If you disagree, please give your opinion and reasoning, as I am very interested in keeping an open mind to other approaches. If you agree, feel free to comment 
1.My approach is positive.
2.But not "Purely Positive" in that if my dog is doing something I don't want, I have no problem saying (not yelling) a stern "no" and will (gently) guide my dog (like away from the trash can, towards me after a failed long-lead recall or off my bed).
3.However, I believe that the best training is based on a strong relationship and your dog wanting to do what you say.
4.I will not use force to teach a new behavior (like pushing their butt down for a "Sit").
5.I think shock and e-collars are a flawed approach, as they use an outside stimulus instead of the human-animal bond to create, enforce, or discourage behaviors.
6.Even head halters are a less-than-ideal tool.
7.But choke chains, prong collars, and high-intensity shock collars are outright dangerous. They can harm the dog, and the fear and pain they cause could lead to aggression in the future.
8. Hitting or yelling at your dog or performing "alpha rolls" are also dangerous methods.
9. A dog that responds to aversive methods could just be shutting down, not actually becoming compliant.
10. The dominance theory is just that. A theory. A disproven one, at that. And one condemned by the APDT, AVSAB, and L. David Mech, the one who invented in in the first place. Ineffective and potentially dangerous. And it does nothing to improve the canine-human bond.
I support Zak George, but think he could stand to use simple, relationship-based corrections like the word "no". I DO NOT support Cesar Millan. I believe he is well-intentioned, but desperately, dangerously wrong.
1.My approach is positive.
2.But not "Purely Positive" in that if my dog is doing something I don't want, I have no problem saying (not yelling) a stern "no" and will (gently) guide my dog (like away from the trash can, towards me after a failed long-lead recall or off my bed).
3.However, I believe that the best training is based on a strong relationship and your dog wanting to do what you say.
4.I will not use force to teach a new behavior (like pushing their butt down for a "Sit").
5.I think shock and e-collars are a flawed approach, as they use an outside stimulus instead of the human-animal bond to create, enforce, or discourage behaviors.
6.Even head halters are a less-than-ideal tool.
7.But choke chains, prong collars, and high-intensity shock collars are outright dangerous. They can harm the dog, and the fear and pain they cause could lead to aggression in the future.
8. Hitting or yelling at your dog or performing "alpha rolls" are also dangerous methods.
9. A dog that responds to aversive methods could just be shutting down, not actually becoming compliant.
10. The dominance theory is just that. A theory. A disproven one, at that. And one condemned by the APDT, AVSAB, and L. David Mech, the one who invented in in the first place. Ineffective and potentially dangerous. And it does nothing to improve the canine-human bond.
I support Zak George, but think he could stand to use simple, relationship-based corrections like the word "no". I DO NOT support Cesar Millan. I believe he is well-intentioned, but desperately, dangerously wrong.