There seems to be two main schools of thought in dog training. First is the 'do good and youll be rewarded' then theres 'dont do good and youll be punished'. Is coercive training morally wrong?
Any thoughts will be appreciated.

From the comments you have previously made it would seem to depend on whether you come from a civilised country or Australia

I can only say how I trained my dog. Since I wanted to compete in obedience trials I wanted a dog that looked happy not downtrodden so I used the motivational method of teaching. I used treats as rewards and withheld them if he didn't do it right. Now there are times when a dog must learn that he has to comply no matter what and may need a compulsive correction. I think it really depends on what kind of work you do with your dog. I am sure my method may not work well with a police dog. My dog is really obedient, but even he had to get some compulsive corrections along the way. Now, I don't mean hitting him, but he did get a leash check with his prong on.

I should clarify I'm not asking is it OK to hit a dog with your hand. I dont think that is ever a good idea. The hand should be used solely to give pleasent experiences to the dog through pats.

I was wondering though can a dog be trained solely through positive reinforcement to be relibly obedient despite many distractions.

My thinking is that if a dog is trained soley with positive reinforcement then he may well only obey as long as there isntanything else hed prefer to do that will offer more pleasure to him than the reward you used to inculcate obedience in him.

I'm not sure a dog can be trained without ever being corrected as some point - be it verbal or a pop on a prong collar, etc.

Postitive reinforcement, such as praise, is important in training a dog and is unfortunately often forgotten (as mentioned by someone else on this board, its usually the men). Some people use food or a toy instead, however I work solely on praise.

In correcting a dog, I think it is a necessay thing, however, the scenario you described earlier about throwing a dog over the fence is extreme. Most often a dog can be corrected through the prong and lead, being "popped" or given a sharp yank, along with a verbal correction. There are times when something more extreme needs to be done, but IMO only if necessay, and not as the standard method of correction (but I can't say I've ever hung a dog over a fence) - I personally do not want my dog to fear me. A relationship based on fear isn't a strong one, and I believe you have spoken about real protection work (vs. sport), and if you want that dog to defend, if that assailant presents more of a threat than you do, your dog is gone (or as in another scenario you described, you are unconscious).

Many trainers call this the proofing phase. No matter what type of training you have your dog MUST obey your direction or he is not trained. For your safety, the dogs safety, and anybody else for that matter. The dog must comply at all times. If you ever go to a real proffessional trainer and his dog does not comply, and he or she indicates to you that the dog is just having a bad day. I highly suggest you wish them agood day, and leave. Where experience comes in during the proofing phase is knowing how much of a correction to apply and at what time. Praise should ALWAYS follow a correction...ALWAYS.

This is a foolish thread.

The people that feel that they can train their dogs without taking them through a correction and distraction phase are out of touch with responsible dog training. These are the people who use Halties and Gentle Leaders - they are the people who give money to PETA. They are the people who darn well better keep their dog on aleash becauyse it's only a matter of time because they will run off and get hit by a cars.

I am closing this thread because I won't waste peoples times or my computer hard driuve space on foolishness.