The late pet behaviourist John Fisher always passionately opposed any type of punishment in training and he was a trainer of police dogs for many years before becoming a pet behaviourist. He has had massive influence all over the globe and many well known U.S behaviourists follow his methods.
Here is some of what he put in one of his books.
"Even if the methods used are not as harsh as the two examples quoted (throwing downstairs, locking in cupboard), a lot of traditional training methods can still have an adverse effect on the behaviour we are trying to cure. Let's take the dog-aggressive example and look at the most commonly used cure for this within a dog club environment.
The owner is told to get his dog to sit bside him and make sure that the choke chain is high up on the neck, just behind the ears. Other dogs are then paraded in front of this dog and any aggressive reaction in punished with a harsh 'NO' and a firm yank on the chain. The result is usually that the dog is frightened of showing aggression when it is in the dog club and the chain up behind the ears - and it also learns that the presence of another dog is probably a prelude to punishment, so that when any other opportunities present themselves it is a good idea to chase the other dog off. Result: Well controlled in the club, twice as aggressive outside - exactly the opposite of what was intended."
Also this:
" Punishment as a training aid just does not work. However, until fairly recently, this is the way that dogs were traditionally trained. The danger of punishment is that the dog might learn the wrong thing. As has been stated many times so far, dogs learn through reward, and even then the reward has to coincide with the act, or within two seconds of the act, for it to have a learning effect.
Most of the people to whom I talk readily agree with this principle, and this is all very well when it comes to theory. However, human nature is such that we are in fact a very punishment-orientated animal, and when I pose the following theoretical scenario, it proves to most people just how readily we will resort to this form of training.
Suppose you dog was loose in the park and, from a distance of fifty yards, you saw it bark at a mother and her child and then rush in and bite the child. You screamed 'COME HERE, Fido!' and he returned to you emmediately. Would you tell him he was a good boy?
In reality not many people would, they would probably hit the dog. But this would be to teach it that the act before it's last one was not good. It's last act was to obey you recall command and, from a dog's point of view, that is what it is being punished for.
If you made a terrific fuss of the dog for returning, the mother would tell the police that you praised the dog for biting her child.
If you went onto explain to the police that you were praising the dog for coming when called, they would find it pretty hard to accept and so would the judge.
The problem is that humans cannot seperate values from straightforward learning procedures. Dogs and other animals rely on instinct. If, for instance, the dog felt threatened by the mother and child and attacked the weaker of the two as a form of defence, that would be normal (Although unacceptable)
dog behaviour - remember, dogs bite. Returning to the security of its owner when called, only to recieve punishment for returning, would simply make it wary of obeying in future, not teach it that it shouldn't bite children. From this example, it can be seen that instead of looking at what we are really teaching the dog, we are clouding the whole issue with human values and creating confusion. We are usually too ready to punish the dog for what is wrong, instead of concentrating on and rewarding what is right, but does the dog understand what we are trying to teach it at all?
If punishment is used as a first-time training aid and the dog learns the wrong thing, not only do we create confusion, we also create mistrust".
also this:
"Karen Pryor, an American authority on marine-mammal behaviour said: 'Punishment is humanity's favourite method. When the bahaviour goes wrong, we think first of punishment. Scold the child, spank the dog, dock the paycheck, fine the company, torture the dissident, invade the country, and so on'. The problem is that when we find out that the punishment does not stop the behaviour, what do we do? WE ESCALATE THE PUNISHMENT.
To a certain extent, punishment after the act can have a learning affect on humans, but that is because we have the power of logical thought patterns - I am in gaol now for a crime that I committed last year. I do not like being in jail, so I will commit no more crimes. Other animals do not have this ability, therefore punishing unwanted behaviour after the act only confuses them. Sometimes even punishment during the act can have the reverse effect from one we are trying to achieve."
Also, another top pet behaviourist Peter Neville, I'm sure some of you will have heard of him also opposes punishment as a training technique and basically says the same thing about it as what John Fisher does.
These guys are at the forefront of their field so I do think they know what they are talking about.
In the end, all dogs are dogs. All dogs show aggression for the same reasons and they all have the same psychology so I don't think that saying some breeds need punishment because of their drive where others don't. They still learn exactly the same as other dogs, they are just more likely to show the problems that their drive might bring. If somebody has used so-called positive training and not had the result, they weren't doing it right.
Trying to eradicate aggression by using punishment is the most stupid thing anybody could ever do anyway for the reasons that John Fisher and Peter Neville have both stated. Punishment can even create aggression in the form of self-defence where aggression might not even have been an issue to start with.
Anybody who feels the need to "bully", their dog into doing what they want obviously doesn't really understand the true behaviour of dogs. There is never going to be a trusting teamwork relationship present because, if I was a dog, would I trust an owner who routinely smacked me or shouted at me, yanked my collar and lead etc...for reasons that I didn't even understand?
It makes me laugh when people say stuff like: "He/she knows exactly what he/she has done wrong". WRONG!!! How would they know if the dog knew exactly what it had done wrong, can they read the dogs mind? They know that they know what the dog did wrong and that they'd understand if they were punished in this fashion but that doesn't mean to say a dog understands this.
