in the act. Rupert only stopped this behaviour after pulling a cupboard down on himself which scared him so badly that he hid under the bed for the rest of the day.

It's an issue that, imo, is much easier to manage than to train out if you've got a dog that learns only to do it when you're not there. I'm all in favour of picking my battles though and this isn't high on my list

Oh dear, this sounds like Cesar Millan mark 2
We have all heard the euphemisms for yanking, pushing, poking etc like 'getting
the dogs attention'....