I guess I don't like where he says "applying force" and the range of actions that could entail .. I just have a bad attitude about that guy for some reason!
I'm confused as to why you don't like his choice of words here. He is not advocating applying force. He is talking about how trainers who use methods such as "alpha rolls" are applying force in a desire to seek dominance which is an outdated and debunked theory of how human and canine interactions should be managed.
Here is the quote from the article:
Perhaps it is time to revise our dog training and obedience concepts to something along the ideas proposed by advocates of Positive Training. In that view, controlling the dog's behavior is more a matter of controlling the things that a dog needs and wants, such as food and social interaction, rather than applying force to achieve what the science suggests is an unnatural dominance over the dog. If you manage and dispense important resources, the dog will respond to you out of self interest.
I read his book about dog intelligence years back. I was not entirely convinced by what he had to say in that book. But I do think he is on the right track in this article. I found this article in a link posted by Pat Miller. Of course, I have a lot of respect for her. She was sharing it by way of demonstrating that yet another voice in the canine academic literature has come to the conclusion that dominance theory is a fallacy.