This is a very well organized and structured book of practical advice on how to train your dog in a positive way. It has easy to follow, detailed step-by-step instructions, followed by common questions and problems and how to resolve them. It offers a good introduction to clicker training, and some advice on how to prevent or remedy behavioral problems via positive methods alone. There is a lot to be learned from this book, and if you have a compliant dog, I'm sure it could be all you need.That said, the book is too obsessed with the positive, implying that even raising your voice is bad and harmful to the dog and your relationship. I was quite shocked and disappointed that the word "no" is completely absent from the book. Even the concept of "no" is absent. She sort of offers a weak alternative in the "no reward marker", which is the opposite of the click (mark a behavior that won't earn a treat). But that doesn't really convey the idea of "no", and even for that she can't bring herself to say the word "no" - instead insisting on silly things like "oops" or "too bad". And for some reason, that has to be delivered in a happy, cheerful voice. Why?? Why is it never okay to use a stern, disappointed or sad voice with your dog? I don't mean yell at him, but damn, letting him know via your voice that you're not happy with what he's doing or that it's not allowed isn't that much to ask! Dogs set boundaries between each other with communications like growling and snarling, without inflicting mental trauma on each other with it, so clearly it's an accepted form of communication in dog culture. So I don't see why the human voice has to always be happy or else. And I'm still not clear on how you're supposed to set boundaries on your dog without the use of "no". Boundaries are essential, for dogs and kids and people. Distraction will take his mind away at the moment, sure, but is that really teaching him that "this is not okay", or is it rather just showing him that "this other thing is more fun right now" (but later, when you're gone and there isn't a more fun thing to distract him, he may go right back to it). I think the concept of "no" is essential, and was really looking forward to learning how to teach its message in a nice way, but I guess I'll have to keep looking.A lot of people are mentioning her heavy use of treats. I also find this to be the case. She does mention that there are other rewards one can use, but in her instructions and examples she always uses treats. Given how you're supposed to do dozens of repetitions at a time, several times a day, giving a treat with every click, it really makes me wonder... Is there anything left in the dog's daily allowance of calories, or does he subsist on treats alone during those 6 weeks? She mentions that eventually you can fade the treats, but doesn't really give instructions on that. And what happens if the dog really wants his treats and won't work for hugs or frisbees? How do you fade the treats with a very food-driven dog? (she talks more about lure fading, but not really about reward treat fading).Oh, and another weird thing, but that's just picky so don't mind me :-) I found that about 90% of the hypothetical dogs in example situations in this book are always female. With the exception of a few token "he's", in this book a dog by default is a "she". And even with the tokens, the author will start with "he" and then within the same example transition him to a "she", while still talking about the same dog... A couple of times she even did it within the same sentence! It's confusing to keep track of who she's referring to - dog? Handler? Trainer? And also, it's just... weird. And yeah, I'm a woman. Too much affirmative action feels forced and fake.P.S. I've seen many people get confused by the use of the word "positive" in training books. I was confused myself. So, for whoever this may be helpful to - be aware of the two meanings of the word. In the title, the book refers to "positive" training as training that's humane, peaceful, nice, happy etc. - that meaning of the word. However, in trainer terminology, "positive" means something that's added, and "negative" means something that's taken away (a very stupid and confusing way of saying "additive" and "subtractive", but whatever). So "positive punishment" means something bad happens, "positive reinforcement" means something good happens, "negative reinforcement" means something bad is taken away and "negative punishment" means something good is taken away. With that in mind, the author's training method is NOT all positive. It's a combination of positive and negative - positive reinforcement + negative punishment (which is usually the most humane and most effective combination). I've seen a lot of people riled up about "you can't be only positive!", but I think they're getting caught up in the duality of the word. So, this trainer is all positive in terms of the humanity and kindness in her approach, but technically speaking she uses both positive and negative training methods.