Leerburg's Philosophy on Dog Training

Very insightful awesome explanations.
Thank you for the great help.

I am a lifelong dog lover and handler/trainer. Being 51 years old, that adds up to a lot of experience with my own dogs. The first method I learned, and tried to use, was the Koehler method. I am guessing Ed Frawley would classify him as a yank-and-crank trainer, primarily, and so would I. My problem with the Koehler method is it always seemed too harsh and too mechanical. There was never any talk about building a relationship first, which is something I have always felt strongly about but never really heard any trainer talk about, until now. I LOVE the way Ed Frawley talks about the importance of building trust and engagement first, before any training can begin. I also 100% agree with the idea that dogs NEED to have some form of correction when they DECIDE not to obey. The current trend of 100% positive reinforcement and zero corrections makes absolutely no sense to me. These people don't give dogs enough credit or respect. In my world, once my dog knows a command, my dog is expected to obey that command, every single time, no exceptions. If he does, he is rewarded with my praise and affection ALWAYS and sometimes with a food treat or a game of tug. If he doesn't, then I have no problem inflicting some mild discomfort to remind him that he either obeys or I will make him increasingly uncomfortable until he changes his mind. Trust me, my 75 pound pitbull is a chow hound and will drop everything for food... except for a neighbor walking his yappy toy poodle past us, or a squirrel running across our path... at those moments I could toss a T-bone steak at him and he'd fly right past it on his way to terrorize the neighbor or the poor squirrel. Thank you, Mr. Frawley, for providing this much-needed resource to dog owners everywhere!

It is rare to see such a clear explanation of a training philosophy. This empowers you to make your own choice on training style for your dog.