I agree, the "new" concepts are much safer for both dog and handler. I never said that people who use aversive methods are always uneducated. I just personally do not see any great reason to use them when I get the results I want with more positive methods. I do consider them better, though. If I can train my dog without hurting him, that's a BETTER alternative.
Trish McConnell and Ian Dunbar know how to use aversives correctly. Most professional trainers are skilled enough to know how to properly time and apply an effective correction. Most novice trainers are not. It really does come back to safety. Giving a novice trainer a choke chain and telling them to yank on it whenever the dog does something "bad" is not safe for the dog, nor is it safe for the handler if the seemingly random corrections trigger an aggressive response.
I'm sure that positive training, when done poorly, can mess up a dog too. It'll just take a lot more mistakes from the handler in order to get the dog in a neurotic or stressful state.
Trish McConnell and Ian Dunbar know how to use aversives correctly. Most professional trainers are skilled enough to know how to properly time and apply an effective correction. Most novice trainers are not. It really does come back to safety. Giving a novice trainer a choke chain and telling them to yank on it whenever the dog does something "bad" is not safe for the dog, nor is it safe for the handler if the seemingly random corrections trigger an aggressive response.
I'm sure that positive training, when done poorly, can mess up a dog too. It'll just take a lot more mistakes from the handler in order to get the dog in a neurotic or stressful state.