It took a while, but I finally have a response I'm happy with. I tried to address all major points in the original article, but I didn't want to go paragraph by paragraph because a) it was already too long, and b) it was really hard to organize because of the rambling. I've subtitled my response to make it a bit easier to digest 
Hopefully it gives some people some food for thought. 
When did balance become a dirty word? The simple answer is it became a dirty word when it started to be used to justify "corrections" that were given because of a lack of knowledge/understanding/fairness on the part of the dog handler. There is a place for balanced training, but unfortunately the balance is skewed too often to favour the handler and justify an unnecessary correction. If corrections were only considered to be a "no" or a "jingle" of the dogs collar, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. But unfortunately, once corrections become justified, it is very easy to slide into more and more negative territory, where a "correction" can be a smack to the head, yelling at the dog, doing a collar correction with a prong, cuffing the dog etc. I have seen all of it taught and encouraged at training facilities which claim to be "balanced".
The Blame Game
I agree that dog behaviour is at an all time low, but let’s be realistic about the reasons. 30 years ago most people didn't take their dogs to obedience classes, so blaming this on positive only training is ridiculous. What's the real issue? I would suggest a lot of the negative behaviours have to do with the lack of exercise and interaction our dogs get today. Dogs were not meant to only walk on a leash, or interact with only humans or other dogs for a few hours a day. In addition, now many families require a dual income, which means that most dogs are either home alone or kenneled for 8 - 10 hours a day, whereas 30 years ago most families had someone home for at least part of the day. This lack of physical and mental stimulation is bound to result in behavioural issues.
Let’s Start “Correcting” the Humans
The reason that positive only should hold so much sway is that it is less likely that humans will screw it up. In general, people can't read dogs. They don't understand the body language, they don't have the instinctive ability to relate to them, and they are way too quick to blame the problems on the dog. With positive training, we try to balance it out in the dogs' favour, so that people think of the positive before automatically going to the negative. Using positive training creates and reinforces a relationship between you and your dog, and teaches the dog that s/he can trust you. It creates a partnership, instead of D/s relationship. If the author values the odds of getting an OTCH over the relationship, that is her choice - but it won't be mine.
Positive training also addresses human error and incompetence. How many average owners would be able to recognize that a dog is put into a situation beyond his skill set and has gone into an adrenaline rush and can’t feel the correction? How many owners will release their ego long enough to recognize that their dogs sense of trust in them is in question? How many owners recognize that their dog is desensitized, and how many owners problem solve this desensitization by amping up the level of correction, despite having been told in puppy class (that they took however many years ago) that a harder correction is not the answer? And how many owners have the skill to teach distraction skills, fix foundation partnership skills, or learn to use a collar correctly? How many will seek help to gain these skills (keeping in mind that there is a very shallow pool of good trainers to choose from),and how many will just shift their idea of balance? When we use positive training methods, it is much easier to fix the problem because the relationship has already been established.
As the author says in her article: "Like every other tool, it’s not the tool that causes the problem, it’s the person wielding it that makes the mess!". If I have a choice between giving people a tool which will cause them to put more consideration into their relationship with their dog, and encourage them to see the positive in their dog, vs. a tool which justifies what seems to be people's innate desire to establish physical dominance over their dog, I will always choose the positive tool.
Dog Sports vs. Behaviour
I found this author doesn't clearly differentiate between dog sports and behaviour in the main text of her article, but to me there is a huge difference. When it comes to behaviour, I am fair but balanced (with a huge skew to the positive side). When it comes to dog sports I am positive only.
Your dog didn't sign up to do these dog sports - they have been drafted as your partner. So before blaming them, get rid of the ego and take a really good look at yourself. Humans are responsible for 99% (if not 100%) of the errors when it comes to training. If your dog is off course in a agility, instead of yelling at the dog look at your body language. If you dog goes to the wrong jump in utility, take a good look at your training and the environment. If your dog is distracted by the food bowls in Rally, ask yourself if you've proofed it enough. To extend this to the author’s arguments, if "stars of the class" get out in the real world and are pulling, lunging, barking, and not responding to commands...whose fault is that? I'd say it was the handlers for not extending the behaviour and socializing their dog. Dogs don't generalize well, so it's the humans responsibility to work with them in various venues.
To Clarify...
One of the (many) things which annoyed me about this article is the author’s assumptions about positive training. Clearly she doesn't have a great understanding of the use of luring. Luring is used as an alternative to shaping, but it is phased out very quickly, until just the hand signal remains. In addition, the clicker is not essential to PO training, and contrary to her statements I know both herding and tracking dogs which have been trained with PO. In fact, I know far more titled tracking dogs trained with PO than trained with any other method.
The author's statement "If the dog gets off leash he is at serious risk of being hit by a car. They don’t listen, and they don’t come back. When they barge out the front door, they are gone" is beyond ridiculous. If you “correct” a dog for returning to you, why would it ever return to you again? On the other hand, if you go against the human drive for "corrections" and instead reward the dog when it returns to you, you will have a dog who is much happier to return next time. The facility that I teach at has a phenomenal reliable recall class - by the end of the 4th session dogs will run past live ducks, a hot hamburger, high value treats lying all over the floor, toys, other dogs, people calling its name, etc. just to get to you. And that's just in four sessions, and with 100% positive training - no corrections, ever.
As for her statement “Next time you are around a PO dog, watch him. He can’t be still. He’ll be pacing, whining, pushing, panting and dancing. If he is ordered into a down to stop all the movement, he’ll roll in place and he’ll still looked wired…because he is. He has been taught to constantly SEEK”, I think the word she is actually looking for is engage, not seek. Yes, dogs who are positively reinforced enjoy engaging humans because it’s FUN and, unfortunately, in todays world dogs are usually understimulated. Of course they want to engage us - the same way we humans engage people in conversation, sports, and drinks. I notice that dogs who are trained with positive methods are less likely to be stressed and less likely to be reactive because they know what to expect from their humans - there is no anxiety. My dogs have an “off switch” - when I tell them to settle, they go to their mats and chill.
The author stated: “But in the PO Universe, there are no consequences for canine bad behavior. You are supposed to either ignore or distract bad behavior. Don’t correct the dog for chewing your shoes; pick them up. Don’t correct the dog for chewing on the carpet; give him a toy. Don’t correct the dog for jumping on you, step back or ignore it. If the dog is biting your hand, move it higher or ignore… he’ll quit eventually. Ignoring bad behavior will extinguish it, because they get no positive reinforcement for it. Calling a puppy away from chewing on the carpet and then giving him a toy will get him to quit going for the carpet. Really?”
How about we start making humans take some responsibility instead of putting it all on the dogs? We are supposed to be smarter than they are, and yet we blame them for everything that goes wrong. Your 5 month old puppy is teething and chews on your leather shoes? Why in the world did you leave them out in the first place? These dogs don’t exist in a bubble - they get excited, they get scared, their teeth hurt, they miss you when you’re gone. Positive training makes people try to understand life from the dogs point of view, instead of making the dog try to understand the human point of view.
The idea behind positive training isn’t that you walk away from the problem - the idea is that instead of being a typical reactive human, you try to understand why the dog is acting that way and then work with the dog to stop it. If it’s growling over a toy, you ask yourself why, and then you play trade off games so that it learns it has no reason to fear you. If it growls when you cut its nails, you ask yourself why, and then you slow down, take your time, avoid the quick, make it a positive experience so that the puppy learns it can trust you. If the dog growls over food, you hand feed him and make him work for his supper so that the puppy learns all good things come from you. But what the author is missing is that all of these are rare occurrences with a puppy who is raised through positive training techniques, because the puppies don’t feel stressed, or fearful, or question the relationship they have with you, because they have no reason to.
I agree with the author that “Ignoring aggression feeds it”, but as Abe Lincoln said, “Violence begins where knowledge ends.” There is a place in this world for corrections, but our society is already using them indiscriminately. Balanced training in its most basic form (which is all the average dog owner understands) uses corrections as a guiding path instead of a last resort. We use stress, pain, and fear to control our dogs because we are too busy, self absorbed, or stubborn to bother trying to understand the dogs point of view.
The biggest difference between the positive approach and the balanced approach as described by this author is that the positive approach questions why BEFORE reacting to the behaviour, while the balanced approach attempts to deal with the behaviour and then asks why. To go with the author’s analogy of 2+2 = 5 - instead of saying “No dear, 2+2 = 4”, positive training says “Let’s go over that again together and see if we can find where we made the mistake. Let’s try teaching it in different ways, and problem solve so you can see where you went wrong.” Any teacher can tell you that a student who problem solves an answer is much more likely to remember the material than someone who is told the answer.
And Here’s the Crux of the Problem:
The problem with balanced approaches is that they aren’t actually balanced. The word “correction” has come to equal abuse or punishment because as the author acknowledges, we humans tend to go to extremes, and when we are given a little power we tend to abuse it. If humans followed the negative reinforcements as described, I would have no issue with them. The problem is that when the little “tap on the shoulder” doesn’t work, we tap harder...and harder...and harder...especially when we get frustrated or upset. In all the classes I have taught, in all the owners I have worked with, I have never once said “you are being too fair to your dog” or “you are being too kind to your dog”. However, I have lost count of the number of times I have said “Stop hitting your dog”, “stop yanking on your dogs’ leash”, “your dog is afraid of you”, or “it’s not the dog’s fault - it’s yours.” Positive training helps bring it back into balance - it makes the owner question their automatic response, and consider their role in their dog’s behaviour.
In summary...
To paraphrase/rework the author’s final comment:
It is our job and responsibility as our dog’s owner and best friends to keep them safe. That means that we need to be aware of what is going on around us. It means being aware and taking steps when dangerous ideas are trying to manipulate, skew and hem us in. It means standing up and saying, “No, this is a dangerous, unfair, unrealistic idea that is going to create aggression, destroy relationships, and get good dogs killed. This is a notion that is going to drive us further into the dark ages of dog training, and I want no part of it.
Hopefully it gives some people some food for thought. When did balance become a dirty word? The simple answer is it became a dirty word when it started to be used to justify "corrections" that were given because of a lack of knowledge/understanding/fairness on the part of the dog handler. There is a place for balanced training, but unfortunately the balance is skewed too often to favour the handler and justify an unnecessary correction. If corrections were only considered to be a "no" or a "jingle" of the dogs collar, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. But unfortunately, once corrections become justified, it is very easy to slide into more and more negative territory, where a "correction" can be a smack to the head, yelling at the dog, doing a collar correction with a prong, cuffing the dog etc. I have seen all of it taught and encouraged at training facilities which claim to be "balanced".
The Blame Game
I agree that dog behaviour is at an all time low, but let’s be realistic about the reasons. 30 years ago most people didn't take their dogs to obedience classes, so blaming this on positive only training is ridiculous. What's the real issue? I would suggest a lot of the negative behaviours have to do with the lack of exercise and interaction our dogs get today. Dogs were not meant to only walk on a leash, or interact with only humans or other dogs for a few hours a day. In addition, now many families require a dual income, which means that most dogs are either home alone or kenneled for 8 - 10 hours a day, whereas 30 years ago most families had someone home for at least part of the day. This lack of physical and mental stimulation is bound to result in behavioural issues.
Let’s Start “Correcting” the Humans
The reason that positive only should hold so much sway is that it is less likely that humans will screw it up. In general, people can't read dogs. They don't understand the body language, they don't have the instinctive ability to relate to them, and they are way too quick to blame the problems on the dog. With positive training, we try to balance it out in the dogs' favour, so that people think of the positive before automatically going to the negative. Using positive training creates and reinforces a relationship between you and your dog, and teaches the dog that s/he can trust you. It creates a partnership, instead of D/s relationship. If the author values the odds of getting an OTCH over the relationship, that is her choice - but it won't be mine.
Positive training also addresses human error and incompetence. How many average owners would be able to recognize that a dog is put into a situation beyond his skill set and has gone into an adrenaline rush and can’t feel the correction? How many owners will release their ego long enough to recognize that their dogs sense of trust in them is in question? How many owners recognize that their dog is desensitized, and how many owners problem solve this desensitization by amping up the level of correction, despite having been told in puppy class (that they took however many years ago) that a harder correction is not the answer? And how many owners have the skill to teach distraction skills, fix foundation partnership skills, or learn to use a collar correctly? How many will seek help to gain these skills (keeping in mind that there is a very shallow pool of good trainers to choose from),and how many will just shift their idea of balance? When we use positive training methods, it is much easier to fix the problem because the relationship has already been established.
As the author says in her article: "Like every other tool, it’s not the tool that causes the problem, it’s the person wielding it that makes the mess!". If I have a choice between giving people a tool which will cause them to put more consideration into their relationship with their dog, and encourage them to see the positive in their dog, vs. a tool which justifies what seems to be people's innate desire to establish physical dominance over their dog, I will always choose the positive tool.
Dog Sports vs. Behaviour
I found this author doesn't clearly differentiate between dog sports and behaviour in the main text of her article, but to me there is a huge difference. When it comes to behaviour, I am fair but balanced (with a huge skew to the positive side). When it comes to dog sports I am positive only.
Your dog didn't sign up to do these dog sports - they have been drafted as your partner. So before blaming them, get rid of the ego and take a really good look at yourself. Humans are responsible for 99% (if not 100%) of the errors when it comes to training. If your dog is off course in a agility, instead of yelling at the dog look at your body language. If you dog goes to the wrong jump in utility, take a good look at your training and the environment. If your dog is distracted by the food bowls in Rally, ask yourself if you've proofed it enough. To extend this to the author’s arguments, if "stars of the class" get out in the real world and are pulling, lunging, barking, and not responding to commands...whose fault is that? I'd say it was the handlers for not extending the behaviour and socializing their dog. Dogs don't generalize well, so it's the humans responsibility to work with them in various venues.
To Clarify...
One of the (many) things which annoyed me about this article is the author’s assumptions about positive training. Clearly she doesn't have a great understanding of the use of luring. Luring is used as an alternative to shaping, but it is phased out very quickly, until just the hand signal remains. In addition, the clicker is not essential to PO training, and contrary to her statements I know both herding and tracking dogs which have been trained with PO. In fact, I know far more titled tracking dogs trained with PO than trained with any other method.
The author's statement "If the dog gets off leash he is at serious risk of being hit by a car. They don’t listen, and they don’t come back. When they barge out the front door, they are gone" is beyond ridiculous. If you “correct” a dog for returning to you, why would it ever return to you again? On the other hand, if you go against the human drive for "corrections" and instead reward the dog when it returns to you, you will have a dog who is much happier to return next time. The facility that I teach at has a phenomenal reliable recall class - by the end of the 4th session dogs will run past live ducks, a hot hamburger, high value treats lying all over the floor, toys, other dogs, people calling its name, etc. just to get to you. And that's just in four sessions, and with 100% positive training - no corrections, ever.
As for her statement “Next time you are around a PO dog, watch him. He can’t be still. He’ll be pacing, whining, pushing, panting and dancing. If he is ordered into a down to stop all the movement, he’ll roll in place and he’ll still looked wired…because he is. He has been taught to constantly SEEK”, I think the word she is actually looking for is engage, not seek. Yes, dogs who are positively reinforced enjoy engaging humans because it’s FUN and, unfortunately, in todays world dogs are usually understimulated. Of course they want to engage us - the same way we humans engage people in conversation, sports, and drinks. I notice that dogs who are trained with positive methods are less likely to be stressed and less likely to be reactive because they know what to expect from their humans - there is no anxiety. My dogs have an “off switch” - when I tell them to settle, they go to their mats and chill.
The author stated: “But in the PO Universe, there are no consequences for canine bad behavior. You are supposed to either ignore or distract bad behavior. Don’t correct the dog for chewing your shoes; pick them up. Don’t correct the dog for chewing on the carpet; give him a toy. Don’t correct the dog for jumping on you, step back or ignore it. If the dog is biting your hand, move it higher or ignore… he’ll quit eventually. Ignoring bad behavior will extinguish it, because they get no positive reinforcement for it. Calling a puppy away from chewing on the carpet and then giving him a toy will get him to quit going for the carpet. Really?”
How about we start making humans take some responsibility instead of putting it all on the dogs? We are supposed to be smarter than they are, and yet we blame them for everything that goes wrong. Your 5 month old puppy is teething and chews on your leather shoes? Why in the world did you leave them out in the first place? These dogs don’t exist in a bubble - they get excited, they get scared, their teeth hurt, they miss you when you’re gone. Positive training makes people try to understand life from the dogs point of view, instead of making the dog try to understand the human point of view.
The idea behind positive training isn’t that you walk away from the problem - the idea is that instead of being a typical reactive human, you try to understand why the dog is acting that way and then work with the dog to stop it. If it’s growling over a toy, you ask yourself why, and then you play trade off games so that it learns it has no reason to fear you. If it growls when you cut its nails, you ask yourself why, and then you slow down, take your time, avoid the quick, make it a positive experience so that the puppy learns it can trust you. If the dog growls over food, you hand feed him and make him work for his supper so that the puppy learns all good things come from you. But what the author is missing is that all of these are rare occurrences with a puppy who is raised through positive training techniques, because the puppies don’t feel stressed, or fearful, or question the relationship they have with you, because they have no reason to.
I agree with the author that “Ignoring aggression feeds it”, but as Abe Lincoln said, “Violence begins where knowledge ends.” There is a place in this world for corrections, but our society is already using them indiscriminately. Balanced training in its most basic form (which is all the average dog owner understands) uses corrections as a guiding path instead of a last resort. We use stress, pain, and fear to control our dogs because we are too busy, self absorbed, or stubborn to bother trying to understand the dogs point of view.
The biggest difference between the positive approach and the balanced approach as described by this author is that the positive approach questions why BEFORE reacting to the behaviour, while the balanced approach attempts to deal with the behaviour and then asks why. To go with the author’s analogy of 2+2 = 5 - instead of saying “No dear, 2+2 = 4”, positive training says “Let’s go over that again together and see if we can find where we made the mistake. Let’s try teaching it in different ways, and problem solve so you can see where you went wrong.” Any teacher can tell you that a student who problem solves an answer is much more likely to remember the material than someone who is told the answer.
And Here’s the Crux of the Problem:
The problem with balanced approaches is that they aren’t actually balanced. The word “correction” has come to equal abuse or punishment because as the author acknowledges, we humans tend to go to extremes, and when we are given a little power we tend to abuse it. If humans followed the negative reinforcements as described, I would have no issue with them. The problem is that when the little “tap on the shoulder” doesn’t work, we tap harder...and harder...and harder...especially when we get frustrated or upset. In all the classes I have taught, in all the owners I have worked with, I have never once said “you are being too fair to your dog” or “you are being too kind to your dog”. However, I have lost count of the number of times I have said “Stop hitting your dog”, “stop yanking on your dogs’ leash”, “your dog is afraid of you”, or “it’s not the dog’s fault - it’s yours.” Positive training helps bring it back into balance - it makes the owner question their automatic response, and consider their role in their dog’s behaviour.
In summary...
To paraphrase/rework the author’s final comment:
It is our job and responsibility as our dog’s owner and best friends to keep them safe. That means that we need to be aware of what is going on around us. It means being aware and taking steps when dangerous ideas are trying to manipulate, skew and hem us in. It means standing up and saying, “No, this is a dangerous, unfair, unrealistic idea that is going to create aggression, destroy relationships, and get good dogs killed. This is a notion that is going to drive us further into the dark ages of dog training, and I want no part of it.
, tie her to my leg