Why positive only training?

aiw said:

My question is this: why use only the positive in absence of the negative?

Click to expand...

Because the results you get from positive interaction are much better than those you get from negative interaction. While there will be cases of negative interaction, such as giving meds or grooming, and negative training, "stop right now!", these should be far outweighed by the positive.

aiw said:

Its true that the human psyche is different from a dogs but dog-dog communication is almost exclusively negative (you will not see a dog give another dog a treat, but you might see one snap at another).

Click to expand...

Dog-to-dog communication is far from all negative.

Some dogs do give others a treat of sorts to encourage play/interaction with other dogs. For example, last week at the dog park a poodle brought over her tennis ball and dropped it in front of our dog trying to get her to play. Our pup, who's only 6 months old and still a bit unsure around other dogs, joined play after this friendly gesture.

aiw said:

Also why is dominance theory so denigrated, dogs aren't wolves but they do have pack hierarchy.

Click to expand...

Dogs don't have a pack hierarchy as it's traditionally thought of. They're social animals that will form loose associations based on their current needs and situation. This isn't the stable pack/family relationship found in wild wolves.

Dogs also also adept at forming social relationships with other species, including humans and other pets (some more than others). This isn't a pack but a social cooperative relationship.

Dominance is often used as an excuse for abusive or potentially abusive and often dangerous and ineffective training techniques. That's why it's viewed not being good by many. Dominance is also incorrectly used by some as a blanket cause for many dog problems which isn't the case.

aiw said:

Shouldnt we be trying to communicate with dogs in a "language" that is most natural to them?

Click to expand...

Dogs are naturally bilingual. Not only do they understand dog-to-dog communication but human-to-dog communication. So, communicating with humans has, over many centuries of breeding, become part of the natural dog. It actually confuses them when a human tries to speak dog because it doesn't seem natural to them.

ohbehave said:

A working **** Hound would not have given me such an easy time... and would test the last nerve of even the greatest of purely positive trainers.

Click to expand...

I haven't been around hunting dog training for about 20 years now but I always thought many people who did it were too caught up in the macho aspect of using potent aversives/punishments to train. The thought was that you had to beat/punish/choke/shock/whatever a hunting dog into submission to get it to perform. I think some of those trainers actually enjoyed the punishment they inflicted.

My Grandfather (a veterinarian), his brothers (2 of them were also veterinarians) and my cousins always used mostly positive training for hunting and herding dogs. They had great dogs that would follow whistle commands quite well in the field. (I recently posted a link to a dog training book from 1882 that is a lot like their training methods.) They never used choke chain, prong collars or hands on punishment to train dogs. By technical definition they probably did use some aversive methods like saying "No" but these weren't common because they were rarely necessary.

While it would be rare to have a scent hound or other very driven breed to operate untrained in a highly distracting environment, training that is 95-99% positive with only the mildest aversives can allow them to work effectively in spite of distractions.