# Cesar Millan (the dog whisperer)



## sexysilver

Im a huge fan of Cesar Millan and wondering what everyone thinks of his methods and would you recomend his methods for people having problems with there dogs?


----------



## TeddieXRuxpin

I personally don't like Cesar Millan. I have watched enough of his shows, info etc to see that I disagree on most if not all of his disciplinary methods.


----------



## Willowy

I think that he has a natural "way" with dogs, and he could do anything with any dog. I also think that your average dog owner would get bitten if they tried some of his methods. 

Some of his methods could ruin a soft dog. He would be able to see that the dog couldn't handle it and back off, but most dog owners wouldn't see that and could do a lot of damage.

So....don't try this at home, folks. Doesn't it say that at the beginning of the show?


----------



## sexysilver

But also do you think if the owner nows his dog of by heart and are in a calm asertive energy and they now what they doing do you think they are in a fit state to try his methods and have experiance with dog physcology?

Can I ask why you's disagree with his methods?

Thank you for your opinionss


----------



## harrise

I like turtles.


----------



## Dogstar

I think he's got amazing timing, great camera presence, and very, very good reflexes. 

I think he's a horrible role model for people with an average family pet for anything past the whole 'exercise, discipline, affection' model.


----------



## sexysilver

But do you like Cesar Millan?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm


http://www.canis.no/rugaas/onearticle.php?artid=1

some reading for you.


and note even Cesar doesn't want you using his methods....hence the disclaimer telling you not to..


----------



## sexysilver

DogStar would you use his methods on you're dogs?

because I am looking into using his methods on my dogs and so far they have worked, but thats my opinion. 

Thank you for your opinion


----------



## harrise

Yeah, most people with what I would call "normal" dogs read into his actions too much. Often to the detriment of the human-dog bond. But working with people who have seen the show is much easier than a clueless owner.


----------



## sexysilver

Thank you for the links 

but you would use his methods unless you know what you are doing, I think his methods do work on ordanary pets with problems and if you know how far to take the domanince and how much you and you dog can handle you could use them but only with a professional and knowledge of what you are doing.

Thank you's x


----------



## Willowy

It depends which methods you're thinking of. His "Exercise, Affection, Discipline" mantra is all very fine. Calm assertive energy is also a good thing.

However, in the episode I was watching the other night, he was getting kind of physical with the dog, and the dog was obviously stressed. He can see the stress, and knows how far he can push the dog (whether I agree with deliberately stressing a dog in the name of training is another matter). Your average dog owner won't see that stress, and it could end very badly.

If you really understand learning theory and "dog psychology", you'll understand that it's not necessary to stress a dog to train it.


----------



## sexysilver

Yes I agree but with people who are having problems with they're dog and are reading into the methods and how to approch those problems in a more assertive manner would you recommend his methods I would but only to a owner who is willing to read up and understand his methodz. x


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

sexysilver said:


> Thank you for the links
> 
> but you would use his methods unless you know what you are doing, I think his methods do work on ordanary pets with problems and if you know how far to take the domanince and how much you and you dog can handle you could use them but only with a professional and knowledge of what you are doing.
> 
> Thank you's x


dominence doesn't exist. That's a wolf thing and its innaccurate in the extreme to apply it to dogs IMO. I will NEVER use his methods and his show disgusts me.


----------



## TooneyDogs

Have you seen the shows where the dog is trying to attack him while teaching them to walk....jumping/going ballistic...and he's jerking the dog around to control him? Or, the dogs that tried to attack the owners when they gave the dog a command? His methods are full of intimidation and 'gentle', 'calm' force that fits well with his Judo training.
While those tactics will certainly work in skilled hands they are not necessary. For example, the walking nicely on a loose leash can be done without force or MAKING the dog do it. Other methods teach the dog to WANT to walk with you...willingly, happilly.... without intimidation or force.


----------



## sexysilver

Yes but if he nows how dar is right to push that dog and what the problems are but also yes the average everyday dog owner might not realise the dog is stressed, but also he doesnt stress all dogs he works with and he isnt as such training the dog he is over domaninating the dog to gain more control, I disagree with stressing a dog but it depends on what the situation is too.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> dominence doesn't exist. That's a wolf thing and its innaccurate in the extreme to apply it to dogs IMO. I will NEVER use his methods and his show disgusts me.


If domanince doesnt exist then why is it when you have a pack of dogs there is always a pack leader a domaninate male or female leading that pack. A friend of mine has 9 dogs and there is a clear pack leader. The domaninate female who none of the other dogs would dare bother is she walks over to the other dog eating the other dog back off. 

It appears to be domaninance. xx


----------



## Marsh Muppet

harrise said:


> I like turtles.


Moderators, I see this post as inflammatory and demand it be deleted.


----------



## harrise

Here's the thing for me: I am far from a positive trainer, and far from a Cesar type of trainer. I have decided to limit most of my comments on training to specific situations that I have a vested interest in. If my income is not tied up in the need for a comment I typically will not comment. That is the course of action I would recommend for you as well, for this forum.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

sexysilver said:


> Yes but if he nows how dar is right to push that dog and what the problems are but also yes the average everyday dog owner might not realise the dog is stressed, but also he doesnt stress all dogs he works with and he isnt as such training the dog he is over domaninating the dog to gain more control, I disagree with stressing a dog but it depends on what the situation is too.





...........................


----------



## sexysilver

TooneyDogs said:


> Have you seen the shows where the dog is trying to attack him while teaching them to walk....jumping/going ballistic...and he's jerking the dog around to control him? Or, the dogs that tried to attack the owners when they gave the dog a command? His methods are full of intimidation and 'gentle', 'calm' force that fits well with his Judo training.
> While those tactics will certainly work in skilled hands they are not necessary. For example, the walking nicely on a loose leash can be done without force or MAKING the dog do it. Other methods teach the dog to WANT to walk with you...willingly, happilly.... without intimidation or force.


Yes you are right there but as he knows what he is doing and he doesnt appear to be pysically hurting the dog but using methods dogs themselfs use.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ...........................


Whats wrong? xx


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

> If domanince doesnt exist then why is it when you have a pack of dogs there is always a pack leader a domaninate male or female leading that pack. A friend of mine has 9 dogs and there is a clear pack leader. The domaninate female who none of the other dogs would dare bother is she walks over to the other dog eating the other dog back off.
> 
> It appears to be domaninance. xx


dogs are NOT PACK ANIMALS. they are however social animals meaning they form loose structured groups. in a Wolf Pack you have your Alpha and so forth. in a group of dogs there is no *position* of Alpha.

Go spend some time with wolves and even just high content wolf hybrids and you will see a MAJOR difference.


----------



## sexysilver

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> dogs are NOT PACK ANIMALS. they are however social animals meaning they form loose structured groups. in a Wolf Pack you have your Alpha and so forth. in a group of dogs there is no *position* of Alpha.
> 
> Go spend some time with wolves and even just high content wolf hybrids and you will see a MAJOR difference.


Have you yourself spend any amount of time with wolves?

Dogs decended from wolves did they not?

If dogs are not pack animals then why does Cesar Pack methods work if dogs are not pack animals?


----------



## K9companions

I, personally, think Cesar has some good tactics to bring to the trainer table. 

However, also in my opinion, it's not for everyone because it does require you to have fast reflexes, a deep 'nature like' pack orientated bond with your dog, and no timidness towards touching your dog as a correction. With all those combined, it doesn't usually fit into someone's training manual.


----------



## TooneyDogs

sexysilver said:


> Yes you are right there but as he knows what he is doing and he doesnt appear to be pysically hurting the dog but using methods dogs themselfs use.



That's the point.....these are not dog to dog relationships. It's a human to dog relationship. We don't have to act like dogs to communicate and teach.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

sexysilver said:


> Have you yourself spend any amount of time with wolves?
> 
> Dogs decended from wolves did they not?
> 
> If dogs are not pack animals then why does Cesar Pack methods work if dogs are not pack animals?


yes I have. 

no they did not. Dogs and wolves most likely descended from a common anscestor. and then evolved into WILDLY separate Phenotypes..


and as far as his methods working....I see stressed upset borderline dangerous animals on his show being claimed as *rehabbed*

Did you even read the links?????


----------



## K9companions

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> dogs are NOT PACK ANIMALS. they are however social animals meaning they form loose structured groups. in a Wolf Pack you have your Alpha and so forth. in a group of dogs there is no *position* of Alpha.
> 
> Go spend some time with wolves and even just high content wolf hybrids and you will see a MAJOR difference.


I would have to agree that dogs are pack animals. If they weren't they would probably be more like....cats. Lol. You can leave a cat in your house with food and water, leave and come back and the cat wouldn't know the difference (in most cases.) Do that to a dog and he will go crazy the first day let alone a week. Dog's are social. They derived from pack animals and still need pack social-ness. 

When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, after all the humans were gone, all the stray dogs were found in large packs together to stay alive. They are social.

Um...yeah thats it for me.


----------



## sexysilver

No we dont but his methods work using that relationship and he is clearly not HURTING a dog, I wouldnt like his methods or him if he hurt a dog simple as,

and yes he has a god given talent to do what he does and no all can cope with that but the few who can can try them and have great results xx



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> yes I have.
> 
> no they did not. Dogs and wolves most likely descended from a common anscestor. and then evolved into WILDLY separate Phenotypes..


Well well done but I do believe that dogs are pack animals and that his methods work without hurting a dog, some can preform his methods and have great results other cant its as simple as that, but only those who are dedicated to stick to his methods work, There is a man how trains mountain rescue dog uses Cesars methods and his own and they have turned out amazine dogs! xx


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Actually, studies of dominance hierarchies in wolves haven't proven one exists either. Why? Because dominance is contextual, it is not a characteristic of the animal. 

There have been only 3 studies of dominance hierarchies in dogs that I'm aware of and none of them concluded that one exists. So if you use Cesar's justification for his methods, you're using justification that hasn't been proven to be true. Scott and Fuller studied dog hierarchies, Dunbar and Beach studied dog hierarchies, and here's the 3rd: http://nonlineardogs.com/embed-SocOrg.html.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

K9companions said:


> I would have to agree that dogs are pack animals. If they weren't they would probably be more like....cats. Lol. You can leave a cat in your house with food and water, leave and come back and the cat wouldn't know the difference (in most cases.) Do that to a dog and he will go crazy the first day let alone a week. Dog's are social. They derived from pack animals and still need pack social-ness.
> 
> When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, after all the humans were gone, all the stray dogs were found in large packs together to stay alive. They are social.
> 
> Um...yeah thats it for me.



there is a difference between pack behavior and loose social groups.

Packs are FOR LIFE. That's not possible with dogs. 

Packs have RIGID structure. Dogs social structures are fluid and change often.

I could go on and on and on and on but Im tired of this whole Cesar BS. He is a quack and if you want to stress the hell out of your dogs its a free country. 

peace Zim is out.


----------



## K9companions

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> there is a difference between pack behavior and loose social groups.
> 
> Packs are FOR LIFE. That's not possible with dogs.
> 
> Packs have RIGID structure. Dogs social structures are fluid and change often.
> 
> I could go on and on and on and on but Im tired of this whole Cesar BS. He is a quack and if you want to stress the hell out of your dogs its a free country.
> 
> peace Zim is out.



Ok...see yah around...


----------



## RonE

Marsh Muppet said:


> Moderators, I see this post as inflammatory and demand it be deleted.


Next time, include a little smilie face so we know you're not serious.


----------



## winniec777

Gadzooks, here we go again. Typing in a can't-look-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way....

How is a neck pop not hurting the dog?
How good does it feel to be alpha-rolled?
Would you do either of these things to a 3-year old child?

Then why the heck do it to a dog when there are many other more universally effective (i.e. work for trainers at all levels), humane, proven ways to train dogs and deal with problem behaviors?

Coming out of trance now...must stop typing....eeeee-arrrrrrghhhhhhhh......


----------



## sexysilver

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> there is a difference between pack behavior and loose social groups.
> 
> Packs are FOR LIFE. That's not possible with dogs.
> 
> Packs have RIGID structure. Dogs social structures are fluid and change often.
> 
> I could go on and on and on and on but Im tired of this whole Cesar BS. He is a quack and if you want to stress the hell out of your dogs its a free country.
> 
> peace Zim is out.


If you are trying to say that I would stress the hell out of my dog just to follow a few commands then go ahead but to be honest I too am allowed to follow his methods and believe they can work.

But I would never hurt my dog pysically or mentally!

Yes packs are always changing as the dogs grows weaker or stronger a weak dog would near battle a strong dog it will wait till it gets weaker and weaker then attack for pack leader status. You feel free to have youre opinion as i am too. 

bye Zim


----------



## RonE

Roundabouts have become a popular alternative in this area to conventional intersections. I can't imagine why. They are less popular with the people who actually have to drive through them regularly.

The OP's circular logic reminds me of one of those roundabouts.


----------



## sexysilver

winniec777 said:


> Gadzooks, here we go again. Typing in a can't-look-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way....
> 
> How is a neck pop not hurting the dog?
> How good does it feel to be alpha-rolled?
> Would you do either of these things to a 3-year old child?
> 
> Then why the heck do it to a dog when there are many other more universally effective (i.e. work for trainers at all levels), humane, proven ways to train dogs and deal with problem behaviors?
> 
> Coming out of trance now...must stop typing....eeeee-arrrrrrghhhhhhhh......



If you listen and read what he is saying its not the touch he isnt stabbing the dog in the neck with his hand its the psycological power and the type of domanince that he has as he has.

No you wouldnt but you also wouldnt put a collar on your child and take it for a walk or put a muzzle on him/her.

his methods are not inhumane! x


----------



## K9companions

winniec777 said:


> Gadzooks, here we go again. Typing in a can't-look-away-from-the-train-wreck sort of way....
> 
> How is a neck pop not hurting the dog?
> How good does it feel to be alpha-rolled?
> Would you do either of these things to a 3-year old child?
> 
> Then why the heck do it to a dog when there are many other more universally effective (i.e. work for trainers at all levels), humane, proven ways to train dogs and deal with problem behaviors?
> 
> Coming out of trance now...must stop typing....eeeee-arrrrrrghhhhhhhh......



Uck...now I can't stop myself either...pah....boo...

We don't know what the neck pop does, except that it works for what we want: to snap the dog back to attention. We don't know if it hurts or not, we aren't them. We can only go by if the dog yelps or not. If it's yelping your abusing, not disciplining.

I don't know I have never been alpha-rolled.  An 'alpha roll' which I just call putting a dog on its side, isn't done every day and at everything. It is done at very extreme cases. When I first got Hunter, we were playing and he became too possessive of a toy. He lunged and snapped at my hand. I placed him (not threw him, but placed) on his side and said 'no'. He never did it again. Of course theres energy with it and blah blah blah blah.

No, I wouldn't do it to a child, but everyone against it always says 'dogs and humans aren't the same thing'. So therefor I can't really place rolling a child instead of rolling a dog. We send a child to a corner as our language. Dog language is they roll eachother.

Alright....*puts on hot suit* ready for the flammin'!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I aactually went two days ago to volunteer helping with a wolf 'pack' and the way I had it explained to me is packs are based on family groups. 

That's not something that often can happen with dogs.

listen to Curb and to TJ if he happens to pop in...

anyway im out. I hate the Cesar debates.


----------



## sexysilver

K9companions said:


> Uck...now I can't stop myself either...pah....boo...
> 
> We don't know what the neck pop does, except that it works for what we want: to snap the dog back to attention. We don't know if it hurts or not, we aren't them. We can only go by if the dog yelps or not. If it's yelping your abusing, not disciplining.
> 
> I don't know I have never been alpha-rolled.  An 'alpha roll' which I just call putting a dog on its side, isn't done every day and at everything. It is done at very extreme cases. When I first got Hunter, we were playing and he became too possessive of a toy. He lunged and snapped at my hand. I placed him (not threw him, but placed) on his side and said 'no'. He never did it again. Of course theres energy with it and blah blah blah blah.
> 
> No, I wouldn't do it to a child, but everyone against it always says 'dogs and humans aren't the same thing'. So therefor I can't really place rolling a child instead of rolling a dog. We send a child to a corner as our language. Dog language is they roll eachother.
> 
> Alright....*puts on hot suit* ready for the flammin'!


Yes I agree if humans were dogs they would be weaned before they get to 3 years old. And dogs mature alot faster than humans do.

and his methods have worked for me in what little ways I have used them and my dogs are still the same happy go lucky dogs but with more respect for me.


----------



## K9companions

I gotta pack up to go back to my apartment for college....be back later everyone....


----------



## sexysilver

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I aactually went two days ago to volunteer helping with a wolf 'pack' and the way I had it explained to me is packs are based on family groups.
> 
> That's not something that often can happen with dogs.
> 
> listen to Curb and to TJ if he happens to pop in...
> 
> anyway im out. I hate the Cesar debates.


oh youre back.

if its family groups how come most mother daughter groups dont get on as the keep battleing each other and have fights,

(dogs fight for breeding rights bitches fight for breathing rights) thats what i have learned!


----------



## Dogstar

sexysilver said:


> DogStar would you use his methods on you're dogs?
> 
> because I am looking into using his methods on my dogs and so far they have worked, but thats my opinion.
> 
> Thank you for your opinion


No, I would not. Why would I need to? I have perfectly nice, well behaved pets and working dog without any need to resort to any sort of crappy physical dominance games.


----------



## sexysilver

Dogstar said:


> No, I would not. Why would I need to? I have perfectly nice, well behaved pets and working dog without any need to resort to any sort of crappy physical dominance games.


THats youre opinion about him. Yes and my dogs are very well behaved dogs also, but with also using Cesars methods. 

It doesnt make me any the less of a better person just because i agree and use his methods and they work for me, so I will continue to use them if I ever have a problem.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

sexysilver said:


> It doesnt make me any the less of a better person just because i agree and use his methods and they work for me, so I will continue to use them if I ever have a problem.


I don't think anyone is arguing which methods you should use. I'm sure if we took all your methods and laid them out on a table we could easily explain to you why it works without using dominance theory. I don't gather that you're really interested in opinions that differ from yours by your need to defend Cesar; a need no one is really interested in, so...


----------



## sexysilver

Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing which methods you should use. I'm sure if we took all your methods and laid them out on a table we could easily explain to you why it works without using dominance theory. I don't get that you're intersted in opinions that differ from yours by the way you've taken a need to defend Cesar; a need no one is really interested in, so...


Is being curious not allowed?

I feel that he has done really well with what he has achived and he is my role model.

He has rescued loads of dogs has a natural born talent and I dont get why people dont like him or his methods? or why I get slaughter over liking his methods and practising his methods.

Yeah if you took all my methods and explained its only because you all now an alfull lot better than I do and clearly my opinion isnt allowed this a number of you. 

Does it make me a no-one for being interested in cesars methods ??


----------



## TooneyDogs

One of the best trainers in the world trains without collars or leashes and not a hint of intimidation or force in any of his training. His challenge to dog trainers is a very simple question...."If I can train my Dolphins, Killer Whales, Parrots and all the animals in my charge without those 'tools'.....Why can't you train your dogs without them?"
Just some food for thought about our training methods.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

sexysilver said:


> oh youre back.
> 
> if its family groups how come most mother daughter groups dont get on as the keep battleing each other and have fights,
> 
> (dogs fight for breeding rights bitches fight for breathing rights) thats what i have learned!



first of all I was addressing Curbside...


and as for your comments....water under the bridge...nice try.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

sexysilver said:


> Is being curious not allowed?


Being curious is wonderful. Taking opinions from others and feeling the need to defend yours is bad form. 



> I feel that he has done really well with what he has achived and he is my role model.


I'm glad you've done well with your dog, that's all anyone could hope for. 



> He has rescued loads of dogs has a natural born talent and I dont get why people dont like him or his methods?


I haven't read anyone taking Cesar personally, so I'm not sure where you're getting that. People don't like his methods because of the way he justifies using them. His reasoning is highly flawed as is all of dominance theory. 



> or why I get slaughter over liking his methods and practising his methods.


I haven't read anyone slaughter you...if they had, they'd likely be banned by now. What you're feeling is a need to defend Cesar when opinions differ from yours. If you're truly curious you'd want to know more about alternative explanations for why methods work. So long as you're defensive about it, you're not likely to read other comments as informative. 



> Yeah if you took all my methods and explained its only because you all now an alfull lot better than I do and clearly my opinion isnt allowed this a number of you.
> 
> Does it make me a no-one for being interested in cesars methods ??


A no-one? No. Someone caught on to the caboose? Perhaps.


----------



## wvasko

Well, I started training when Cesar was a young boy maybe he is using some of my methods. Not the alpha roll though as I've never used it. I got to say these Cesar threads are getting sillier and sillier and longer and longer and very little is ever accomplished.


----------



## hulkamaniac

I think people who dismiss Cesar out of hand make the same mistake as people who accept all his techniques and practices as gospel. I have used some of his techniques and they work. Some I think are a little extreme.


----------



## Tofu_pup

TooneyDogs said:


> One of the best trainers in the world trains without collars or leashes and not a hint of intimidation or force in any of his training. His challenge to dog trainers is a very simple question...."If I can train my Dolphins, Killer Whales, Parrots and all the animals in my charge without those 'tools'.....Why can't you train your dogs without them?"
> Just some food for thought about our training methods.


Who is this? I want to know more.

And I'll pass on the Cesar.


----------



## Cheetah

To me, trying to communicate to your dog in the same way you would a wolf is like trying to communicate to a human the same way you would an ape. There are similarities, but there are also a lot of differences and it's just not the same.

I treat my dogs like dogs, not like wolves.

Also, seeing as how Dogstar is a professional dog trainer, I wouldn't think she'd have any need to use such methods on her dogs. >^^;<


----------



## Binkalette

I LOVE Cesar's methods. It's amazing to see how quickly they work. And I love that he -NEVER- gives up on any dog. The one I don't like is the Victoria lady from It's me or the dog...


----------



## TooneyDogs

Tofu_pup said:


> Who is this? I want to know more.


Ted Turner. He said that many years ago when he was doing aquatic training at SeaWorld.....before he settled on dog training.


----------



## Tofu_pup

TooneyDogs said:


> Ted Turner. He said that many years ago when he was doing aquatic training at SeaWorld.....before he settled on dog training.


Thanks!
I like that challenge of his.


----------



## Love's_Sophie

I think that depending on the circumstances with a dog that I have, or am working with...yes, some of CMs 'methods' might be what is needed. Same with any other 'pop culture' dog trainers methods. If I had tried every other venue on a dog, and nothing was working, I would try every venue before having the dog pts...and alot of the canines Cesar Milan works with are 'such' cases. Same with Victory Stillwell...every person has personal choice-and everything always looks better on TV; that still hasn't change my hubby's view on responsiblity for his dog-she's still a pain, and he's still too ignorant to listen to what he preaches, just cause he's seen it on tv; I personally don't think that certain training devices are cruel, like some people\trainers do either; does that mean I'm cracked or don't have happy dogs? No, it just means I have the choice to feel that way; and my dogs are quite happy. It's all about knowing what works best for you and your dog, especially if your in a tough spot, and funds, or time, or in some cases, friends or family are running out...and also even though I use them occasionally, gentle leaders, which are a big thing VS brings to her clients, are not allowed in obedience or rally...so it makes sense for me to use what 'can' be used for those classes; which is a flat buckle, choker, or martingale collar...Mostly I train with a martingale\greyhound style. 

And I agree with Wvasko that threads like this are monotonous, silly, and 'taxing'; especially, usually, to the OP; really, who cares if they use a certain person's methods...if their dog's are happy, and well adjusted??? ... I think "most" people who have spent their time investing in dogs, has something to offer; if a person doesn't agree with it, then they don't have to read, or watch, or pay for any of it...simple as that. But, of course, instead of simply saying, "yes, I agree with that" or "no, it's not for me" people have to take it to the hilt and start an all out "this person's methods-vs-this person's methods". It's true, some of certain trainer's methods are quote un quote 'outdated', but hey...eventually so will you and I be...so why waste petty time 'discussing' a simple yes or no answer in so many pages???


----------



## pattymac

there's a similar argument on a Canadian forum re Brad Pattison who makes Cesar look like a ***** cat in regards to methods. As for me, I want to train my dog using methods that if I want to, I can use on my cats. Training my cats is sort of a side project for me. Hmm if I tried alpha rolling my cats, well let's just say I'd have a few bandaids on my arms and his poking and jabbing wouldn't go over too well either!! I prefer not to have a 15 pound cat latched onto my arm. So needless to say I use postive reinforcement for my training/teaching


----------



## KBLover

I'll use whatever works and gets the results without harming Wally.

If I need to be "a little mean" to him to get his attention - fine (in the canine world walking directly at a dog can be considered "threatening" and I'll do that to him, body block him, lean over him a little, etc - basically, if I get compliance and a light calming signal like a nose lick, that's what I try for - then I back off, act like it never happened and go on doing whatever). If I can click&treat my way through the day - sure. Sometimes he has "those days" and no amount of ignoring, withdrawing, etc is going to get him back on track. But sometimes only a firm "dominating" look will get him settled down and focused, especially outside when we're doing off-leash practice - the look tells him it's not play time, but work time right now. 

I do believe dogs need a leader. Whether you want to call it "pack leader" or "dominant" or "alpha" it's just semantics to me. The whole act of resource/access/activity control is leadership - regardless of the name you give it.

I also believe in projecting a calm demeanor to a dog. Again, whatever you want to call it doesn't matter to me.

Basically, like 90% of all methods - it has value, how much depends on you, your dog, your environment, your goals.

Why people need to vilify any method they don't personally like makes no sense to me. It's one thing to not like/use a method - another to say it's worthless and pointless.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I don't think Cesar himself is a bad guy. I personally find his methods repugnant...most particularly flooding. That is so awful and stressful and does not a damm thing to change how the dog views what its being flooded with. 

I strongly disagree with dominence theory. meaning the idea that dogs are pack animals descended from wolves. Its much simpler and doesn't as I see it involve leadership at all...I don't lead my dogs..I follow them around with a clicker so I can tell them when I like what they are doing. They keep doing those things that I like because they like what I do for them in return.


----------



## KBLover

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I strongly disagree with dominence theory. meaning the idea that dogs are pack animals descended from wolves. Its much simpler and doesn't as I see it involve leadership at all...I don't lead my dogs..I follow them around with a clicker so I can tell them when I like what they are doing. They keep doing those things that I like because they like what I do for them in return.


But your clicks are saying "hey that's the right thing to do!" When you don't click - that's telling them to try something else

To me, that's still leadership - you're guiding/influencing/directing their behaviors. I think that's the definition of leadership, canine or human.

The form of leadership you describe is more like a teacher that isn't just lecturing/telling the students what to do, but more like a teacher that encourages experimentation and discussion while the teacher just maintains a general sense of order and telling the students if they are on the right track or if they might want to try something else.

Leadership comes in many flavors - I wouldn't say you don't use leadership, you just use a different kind.

As far as flooding - I don't think I would subject Wally to something he just has total and utter fear of, but a lot of times, he uses the "I'm scared" card to get out of doing something (like learning how to go up and down the stairs). I mean, I just didn't think it neccessary to carry him up and down stairs for the next 6-12 weeks while he "decides when he wants to approach them". He learned how in like a day and has no fear of the stairs. Same for walking on different surfaces. So maybe I "flooded" him (i.e. forced him to do something he didn't want to), but he learned how to deal with it and is less scared and more confident for it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

KBLover said:


> But your clicks are saying "hey that's the right thing to do!" When you don't click - that's telling them to try something else
> 
> To me, that's still leadership - you're guiding/influencing/directing their behaviors. I think that's the definition of leadership, canine or human.
> 
> The form of leadership you describe is more like a teacher that isn't just lecturing/telling the students what to do, but more like a teacher that encourages experimentation and discussion while the teacher just maintains a general sense of order and telling the students if they are on the right track or if they might want to try something else.
> 
> Leadership comes in many flavors - I wouldn't say you don't use leadership, you just use a different kind.


but they lead me too. its a trade off. I say I like what you do. Will you do it for me if I do what you like?

like how I am teaching Bolo to scent and track. Im giving her this skill and I will let her lead me and make decisions about where we should go to find the thing we are looking for. a trade off. a partnership. She has skills that because I am human I can never possess. So in those scenarios where her skills are more trustworthy than mine...she is the leader...


----------



## BoxMeIn21

Oh what the hey...

I think most of the stuff Cesar does is dangerous and harmful. 

Seen this one? A little hard to watch...

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3252/Videos#tab-Videos/05198_00


----------



## K9companions

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Oh what the hey...
> 
> I think most of the stuff Cesar does is dangerous and harmful.
> 
> Seen this one? A little hard to watch...
> 
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3252/Videos#tab-Videos/05198_00




It is hard to watch......the way the dog is ripping Cesar's shirt....

If your talking about how he is handling him...I see nothing wrong when the dog is lunging at him and bitting his arm. There is no hitting, the dog is fine, and Cesar isn't even talking.

I feel bad for Cesar and the owner in the video. The dog needs some manners.


----------



## Noreaster

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Oh what the hey...
> 
> I think most of the stuff Cesar does is dangerous and harmful.
> 
> Seen this one? A little hard to watch...
> 
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3252/Videos#tab-Videos/05198_00


_Is_ that a dog? You sure? Maybe _part_ dog.

That's the thing that _I_ don't like about him: he refuses to consider behavioral characteristics of a dogs breed into account. To him a Rottweiler should act the same as a Basset Hound.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

A couple of random thoughts: a lot of people seem heavily invested in denying that dominance behavior exists in dogs, while even Ian Dunbar and Patricia McConnell acknowledge it.

Where I have a problem with Cesar's acolytes (more than Cesar himself) is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. People watch his shows and start applying his concepts and methods--mostly with a less-than-perfect understanding. They see their 10 week old puppy step in her water dish and think: "OMG, SHE"S TRYING TO DOMINATE ME!" Maybe not exactly...but not too far off in some cases.



BoxMeIn21 said:


> Oh what the hey...
> 
> I think most of the stuff Cesar does is dangerous and harmful.
> 
> Seen this one? A little hard to watch...
> 
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3252/Videos#tab-Videos/05198_00


I didn't see the whole segment, so my comments about it will be based on what I have seen of his show. I wouldn't swagger into that dog's life and start trying to teach him manners. This is something I've seen Cesar do a number of times. I'd put the dog into semi-isolation with me as his only contact--canine or human. The first week or so he'd only see me when I brought his food and water. Gradually, I'd spend some non communicative time with him and build up to somewhat normal interaction. The goal would be to develop a bit of trust and some rapport with the dog. 

I don't know whether Cesar's assessment of the dog's behavior is the correct one. I don't know whether that particular drill is the only way to deal with that particular dog. I don't that it isn't either. I will say that if the dog can't get past that form of acting out, he's already a dead dog. I'm inclined to believe that he can get past it, and I'd be prepared to go a lot harsher than that before I'd slip a needle into him.

I suspect one or more humans are responsible for that dog's behavior, and that the problem never should have gotten that bad. I don't know the dog's history, though.

Harrise: please note that I have prudently avoided the "Culling" thread. Have the smelling salts ready if I change my mind on that.


----------



## KBLover

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> but they lead me too. its a trade off. I say I like what you do. Will you do it for me if I do what you like?
> 
> like how I am teaching Bolo to scent and track. Im giving her this skill and I will let her lead me and make decisions about where we should go to find the thing we are looking for. a trade off. a partnership. She has skills that because I am human I can never possess. So in those scenarios where her skills are more trustworthy than mine...she is the leader...



Of course, it's always a trade off when working in a team of any kind, imo. 

It's been said that the best leaders just "get the ball rolling" so to speak and then just let the followers do their thing to get the job done and then the leader say "good job, guys!" 

After all, a good leader will realize what you do with Bolo - sometimes they have skills you don't, so bring them out, develop them, and guide their use. 

I think it follows with the canine world - the only difference is the skill-sets involved. Instead of playing football and throwing and tackling, it's scenting and tracking, or jumping and weaving, or just doing various tricks for fun.

Like an agility team - we humans probably could never run a course in 45 seconds - be we also know how the course is laid out, what paths to take to shave a few seconds off, etc, and we have to tell them when to start and which way to go. So to me, unless the dog knows the course by memory and has the self-discipline to do it, she needs a handler to guide her skills. To me, guiding is leading. It's directing actions - even if it's in a fun and energetic way 

I think leadership has the same sort of overly-bad connotation as punishment does. Like when people "lead" their dogs, they just are barking out orders to them and the dog just complies. I don't think that's the highest order of leadership (or even good leadership), either for humans or dogs. It's just that dogs often have less inclination to say "I quit" or "I'm not going to do that!" unlike we humans


----------



## Curbside Prophet

BoxMeIn21 said:


> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3252/Videos#tab-Videos/05198_00


That's a perfect example of why not to use physical punishment. Cesar kicks the dog for doG knows what, the dog reflexes with a bite (and why wouldn't he), Cesar chokes the dog, the dog feeling threatened continues to lunge and bite, then once the dog suffers sufficient oxygen debt Cesar forces him to submit. 

And this is somehow the dog's fault? Cesar got exactly what he wanted I don't know how I could feel sorry for him. I do feel sorry for the owner that their dog had to be subjected to that. What a great way to escalate an agitated dog...kick him. Good job Cesar.


----------



## hulkamaniac

While I certainly don't subscribe to all of Cesar's methods I think some of the things he says have a lot of validity. We do tend to humanize dogs and the fact is that while they're awesome and amazing companion animals, they're still just animals and they don't see the world through human eyes. They don't perceive things the way humans do and we can't apply a lot of methods we use to teach humans to dogs.

We should make dogs work for things. (I think.) I think we should teach our dogs that we're the leader and they follow our cues. I would like my dogs to ultimately react to me and not vice versa.

It's obvious why his methods are controversial, but they do work for him. I don't know that they'd work on every single dog, but they do work for him. Part of the problem is the show is packaged for TV. They take a problem dog and solve all his problems in 20 minutes. People start to think that's reality when it really isn't.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Curbside Prophet said:


> That's a perfect example of why not to use physical punishment. Cesar kicks the dog for doG knows what, the dog reflexes with a bite....


To call that a "kick" is to seriously stretch the definition. I wouldn't have done that to a reactive dog who doesn't know me from Adam, but I don't see it as punitive at all.


----------



## Westhighlander

I have watch most of Cesar's shows as well as Victoria Stillwell's. While I think positive reinforcement training works well with most dogs, I am having my doubts it works with dogs that are in the "red zone". Victoria works mostly with less aggressive cases but I've noticed that since her US debut her cases have been with more aggressive dogs. From watching these two trainers, it seems Cesar gets better results. Victoria's cases with aggressive dogs seem to end with only some of the issues resolved. Cesar does seem to have a gift of dealing with aggressive dogs. I personally like him and think he does have a lot to offer. A dog with blank slate, I would choose Victoria but in more aggressive cases, I would go with Cesar.


----------



## wvasko

Marsh Muppet

*Where I have a problem with Cesar's acolytes (more than Cesar himself) is where a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. People watch his shows and start applying his concepts and methods--mostly with a less-than-perfect understanding. They see their 10 week old puppy step in her water dish and think: "OMG, SHE"S TRYING TO DOMINATE ME!" Maybe not exactly...but not too far off in some cases.*

I love it, I never realized until I joined DF that there were so many killer puppies ranging from 8 to 16 weeks of age.

In 50 years we probably have had 10 litters of pups split between GSPs and GSDs and if I knew about this dominance program then, I would have given all owners a baseball bat as it's much easier to be dominant while swinging a baseball bat at very small puppies.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Marsh Muppet said:


> To call that a "kick" is to seriously stretch the definition. I wouldn't have done that to a reactive dog who doesn't know me from Adam, but I don't see it as punitive at all.


I thought you didn't favor games of semantics.  At any rate, he kicked the dog for a reason, and by definition the kick is a punishment. Those who favor Cesar will call it some other euphemism for punishment like a "correction" for attention, but of course they would...they favor Cesar. Now whether the kick was punitive or not certainly can be debated, though I doubt anyone could ascertain that after one 30 minute made-for-TV episode.



Westhighlander said:


> While I think positive reinforcement training works well with most dogs, I am having my doubts it works with dogs that are in the "red zone".


Here's the difference between what Cesar does and what someone who uses learning theory does with "red zone" dogs.

Cesar forces the dog to submit while in the "red zone". A dog who submits to force can often appear compliant when he's just shutting down. A learning theorist would see this is as the worst possible training scenario, and manage the dog away from the trigger, where the dog can be under threshold. And through a process of desensitization and counter conditioning alternate behaviors can be reinforced. Not made for TV, but positive reinforcement training worse on "red zone" dogs too.

The idea that "positive reinforcement training" doesn't work on dogs that need to be "rehabilitated" comes from those who employ dominance theory, and frankly they are wrong.


----------



## K9companions

Curbside Prophet said:


> I thought you didn't favor games of semantics.  At any rate, he kicked the dog for a reason, and by definition the kick is a punishment. Those who favor Cesar will call it some other euphemism for punishment like a "correction" for attention, but of course they would...they favor Cesar. Now whether the kick was punitive or not certainly can be debated, though I doubt anyone could ascertain that after one 30 minute made-for-TV episode.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between what Cesar does and what someone who uses learning theory does with "red zone" dogs.
> 
> Cesar forces the dog to submit while in the "red zone". A dog who submits to force can often appear compliant when he's just shutting down. A learning theorist would see this is as the worst possible training scenario, and manage the dog away from the trigger, where the dog can be under threshold. And through a process of desensitization and counter conditioning alternate behaviors can be reinforced. Not made for TV, but positive reinforcement training worse on "red zone" dogs too.
> 
> The idea that "positive reinforcement training" doesn't work on dogs that need to be "rehabilitated" comes from those who employ dominance theory, and frankly they are wrong.


Our of pure curiousity...what is a dog 'shutting down'? How do you tell if it's shutting down, just tired, or submitting? Thanks for any info.


----------



## Westhighlander

I would like to see it in action, positive reinforcement on a red zone case. I just haven't seen one yet.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

K9companions said:


> Our of pure curiousity...what is a dog 'shutting down'?


Displacement behavior. 



> How do you tell if it's shutting down, just tired, or submitting?


Submission is voluntary and not after force. A tired dog starts from a submissive position, and he's panting and or resting from the start. A dog that shuts down gives up on innate behavior after being forced to do so. 



Westhighlander said:


> I would like to see it in action, positive reinforcement on a red zone case. I just haven't seen one yet.


I'm not sure why the video isn't working on our forum so just double click it to go to youtube.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

The Biggest Problem I have with Cesar and his method of addressing ''red zone'' dogs is this...

It doesn't address the ROOT and CAUSE of the problem....meaning that the problem is still there...just cowed into a corner and the dog is given a new problem that temporarily overrides the aggression issue..fear of being subdued. 


Take my dog for example...

problem: She views other dogs as hunting quarry. 

solution: redirect the hunting instinct towards an acceptable outlet.

She is still able to express her natural instincts to hunt and stalk and ''kill'' but now she knows what to hunt and stalk and kill that will earn her praise and reward.


----------



## BidDawgs

sexysilver said:


> But I would never hurt my dog pysically or mentally!


Then you would never use most of Cesar's methods.



sexysilver said:


> if its family groups how come most mother daughter groups dont get on as the keep battleing each other and have fights,


In the wolf packs, Father is in charge, Mother is next and all their siblings make up the rest of the pack. NO ONE breeds except the father and mother. No one fights about breeding. That only happens in the loosely organized social groups of dogs.


----------



## K9companions

Curbside Prophet said:


> Displacement behavior.
> 
> Submission is voluntary and not after force. A tired dog starts from a submissive position, and he's panting and or resting from the start. A dog that shuts down gives up on innate behavior after being forced to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why the video isn't working on our forum so just double click it to go to youtube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l4Jd1bu3pY


Oh...sorry but I didn't really understand what you said. If the behavior was already given up by the dog, say chewing on the furniture, then the dog's owner wouldn't need to force the issue, it's already dealt with. Forcing it over and over would be abusive and probably cause a dog to shut down (if dogs can really 'shut down'). 

I guess i just have never seen a dog shut down so I'm trying to define the term. I've seen very submissive and scared dogs, but never have a seen a dog in a shut down. Do they just stop? Do they have a glazed over look? Lol, I'm just trying to understand.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> The Biggest Problem I have with Cesar and his method of addressing ''red zone'' dogs is this...
> 
> It doesn't address the ROOT and CAUSE of the problem....meaning that the problem is still there...just cowed into a corner and the dog is given a new problem that temporarily overrides the aggression issue..fear of being subdued.
> 
> 
> Take my dog for example...
> 
> problem: She views other dogs as hunting quarry.
> 
> solution: redirect the hunting instinct towards an acceptable outlet.
> 
> She is still able to express her natural instincts to hunt and stalk and ''kill'' but now she knows what to hunt and stalk and kill that will earn her praise and reward.


If anything, I would think Cesar gets more to the source because he does concentrate on the phychologoical aspect. He finds out what triggers the aggression and fear and works from there. Redirecting seems to be more a masking method. It helps, no doubt, but if you direct a dog from killing ducks to playing a game, you never really teach it to like ducks, just to do something else.


----------



## BidDawgs

Binkalette said:


> I LOVE Cesar's methods. It's amazing to see how quickly they work. And I love that he -NEVER- gives up on any dog. The one I don't like is the Victoria lady from It's me or the dog...


Sometimes we forget that ITS A TV SHOW! It amazes me how people think Cesar enters a house of a red zone aggressive dog and 20 minutes later he is leaving with the dog a perfect angel. It just doesn't work like that. You don't see the many many hours with several trainers that goes into "rehabilitating" that dog.

Cesar is a very good actor. He has great screen presence. He is a so so trainer at best. Everything he says isn't wrong but a good portion of it is. In general his methods are outdated and unnecessarily rough and sometimes harmful to the dog.

Victoria Stilwell is 10 times the dog trainer that Cesar is and she uses no cruelty in her training. Cesar could learn a lot from her and would be a better trainer if he would.


----------



## K9companions

Curbside Prophet said:


> Displacement behavior.
> 
> Submission is voluntary and not after force. A tired dog starts from a submissive position, and he's panting and or resting from the start. A dog that shuts down gives up on innate behavior after being forced to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why the video isn't working on our forum so just double click it to go to youtube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l4Jd1bu3pY



Also, the video, I am a little confused by that as well. 

By the women feeding treats, doesn't that reinforce the bad behavior, kind of like saying, "Goodboy for being aggresive towards me."

Then later, it seems he is following her around, but to me it looks like the dog has just learned to associate her with food, not repsect. Also, as the video stated, he would need to do this with everyone he meets. It seems hes just associating everyone with food, not the attitude that humans are safe. He also looks unsure about the women, until he catches sight of the treats, then happily walks beside her, watching the treat hand the whole time.

This seems to just mask the problem. He should be able to stop the dog from getting in a red zone case level, in the first place.



BidDawgs said:


> Sometimes we forget that ITS A TV SHOW! It amazes me how people think Cesar enters a house of a red zone aggressive dog and 20 minutes later he is leaving with the dog a perfect angel. It just doesn't work like that. You don't see the many many hours with several trainers that goes into "rehabilitating" that dog.
> 
> Cesar is a very good actor. He has great screen presence. He is a so so trainer at best. Everything he says isn't wrong but a good portion of it is. In general his methods are outdated and unnecessarily rough and sometimes harmful to the dog.
> 
> Victoria Stilwell is 10 times the dog trainer that Cesar is and she uses no cruelty in her training. Cesar could learn a lot from her and would be a better trainer if he would.



Victoria Stilwell..........TV show.


----------



## TooneyDogs

The problem I have with Milan is that he doesn't do the basics. He doesn't take medical histories which could easily explain the underlying cause(s) for the behavior. 
He doesn't ask about diet....and, yes, some people think it's OK to feed their dogs Chinchilla food because it's so much cheaper and wonder why their dogs destroy the garbage cans, eat paper, everything in sight and are testy all the time.
He doesn't refer clients to seek medical help or qualified behaviorist guidance when needed and he wonders why he has failures in his training. Yes, he readilly admits he has had failures but, he hasn't changed his ways.


----------



## Westhighlander

Curbside Prophet said:


> Displacement behavior.
> 
> Submission is voluntary and not after force. A tired dog starts from a submissive position, and he's panting and or resting from the start. A dog that shuts down gives up on innate behavior after being forced to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why the video isn't working on our forum so just double click it to go to youtube.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l4Jd1bu3pY



I don't find this dog to be that bad. This one is mild compared to some on the shows.


----------



## hulkamaniac

TooneyDogs said:


> The problem I have with Milan is that he doesn't do the basics. He doesn't take medical histories which could easily explain the underlying cause(s) for the behavior.
> He doesn't ask about diet....and, yes, some people think it's OK to feed their dogs Chinchilla food because it's so much cheaper and wonder why their dogs destroy the garbage cans, eat paper, everything in sight and are testy all the time.
> He doesn't refer clients to seek medical help or qualified behaviorist guidance when needed and he wonders why he has failures in his training. Yes, he readilly admits he has had failures but, he hasn't changed his ways.


To be fair to Milan, we don't really know that. I was watching a re-run the other day where he was working with a guy who was afraid of dogs (good show). At one point he showed up with a list of all the dogs on the block and their basic temperments (aggressive, passive, etc....). I really doubt he compiled the list himself. He probably has a support staff that may well do everything you've suggested. We just don't see it and it's never shown on TV or presented to people as possible reasons for a dogs behavior.


----------



## TooneyDogs

hulkamaniac said:


> To be fair to Milan, we don't really know that.


That's possible but, I haven't seen it on his shows and there is no mention of them in his books...which I have read.


----------



## hulkamaniac

TooneyDogs said:


> That's possible but, I haven't seen it on his shows and there is no mention of them in his books...which I have read.


Fair enough.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

K9companions said:


> If anything, I would think Cesar gets more to the source because he does concentrate on the phychologoical aspect. He finds out what triggers the aggression and fear and works from there. Redirecting seems to be more a masking method. It helps, no doubt, but if you direct a dog from killing ducks to playing a game, you never really teach it to like ducks, just to do something else.


No...what Cesar does is suppress behavior.

When you redirect with consistency you REPLACE the negative aspect of the behavior with a positive one and then you are free to work on desensitizing the dog to the previous trigger of the behavior..

again with my dog..

I redirected her aggression towards a toy. I built up her drive and desire to hunt/stalk/kill the toy until it became a stronger desire than displaying those behaviors towards dogs. 

Now I present her with an option. Stay calm at x distance from dog and you get to kill the toy. and gradually I push the boundary just a little bit until she is right at threshold but not beyond. In this manner we have gotten closer and closer to other dogs with ZERO aggression. Its upping her tolerance level for the presence of other dogs by sort of rearranging her thought processes a bit. 

Aggression is a natural instinct in dogs. You can never fully rid a dog of that hardwired drive. The only reason its unacceptable is because dogs have to live with humans and those behaviors don't fit in with how we run things. If you supress those instincts too much they are more than likely to express in other ways.


----------



## K9companions

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> No...what Cesar does is suppress behavior.
> 
> When you redirect with consistency you REPLACE the negative aspect of the behavior with a positive one and then you are free to work on desensitizing the dog to the previous trigger of the behavior..
> 
> again with my dog..
> 
> I redirected her aggression towards a toy. I built up her drive and desire to hunt/stalk/kill the toy until it became a stronger desire than displaying those behaviors towards dogs.
> 
> Now I present her with an option. Stay calm at x distance from dog and you get to kill the toy. and gradually I push the boundary just a little bit until she is right at threshold but not beyond. In this manner we have gotten closer and closer to other dogs with ZERO aggression. Its upping her tolerance level for the presence of other dogs by sort of rearranging her thought processes a bit.
> 
> Aggression is a natural instinct in dogs. You can never fully rid a dog of that hardwired drive. The only reason its unacceptable is because dogs have to live with humans and those behaviors don't fit in with how we run things. If you supress those instincts too much they are more than likely to express in other ways.


If your talking about cases of natural instinct, then yes, there is no 'getting rid of it'. Cesar uses this tactic as well, for giving the dog something else to do. Such as, in a case where a hunting dog would not stop tracking, he gave the owner an outlet by making it into a game of 'finding the owner', releasing pent up energy. 

But with fears and aggression, it can be used in rare cases, but me, personally, would rather prefer to get down to the root of the problem with dog phychology, because as I stated before, I would think using treats or another activity in that situation would be masking the aggression or fear.


----------



## Westhighlander

K9companions said:


> But with fears and aggression, it can be used in rare cases, but me, personally, would rather prefer to get down to the root of the problem with dog phychology, because as I stated before, I would think using treats or another activity in that situation would be masking the aggression or fear.


You are actually replacing that fear with something pleasant instead. So the dog associates whatever they were fearing before with now something pleasant. No masking just behavior modification.


----------



## K9companions

Westhighlander said:


> You are actually replacing that fear with something pleasant instead. So the dog associates whatever they were fearing before with now something pleasant. No masking just behavior modification.



I guess I have a hard time distiguishing between the replacing and masking. I'll work on that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

K9


Aggression is a natural reaction in dogs to stressful stimulus. No matter what the cause.

if the cause is fear..use reinforcement to build confidence

if the cause is predatory instinct..give the dog an appropriate outlet


if the cause is social inadequacy...use reinforcement to shape proper social behaviors...


you get the idea...

im back to work...later yall...


----------



## Meghan&Pedro

I don't think that he is a dog trainer, but I think he is the best dog psychologist that we will ever know for our generation.

He knows how to meet dogs physical and mental needs every day, and is able to get even most red zone dogs back to balance.

I think that we could all learn something from him as to how to work with our dogs, and how to put their needs first.


----------



## K9companions

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> K9
> 
> 
> Aggression is a natural reaction in dogs to stressful stimulus. No matter what the cause.
> 
> if the cause is fear..use reinforcement to build confidence
> 
> if the cause is predatory instinct..give the dog an appropriate outlet
> 
> 
> if the cause is social inadequacy...use reinforcement to shape proper social behaviors...
> 
> 
> you get the idea...
> 
> im back to work...later yall...


Yes, there is fearful aggression and 'hate' aggresion.....

I agree on using reinforcement for building confidence...

Yes, and I said if it is natural instinct to give it an outlet, but not for aggression. I don't think aggression can be put to an outlet. You have to work with it by either working at the source to get him/her over the fear or stop the dog/cat/human aggression in its tracks.

I'm trying to get the idea..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

K9companions said:


> Yes, there is fearful aggression and 'hate' aggresion.....
> 
> I agree on using reinforcement for building confidence...
> 
> Yes, and I said if it is natural instinct to give it an outlet, but not for aggression. I don't think aggression can be put to an outlet. You have to work with it by either working at the source to get him/her over the fear or stop the dog/cat/human aggression in its tracks.
> 
> I'm trying to get the idea..


it can. ive done it. more than once. 

"hate" aggression...a bit anthropomorphizing there maybe?


you slowly tune down the aggression by tweaking it through reinforcement...you make something else more desirable than expressing the aggressive behavior. you give the dog a choice. dogs arent stupid. they are opportunistic. Offer them something they cant resist and they will take it.

ok....i really have to go back to work but i will get to you in thirty minutes...


----------



## K9companions

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> it can. ive done it. more than once.
> 
> "hate" aggression...a bit anthropomorphizing there maybe?
> 
> 
> you slowly tune down the aggression by tweaking it through reinforcement...you make something else more desirable than expressing the aggressive behavior. you give the dog a choice. dogs arent stupid. they are opportunistic. Offer them something they cant resist and they will take it.
> 
> ok....i really have to go back to work but i will get to you in thirty minutes...


Lol, well that's why I put 'hate' in quotations.....I didn't feel like writing everything out that a dog can have aggression for, because the list would be endless.

Yes, tweaking works, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I still see it as slightly masking and I think their are better methods than reinforcing the bad behavior....but then thats just an old argument rising from the grave. 

I clicky your dragons!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

K9companions said:


> Lol, well that's why I put 'hate' in quotations.....I didn't feel like writing everything out that a dog can have aggression for, because the list would be endless.
> 
> Yes, tweaking works, I guess it's just a matter of opinion. I still see it as slightly masking and I think their are better methods than reinforcing the bad behavior....but then thats just an old argument rising from the grave.
> 
> I clicky your dragons!


thank you for clickies...

its not reinforcing the bad behavior.. its reinforcing a _different_ behavior that satisfies the same instinctual needs of the dog.


----------



## opokki

K9companions said:


> By the women feeding treats, doesn't that reinforce the bad behavior, kind of like saying, "Goodboy for being aggresive towards me."


What the woman is doing is called "counter conditioning" - changing the dogs negative emotional state to a positive one. Emotions can't be reinforced, they are automatic. Feeding a fightened dog will not increase his fear. But pairing something really good with something the dog feels threatened by can change his emotional state, causing him to no longer feel threatened.

This is learning by association.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

K9companions said:


> I guess i just have never seen a dog shut down so I'm trying to define the term. I've seen very submissive and scared dogs, but never have a seen a dog in a shut down. Do they just stop? Do they have a glazed over look? Lol, I'm just trying to understand.


That scared dog you saw, if you cued a "sit", would he? If he's known to do sit, is in fear, and doesn't sit, he's over threshold. The fear is so consuming he can't even follow a simple cue he already knows. This is a dog that is shutting down. And yes, he could have whale-eyes and cease moving among other things. 
http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html



> If anything, I would think Cesar gets more to the source because he does concentrate on the phychologoical aspect.


Cesar uses what *he* calls "dog psychology". But he's not actually practicing psychology. He's practices dominance theory.



BidDawgs said:


> Cesar is a very good actor...Victoria Stilwell is 10 times the dog trainer that Cesar is and she uses no cruelty in her training.


Victoria is the one who actually studied drama, not Cesar. Victoria paid for her drama schooling by starting out as a dog walker before she found a career in dog training. 



K9companions said:


> By the women feeding treats, doesn't that reinforce the bad behavior, kind of like saying, "Goodboy for being aggresive towards me."


Fear is respondent behavior, a reflex. It happens involuntarily at the presence of the antecedent. So no, you can not reinforce fear no matter how much food you wiggle in the dogs face, the dog is already in that emotional state. Reinforcing fear is a myth. 

Operant behavior is something the dog voluntarily does at the presence of the antecedent. It is behavior you can observe and reinforce. Sit, for example, is an operant behavior. 



> Then later, it seems he is following her around, but to me it looks like the dog has just learned to associate her with food, not repsect.


I think I've asked you this before and I'm not sure you ever gave me an answer, but what does respect look like? You're saying it's behavior you can observe, what is it? 

I know what attention looks like, and this dog is offering Dr. Yin attention. Whether the dog is working for food or for the Dr. herself, is irrelevant. The dog is offering the desired behavior, and any good trainer worth his weight in salt would know how to phase out the food and maintain attention. But when you're talking about a "red zone" dog, a long history of reinforcement is necessary to truely modify the behavior. You can only get behavior from reinforcement. 



> Also, as the video stated, he would need to do this with everyone he meets. It seems hes just associating everyone with food, not the attitude that humans are safe.


What kind of emotions do you think food elicits? If you're making an association with humans using food, wouldn't you want this emotion around humans? Don't you think he should practice this technique to strengthen that association?  We're not talking about rocket-science here, just basic, proven, psychology. 



> He also looks unsure about the women, until he catches sight of the treats, then happily walks beside her, watching the treat hand the whole time.


And what exactly is wrong with this behavior? I don't agree with your observations, but isn't this an improvement over the early lunging? Clearly something is working and why you'd toss that aside just because food is being used is bizzare. 



Westhighlander said:


> I don't find this dog to be that bad. This one is mild compared to some on the shows.


Ahhh, so the owner should have left the leash off the dog and allowed the dog to bite Dr. Yin? That's nonesense. Much of the aggression demonstrated on Cesar's show could be avoided with good management, but I'm sure not at the expense of his ratings. 



K9companions said:


> Yes, there is fearful aggression and 'hate' aggresion.....


All aggression is fear based. To label it as anything else is a pointless exercise.


----------



## Westhighlander

Curbside Prophet said:


> Ahhh, so the owner should have left the leash off the dog and allowed the dog to bite Dr. Yin? That's nonesense. Much of the aggression demonstrated on Cesar's show could be avoided with good management, but I'm sure not at the expense of his ratings.


Who said anything about the letting the dog bite Dr. Yin? I stated that this dog does not seem as bad as I've seen on his show. And what of the aggression that can't be avoided with good management, the more severe cases?


----------



## K9companions

Curbside Prophet said:


> That scared dog you saw, if you cued a "sit", would he? If he's known to do sit, is in fear, and doesn't sit, he's over threshold. The fear is so consuming he can't even follow a simple cue he already knows. This is a dog that is shutting down. And yes, he could have whale-eyes and cease moving among other things.
> http://www.noogenesis.com/malama/discouragement/helplessness.html


Ah, I see what your saying. Okay, yeah your right. I'm thinking back to aggressive behavior or fear and, no, the dog wouldn't have done much but be aggresive or fearful. Thanks!



Curbside Prophet said:


> Cesar uses what *he* calls "dog psychology". But he's not actually practicing psychology. He's practices dominance theory.


Well he does that as well, but I believe he does practice phychology or else he wouldn't be able to tell what state a dog is in. In depth phychology, I don't know, but I'm talking about basics; the dog is fearful, the dog is happy, the dog is okay with what your doing, the dog is becoming alarmed, ect.




Curbside Prophet said:


> Fear is respondent behavior, a reflex. It happens involuntarily at the presence of the antecedent. So no, you can not reinforce fear no matter how much food you wiggle in the dogs face, the dog is already in that emotional state. Reinforcing fear is a myth.


Well, I'll have to think a little about the treats. But I think you can reinforce fear by petting a dog who is being fearful or aggresive. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> I think I've asked you this before and I'm not sure you ever gave me an answer, but what does respect look like? You're saying it's behavior you can observe, what is it?


Definition: To take notice of; to regard with special attention; to regard as worthy of special consideration; hence, to care for; to heed. 

Is the dog doing this in the video? Sure, but I feel it is hindered by the treats. In the end she will earn the dogs respect, as food giver, but does everyone have to be the foodgiver to get his respect? Hence the comment about having to do it to everyone new person the dog meets. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> All aggression is fear based. To label it as anything else is a pointless exercise.


I would disagree on this when another dog lunges at another out of prey aggression, if thats what you can call it. The dog isn't lunging at the other out of fear, its lunging at it because it sees it as prey, weaker.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

My dog was a far worse case than ANY dog I've ever seen on Cesar's show. She displayed hunting behavior around other dogs..

crouching and creeping silently towards the dog and then lunging so hard(on leash) that she would do a backflip from the recoil of the force and at times knock herself cold hitting the concrete in the process. 

Positive worked beautifully.


A dog named Hoagie would flip out and lash out randomly and frantically snapping on anything in his path including, tables, chairs, pets, people, cars, rocks, trees etc...it wasn't a medical issue it was fear.

and positive helped him. 

that's just two examples.


----------



## opokki

K9companions said:


> Is the dog doing this in the video? Sure, but I feel it is hindered by the treats. In the end she will earn the dogs respect, as food giver, but does everyone have to be the foodgiver to get his respect? Hence the comment about having to do it to everyone new person the dog meets.


Dogs do not generalize well, which is why the exercise would need to be done with lots of different people. Once the dog generalizes, it would no longer need to be done with new people the dog meets because new people are no longer viewed as a threat.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Curbside Prophet said:


> All aggression is fear based. To label it as anything else is a pointless exercise.


You might-could make a metaphysical case for that being true of humans...but even that limb is too thin to support much weight.


----------



## opokki

K9companions said:


> I would disagree on this when another dog lunges at another out of prey aggression, if thats what you can call it. The dog isn't lunging at the other out of fear, its lunging at it because it sees it as prey, weaker.


Aggression is a distance increasing behavior. Predatory behavior is not. It's a survival instict. I don't see both as being in the same category.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Bolo didn't try to hunt other dogs because she saw them as weaker. 

She has aberrations in her behavior. She is not a normal dog. She functions well with people etc. She has some strange behaviors. Things that don't have medical or behavioral explanations as far as can be determined by me, by my vet or by the behaviorist.

I think there is something mentally off with her. That's not me just being like..*she is caarRRAZAH*

She goes ballistic when confined to small spaces. She will destroy whatever is containing her or hurt herself in the attempt whether you are right in front of her or not. 

The hunting dogs thing...she also did the same thing at cars. We worked on that and got it under control.

Mirrors make her act afraid. She runs from them.



that's it. But they are kind of weird behaviors.


----------



## harrise

Oops, forgot to unsubscribe... ¿Anyone else dizzy from going in circles for 103 posts?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Westhighlander said:


> Who said anything about the letting the dog bite Dr. Yin? I stated that this dog does not seem as bad as I've seen on his show. And what of the aggression that can't be avoided with good management, the more severe cases?


I guess you have your own definition of levels of aggression because to me lunging to bite another person is as about as bad as it gets. If that were a child I'm sure some people would be calling for this dog to be euthanized. I have not seen dogs worse than this on Cesar's show. I've seen many who escalated aggression because of what Cesar was doing, but that's another story. Now you may take a few seconds of video and conclude _ahh, that ain't that bad_, but aggression is aggression, and short of meeting the dog yourself a 30 minute episode or a short youtube video will not paint the total picture. 



K9companions said:


> Well, I'll have to think a little about the treats. But I think you can reinforce fear by petting a dog who is being fearful or aggresive.


Say you're afraid of snakes and we walked into a small room with a snake. If I gave you 100 dollars for every second you stayed in the room, what would happen to your fear of snakes? Would it get worse? If you liked the money would you learn to like snakes if I kept giving it to you? 



> Is the dog doing this in the video? Sure, but I feel it is hindered by the treats. In the end she will earn the dogs respect, as food giver, but does everyone have to be the foodgiver to get his respect? Hence the comment about having to do it to everyone new person the dog meets.


I'll quote Dr. Karen Overall who says, "Dominance is a concept found in traditional ethology that pertains to an individual's ability to maintain and regulate access to some resources. It is not to do with status". Food is a resource, and it happens to be a primary one because without food the dog is surely dead. Again, you can only get behavior from reinforcement, so regulating the dog's resources is the only way you'll get behavior. 

Now why this owner needs to do it with everyone the dog meets is because dogs do not generalize very well. If you're the only one who's taught your dog sit, he's not likely to know the cue if it comes from me. So in order to generalize the behavior we need to practice with everyone the dog meets. Dr. Yin isn't saying the owner should practice this from here on out to eternity, although I see no harm in that, but you bet the next 100 people I'd be practicing these simple behaviors to give the dog a new history. 



> I would disagree on this when another dog lunges at another out of prey aggression, if thats what you can call it. The dog isn't lunging at the other out of fear, its lunging at it because it sees it as prey, weaker.


Predation if a part of feeding behavior so how about fear of losing his next meal?


----------



## K9companions

opokki said:


> Aggression is a distance increasing behavior. Predatory behavior is not. It's a survival instict. I don't see both as being in the same category.


I guess I have a different definition of aggression. To me it means someone/thing wanting to do physical or emotional harm to another someone/thing. Not matter what's driving it, I just see it has aggression.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Say you're afraid of snakes and we walked into a small room with a snake. If I gave you 100 dollars for every second you stayed in the room, what would happen to your fear of snakes? Would it get worse? If you liked the money would you learn to like snakes if I kept giving it to you?


You bet! I would take that money for my poor ass in a heart beat! But as I said with treats, it wouldn't get rid of my fear. It would teach me that I get money around snakes, but if you touch me with that snake, I'm out becuase I never learned how to get over my fear. What happens if I'm surrounded by snakes and your not there to give me money..


(Curb, I only seem to get to chat with you when we are conversing about Cesar. =(  )


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

humans: money=survival

dogs: food=survival


----------



## Curbside Prophet

K9companions said:


> You bet! I would take that money for my poor ass in a heart beat! But as I said with treats, it wouldn't get rid of my fear. It would teach me that I get money around snakes, but if you touch me with that snake, I'm out becuase I never learned how to get over my fear.


So you're saying nothing would change...except for your money taking behavior? I'll accept that if you find taking money from me enjoyable. Afraid of being touched by snakes? That's okay, I'll just change my criteria. Instead of giving you 100 dollars for being in the room, I'll give you 1000 for touching the snake (oh, and we're talking about a measly frog eating snake, so he's no harm to you). 1500 for putting the snake over your shoulders. 2000 for kissing the snake. Are you learning how to act around this snake now?

You're being facetious otherwise but you don't have to take my word for the power of classical conditioning. Pavlov defined classical condition as we know it today, and he's one of the greatest masterminds in history. If you don't take credence in his work, there's no one else you should take credence in...and certainly not Cesar. 



> What happens if I'm surrounded by snakes and your not their to give me money..


Before or after you've made the association?


----------



## opokki

K9companions said:


> I guess I have a different definition of aggression. To me it means someone/thing wanting to do physical or emotional harm to another someone/thing. Not matter what's driving it, I just see it has aggression.


No, I have the same definition. I just don't see aggression and predatory behavior as the same thing. Don't mind me, I'm mostly just thinking out loud.


----------



## K9companions

Curbside Prophet said:


> So you're saying nothing would change...except for your money taking behavior? I'll accept that if you find taking money from me enjoyable. Afraid of being touched by snakes? That's okay, I'll just change my criteria. Instead of giving you 100 dollars for being in the room, I'll give you 1000 for touching the snake (oh, and we're talking about a measly frog eating snake, so he's no harm to you).
> 
> You're being facetious otherwise but you don't have to take my word for the power of classical conditioning. Pavlov defined classical condition as we know it today, and he's one of the greatest masterminds in history. If you don't take credence in his work, there's no one else you should take credence in...and certainly not Cesar.
> 
> Before or after you've made the association?


Okay, good. 'Cause if it was a man eating snake, no amount of money would get me in there! Anyhow, I know conditioning works.....but I just don't think it works the same when something is blocking the mind, like fear. Like the experiment of ringing the bell and having the dogs salivate. That worked but there was nothing else in it's mind but the thought of food. Would adding fear to the equation change that? Well, that was a stupid question, I know your answer....lol.

I guess I just have to wrap my mind around it. I've been trying to do hardcore studying, so any new knowledge I really think over....I just want to find the best possible method..yah know?



opokki said:


> No, I have the same definition. I just don't see aggression and predatory behavior as the same thing. Don't mind me, I'm mostly just thinking out loud.


I have to stop thinking out loud....gets me into trouble.


----------



## Pepper

> By the women feeding treats, doesn't that reinforce the bad behavior, kind of like saying, "Goodboy for being aggresive towards me."


If you watched it closely, she gave treats when the dog was not lunging, but acting calmly.

Victoria stillwell, yes, it is a t.v. show. But she deals with the dogs in a way that people can. She shows many practical ways to positively train a dog without having to "kick" them with your foot, pop their leash, use shock collars, prong collars, throw them to the ground or "snap" them out of anything. Simply using food or toy as a reward works. Teaching the dog commands like sit, leave it, stay, wait, etc..teaches people how to bond with their dog, not just teach it to submit to their dominant presence.

People who care about dogs don't get dogs to teach them who's boss, and they certainly don't get a dog where they have to reinforce their dominance every time the dog enters a door way ahead of them.

A dog does not think, oh my gosh if I enter the door way before my person I will be alpha, GO ME!!! A dog does not think, if I get fed first, I'm alpha, GO ME!!!


----------



## opokki

K9companions said:


> I know conditioning works.....but I just don't think it works the same when something is blocking the mind, like fear.


That's when desensitization is brought into the picture and is combined with counter conditioning. The dog is kept at a distance from the thing he fears that is not too much for him to handle. The dog is gradually moved closer as he becomes more confident.


----------



## K9companions

Pepper said:


> If you watched it closely, she gave treats when the dog was not lunging, but acting calmly.
> 
> Victoria stillwell, yes, it is a t.v. show. But she deals with the dogs in a way that people can. She shows many practical ways to positively train a dog without having to "kick" them with your foot, pop their leash, use shock collars, prong collars, throw them to the ground or "snap" them out of anything. Simply using food or toy as a reward works. Teaching the dog commands like sit, leave it, stay, wait, etc..teaches people how to bond with their dog, not just teach it to submit to their dominant presence.
> 
> People who care about dogs don't get dogs to teach them who's boss, and they certainly don't get a dog where they have to reinforce their dominance every time the dog enters a door way ahead of them.
> 
> A dog does not think, oh my gosh if I enter the door way before my person I will be alpha, GO ME!!! A dog does not think, if I get fed first, I'm alpha, GO ME!!!


One thing that really gets me confused, is that a lot of people think that we walk around talking like that or thinking that to ourselves. 

We aren't tyrants that HAVE TO BE FIRST 24/7, atleast that's not what I do at all. If Hunter walks through the door first...big whoop. But if he walks through the door first, gets very excited then persist to start jumping on my parents, that's a no-no. It's not the ACT of walking through the door first, it's the fact that I want Hunter to wait before going through the door first so he can be calm when he walks into the house to meet new people. Me walking through first not only reminds him to be calm, but also blocks him from getting too excited. Same with walking on the leash. I don't want a dog that pulls my arm out of my socket or breaks my fingers, I want a dog who walks WITH me in a mutual mood. For training, if h gets too excited about a squirrel, than a verbal comman is usually enough, but sometimes its not and I lightly flick the leash. This is so subtle it probably looks like i'm just readjusting the leash in my hand.

Another thing, enough with the 'hit', 'kick', 'throw' words. Obviously I'd kill myself before I ever hurt Hunter. Theres a difinate line between hitting a dog and touching it on the shoulder. The same way you would viciously slap someone in he face, compared to giving him/her a pat on the back.

I think everyone has their own method with bonding with their dog. For me, using the method I do, I find it very spiritual and pleasing. I feel like I am connecting with nature and with my dog, speaking his language, meeting him halfway. Dogs can only understand so much of what we want them to do, so I feel good that I can interact with him in a natural way that dogs do with eachother. But, the method DOES allow bonding...


----------



## Love's_Sophie

harrise said:


> Oops, forgot to unsubscribe... ¿Anyone else dizzy from going in circles for 103 posts?


Yep... 

eta...post too short...


----------



## K9companions

Love's_Sophie said:


> Yep...
> 
> eta...post too short...



I agree. I'm done and ready to go to bed....lol..

Adios all.


----------



## katthevamp

No! Don't end!

*Adores ceaser threads*


----------



## hulkamaniac

Pepper said:


> If you watched it closely, she gave treats when the dog was not lunging, but acting calmly.
> 
> Victoria stillwell, yes, it is a t.v. show. But she deals with the dogs in a way that people can. She shows many practical ways to positively train a dog without having to "kick" them with your foot, pop their leash, use shock collars, prong collars, throw them to the ground or "snap" them out of anything. Simply using food or toy as a reward works. Teaching the dog commands like sit, leave it, stay, wait, etc..teaches people how to bond with their dog, not just teach it to submit to their dominant presence.
> 
> People who care about dogs don't get dogs to teach them who's boss, and they certainly don't get a dog where they have to reinforce their dominance every time the dog enters a door way ahead of them.
> 
> A dog does not think, oh my gosh if I enter the door way before my person I will be alpha, GO ME!!! A dog does not think, if I get fed first, I'm alpha, GO ME!!!


I don't want to start a fight. I really don't. I am curious how you know dogs don't think those things. From what I've read (and the stuff I've read may not be the most reliable material), dogs evolved as pack animals and the pack has a pack leader. Humans replace the pack leader in the dogs mind. This is basically (as I understand it) the reason why dogs sit, fetch, roll over, etc... on command is that we (the alpha) command them to do so. Then we feed them afterwards so we're essentially making them work for their food. 

I have trained my dog so that the dog does not enter the house unless he is asked to. To me, this is helpful if there's something in the house I don't want him to get into or if I want him to spend some time outside after we've just got back for a walk or whatever. The dog also does not leave the house unless I command him to for the same reason and only leaves after I leave. This I think is a far more important as it keeps him from bolting out the front door and possibly into the street every time the front door is open. 

My dog is trained to follow me simply because I feel I have a better idea of what's dangerous to the dog than he does. I'm not going to let him enter a room in front of me and get into something he shouldn't be getting into or that might be harmful to him.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> From what I've read (and the stuff I've read may not be the most reliable material), dogs evolved as pack animals and the pack has a pack leader. Humans replace the pack leader in the dogs mind. This is basically (as I understand it) the reason why dogs sit, fetch, roll over, etc... on command is that we (the alpha) command them to do so. Then we feed them afterwards so we're essentially making them work for their food.


The pack leader alpha stuff came from the study of captive bred wolves. Why it's still being touted today is bigger than I care to explain. Here is an article on what is alpha is or is not from David L. Mech, likely the most well known authority on wolves today: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2008/winter/alphawolf.pdf


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Social structures are by their nature hierarchical (or they wouldn't be structures). The more complex the social species, the more complex the social structure.

Dogs bolt through doorways because they want to do something on the other side.


----------



## animalsafe

All of the details are way too much for me to filter through at my highly limited experience level so my observation and comment may seem petty in the scheme of this very enlightening discussion (for me anyways). 

I try and watch every dog training show on TV,cable, and sat to include YT and dvds.. The thing that I have observed about Cesar is that he seems to use a little bit of everything and just some things more than others.

In my opinion he uses various tools differently and yet the same as others. He uses some methods quite the same and yet modifcations either pro or con are used. In that regard from my perspective Victoria and others simply draw a line in the sand and refrain from using various tools,methods, approaches,management schemes,ect.

Another observation is that in my opinion there are people or organizations that feel a need or desire to point out to others why something or someone is not going to be sucessful in gaining a exceptable resolution.. This is what I find facinating regardless of all of the terms and individual definitions in describing what may be or is taking place at any given level. I do howver understand the value and importance in being able to somewhat accurately describe and explain what is or is not but when you consider the question of why would someone keep doing something if it is not working then I become more confused..Is faster better?

Are the better approaches/things just as fast or dependable or more so?

just my rant..
hope it makes some sence.

cheers


----------



## sexysilver

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Oh what the hey...
> 
> I think most of the stuff Cesar does is dangerous and harmful.
> 
> Seen this one? A little hard to watch...
> 
> http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3252/Videos#tab-Videos/05198_00


What would yuo guys do in this situation tbh I think I would do the same if you gave the dog a lose line he is surely going to attack.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> first of all I was addressing Curbside...
> 
> 
> and as for your comments....water under the bridge...nice try.



Only saying as you said you was out and wasnt coming back to the thread.

Dogs are pack animals they are descendants of the wolfs, wolfs are pack animals.

And in imho There is such thing as domaninance,


in a pack the famle can be the leader as well as the male its not always the male but yes only the domaninat female breeds,. x


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

sexysilver said:


> Dogs are pack animals they are descendants of the wolfs, wolfs are pack animals.
> 
> And in imho There is such thing as domaninance,
> 
> 
> in a pack the famle can be the leader as well as the male its not always the male but yes only the domaninat female breeds,. x



actually.....




Curbside Prophet said:


> The pack leader alpha stuff came from the study of captive bred wolves. Why it's still being touted today is bigger than I care to explain. Here is an article on what is alpha is or is not from David L. Mech, likely the most well known authority on wolves today: http://www.wolf.org/wolves/news/iwmag/2008/winter/alphawolf.pdf


----------



## sexysilver

If dogs are not pack animals then how come if a dog was un touched by humans (not wolf)
they would hunt in packs and there would be a pack leader, be it the domaninant male or female their still would be a pack leader.


----------



## katthevamp

and where the hell are you getting that from?


----------



## sexysilver

read a few book look up the internet watch the dogs them selfs and you find out what i am talking about


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

actually....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_(canine)

all a ''pack'' is is a group of canines.

just like a ''school'' is a group of fish

or a ''pride'' is a group of lions..


----------



## sexysilver

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> actually....
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pack_(canine)
> 
> all a ''pack'' is is a group of canines.
> 
> just like a ''school'' is a group of fish
> 
> or a ''pride'' is a group of lions..


That is what i am geting at but the pack has stucture and there is the leader(most daminante balanced dog) and the dominante female and male breed together that is what i have been trying to get at throught this thread but as in a lions pride and a school of fish there is a leader!!!


----------



## trumpetjock

sexysilver said:


> That is what i am geting at but the pack has stucture and there is the leader(most daminante balanced dog) and the dominante female and male breed together that is what i have been trying to get at throught this thread but as in a lions pride and a school of fish there is a leader!!!


Not in dogs there aren't. In dog packs not only do the alpha male and female not breed, but they don't even exist. I've dealt with several feral dog packs near my hometown, and they do not work like wolf packs at all. They are loose coalitions formed for specific shortterm goals. They are not a family structure. They are NOTHING like a wolf pack.


----------



## harrise

¿Then who leads the coalition? 

... sorry, couldn't resist...


----------



## sexysilver

When i was younger we had a pack of wild dogs near our home and they was basically all they trays of the streets and they had a pack leader who only bred. They hunted together, they collected rabbits and other things like that and the most domaninate would eat first and she also bred and was the only one the others didnt bred if they did bred they didnt join back with the pack after the puppies now I only watched these dogs in our feilds and thats what we seen and thats what I've learnt from them dogs


----------



## Marsh Muppet

_<< Alpha dogs have "priority access to limited resources," which means that they get to push out the doorway first to get to something they want. >>_

_<< There is no question that humping is sometimes performed in the context of dominance displays, ranking maneuvers, posturing, or whatever term you want to use for the symbolic behaviors that dogs use to vie for controlling access to a given resource: owner, bone, dish, space, whatever. >>_

Those wacky dominance theorists. Where do they get such notions?


----------



## trumpetjock

harrise said:


> ¿Then who leads the coalition?
> 
> ... sorry, couldn't resist...


In the pack that I hunted when I was younger, (long story, and a bit painful now), the leader changed often depending on the situation. Over the course of a few months I saw at least 4 different dogs acting as if they were the "leader" of this pack.

They definitely depend on each other and gather resources, as said earlier, but they have absolutely no reason to stay. The reason they stay packed up is because it is the most efficient way for them to survive. If the group was pressured closer to town, where resources were much more plentiful, they would have split up and been individuals because there was no need to stay together in a group. Indeed, the group formation would have been a disadvantage in that situation.

Dog packs grow and shrink based on the concentration of resources. If resources are concentrated in large amounts in one area (raiding chicken coops or pheasant roosts/shelter in groves), they pack. If they are in large amounts spread out over a large area (garbage/shelter in a city) they are individuals. They have absolutely no other reason to stay in a group. Wolves, on the other hand, will stay together in packs no matter what the distribution of resources is.

Pack formation has absolutely no bearing on the fertility of domestic dogs. They still go into estrus the exact same times that they would sitting in front of your fire place. In wolves, pack structure very much dictates fertility in females (and iirc, males as well).




The best part about all this is that it's a COMPLETELY useless argument. Even if they did have packs like wolves, there is something really important that dominance zealots don't want to hear... The best wolf trainers (and most of the worst) in the world DO NOT USE DOMINANCE THEORY ON WOLVES.

Yeah. Read it again. Go ahead.

Digest.

We can hear the wheels turning....

Now that me pose a question... if WOLF trainers don't use dominance theory to train wolves......... why do you insist on using it to train your dog because it "descended from a wolf"?


----------



## BoxMeIn21

trumpetjock said:


> The best part about all this is that it's a COMPLETELY useless argument. Even if they did have packs like wolves, there is something really important that dominance zealots don't want to hear... The best wolf trainers (and most of the worst) in the world DO NOT USE DOMINANCE THEORY ON WOLVES.
> 
> Yeah. Read it again. Go ahead.
> 
> Digest.
> 
> We can hear the wheels turning....
> 
> Now that me pose a question... if WOLF trainers don't use dominance theory to train wolves......... why do you insist on using it to train your dog because it "descended from a wolf"?


Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!!!


----------



## harrise

¿Dang Trumpet, did I strike a chord or something? Don't mind me, I just wanted to see this thing go further. The absolute seriousness of these threads is top notch funnay. ¿What other technique is there when a person just *dominates *naturally?


----------



## wvasko

I'm just jumpin in to join the fun, where are all the trained wolves and what are they trained to do, Agility wolves no, Obedience wolves no, Guide wolves no, Protection wolves no, Herding wolves hmmmmm I don't think so, Dope sniffing wolves no, Trick doing wolves no. I want to know who is so arrogant that they would call themselves a wolf trainer. I always thought it was a behaviorist, biologist, care taker etc type that worked with wolves. I said work with not train. Just curious, I want to learn.


----------



## trumpetjock

wvasko said:


> I'm just jumpin in to join the fun, where are all the trained wolves and what are they trained to do, Agility wolves no, Obedience wolves no, Guide wolves no, Protection wolves no, Herding wolves hmmmmm I don't think so, Dope sniffing wolves no, Trick doing wolves no. I want to know who is so arrogant that they would call themselves a wolf trainer. I always thought it was a behaviorist, biologist, care taker etc type that worked with wolves. I said work with not train. Just curious, I want to learn.


Two places where I have personally been and spoken with wolf trainers are in the San Diego zoo and the International Wolf Center in Ely, MN. They have several wolves trained to come out during seminars (walking loose leash on flat buckle collars!) and interact with little children, howl on command etc etc. They aren't trained to do any serious "work" obviously, but they *are* trained. A wolf trainer spends all their time working with these animals to be able to reliably be in the presence of humans. That's enough of a trick for me.


----------



## wabanafcr

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm


----------



## trumpetjock

wabanafcr said:


> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm


I challenge anyone on these boards to find a published paper showing that positive reinforcement training creates aggressive dogs. Or that it even produces equal results to reinforcement.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

wvasko said:


> I'm just jumpin in to join the fun, *where are all the trained wolves* and what are they trained to do, Agility wolves no, Obedience wolves no, Guide wolves no, Protection wolves no, Herding wolves hmmmmm I don't think so, Dope sniffing wolves no, Trick doing wolves no. I want to know who is so arrogant that they would call themselves a wolf trainer. I always thought it was a behaviorist, biologist, care taker etc type that worked with wolves. I said work with not train. Just curious, I want to learn.


Full Moon Farm in Black Mountain NC. 

and in a sense...positive training is working with and not exactly training.


----------



## pugmom

challenge!!!!!










LOL...sorry couldn't help myself hehehe


----------



## wvasko

I just assumed that somebody working with wolves would have to have more credentials than a trainer. This is my mistake as I have heard many times on DF that dog trainers in many cases are not qualified to work with more advanced type problems. My thoughts were that a wolf in any form would require more experience, more book learning, actually more of everything.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

wvasko said:


> I just assumed that somebody working with wolves would have to have more credentials than a trainer. This is my mistake as I have heard many times on DF that dog trainers in many cases are not qualified to work with more advanced type problems. My thoughts were that a wolf in any form would require more experience, more book learning, actually more of everything.


You don't _have to_ have that kind of learning...I don't....But if you don't its best to be under the direction of someone who does.

They won't take correction well. Their minds aren't ...well...bound to humans the same way a dog's is. To *train* a wolf you really have to be able to keep their interest in the activity. They are waaaay smarter than dogs. to do that you need to know the peculiarities of their behavior pretty well.


----------



## wvasko

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> You don't _have to_ have that kind of learning...I don't....But if you don't its best to be under the direction of someone who does.
> 
> They won't take correction well. Their minds aren't ...well...bound to humans the same way a dog's is. To *train* a wolf you really have to be able to keep their interest in the activity. They are waaaay smarter than dogs. to do that you need to know the peculiarities of their behavior pretty well.


That makes sense, I never thought that the extra kind of learning was needed for dog work. I remember sitting in a kennel run with my back to a fear-aggressive dog reading a book for an hour a day and on the 14th day I got nudged in the back by a dog that decided that day I was not the worst thing in the world. At the time it just seemed like old fashioned common sense. Would extra learning help? Well it sure could not hurt. I will have to agree to disagree with trumpet as I would still use the words "work with wolves" not train.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

trumpetjock said:


> wabanafcr said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge anyone on these boards to find a published paper showing that positive reinforcement training creates aggressive dogs. Or that it even produces equal results to reinforcement.
Click to expand...

FYI: that is an editorial; not a scientific study.


----------



## trumpetjock

Marsh Muppet said:


> FYI: that is an editorial; not a scientific study.


FYI it's one written about a University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School study.

I can pull up the actual study if you really like, I'm sure, but the majority of the people here probably wouldn't get much out of it (not an insult, published papers take a lot of getting used to).



wvasko said:


> I will have to agree to disagree with trumpet as I would still use the words "work with wolves" not train.


I'm totally fine with that. I don't really consider teaching your dog basic things like how to relax in the house or pee outside as training either. The vast majority of people don't want to "train" their dogs. They just want to accomplish the things that people who "work with wolves" do without dominance: walk loose leash, don't pee wherever you want, be friendly/tolerant of people and maybe do a trick or two. Unfortunately these are the things people try to use dominance theory to teach.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

trumpetjock said:


> FYI it's one written about a University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School study.
> 
> I can pull up the actual study if you really like, I'm sure, but the majority of the people here probably wouldn't get much out of it (not an insult, published papers take a lot of getting used to).


Do, because I see no mention of control group(s), uniformity of training method(s), assessment of behavior prior to training, or anything that would qualify it as science. I do see mention of a self-selected group who sought the help of veterinary behaviorists after screwing up their dog's training.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Marsh Muppet said:


> FYI: that is an editorial; not a scientific study.


The study was *published* in _Applied Animal Behavior Science_, that means it has been peer reviewed. If it had not it would have been published independently.


----------



## wvasko

Quite a few years back I believe it was Cornell Veterinary School that had a free newsletter on dog care in general etc. This was written by vets and a lot of their credibility went right out the window when I recieved the letter that said feces should be removed from kennel runs at least once a week, as this would help in the control of worms. I thought at the time it would sure save me a lot of work as I was checking kennel runs 5 or 6 times daily. Then when I priced the tall boots needed for the dogs to keep their feet clean it was just too much money. Since then anything I read I have problems with. That's just me though. Oh I did cancel the newsletter.


----------



## trumpetjock

Marsh Muppet said:


> Do, because I see no mention of control group(s), uniformity of training method(s), assessment of behavior prior to training, or anything that would qualify it as science. I do see mention of a self-selected group who sought the help of veterinary behaviorists after screwing up their dog's training.


They wouldn't mention any of that in the review of the study. That would all be included in the methods section of the published article in the journal. I looked around a bit in the databases I have access to for the article, but the current issue of _Applied Animal Behavior Science_ isn't plugged into any of them yet.

If you want examples of the type of literature that is published in there though, here's a few listed by google scholar:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=Applied+Animal+Behavior+Science&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=

This journal isn't a magazine like Time or Popular Science. The peer review system is a very extensive one. If the paper in question had any dubious methods or didn't go through everything it needed to to qualify as good science, it wouldn't have been published.




wvasko said:


> Oh I did cancel the newsletter.


The newsletter probably didn't have published, peer reviewed papers in it. It was just the personal recommendation of a few vets, probably not based off of any science whatsoever. From all the vets I've met, I would've canceled it as well. 

Scientists publishing papers are a different story.


----------



## I_love_my_poopers

Some of them. I love that show. I plan on buying that dog collar from his website, first im gonna try the new leash i got my lab, see if that works.


----------



## sexysilver

Yes the collar look like it works a treat and it doesnt seem to cause discomfort,

I love the show I love his dog Daddy  big sausage  

xxx


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Marsh Muppet said:


> Do, because I see no mention of control group(s), uniformity of training method(s), assessment of behavior prior to training, or anything that would qualify it as science. I do see mention of a self-selected group who sought the help of veterinary behaviorists after screwing up their dog's training.


Here is the study: http://www.behav.org/00library/articles/dog/dog_training_method.pdf

*It's only available until Tuesday, so do what you will with it. *

from the article: 
 * Several confrontational methods such as hitting or kicking the dog for undesirable behavior (43%), 
* Growling at the dog (41%), 
* Physically force such as taking an item from dog's mouth (39%), 
* Rolling dog onto its back and holding it down (31%), 
* Stare at or stare down the dog (30%), 
* Dominance down, physically forcing the dog down onto its side (29%) 
* Grab the dog by the jowls and shake (26%) 

All these elicited an aggressive response from at least (1 in 4) of the dogs on which they were attempted. Perhaps a testament to the resiliency of dogs and our abuses. 

I have no problem labeling these acts as aggression, generally and specifically. IMO, it would be difficult to kick a dog "fairly, correctly and effectively". Rolling a dog, stare downs, forcing to the floor, are clearly acts of intimidation, if not all out threats. 

BTW, before anyone scrutinizes the "professionals" here, the "professionals" are those who filed out the questionnaires - pet owners. The confrontational techniques are the ones they used, often described as coming from their own impulses, as well as books, articles, and TV. Not from "professional" trainers who taught these tactics in lessons, but their own interpretation of a concept, vs a demonstrated technique. 

Is there a control group? Absolutely not. Can you imagine the field day PETA would have if they knew dogs were being kicked for science. Conducted in a lab? If you don't consider your home the ideal lab, then no. Standardization? Did each person growl for 5 seconds at "x" decibels? Nope, that would make for an entertaining study, but no more enlightening IMO. 

Do I still think it is illuminating? Absolutely. And it supports DW's caveat, "don't try this at home".


----------



## wvasko

With those tactics it's amazing more owners don't get bit.


----------



## trumpetjock

Curbside Prophet said:


> Here is the study: http://www.behav.org/00library/articles/dog/dog_training_method.pdf


Thanks a ton Curb. Off to read that one now!


----------



## Marsh Muppet

It is a self-selected group that sees the dog's aggression as a problem. I've met people who claim to be made physically ill by the sight of a dog being corrected with a prong collar. Some of them have had dogs who exhibited inappropriate aggression, but they are experts at making excuses for their dogs. Not coincidentally, they reward the aggression with baby talk and treats, thinking they are "calming" their dog or some such nonsense. I'm not at all convinced by this study that aversive methods are more likely to produce aggressive responses--though they obviously can. 

Then there's the non-minor issue of aversive "trainers" eliciting aggressive behavior with reward. If a 'trainer" unwisely/inappropriately corrects an excited-aggressive dog, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the dog redirects the aggression towards the source of the correction. If the "trainer" backs down, he has rewarded the aggression. When the aggression escalates, does that count in the _reward _column, or the _aversive _column? The questions not asked tell a great deal.


----------



## wvasko

It just gets me that people actually want to roll a dog and get on the ground with an aggressive dog. I have worked a number of scary types through the years and I never got down on the ground with any dogs. I think if you do that you should first put a big serving platter on ground lay down and let the dog have it's way with you. Of course I pre-warn people ahead of time I will not be a chew toy for their dogs and I will stop it quickly. They may then choose to leave or take dogs back home. I don't receive hazardous pay duty.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

The ironic thing about the Alpha Roll is that if it works, it probably wasn't needed. If it's needed, it probably won't work.


----------



## wvasko

Marsh Muppet said:


> The ironic thing about the Alpha Roll is that if it works, it probably wasn't needed. If it's needed, it probably won't work.


MM
Exactly what has always been on my mind when training a 125 lb dog (not breed specific) that has bad stuff flying around in his/her/head (also not gender specific) aren't I just politically correct rascal.

I did not want to start a breed hurrah on this thread.


----------



## GreatDaneMom

i have read through SOME of the posts, not all of them. this is what i have to say.

i hate cesar's show. the methods he uses should NOT be used by everyday uneducated people. to sexysilver "reading up" on his methods DOES NOT mean you should be using them. it may mean you understand them a little more, but IMO does not entitle you to be using them. 

heres something i personally witnessed that really made me hate his show more: _at the dog park. new dog comes in, the park is an unfenced island, with a arched bridge as the only way off, leading right to the parking lot. new dog is skittish, owner makes mistake of letting it offleash right away INFRONT of the bridge. woman with stroller (why you have your kid there i dont know) and her husband have 2 dogs. one is a puppy, other is a couple years old. both dogs chase the new scared dog over bridge to parking lot while woman screams at dogs to "come". finally dogs come back, she takes younger one and "alpha rolls" him. i ask why, she says "thats what cesar does" *palm to forehead*_

if you want to watch a trainer on TV and use their methods, try victoria stilwell. atleast shes using positive reinforcement, AND if you have a dog messing in the house, she WILL make you bleach down everything because, yes, your house is covered in "poo and wee"


----------



## Pepper

I think Stilwell is a great trainer.

She uses practical methods that almost anyone can learn.

She teaches the dogs commands it may need in its life, like wait, leave it, stay, sit, down, etc..(if the dog needs it)

She actually shows the people how to work with their dogs, and has delt with aggression cases, resource guarding cases, etc..but she deals with cases that people encounter a lot more often.

Counter surfing, fear aggresion, resource guarding, etc..

And deals with the dogs without flipping them over, snapping their leashes, "tapping" them with her fingers, nudging them with her foot, etc..

She doesn't follow the whole, dominance theory, but simply shows the dog basic commands and leadership, working more on having the owners bond with the dog to better teach it what to do.

To use Cesar's technique's, you'd actually have to come and get him to do it.

To use Stilwell's you would just have to take some notes, or record a few episodes to get the basic idea of using treats and praise rather then harsh corrections.


----------



## Tofu_pup

wvasko said:


> It just gets me that people actually want to roll a dog and get on the ground with an aggressive dog. I have worked a number of scary types through the years and I never got down on the ground with any dogs. I think if you do that you should first put a big serving platter on ground lay down and let the dog have it's way with you. Of course I pre-warn people ahead of time I will not be a chew toy for their dogs and I will stop it quickly. They may then choose to leave or take dogs back home. I don't receive hazardous pay duty.



For my 10th birthday, my dad brought home a gorgeous white german shepherd puppy. He later brought home her sister of a different littler. Irish was a liability from the start. She killed a chihuahua. She bit the neighbor and broke skin. She bit several others without breaking skin. To the point: my dad would have me do the alpha roll of his day which would be to roll her over and straddle her. Ten years old...
Looking back, I'm shocked that she never did so much as nip me. I wasn't even bitten until the first and last time I tried to incorrectly break up a dog fight.
I remember when Cesar made his debut and my dad came home talking about it. His co-workers had been buzzing about how he just walked into a yard and an aggressive dog was 'rehabilitated'...


----------



## Pepper

I think people need to get this through their mind..

Just because a dog bites a dog, or a bites a person, or acts aggressively, doesn't mean it is dominate.

I dislike the way Cesar is planting this idea into people's heads.

If a dog walks before you, eats before you, walks ahead of you, it doesn't mean he's being dominant, he just hasn't been taught any other way, and I doubt the dog is thinking, "oh my gosh if I eat before my owner, I win, I am in control!"

Tofu-Pup, that's a perfect example. In all reality, that dog could have severely injured you, or killed you. But flipping over a dog isn't going to change it. In all reality, it's only going to make it mis trust you.


----------



## wvasko

Tofu
That's what's scary and great about all this dog training stuff that is out in the world now. It's because enough of any trainer's programs do work to make all seem feasible. All the different collars work. All the different sized/makes of leads work. Hmmmmmm, isn't that confusing. Not really it's matching the right dog with right program or training exercise. You get Milan and Stillwell on TV and they immediately reach possibly millions of people. Then you have the percentage of those people that try the work touted on TV and it works. There is a dog or dogs out there that are able to survive any training program you throw at them. Also the opposite, the dogs that don't survive and/or bite somebody severely. It's kinda like getting married the fun is in the pickin. I try not to get into too many training arguments on DF as immediately starts the self-preaching only my way works. On my earlier reply I mentioned I don't do alpha rolls, I said I stop biting stuff immediately and I don't explain how. That's because there are different ways and different dogs I read dog and then use whatever method matches the dog. I did say I never alppha roll and that's my personal choice based on 50 years of dogs. I may use a method that is not as nice as an alpha roll but I will not get bit and it's got nothing to do with dominance. It's got all to do with keeping my fingers/hands/body as uninjured as possible.


----------



## animalsafe

wvasko thats sounds reasonable to me but what do you think about the concept of choices in drawing boundaries to exceptable/unexceptable approaches based primarily/soley on dismissing the use of 2 of the 4 quarants to operant conditioning. I am refering to the movement in many if not most of todays trainers behavorists to refrain from, find little or no value in, and not support using any or but in a rare case only a mild aversive in the correction based operant? Do you think this perspective results in improving the dog condition in all situations? I tried finding a example of a alpha roll on youtube and was wondering if this is a illustration of a alpha roll and what could be ascertained or gathered by such a example?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ9kdc9bktQ

Should not these types of illustrations come with a warning at the very least?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Using the quadrant to justify aversion is a silly task. I can use one word, "sit", and have it fit the definition of all four corners of the quadrant. Nothing in the definitions of the quadrant suggests an aversion needs to be or should be physical and/or scary. So, I don't see how the quadrants allows/disallows a methodology or adds value.


----------



## animalsafe

Punishment--if negative reinforcement strengthens a behavior by subtracting a negative stimulus, than punishment has to weaken a behavior by adding a negative stimulus. After a response a negative or aversive stimulus is added which weakens the frequency of the response.

That is why I made sure to mentioned mild aversives being exceptable to some in a correction based response/approach.

And I agree that simply by using a audible "SIT" command in a threatening/intimidating tone in addition with a intimidating precense can be highly aversive to many dogs.

The use of the operant to " positive punishment" usually in my understanding defines adding a punisher which in most cases results in an unpleasant or uncomfortable experience for the dog.

...................
aversive stimulus 

noun 
any negative/uncomfortable stimulus to which an organism will learn to make a response that avoids it.

Many consider any process that results in causing or experiencing stress is aversive.


----------



## wvasko

animalsafe said:


> wvasko thats sounds reasonable to me but what do you think about the concept of choices in drawing boundaries to exceptable/unexceptable approaches based primarily/soley on dismissing the use of 2 of the 4 quarants to operant conditioning. I am refering to the movement in many if not most of todays trainers behavorists to refrain from, find little or no value in, and not support using any or but in a rare case only a mild aversive in the correction based operant? Do you think this perspective results in improving the dog condition in all situations? I tried finding a example of a alpha roll on youtube and was wondering if this is a illustration of a alpha roll and what could be ascertained or gathered by such a example?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ9kdc9bktQ
> 
> Should not these types of illustrations come with a warning at the very least?


I do not get into Quadrant/Operant conditioning, methodology etc Blah Blah Blah words (not knocking it, just don't do it) again as I hope CP knows I just read and train dogs and more than half the time I have no words to explain how I do, why I do, what I do. Since I am lazy, I have always used the least amount of aversives whether physical/mental as positive stuff is easier on dog and trainer. I believe that's why I am still able to train at my age, as all aversive work with a 125 lb dog is quite tiring and hard on the body. I will leave now and let you and CP bounce words off each other. I will sit back and enjoy


----------



## Stitch

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> No they did not. Dogs and wolves most likely descended from a common anscestor.


Oh Zim... Sure they did.

Evidence can be found here:
http://www.nhm.org/exhibitions/dogs/evolution/evolution.html

And here:
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/11/11-11-03tdc/11-11-03dscihealth-column-02.asp

Those are just 2 links, but if you do some research, then you'll see that there is truth to the OPs statement.


----------



## animalsafe

LOL. That sounds reasonable also...
Not to make this one of those long drawn out debates but is it also not reasonable to understand and be able to somewhat accurately explain how and why something does and does not work especially when attempting to influence/educate others to imulate a successful exceptable outcome?

Is it possible that a trainer who has the ability and experience in gaining a desired resolution might inaccurately explain the process to others thus being problematic/ a disservice for some or many who would try to imulate any part of that process. 

I guess what I am asking or saying is ...is it so unreasonable to try and understand why so many people prefer or end up shunning most of the positive punishment stuff because it is/can be so difficult to explain and understand at times. Most importantly (misunderstanding) can most likely result in some serious negative backlash in both behavior and injury if processed incorrectly and on hand also in cases when done correctly?
I too will refrain from this debate as it generally is a exercise in futility only if one is attempting to change anothers mind.. to which I have no need to do..

I would however be curious as to what anyone thinks of that alpha roll illustration on youtube and possibly comment on why it is so hard to find other illustrations of something that is used successfully by others.

cheers


----------



## wvasko

animalsafe

*Is it possible that a trainer who has the ability and experience in gaining a desired resolution might inaccurately explain the process to others thus being problematic/ a disservice for some or many who would try to imulate any part of that process.*

Exactly and that's one reason I don't try not only because of my possible inaccurate account, then add to the equation, the translation of what I'm saying to person needing the help, whether my account is correct or not. Yes I started watching the nail cutting, I did not bother to get to the alpha roll as it was not necessary for dog to be rolled, a couple nails cut, some treats, small break, more nails cut, more treats etc etc etc. By the time this was done the second or third time that dog needed nails cut he/she probably would have done the whole operation with no problems. My wife spent 20 yrs grooming and she always said the 1st meeting and grooming of dogs was very important, for trust issues. I'm not trying to talk anybody out of alpha rolls, I know better than that. What also cannot be explained to people is the changes that can occur with any dog while you are doing the training. The amounts of variable changes that can occur with all the individuality of all the dogs out in the world can be astronomical. How you gonna explain that with accuracy.


----------



## animalsafe

Thanks for the comment wvasko because the reason I used this video besides the fact that I can hardly find anything on youtube that shows anything close to alpharoll I contacted/responded to this person on the video and made somewhat the same comment and suggestion that you did. It was interesting that the reason why this dog was in this persons hands was that this particular dog (just like my previous dog) had other trainers and groomers fail to get the dog to submit to a nail trimming by using treats/rewards ect. The dog had to be taken to the vet and after the 4th time at being stressed out with being muzzled the vet resorted to sedating the dog... Just like one of my dogs another approach was used after many failures and exceptable results were gained. This pewrson also said that what we saw in the video was a much milder reactive resistive behavior due to the dog having been in rehab for 10 days prior to the nail trim...
Data is important in understanding and communication... which is simply my point.. and your perspective is reasonable also I feel....

on to other curiousities..

cheers and thanks


----------



## hulkamaniac

After watching more of Cesar's work ( I wasn't too horribly familiar with him a while back) I will say that the guy does seem to get results. Yeah, the show makes it seem like it takes 10-15 mins when I'm sure it really doesn't, but he does get results with his methods.


----------



## cshellenberger

sexysilver said:


> Yes I agree but with people who are having problems with they're dog and are reading into the methods and how to approch those problems in a more assertive manner would you recommend his methods I would but only to a owner who is willing to read up and understand his methodz. x


 
No, I'd call in a good positive reenforcement trainer or behaviorist and have an eval done. Cesars methods are ONLY for experts and *EXTREAME* LAST CHANCE CASES.

Watch Victoria Stillwell, she's MUCH more appropriate for at home training methods, her methods may take a bit more work, but they are FAR more reliable and much safer for dog and owner.


----------



## wvasko

animalsafe said:


> Thanks for the comment wvasko because the reason I used this video besides the fact that I can hardly find anything on youtube that shows anything close to alpharoll I contacted/responded to this person on the video and made somewhat the same comment and suggestion that you did. It was interesting that the reason why this dog was in this persons hands was that this particular dog (just like my previous dog) had other trainers and groomers fail to get the dog to submit to a nail trimming by using treats/rewards ect. The dog had to be taken to the vet and after the 4th time at being stressed out with being muzzled the vet resorted to sedating the dog... Just like one of my dogs another approach was used after many failures and exceptable results were gained. This pewrson also said that what we saw in the video was a much milder reactive resistive behavior due to the dog having been in rehab for 10 days prior to the nail trim...
> Data is important in understanding and communication... which is simply my point.. and your perspective is reasonable also I feel....
> 
> on to other curiousities..
> 
> cheers and thanks


Now let's go back to my old reliable saying about 2 fools talking I was talking about a dog that I did not know personally and could not read aside from the Utube and you were listening to me. What appeared to be one thing actually was another. Isn't this a perfect reason for not throwing out training advice haphazardly. The good news is that when you throw out treat and time advice, you are not causing the dog harm. If I had to cause harm to a dog it will be a dog that I am eyeballing and that's not open for discussion on a forum.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> It was interesting that the reason why this dog was in this persons hands was that this particular dog (just like my previous dog) had other trainers and groomers fail to get the dog to submit to a nail trimming by using treats/rewards ect.


Why does the dog have to submit to nail trimming? Perhaps that would explain why previous handlers failed to mark the target behavior. They were looking for the wrong one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgEwiH8CeUE
Often it is not the treats/rewards failing, it is the owner who does not have a concept of positive reinforcement. 

I don't think the video you posted offers anything more than another example of brawn winning. Though I don't know what was won is what I would seek to win. We don't know if the method was effective at all, only that after one trial the handler managed to restrain the dog for trimming. 

The ultimate goal of my training is that the dog is a willing participant in nail trimming. I could not ascertain that this Chi was a willing participant, so based on one trial I'd say that this method is not good enough for me and my dog.


----------



## animalsafe

From what I understand in conversing with this trainer the reason for the owner trying something completely different was because not only did they the fail at primarily using positive reinforcement and less aversive methods so did several of the certified trainers/experts who attempted to get the dog to calmly allow for a nail trim, including a groomer who failed at persuading and motivating the dog to not only except a nail triming but aggressive attempts to bite any handler attempting to do. Throw in the vets issues and it seems reasonable enough for me to understand trying something different especially when I have to consider the issue I had with one of my dogs over a period of time and failed attempts (trained my other 8 dogs with mostly positive reinforcement/motivational training methods) with qualified experience trainers who did admit some dogs may need other approaches based on certain circumstances....

Possibly this owner was at wits end with thier effort,resources,skill, time,capabilties and money and might have been given up the dog to a worse condition like a shelter or rescue or who knows what..... Who's to say, know, and judge? ..
certainly not me....

My sisters judged me for giving into using a prong collar for my issues on one of my dogs that amazingly resulted in quick and long lasting results after all the time,effort, and money that I had spent with the other approaches again which failed for those which much more experience than myself with such approaches... My sisters simply wanted me to get another dog for my grandmaother that did not have the issues and work on the dog regardless of how much time and resources would be needed....... Thats not what I wanted or could to do for a host of reasons.. Sometimes a person just cannot keep trying out different experts who use like approaches which fail.....

I hope that sounds reasonable and understandable?


cheers


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

hey stitch.

http://www.infohub.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-2544.html


more to come(im at werk)

rather than go through all the folderol of posting a million links...here is a decent summary of the problems with the theory that wolves are the progenitors of domestic dogs

http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-origins-of-domestic-dog.html

you do know its a bit of a controversy right?


----------



## Stitch

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you do know its a bit of a controversy right?


I did, yes. But there's far too much data out there that out weighs, and thus negates, any and all controversy. They're not direct descendants, but descendants none the less.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Stitch said:


> They're not direct descendants, but descendants none the less.


I'd be happy if we just call them what they are...descendants of weasels. Of course that would include cats too, and I do have an affinity for calling the neighbor's cat a "dirty rotten weasel".


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I disagree.....


----------



## Stitch

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I disagree.....


Yoda says, "National Geographic, friend to you it is."

Now, smile like this:


----------



## KBLover

animalsafe said:


> And I agree that simply by using a audible "SIT" command in a threatening/intimidating tone in addition with a intimidating precense can be highly aversive to many dogs.


Wouldn't that be the tone and/or body language of the handler being the aversive - not the word itself?


----------



## cshellenberger

Just a random thought, I work at SeaWorld and a Shamu trainer just walked past. I wonder what would happen if they used adversive training techniques on one of the Killer Whales. Never mind, I know from talking to them, the trainer that tried that would end up a crunchy whale snack.


----------



## harrise

*edit* *edit*


----------



## MoonStr80

From the very beginning I was unpuzzled about CM I was a obsessive about his show I'd tune in every Friday to watch it. Of course being dog LOVER watch anything on dogs! I've read one of his books & brought a dvd. After while that I been watching & watching I was being told by some ppl about his methods are wrong period. Your dog shouldn't fear you nor wants to act upon how you act, to kicking/poking into the dog's neck what not provoking the the behavior to happen

I've tried one of his methods on Misty my latest pass girl she was furious at me she nip me like I was trying to hurt her. What I decide to do is throw his books & dvd into the trash along with his alpha roll methods. 

Now that I watch Victoria Stilwell when she's on Animal Planets I sink into her methods & nicer approach to dogs

My family are anti CM they all LOVE Victoria.


----------



## SMoore

I think he deals with some dogs that aren't really your average dog so using his methods at home on your own dogs I believe is a bit reckless and can ruin or shut down certain dogs.

However, seeing some of the dogs on the show they seem to need a firm hand but then others that he calls his "red zone" cases remind me of a dog I had living with me named Naomi who was VERY dog aggressive.

She was able to overcome it using treats as a lure everytime another dog was around and eventually other dogs didn't bother her and I could phase out the treats. She now lives happily with my parents and two other dogs!

So, while I do agree with what has been said about not doing it yourself at home I personally do not agree with many of his methods, at least for my own dogs! I also don't think my dogs need those methods.

Like others have said he has excellent timing and I believe he does make a huge difference in the lives of dogs that would probably otherwise be put down without his help. So for that I give many Kudos to him!

I also think he does make people realize the time commitment needed to own a dog. Many of his corrections also come with letting the owner know that the dog needs more exercise which is probably the case with most problems many pet owners have.

I know if I forget my dogs walk they get stir crazy and I have to end up doing something with them even if its kong toys or hiding treats in the house for them to find, especially during crummy weather!


----------



## sexysilver

Pepper said:


> I think people need to get this through their mind..
> 
> Just because a dog bites a dog, or a bites a person, or acts aggressively, doesn't mean it is dominate.
> 
> I dislike the way Cesar is planting this idea into people's heads.
> 
> If a dog walks before you, eats before you, walks ahead of you, it doesn't mean he's being dominant, he just hasn't been taught any other way, and I doubt the dog is thinking, "oh my gosh if I eat before my owner, I win, I am in control!"
> 
> Tofu-Pup, that's a perfect example. In all reality, that dog could have severely injured you, or killed you. But flipping over a dog isn't going to change it. In all reality, it's only going to make it mis trust you.



Yes you are right by doing them things it doesnt mean it is domaninate but it may be dominant behaviour

Ive used some of these methods and if anything they have brought more trust between me and my girls.


----------



## pugmom

sexysilver said:


> Yes you are right by doing them things it doesnt mean it is domaninate but it may be dominant behaviour
> 
> Ive used some of these methods and if anything they have brought more trust between me and my girls.


Example please


----------



## Boonkiemom

Greetings! My first post here. I was looking for a place to ask questions and of course talk about my dog and related experiences. 

This fora peaked my interest because I enjoy watching The Dog Whisperer and have benefited from many of Cesar's insights. I'm a bit surprised at some of the misconceptions though regarding his methods. I think it's important to remember that he's called in often as a last resort to dogs scheduled for euthanasia. Sometimes, the dogs are just too difficult to handle and the owners report having already tried various methods and trainers. Cesar's gift is really in the hardest or "red zone" cases. I suspect there are some knee-jerk reactions to the man and is success. Afterall, he does get results where others have failed. It's easy to be critical, but the guy has saved lives.


----------



## animalsafe

I am curious as to your comment, insight, and opinion if anyone might feel it important, relavent, politically correct, better, ethical, correct, moral, or beneficial ,ect that the show ( any TV show on conditioning dog behavioral issues ) include a quick list history of what methods or tools had been used previously and failed to gain a resolution to include the names or at least a declaration of number of qualified or certified trainers that failed to gain such resolution. 

This would certainly in my thinking help the less educated or concerned viewer make a more informed opinion as to all of the goings on ..would it not???

Rather than experiencing the usual post commentary and speculation by many if not most critics reflexing to pointing out had another approach been used ...things would be/would have been different.

And why we are at it why not include a update on how the relationship/conditioning of past episodes of the dogs are going????? 

just another one of my dreams in thought. LOL



cheers


----------



## Boonkiemom

animalsafe said:


> I am curious as to your comment,insight, and opinion if anyone might feel it more important,relavent,politically correct, better,ethical,correct,moral,or beneficail that the show ( any TV show on condtioning dog behavioral issues ) include a quick list history of what methods or tools had been used previously and failed to gain a resolution to include the names or at at least a declaration of number of qualified or certified trainers that failed to gain such resolution. This would certainly in my thinking help the uneducated or concerned viewer make a more informed opinion as to all of the goings on ..would it not???
> 
> Rather than experiencing the usual commentary by many if not most critics reflexing to pointing out had another approach been used things would be/would have been different.
> 
> 
> just another dream in thought. LOL
> 
> cheers



Are you talking to me?


----------



## animalsafe

Actually I am curious as to what anyone thinks about all that stuff!

cheers


----------



## BoxMeIn21

Boonkiemom said:


> Afterall, he does get results where others have failed.


Please elaborate? What others have failed? 
Of course Cesar is going to be successful all the time on his show - do you think he's going to show where a guest had to go to another behavior specialist because his methods didn't work? Not.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Boonkiemom said:


> I think it's important to remember that he's called in often as a last resort to dogs scheduled for euthanasia.


I disagree. If we're taking the show as a reference, many of the dogs he deals with, if not all, simply have not had basic training, which is often highlighted by how ignorant the owners are portrayed. The assumption that he only deals with dogs that are headed for the euthanasia table is just verbiage spouted by his proponents.


----------



## Binkalette

Ugh.. I hate Victoria.. she's so mean to the owners. And IMO she has a very weak approach when dealing with some of the dogs.


----------



## Boonkiemom

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Please elaborate? What others have failed?
> Of course Cesar is going to be successful all the time on his show - do you think he's going to show where a guest had to go to another behavior specialist because his methods didn't work? Not.


Maybe not. But I do notice that he's never been above bringing in other experts to help. That tells me that he doesn't think he has all the answers. Even the disclaimer on the show tells people to find local, qualified professionals. Further, he does followup with many of cases and they are clearly still working on certain issues but that things are much better. 

What I'm more curious about is why you are so cynical about this show. Why knock results? 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I disagree. If we're taking the show as a reference, many of the dogs he deals with, if not all, simply have not had basic training, which is often highlighted by how ignorant the owners are portrayed. The assumption that he only deals with dogs that are headed for the euthanasia table is just verbiage spouted by his proponents.


Ditto for you. Have you even watched the show? Or are you just the average armchair critic?



Binkalette said:


> Ugh.. I hate Victoria.. she's so mean to the owners. And IMO she has a very weak approach when dealing with some of the dogs.


If you're referring to Victoria Stillwell, she's WAYYYYYY too reliant on treats and clickers to do what she does. But I'll bet her methods make some here _feel good._


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Curbside Prophet said:


> If we're taking the show as a reference, many of the dogs he deals with, if not all, simply have not had basic training, which is often highlighted by how ignorant the owners are portrayed. The assumption that he only deals with dogs that are headed for the euthanasia table is just verbiage spouted by his proponents.


This is my major disagreement with Milan. He "rehabilitates" dogs by solving specific behavior problems. I'm not a regular viewer, but most of the dogs I've seen him work with would probably benefit more from the ministrations of a competent obedience trainer.


----------



## pugmom

Boonkiemom said:


> What I'm more curious about is why you are so cynical about this show. Why knock results?
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto for you. Have you even watched the show? Or are you just the average armchair critic?
> 
> 
> I]



And what are your critic credentials......What sets you apart from the "average"?


----------



## wvasko

Curbside Prophet said:


> I disagree. If we're taking the show as a reference, many of the dogs he deals with, if not all, simply have not had basic training, which is often highlighted by how ignorant the owners are portrayed. The assumption that he only deals with dogs that are headed for the euthanasia table is just verbiage spouted by his proponents.


CP another right on the head of the proverbial nail. This DF is absolutely brimming from time to time on dogs that are biting their owners left and right. I answered one today, with the remark that most of the threads started have one thing in common no training(or very little) done. These owners would look great on the TV show.

Binkalette
I have watched Stillwell show and the owners are lucky because a lot of them are not smarter than their dogs. Many years ago when I was done with training the owners would come to pick up dogs and I would give a lesson. With my personality I decided to stop that program as I was afraid I would hurt somebody. The last 20 years I make a video Tape/DVD and when they pick up their dog we watch the instruction DVD which shows them their dog doing the work and then instructions on how to continue the work. I got sick and tired of yelling at people *"left foot"* when starting out heeling their dogs. I do not have the people skills necessary to handle that. I can imagine that Stillwell has had a share of stupidity being in the business for just 10 yrs. The few shows I have watched the owners of these dogs were at the back of the deer herd and the wolves were approaching rapidly.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Re Victoria Stillwell: I can't even watch her show. For all I know, she may be the greatest dog trainer in the English speaking world, but she just talks too much. And that voice. Oy!

If my wife invited her to come and work with my dog, I'd get a hotel room until she was gone. She really should learn to use her inside voice.


----------



## Boonkiemom

Marsh Muppet said:


> Re Victoria Stillwell: I can't even watch her show. For all I know, she may be the greatest dog trainer in the English speaking world, but she just talks too much. And that voice. Oy!
> 
> If my wife invited her to come and work with my dog, I'd get a hotel room until she was gone. She really should learn to use her inside voice.


 I think it's the arrogant English in her that makes her that way. I saw her on that America's Greatest Dog show over the Summer and she got in a big fight with the chick who has the little maltese. It was quite entertaining but made them both look like buffoons. In the end, they kissed and made up, though.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Boonkiemom said:


> I think it's the arrogant English in her that makes her that way. I saw her on that America's Greatest Dog show over the Summer and she got in a big fight with the chick who has the little maltese. It was quite entertaining but made them both look like buffoons. In the end, they kissed and made up, though.


I don't know that Brits are arrogant. Now Canadians, on the other hand......

I'm KIDDING. Okay?

My wife used to work in a peripheral area of the entertainment industry, and she taught me not to put much stock in an entertainer's public persona. People on TV and in movies are not always as they appear.


----------



## Tofu_pup

Binkalette said:


> Ugh.. I hate Victoria.. she's so mean to the owners. And IMO she has a very weak approach when dealing with some of the dogs.


That's part of why I like her. Sometimes, it's nice to hear stupid owners being told that they are in fact stupid owners. I've been rude on occassion with people but I don't have the nerve to say what I'd like to. That's where victoria stillwell comes in.


----------



## Cheetah

Boonkiemom said:


> If you're referring to Victoria Stillwell, she's WAYYYYYY too reliant on treats and clickers to do what she does. But I'll bet her methods make some here _feel good._


Do you mean to say that her methods are ineffective? Because I know for a fact there are professional trainers on this forum and on others I visit who use positive reinforcement as a large part of their methods, and are very successful with it. I'll admit, some of the things she's done left me going "Uh... what?" such as the "flag/leave-it method for the poop-eating pugs - far too complicated when you can just leash them all and prevent access till they grow out of the habit - but most of her methods are mainstream methods that make sense.

Both my dogs have learned mainly with positive methods (including treats, clickers, life rewards, praise, etc.), including some of the methods Victoria uses (after all, most of those methods were around before she was), and both my dogs are now balanced, well-behaved dogs who haven't relied on treats for a very long time (you're supposed to phase out the treats when you clicker/treat train).


----------



## animalsafe

LMAO..


I think IMHO some of the things that Victoria and others do is proof that aversives have value and that nothing is new when considering the options and history to conditioning behavior. Just possibly repackaged and given a new name in my opinion.. Not sure how I would discribe the age old nature of being biased and exclusive however.

cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Boonkiemom said:


> What I'm more curious about is why you are so cynical about this show. Why knock results?


What results? Cesar admits to his faults as much as he does his successes. This would seem in alignment with many supposed "professional" dog trainers. Why people are cynical?, because his logic is based on an outdated, misplaced hypothesis. 

http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance%20statement.pdf



> Ditto for you. Have you even watched the show? Or are you just the average armchair critic?


Label me however you please, but I would resist doing so publicly. Regardless, your label does not confirm or deny my point. 



> If you're referring to Victoria Stillwell, she's WAYYYYYY too reliant on treats and clickers to do what she does.


A silly question, but how can you argue results? Do you even know what a clicker does? How can the clicker be overly used if you're acquiring a behavior or emotion? How else can you acquire behavior without reinforcement? Do you even know what the definition of reinforcement is?


----------



## animalsafe

My take on clickers in this case would be..I know who asked me..

Is that they (clickers)cannot be (such an absolute? hmmm) overused or misused just effective or non-effective, used correctly or used incorrectly, but never abusive or aversive.. unless swallowed..


----------



## rogueslg71

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Please elaborate? What others have failed?
> Of course Cesar is going to be successful all the time on his show - do you think he's going to show where a guest had to go to another behavior specialist because his methods didn't work? Not.


i think she is talking about the many cases where the person has said they have tried to see other specialists and trainers and none of those people fixed the issue. people turn to milan as a last resort in those cases and then he 'fixes' the problem.


----------



## pugmom

Boonkiemom said:


> I think it's the arrogant English in her that makes her that way. I saw her on that America's Greatest Dog show over the Summer and she got in a big fight with the chick who has the little maltese. It was quite entertaining but made them both look like buffoons. In the end, they kissed and made up, though.


Hmmmmm I'm going to hope that you are from England ...so that our DF members that are Englishmen/Women don't take offense to that comment


----------



## wvasko

pugmom said:


> Hmmmmm I'm going to hope that you are from England ...so that our DF members that are Englishmen/Women don't take offense to that comment


Victoria, jump on them stupid people. I back her 100% with her people approach and I don't care where she's from. This also goes along with the all in black clothes approach, she should be a little menacing towards idiots. The TV producers do a great job as I suspect they pick the people who have the stupidest problems because the dogs are just dogs, it's all about the people.


----------



## pugmom

I don't love all Of VS methods.....I never got the whole flag/poo thing for the pugs .....But I do love the way she gets on people......some of the owners need a wake up call...their dogs are not out of control!!..the owners are just lazy......I just watched one where a husband and wife have some kind of hound and a pit mix.....and then they didn't understand why the pit mix was always digging under the fence to get out and run the neighborhood......so VS told them well if you never got out of your house for a walk or drive wouldn't you always try to escape too????...then the husband said he didn't really mind that his dog got out because he always comes back....(palm to forehead smack!!)...and then complained though out the show about having to walk his own dogs every day!!....that is the kinda dog owner who needs to be talked to like a child !!

ok rant over!


----------



## animalsafe

Does anyone knw why Victoria is such an ANTI CRATE person?

I thought this would be a good time to ask since she is the topic of discussion at the moment. I guess I could 'google it' but that would not be as fun

cheers


----------



## rogueslg71

as far as i've seen she hasnt said or shown any signs she is anti crate? the last episode i saw, she bought two crates for the two dogs in the house and made them use it for the dogs while they were gone.


----------



## Elana55

This has been a most entertaining thread. 

FWIW I think anyone training dogs should first train a cat. You get a whole different persepctive. I have trained cats and horses and dogs. I got to tell you.. over all, cats are toughest and you can never ever ever correct a cat (they are always right.. LOL). Oliver retrieves better than the dog ever will and he sits, comes when called, pays attention, sits and walks on a lead.....

And to the positive thing vs. the Correction thing let me tell y'all a little story:

Last week Atka and I went to Pet Smart. We needed to get Oliver a new toy and we had to get Oliver a present for his cousin, Thai (its a long story.. LOL), and as long as we were there, I let Atka choose some treats. 

Now Atka has Attention Deficit Disorder in Petsmart. She wants to bring home ALLthe kitties (we don't go over their anymore because of that), and she wants to check out EVERY toy (cat and dog), and sniff EVERY bag of food, treats etc. My cues stand in line BEHIND the good stuff at Petsmart. 

While in there I used some corrections to get her to behave. She did behave and the corrections worked. HOWEVER, after we paid for the Treats she picked out I opened the bag and her response to my cues and her attentiveness came around like LIGHTNING. I was using YES because we did not have the clicker.. and I was reinforcing her intermittently.. and the difference in how this dog worked was amazing. You would swear I had given her Ridalin... LOL

Atka has been trained with both Positive re. and Corrections. She knows about both. I just need to say that this individual dog's response to Pos. Re. is much stronger, less latent and much much more focused. 

I like Victoria Stillwell. I find CM entertaining but rarely incorporate what he does in my training program. 

I have eliminated any influence from either since cutting my cable back to Braodcast Basic eliminated VS and CM from my viewing range. I do now have an extra $30 to spend on pets.. I think Atka is going to get upgraded from Canidae to Evo.... VS doesn't use crates because in Europe they are not typically used. 

BTW I love reading CP's, WV's and Zims answers. Honestly.. Zim.. With your experience and eloquence writing you NEED TO BE A CERTIFIED BEHAVIORIST!!!!!!! Dogs (pets?) NEED YOU!!! 

Carry on..

PS: Dogs do not dominate humans. Dogs do not behave like wolves (they have some behaviors that wolves have but humans and dogs also share behaviors as do many species). Dog social groups are different than wolf packs. 

Upset (scared, hurt, excirted) animals learn nothing. 

My dog walks ahead of me because I trained her oo (neck injury) and she goes thru doors when I say (sometimes first and sometimes last) and she opens doors for me when I ask her to because I taught her to. 

And I too like turtles.. chocolate ones with almonds.


----------



## Boonkiemom

Cheetah said:


> Do you mean to say that her methods are ineffective? Because I know for a fact there are professional trainers on this forum and on others I visit who use positive reinforcement as a large part of their methods, and are very successful with it. I'll admit, some of the things she's done left me going "Uh... what?" such as the "flag/leave-it method for the poop-eating pugs - far too complicated when you can just leash them all and prevent access till they grow out of the habit - but most of her methods are mainstream methods that make sense.
> 
> Both my dogs have learned mainly with positive methods (including treats, clickers, life rewards, praise, etc.), including some of the methods Victoria uses (after all, most of those methods were around before she was), and both my dogs are now balanced, well-behaved dogs who haven't relied on treats for a very long time (you're supposed to phase out the treats when you clicker/treat train).


Let's just say everyone has their opinion about what constitutes "good" training. There is no ONE method that works for all dogs 100% of time. And while I'm at it since the discussion seems to have gone from Cesar to Victoria, there is a difference in what the two actually do. Victoria is a trainer and Cesar rehabilitates. He makes that very clear! Do any of you recall the saying on his show? "I rehabilitate dogs, I _train_ people".



Curbside Prophet said:


> What results? Cesar admits to his faults as much as he does his successes.


Thanks for repeating what I said. 




> Why people are cynical?, because his logic is based on an outdated, misplaced hypothesis


Or so you think. Cesar is probably the most intuitive dog handler since Barbara Woodhouse from England...whose methods were in the same vein. I admired her tremendously. And she wasn't arrogant.





> A silly question, but how can you argue results? Do you even know what a clicker does? How can the clicker be overly used if you're acquiring a behavior or emotion? How else can you acquire behavior without reinforcement? Do you even know what the definition of reinforcement is?


Stop insulting me. Gee I wonder how people handled dogs before the clicker was invented? You see, it's unneccessary. Treats and clickers often end up being crutches. As Cesar would say, being calm assertive is what works. It's all in your energy and attitude. Don't you agree?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Boonkiemom said:


> Cesar is probably the most intuitive dog handler since Barbara Woodhouse from England...whose methods were in the same vein. I admired her tremendously. And she wasn't arrogant.


What does your opinion of Cesar and Barbara have to do with outdated dominance theory?



> Stop insulting me.


So you find questions insulting? <=Sorry for being insulting, I'll stick with statements of fact so as not to insult you.



> Gee I wonder how people handled dogs before the clicker was invented?


I've often wondered how we got to the moon before rockets...not very well as it turns out; so too dog handling methods before learning theory was understood. 



> You see, it's unneccessary.


Learning theory is as necessary as gravity. Both are fundamental laws. So to say reinforcers and markers are unnecessary is to say gravity is unnecessary to stay grounded. 



> Treats and clickers often end up being crutches.


They do not. Owners, with their ignorance, end up being the crutch. A clicker is just a tool, it is not a remote control.



> As Cesar would say, being calm assertive is what works. It's all in your energy and attitude. Don't you agree?


No, it is not just my energy and attitude. Behavior can be driven by anything in the dog's environment.


----------



## Boonkiemom

Curbside Prophet said:


> What does your opinion of Cesar and Barbara have to do with outdated dominance theory?
> 
> 
> So you find questions insulting? <=Sorry for being insulting, I'll stick with statements of fact so as not to insult you.
> 
> 
> I've often wondered how we got to the moon before rockets...not very well as it turns out; so too dog handling methods before learning theory was understood.
> 
> 
> Learning theory is as necessary as gravity. Both are fundamental laws. So to say reinforcers and markers are unnecessary is to say gravity is unnecessary to stay grounded.
> 
> 
> They do not. Owners, with their ignorance, end up being the crutch. A clicker is just a tool, it is not a remote control.
> 
> 
> No, it is not just my energy and attitude. Behavior can be driven by anything in the dog's environment.


A. You're getting funnier by the post
B. I don't know what "dominance theory" is and don't care
C. Any method that gets the proper results is not "outdated"
D. You and I are just not going to agree. Period.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Boonkiemom said:


> A. You're getting funnier by the post
> B. I don't know what "dominance theory" is and don't care
> C. Any method that gets the proper results is not "outdated"
> D. You and I are just not going to agree. Period.


A. Best movie moment ever:


> *Tommy DeVito*: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little bleeped up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to bleep'n amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?


B. Then you don't care what ideology Cesar uses, that's good in a sense, but I'd stay away from dudes dawning white cloaks with pointy tops.
C. And broken clocks are right twice a day. I still wouldn't recommend telling time with broken clocks. 
D. I agree, for the fact that not everyone can employ logic.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Elana55 said:


> .
> FWIW I think anyone training dogs should first train a cat. You get a whole different persepctive. I have trained cats and horses and dogs. I got to tell you.. over all, cats are toughest and you can never ever ever correct a cat (they are always right.. LOL).


LMAO....cat training in a nutshell...

Human: Please purty please do this I will be your SLAVE.

Cat:..........hmmmm......maybe....



> BTW I love reading CP's, WV's and Zims answers. Honestly.. Zim.. With your experience and eloquence writing you NEED TO BE A CERTIFIED BEHAVIORIST!!!!!!! Dogs (pets?) NEED YOU!!!


Im already on the way to an associate degree in science...not time to narrow my field of study yet but the idea is wandering around in my skull...


----------



## Boonkiemom

Curbside Prophet said:


> A. Best movie moment ever:
> 
> B. Then you don't care what ideology Cesar uses, that's good in a sense, but I'd stay away from dudes dawning white cloaks with pointy tops.
> C. And broken clocks are right twice a day. I still wouldn't recommend telling time with broken clocks.
> D. I agree, for the fact that not everyone can employ logic.


I thought you were going to stop insulting? Just can't help yourself can you? BTW, my Sofie is well behaved (according to other people) and we have a great relationship. I am the pack leader, she's the follower and I'm proud of it. 

XOXO


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Boonkiemom said:


> I thought you were going to stop insulting? Just can't help yourself can you?


You were insulted by my questions, so I stopped asking you questions. Since you haven't responded to any my arguments, I don't see what more I can offer you in this regard. Regardless, you're welcome to point out where I've insulted you via PM. 



> BTW, my Sofie is well behaved (according to other people) and we have a great relationship. I am the pack leader, she's the follower and I'm proud of it.


I don't see where anyone questioned your relationship with your dog. 



> XOXO


Eww, cuties. Blegh!


----------



## KBLover

Boonkiemom said:


> Let's just say everyone has their opinion about what constitutes "good" training. There is no ONE method that works for all dogs 100% of time. And while I'm at it since the discussion seems to have gone from Cesar to Victoria, there is a difference in what the two actually do. Victoria is a trainer and Cesar rehabilitates. He makes that very clear! Do any of you recall the saying on his show? "I rehabilitate dogs, I _train_ people".


How many trainers don't train the owners more than the dog?

Victoria trains the handlers too - she tells them how to handle the dog...just like Cesar. The difference is like you said, Cesar handles different problems (though some shows I don't see why he'd be any better than Victoria - like with the pink Maltese one). 

Heck, I'm sure many an owner has been trained here on this forum, so I'm sure any professional trainer/behaviorist/rehabilitator/<insert title here> is going to do the same.


----------



## hulkamaniac

I will 100% agree with Cesar on a couple of things.

First of all, the dog is ultimately a dog. It's an animal and we can't treat it like a human. That's just not a good recipe.

Second of all, I think dogs do need rules, boundaries and limitations and need to have them enforced by an owner who is in charge. The dog goes where the owner wants it to go and does what the owner wants it to do and not vice versa.

I do disagree with some of his techniques, but his basic principles I don't have a lot of problems with.


----------



## sexysilver

hulkamaniac said:


> I will 100% agree with Cesar on a couple of things.
> 
> First of all, the dog is ultimately a dog. It's an animal and we can't treat it like a human. That's just not a good recipe.
> 
> Second of all, I think dogs do need rules, boundaries and limitations and need to have them enforced by an owner who is in charge. The dog goes where the owner wants it to go and does what the owner wants it to do and not vice versa.
> 
> I do disagree with some of his techniques, but his basic principles I don't have a lot of problems with.


Good post x


----------



## Elana55

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> LMAO....cat training in a nutshell...
> 
> Human: Please purty please do this I will be your SLAVE.
> 
> Cat:..........hmmmm......maybe.......


Oh.. not in MY house... LOL. I really do have cats that respoond to cues.. requests (you never command a cat). One thing above all else that cat training has taught me is that correction based training does not work on cats. It is from this knowledge that I changed over to mostly positive reinforcement and negative punishment (which is not positive punishment) in dogs. 

My OWN SHORTCOMINGS are what have corrections still in my dog training program. This is not a short coming in the Pos. Reinf. training method. Not a short coming in the dog. It is a lack of ability on MY part. As my ability improves both my dog's behavior and response to cues improves and I use fewer and fewer positive punishment based corrections to get those responses. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Im already on the way to an associate degree in science...not time to narrow my field of study yet but the idea is wandering around in my skull...


You will. You need to. Fact is, I hope you follow this thru. I hope some day I wil be attending one of YOUR seminars on dog behavior. I mean that sincerely. Atka would like me to go to one now... LOL



hulkamaniac said:


> I will 100% agree with Cesar on a couple of things.
> 
> First of all, the dog is ultimately a dog. It's an animal and we can't treat it like a human. That's just not a good recipe.
> 
> Second of all, I think dogs do need rules, boundaries and limitations and need to have them enforced by an owner who is in charge. The dog goes where the owner wants it to go and does what the owner wants it to do and not vice versa.
> 
> I do disagree with some of his techniques, but his basic principles I don't have a lot of problems with.


Cesar is not _entirely_ wrong. 

The first thing you state above amounts to not anthropomorphising you dog. The successful pos. re. trainers I know preach against anthropmomorphising your dog. This is basic to training dogs, and CM shares this view with good dog trainers. VS also preaches agains Anthropomorphising your dog as do the behaviorists I have read or listened to.

The second thing you state is also correct and is a second basic premise in dog training (animal training). All of this can be acheived by a positive Reinforcement program. Absolutely. Seen it. Used it. Dogs trained by Pos. Reinf. are not allowed to willy nilly behave any old way they want. They are given clear boundaries and these dogs do what we ask. Inapporpriate behavior is NOT acceptable in a pos. Reinf. program. 

Just because a pos. Reinf. trainer uses negative punishment as opposed to positive punishment to let the dog know that a behavior is inappropriate does not mean the dog goes scot free when they misbehave. Boundaries are necessary as are consequences. The fact that the consequences do not include physical corrections or punishments in the form of collar jerks, raised voice, intimidation or other physical interventions does not make the consequences less effective or result in a dog that is less trained. 

I have never read a single post by CP that is insulting. I have read many many posts by CP that have challenged me to think, instructed me in learning theory and fact and instructed me in a better way to get a behavioral result in my dog. I have never found CP's educated questions or discussion to be insulting.


----------



## BoxMeIn21

Elana55 said:


> I have never read a single post by CP that is insulting. I have read many many posts by CP that have challenged me to think, instructed me in learning theory and fact and instructed me in a better way to get a behavioral result in my dog. I have never found CP's educated questions or discussion to be insulting.


I agree with this...CP definitely challenges you to think, darn him!


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Let me say one more thing about Victoria Stilwell. I've heard her go off on a guy for using "cruel" methods like leash pops on a dog. She really cut him a new one. However, just this morning I was flipping channels and saw her teaching a rowdy Dalmatian to not steal food. She was doing this by remotely triggering an air horn every time the dog went near the table baited with food. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. A fraking air horn!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Elana55 said:


> Oh.. not in MY house... LOL. I really do have cats that respoond to cues.. requests (you never command a cat). One thing above all else that cat training has taught me is that correction based training does not work on cats. It is from this knowledge that I changed over to mostly positive reinforcement and negative punishment (which is not positive punishment) in dogs.


my cat responds to cues too...she just happens to be the most irritable officious cat I ve ever trained...She knows the cues. She responds....but has a huge attitude about it like "Ugh...fine...i'll do it"....like I just asked her to loan me a couple thousand dollars or something...Everytime I give her a cue she does it but she does it with ears laid flat back and making little "rowlrowl" noises..





> You will. You need to. Fact is, I hope you follow this thru. I hope some day I wil be attending one of YOUR seminars on dog behavior. I mean that sincerely. Atka would like me to go to one now... LOL


I got two years before I transfer from communty college to a four year. and thenfour tosix more years ofschool afterwards...it will be a while..


----------



## wvasko

BoxMeIn21 said:


> I agree with this...CP definitely challenges you to think, darn him!


Well he's not going to get me thinking at all who does CP think he is. I reserve the right to be a non-thinker. It hurts my head when I think.


----------



## Elana55

Zim:

Atka Believes in You. 

She has approved of my changes in handling that I have gleaned from your posts of difficult dog handling. She is NOT difficult, but if I apply the same stuff to her, she just is better. I thank you for your experience and insight.

BTW some schools will give credit for life experience and you have a good bit in various places (volunteer work can count).


----------



## Boonkiemom

hulkamaniac said:


> I will 100% agree with Cesar on a couple of things.
> 
> First of all, the dog is ultimately a dog. It's an animal and we can't treat it like a human. That's just not a good recipe.
> 
> Second of all, I think dogs do need rules, boundaries and limitations and need to have them enforced by an owner who is in charge. The dog goes where the owner wants it to go and does what the owner wants it to do and not vice versa.
> 
> I do disagree with some of his techniques, but his basic principles I don't have a lot of problems with.


Mostly agreed. I think his techniques work therefore I don't have problem with them. 



Elana55 said:


> I have never read a single post by CP that is insulting. I have read many many posts by CP that have challenged me to think, instructed me in learning theory and fact and instructed me in a better way to get a behavioral result in my dog. I have never found CP's educated questions or discussion to be insulting.


Good to know CP has some fans here. Personally, I don't like being talked down to. Other's may not mind.


----------



## Elana55

CM premise on non anthropomorphising and creating boundaries etc. is a basic premise. 

His physical techniques, which are mostly positive punishment (which, BTW is anything BUT positive) are highly questionable. They work for _him_. To paraphrase his disclaimer.. "don't try this at home...." 



Boonkiemom said:


> Good to know CP has some fans here. Personally, I don't like being talked down to. Other's may not mind.


HUH????? 
This is an internet forum.. one can interpret things from writing that are not meant etc. CP does not talk down.. if anything he challenges people to reach beyond the status quo.. to look beyond.. to think outside the box of their own experience and knowledge... . 

I think it is a real stretch to interpret anything on a forum as being "talked down to..." (sort of like those folks who get "hurt" from stuff on a forum which I think borders on.. well never mind... ) 

*sigh*


----------



## cshellenberger

Binkalette said:


> Ugh.. I hate Victoria.. she's so mean to the owners. And IMO she has a very weak approach when dealing with some of the dogs.


 
She's NOT mena to the owners, she gives them a good healthy dose of the reality of what WILL happen if htey fail to get the dog trained. Her techniques with the dogs are VERY effective as well, I have used many of them for years and htey work by building leadership and TRUST. 

After all, which boss are you going to work harder for, one that expects you to know that ins and outs automatically, writes you up and diciplines you for making mistakes and doesn't give recognition to the good, or one that SHOWS you HOW to the job right so you don't make as many mistakes and rewards you for doing a job correctly and well?



Boonkiemom said:


> Good to know CP has some fans here. Personally, I don't like being talked down to. Other's may not mind.


He hasn't talked down to you, he's explained things. He's done NOTHING to insult you, you may not agree with him, but that doesn't make what he says insulting.


----------



## animalsafe

HMmm interesting perspective and concept. 
Would it be correct then to say that respect can be gained exclusively by being aversive? 

or how accurate would this perspective/statement be?

Respect can be gained by a combination of the use of aversives and non-aversives depending on the situation.

Does /can one one earn both trust and respect by always being non aversive across all situations?

In terms of conditioning dog behavior a question that I have is although one can gain a dogs trust by the use of treats,praise,rewards does this always equate to gaining the dogs complete RESPECT?



cheers


----------



## Boonkiemom

cshellenberger said:


> He hasn't talked down to you, he's explained things. He's done NOTHING to insult you, you may not agree with him, but that doesn't make what he says insulting.



I think I'm the best judge of that. I would never deign to decide for another person whether they felt insulted or not. It's not for me to say.


----------



## RonE

Boonkiemom said:


> I think I'm the best judge of that. I would never deign to decide for another person whether they felt insulted or not. It's not for me to say.


I agree.

You can choose to be insulted, offended, indignant . . .

For myself, I choose to take from this forum, and the Internet in general, what I can use and leave the rest alone.

There is lots of news in the world that is upsetting. I come here to unwind and talk about dogs. If I read something here that upsets me, I can ignore it.

Unless, of course, it violates the forum rules. Then I have to deal with it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> Would it be correct then to say that respect can be gained exclusively by being aversive?


What qualifies respect? 



> or how accurate would this perspective/statement be?


Likely not very accurate to everyone because respect is relative to the one defining it.



> Respect can be gained by a combination of the use of aversives and non-aversives depending on the situation.


How would you know respect is being gained/lost?



> Does /can one one earn both trust and respect by always being non aversive across all situations?


What dog are we talking about, and who's handling this dog? 



> In terms of conditioning dog behavior a question that I have is although one can gain a dogs trust by the use of treats,praise,rewards does this always equate to gaining the dogs complete RESPECT?


Treats/praise/rewards = reinforcers. By definition, you gain behavior using reinforcers. If respect is a behavior, what does it look like?


----------



## animalsafe

Those points are also something important to be considered in my question and curiousty..
thanks....

Really good stuf there!!


----------



## Elana55

CP that answer made me think a bit. My Dad used to say to us kids he wanted our respect. Well, it turned out that "respect" at age 6 felt a lot like "fear." I certainly do not want my dog to fear me. Ever. I thik physical corrections do introduce discomfort and some level of fear on the dog.. from worry (am I going to get my neck pulled again?) to fear (am I going to get screamed at and leaned over again?). 

I never worried if my dog respected me.. heck.. I just wanted good behavior and I got that a variety of ways. Today those ways a different than they were 10 years ago much to the dog's benefit. 

So, taking this a step further.. if respect has any level of fear in it, do I want that in my dog (for me the answer is no)? What is respect? (I suspect there is no such thing among dogs.. and it is anthropomorphising.. but heck.. it was brought up...).


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Elana55 said:


> What is respect? (I suspect there is no such thing among dogs.. and it is anthropomorphising.. but heck.. it was brought up...).


I think we had similar fathers. It seems almost necessary to assign some emotion onto our dogs in order to define what respect is, to the dog, and for our understanding. I too don't know of any instance where fear and respect are allies. It doesn't even seem possible or I just can't wrap my brain around such a concept. 

Nevertheless, Daniel Dennett wrote a book back in the late 1980's called "The Intentional Stance". In it, he talks about the ability to know something, and then to know someone else knows it too; and then that person knows you know that you know they know it (say that 5 times fast). 

There are levels of this intentional understanding and that is a component of "intelligence". I'm reminded of this book because it is often correlated that a disrespectful dog is a stupid dog...so the alternative must be true, right? Dogs cannot get past the second level. What it would take to understand what "being in charge" means and how to accomplish that would take a high level of intentional understanding. Dogs have never demonstrated they could do this in an experimental setting.

So really, I ask all these questions because it's interesting/entertaining to read the responses.


----------



## animalsafe

The complication in answering all of these types of questions, curiosities, and concerns for me is in when we/one might/or might not choose to use human behavioral concepts/analogies. 
If dogs ( or any other creature with a central nervous system)learn and react similarly to stimuli than what would make how they (other creatures) feel any different. The question for me is not about the human simply drawing lines in the sand on how a dog (or human) might best be trained or conditioned but more about what is most realistic in any given situation when dealing with nature be it dog or human…

Jut how do we know what a dog is thinking and if we come to some particular conclusion is insuring happiness always possible or the best solution in every case when solving all of the many issues that are possible when considering human and animal nature?

I cannot honestly say that I do think so from my own experiences in life. I think aversives have there place in nature. Maybe the only absolute in the debate is how to better use aversives and the when can always use some argument.

cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> Jut how do we know what a dog is thinking and if we come to some particular conclusion is insuring happiness always possible or the best solution in every case when solving all of the many issues that are possible when considering human and animal nature?
> 
> I cannot honestly say that I do think so from my own experiences in life. I think aversives have there place in nature. Maybe the only absolute in the debate is how to better use aversives and the when can always use some argument.


Your last point I think sums it up accurately. And I think people would better understand CM's criticism if they understood the protocol by which his critics use.

I ripped this from an article in the recent issue of _Chronicle of the Dog, _and IMO it logically illustrates how we should approach problematic dog behavior. You won't get this from CM's show, in fact, it's likely you'll identify the opposite. 








What many of CM's proponents fail to acknowledge is that the further you go down this hierarchy, the more necessary it is to prove your method's effectiveness, and the more aware you must be to classical conditioning fallout.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

A triangle. I guess that settles it.


----------



## Mac'N'Roe

> I think Stilwell is a great trainer.
> 
> And deals with the dogs without "tapping" them with her fingers


Wow, I sometimes tap mac on the shoulder (once) in order to get his attention when he's fixated on his flirt pole 'bite surface' (as zim would call it ). I didn't realize this was such a threatening thing...

I know, random. I've been staying away from this thread, but just couldn't resist reading it tonight. It's taken me a long time, and I'm not even to #200


----------



## Pepper

It's not that it's threatening, it's just, there are plenty of other ways to show a dog what needs to be done other then tapping them with your foot or hand.

Obviously he has to do it a lot, so it's not giving messages clearly.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

Pepper said:


> It's not that it's threatening, it's just, there are plenty of other ways to show a dog what needs to be done other then tapping them with your foot or hand.


Like air horns!


----------



## Pepper

umm, sure?

If your referencing to fixing counter surfing by stilwell, I think that's an ingenious idea for dogs who are used to counter surfing.


----------



## KBLover

Curbside Prophet said:


> Your last point I think sums it up accurately. And I think people would better understand CM's criticism if they understood the protocol by which his critics use.
> 
> I ripped this from an article in the recent issue of _Chronicle of the Dog, _and IMO it logically illustrates how we should approach problematic dog behavior. You won't get this from CM's show, in fact, it's likely you'll identify the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What many of CM's proponents fail to acknowledge is that the further you go down this hierarchy, the more necessary it is to prove your method's effectiveness, and the more aware you must be to classical conditioning fallout.



Okay, I've heard of Positive and Negative Reinforcement.

What the heck is Differential Reinforcement? Why is it above Negative Reinforcement/Negative Punishment/Extinction (which we know happens - it's like basic behaviorism that an action not reinforced will eventually die)?

Not to mention isn't Positive Reinforcement and Negative Punishment like two sides of the same coin? So why are they separated?

What are antecedent arrangements? Is that a fancy phrase for commands?


----------



## Mac'N'Roe

Pepper said:


> It's not that it's threatening, it's just, there are plenty of other ways to show a dog what needs to be done other then tapping them with your foot or hand.
> 
> Obviously he has to do it a lot, so it's not giving messages clearly.


I don't "tap" Mac on the shoulder to show him what's to be done, I literally 'tap' him on the shoulder with one finger..like..tap tap...in order to get his attention IF he doesn't immediately respond to my command to DROP IT. A little off topic, but I in no way find this aversive.


----------



## Elana55

This came from a Parrot Handling site.

*Antecedent Arrangement:*

Success in our efforts to modify behaviour starts with the challenge of identifying the preceding stimulus that sets up the behaviour of interest to occur. This stimulus is referred to as the ‘antecedent’. 

When analysing behaviour, we use a simple three-stage summary in the form of A-B-C. The ‘A’ represents the antecedent, the ‘B’ represents the behaviour and the ‘C’ represents the consequencethat follows the behaviour.

We often fail to realise just how easily we can modify behaviour, simply by removing the stimulus that sets the conditions for the behaviour to occur. By removing, modifying or introducing an alternative stimulus, we are effectively ‘rearranging the environment’ so that different behaviours can be achieved. A simple analogy is waiting at a set of traffic lights. The light changes from red to green and off you go! Your behaviour changes as a result of a change in the stimulus in your environment. 

*Differential Reinforcement of Alternate Behaviors*
(Paraphrased from a portion of this site: http://education.calumet.purdue.edu/vockell/edpsybook/edpsy10/edpsy10intro.htm )

As the name suggests, with differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) we eliminate a designated behavior by strengthening other behaviors that are incompatible with it. Logically, if one behavior increases as a result of reinforcement, then behaviors which are incompatible with the increased behavior must decrease.

There are essentially two ways to reduce or eliminate behaviors: (1) attack the behavior directly, or *(2) attack the behavior indirectly by strengthening its opposite* (this is differntial reinforcement).

The undesirable behavior is eliminated by encouraging its opposite. However, while the undesirable behavior is attacked only indirectly, the outstanding advantage of Type I Reinforcement is that it directly teaches what to do, instead of merely teaching what not to do. 

On the other hand, *Positive punishment has the advantage of directly attacking the undesirable behavior, but the disadvantages of (1) not directly teaching what to do and (2) producing negative side effects.*

In looking at CP's Triangle, it seems that Cesar has it upside down.. starting at the bottom... I will let CP weigh in on THAT...


----------



## Curbside Prophet

KBLover said:


> What the heck is Differential Reinforcement?


It's the next step in acquiring the desired behavior, only above average responses are rewarded, better responses get better rewards, and the best responses get the best rewards (jackpots). 



> Why is it above Negative Reinforcement/Negative Punishment/Extinction (which we know happens - it's like basic behaviorism that an action not reinforced will eventually die)?


Its above these for the simple reason that it is not aversive and a necessary process in acquiring the desired behavior. Negative reinforcement requires aversion, negative punishment and extinction diminishes behavior, they do not acquire behavior. 



> Not to mention isn't Positive Reinforcement and Negative Punishment like two sides of the same coin? So why are they separated?


Yes, learning is binomial. However, the hierarch is separated by humaneness and effectiveness. Punishment, by definition, does not acquire behavior, so it can not be as effective as reinforcement in acquiring desired behavior.



> What are antecedent arrangements? Is that a fancy phrase for commands?


A cue is an antecedent arrangement, yes. So too adding distance from a feared novelty, or food rewards given to a fearful dog in the presence of the feared item. Anything in the dog's environment is an antecedent for behavior. Arranging those things in the dog's environment changes the antecedent, therefore, the behavior.


----------



## KBLover

Thanks for explaining it, CP and Elana. As always, I learn something from your posts (both of you). I know I didn't know a ton about dog training (i.e. nothing), but I really realize it when I see hardcore behaviorist/learning concepts.

I would agree, Elana, that CM goes the other way. I would also say the CM method assumes the dog knows what to do in the context, but just refuses to do so, so it must be shown that she has no choice BUT to comply...or else. This is probably why his triangle would be reversed. It seems he'd rather have a dog do nothing until told - basically the exact opposite of shaping.

I use the Antecedent Arrangement more than I thought (well considering I didn't even know what it was that is...). I've done the food/reward for willingly approaching an unknown object - and he suddenly gets all into sniffing it LOL. Just this morning, a soccer ball was just lying around and he was like "what's that?" So we approached it and he reached out to sniff and touch it. I praised him and suddenly he was harassing the poor ball 

Btw, is this the whole premise of shaping? Simply having the dog learn what to do when presented with a stimulus? (Watch Zim come here, quote this, and say FREAKING DUH!)

Now if I can figure out why he's "digging" on his foam bed again (doing it as I type this)...oh wait, that's the fixed action pattern! Nevermind, different topic 

Amazing how much I like something after I know what it is  So now I really like the Differential Reinforcement. I think that will be my #1 tactic from now on - both CPs and Elana's explanation of it.



Elana55 said:


> *Differential Reinforcement of Alternate Behaviors*
> As the name suggests, with differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) we eliminate a designated behavior by strengthening other behaviors that are incompatible with it. Logically, if one behavior increases as a result of reinforcement, then behaviors which are incompatible with the increased behavior must decrease.
> 
> There are essentially two ways to reduce or eliminate behaviors: (1) attack the behavior directly, or *(2) attack the behavior indirectly by strengthening its opposite* (this is differntial reinforcement).


Would an example of this be:

If Wally jumps up on me in greeting - I ignore him, but then he hits, and I lavish praise on him? Sitting is incompatible with jumping, so by rewarding the sitting - he's going try less and less jumping. 

Am I understanding this right?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I don't need to "Duh" you....

You "Duhhed" yourself...


seriously though I think you got theidea...



> As the name suggests, with differential reinforcement of incompatible behavior (DRI) we eliminate a designated behavior by strengthening other behaviors that are incompatible with it. Logically, if one behavior increases as a result of reinforcement, then behaviors which are incompatible with the increased behavior must decrease.[\QUOTE]
> 
> this is what I use to address aggression issues combined with shaping...


----------



## Elana55

Yes KB I think you got it. 

Here is the thing in all this.. I went out and retrieved this stuff from a couple of sources, one an academic learning pyschology source (human). 

CP said the same stuff.. but put it in context with your dog. My post you get to figure out the way it links to dogs. CP did a better job of showing practical application.. my post you get to figger it out so I think it is too academic and not practical enough. 

And ZIM is doing it.. and we are all going to attend her seminars on dog aggression when she has her certs and is on National tour....


----------



## wvasko

Duhhhhhh, I've been lost since reply # 167, I do need a Zim seminar, but I hope she will consider who she is talking to and dumb it down quite a bit. My eyes are glazed and I have a large headache.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

for unwanted behavior

teach the dog a desirable behavior that you want them to do in the same circumstance that they do the unwanted behavior and the unwanted behavior just sort of fades away because the new behavior gets the dog rewards and the old behavior doesn't. Dogs are opportunistic. they will do what gets them good stuff. 


Example...

unwanted behavior: Dog jumps on people coming in the house

so you start teaching "down at the door when it opens" and have a bucket of treats right by the door. if dog jumps..dog is ignored. if dog downs they get a treat and attention....the dog will choose the treats and attention over being ignored...


----------



## photo_grapher_gurl

What I love about watching Dog Whisperer is I get an understanding of dog psychology. I've learned a lot, and I love that what he stresses is to be a pack leader, and that's something I'm learning to do. It also taught me what's dominant behavior, to praise for submissive behavior (especially CALM submissive), how to get my dog to respect me on the leash (it's all about energy and relaxation... and I catch myself being tense a lot and I just have to change my mindset and my body language). 

I've learned a lot from watching his shows, but he does stress not to try anything at home, and for a lot of his clients, they need PROFESSIONALS. Especially when dealing with aggressive dogs.


----------



## Tofu_pup

Zim, Elana, and CP knock my socks off. This thread has officially become something worth reading. Thanks for the great info guys!


----------



## animalsafe

I am taking a new lease of life and trying to keep things simple..

What happens when a dog does something different/responds differently when you do something that the book says to do? Are there really such absolutes in condtioning behavior(as in 1)? I am not sure everything is as simple as "if you do this...the dog WILL do that"

If this is true why all of the back and forth????

just curious.

cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> Are there really such absolutes in condtioning behavior(as in 1)? I am not sure everything is as simple as "if you do this...the dog WILL do that"
> 
> If this is true why all of the back and forth????


I would say the absolutes are only in dominance theory. There are no such absolutes in learning theory (only absolute definitions); so yes, part of the back and forth is in denying humane and effective approaches for an unproven concept.


----------



## spookydee

I do agree with alot of his methods, maybe not all of them but you have to take it with a case to case basis. alot of the dogs he is helping may end up in shelters or would normaly be put asleep for being unruly and he has saved many dogs from certain death, and that has to be considered. although that the pack leader always has to be up front, i disagree. I walk my dogs alongside the river all the time and even though they are off their leashes and running all around me, they still see me as a leader and follow me whereever I go, be it that I am behind them or in front.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I perform the EXACT same function CM does...I take dogs who would otherwise be put down and help them. I take the fosters that no one else will...AND...

I

DO

IT 

WITH

ZERO PHYSICAL CORRECTIONS. 

his methods are unnecessary.


----------



## Trainer

It can be done and is done every day by knowledgable trainers.


----------



## BoxMeIn21

Trainer said:


> It can be done and is done every day by knowledgable trainers.


At what expense?


Now, who stole my popcorn?


----------



## KBLover

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Now, who stole my popcorn?


I did. 

Sorry.


----------



## Trainer

BoxMeIn21 said:


> At what expense?


Did you misread something in my post? What expense are you talking about?


----------



## Pai

I think the major flaw in his methods, is the fact that wild dog hierarchy is nowhere near as strict and enforced as wolf pack ranking is. Dogs are much less intense about pack dynamics. Milan should study wild dog behavior instead of acting like wild dog packs are _exactly_ like wolf packs, because they're very clearly not. 

Most dog misbehavior is not so much as dogs challenging people's dominance, as it is that their owner's have failed to properly lead their dog and educate them, so the dog (who has generally been cut off from normal canine social groups and not given proper instruction from their humans) makes up their own rules which are, of course, completely inappropriate for functioning in human (or dog) society. We humans end up calling it 'dominance' or 'fear aggression' or whatever, when it all boils down to the dog NOT KNOWING WHAT HIS PURPOSE OR PLACE IS in his family. And not knowing that makes dogs unstable and unhappy. I think very few dogs really need his brand of physical and harsh training rather than simply properly communicated instruction from their owners. 

Also, I do fear that people who don't fully understand the nuances of his style trying to copy they see on TV on a dog that is completely inappropriate for that kind of treatment will just make that dog worse. But when they fail they will just assume the dog is 'unfixably' dominant and dangerous, and then put them down.


----------



## GusDad

I agree with Pai. CM's methods are for the most part effective, but not always the best or only way to correct a dog's behavior. I agree with his principle that the owner needs to be in charge, non-emotional and appropriate when correcting bad behavior (like a mother dog to her pups), and that calm assertive behavior is good on the part of the owner. 

I think too many people assume that their dog understands "the rules" or social structure of the household. Most people with problem dogs don't do a good job of teaching their dog the rules, using methods that are (at best) ineffective and (at worst) abusive. I'm a positive-reinforcement fan, and am clicker training my pup. But I will not hesitate to quickly usher him into his crate for a timeout if he gets to mouthy with one of my small kids. My dog now understands that he is not allowed to put teeth on human flesh ever.


----------



## BoxMeIn21

KBLover said:


> I did.
> 
> Sorry.


Don't make me alpha roll you.


----------



## rogueslg71

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I perform the EXACT same function CM does...I take dogs who would otherwise be put down and help them. I take the fosters that no one else will...AND...
> 
> I
> 
> DO
> 
> IT
> 
> WITH
> 
> ZERO PHYSICAL CORRECTIONS.
> 
> his methods are unnecessary.


what would you do in some of hte cases where he is dealing with a dog that WILL tackle and bite you if you tried to get near it? how long would your methods take to get a consistent result? 

someone who uses cesar's methods could just as well say your methods are unnecessary. everyone has their own means to an end - cesar gets results and probably can way faster than you.


----------



## KBLover

Pai said:


> We humans end up calling it 'dominance' or 'fear aggression' or whatever, when it all boils down to the dog NOT KNOWING WHAT HIS PURPOSE OR PLACE IS in his family. And not knowing that makes dogs unstable and unhappy.


Wouldn't fear aggression be aggression to a stimulus because it makes him uber afraid and he's trying to drive it back or act in a misplaced feeling of self-defense, especially in a dog that has a fearful personality?

I ask because Wally knows his place in the family, but can get triggered if enough certain conditions pile up on top of each other, especially back when he first came here. Now he's FAR better, but the question remains.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

rogueslg71 said:


> what would you do in some of hte cases where he is dealing with a dog that WILL tackle and bite you if you tried to get near it? how long would your methods take to get a consistent result?


a. Dogs attack because they get pushed past their tolerance threshold, which is basically the point where they cannot stand being subjected to the trigger stimulus anymore. 

b. Aggressive behavior reinforces itself.

the approach is to quietly observe the dog, identify the trigger...then..

keeping the dog just BELOW threshold...at the point where they are about to attack but havent yet, expose them to the trigger in incrementally increasing doses..effectively increasing their threshold of tolerance. 



> someone who uses cesar's methods could just as well say your methods are unnecessary. everyone has their own means to an end - cesar gets results and probably can way faster than you.


My methods put no one at risk and create minimum to zero stress on the dog. Cesar's methods are unnessecary because he creates unnessecary risk. I VERY RARELY get bitten working with dogs with far worse problems than you will ever see on Cesar's show...fear aggressive victims of violent abuse and ineptly protection trained guardian breeds are two examples of the kinds of problems I have worked with. 

Times vary with individual dogs...and I will tell you this...those aggro dogs Cesar deals with...you don't see everything he does because there is ZERO WAY THOSE DOGS ARE REHABBED IN THE SPACE OF A TV SHOW. period.


----------



## Westhighlander

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Times vary with individual dogs...and I will tell you this...those aggro dogs Cesar deals with...you don't see everything he does because there is ZERO WAY THOSE DOGS ARE REHABBED IN THE SPACE OF A TV SHOW. period.


Can you verify this? Or is the assumption that he just can't do it?


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> Can you verify this? Or is the assumption that he just can't do it?


can we verify that he can do it?


----------



## Westhighlander

pugmom said:


> can we verify that he can do it?


He did have an anniversary show where many of the dogs he helped on previous shows came back with their owners. So there's some proof there that he helped them. I don't think we can automatically say he can't do it just because we think it wouldn't be possible.


----------



## Marsh Muppet

pugmom said:


> can we verify that he can do it?


From what I've seen of his show, he doesn't claim to do it. He takes some dogs back to his facility and works with them. IIRC, one dog was there for a couple of months. He's also made follow up visits with owners, and shown cases where they didn't keep up with the conditioning and dogs fell into their old habits.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

every episode I have ever watched says pretty plainly that Cesar spends time with the dog before and sometimes after filming. 

there was something else too that verifies it...I will see if I can find the link again.


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> He did have an anniversary show where many of the dogs he helped on previous shows came back with their owners. So there's some proof there that he helped them. I don't think we can automatically say he can't do it just because we think it wouldn't be possible.


I am not denying that he has help many dogs and people



Marsh Muppet said:


> From what I've seen of his show, he doesn't claim to do it. He takes some dogs back to his facility and works with them. IIRC, one dog was there for a couple of months. He's also made follow up visits with owners, and shown cases where they didn't keep up with the conditioning and dogs fell into their old habits.


also I never said that he claims to do it...just posing a question regarding Wests post


----------



## animalsafe

I HAVE A SOLUTION!!! or maybe not..

Instead of all the energy, time , and resources that go into debating, arguing, bickering, political and personal agendas, speculation, assumptions, name calling, theory, my science verses your science, my reality verses your reality,my needs,wants,desires,standards,morals ethics verses yours, criticizing, character references, absolutes, hypotheses, this is better than that, this works and that doesn’t, this will happen if you do that, dogs don't do this and dogs do that, that will not work and this will, this is more humane verses that,this is less aversive than that,I never do this or won't do that, dogs should never experinece this or do not need to experience that, this is easy and that is hard, my way is better than your way,this is better for the dog than that, Monkies,birds,dolphins, and wolfs do this and don't do that, my dog is happier than your dog, my dog loves me more than your dog , ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect..

Why do we not "simply" do something like what they do on the food network..

LETS HAVE A SERIES OF THROWDOWNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A million dollars to the winner as this would seriously save hundreds of millions considering all the stuff that results in all of the dfferences in opinions.

Each trainer/behaviorist is given 20 dogs from a pool of various breeds/mixes with a host of behavioral issues and lets set up a list of judging standards to see who can resolve these issues “beteer or best” whatever that may be…

Then the world would be a “better” place and we could spend more energy on other more important issues like over population and educating people to be a “ more responsible and better owner” owner.


Somehow I have a feeling that many would be against doing this for a host of reasons.. But I believe it would make for a "better' scientific study and provide a better picture in relation ship to who is wrong and who is right would it not?. oooops

seriously I do not see this happening anytime soon.

cheers


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

My meaning was that he can't fully rehab a dog in the space of one television show..even with his style of method there has got to be prelim observation and interaction. He wouldn't be able to make decisions otherwise...And to believe he can just walk in, throw a dog on the floor, administer a few collar corrections and BOOM! problem solved is frankly just not logical or realistic.

I am hot on the trail of that link...be back...


----------



## animalsafe

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> .And to believe he can just walk in, throw a dog on the floor, administer a few collar corrections and BOOM! problem solved is frankly just not logical or realistic.
> 
> I am hot on the trail of that link...be back...



I think it all depends on what "resolved" is.

What one person finds in a resolution another does not..


----------



## rogueslg71

obviously ive seen the show too and know that the dogs arent 'better' in the time span of a tv show. but you cant say that his way doesnt get results too - because they do. 


and he does emphasize to his clients to stop the dog when they get even show a slight interest in the 'trigger' and not to wait until level 10. 

using his methods will probably get results faster than you because he ALSO 'prevents' the dog from escalating by noticing whats triggering the dog and stopping the dog as soon as interest is shown. and IF the dog reacts violently still, cesar shows the dog that acting violently gets them no where (whereas with the owners, it DOES get them somewhere because the owners give in). i'm not saying its a good idea to get your arm bit off to show a dog that it still wont get him the treat/whatever it wants. but im saying that cesar is a specialist and CAN handle doing this and it DOES work - and it works FAST. cesar can get much faster results doing this AND preventing the dog from going to 'the red zone' instead of only doing what you are.


----------



## cshellenberger

Westhighlander said:


> He did have an anniversary show where many of the dogs he helped on previous shows came back with their owners. So there's some proof there that he helped them. I don't think we can automatically say he can't do it just because we think it wouldn't be possible.


 
What they DON'T show you are the failures, I have a friend in AC in the LA area, she rescues/rehabbs Neos and Cane's also. She has had to P/U and euthinize several dogs htat he's worked with that have simply SNAPPED and severly injured people/other dogs. The owners continued to use Cesars methods and ended up with a dead dog and at times charges of keeping a vicious animal or a lawsuit. 

She has also rehabbed a couple of dogs that Cesar worked with that developed severe aggression AFTER he worked with them for minor things.


----------



## rogueslg71

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> keeping the dog just BELOW threshold...at the point where they are about to attack but havent yet, expose them to the trigger in incrementally increasing doses..effectively increasing their threshold of tolerance.


and what if the dog see a small trigger (say the first step of your process) and reacts extremely violently? how would you calm that dog down back to a calm state to start over? heres a dog that will bite you and anyone around if you are in the way of it and the trigger. you cant always control the trigger either for example it might be kids outside in the street or something.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> Somehow I have a feeling that many would be against doing this for a host of reasons.. But I believe it would make for a "better' scientific study and provide a better picture in relation ship to who is wrong and who is right would it not?. oooops


This has already been done by Skinner, Pavlov and their followers. I only know of 3 attempts to confirm dominance 'theory' (it's really a hypothesis), and all 3 proved otherwise. So I'm not sure dominance theorists would be interested in doing this...they have nothing to gain.



rogueslg71 said:


> using his methods will probably get results faster than you because he ALSO 'prevents' the dog from escalating by noticing whats triggering the dog and stopping the dog as soon as interest is shown...cesar can get much faster results doing this AND preventing the dog from going to 'the red zone' instead of only doing what you are.


Speed is nice, but is it a necessary criteria if the end result is a companionable dog? Many of Cesar's proponents will admit Cesar is a master of his craft. What they are saying is he has good mechanical skill. Those who choose a more humane and effective path can too have good mechanical skill. So wouldn't the humane and effective approach be to improve upon our mechanical skill instead of reaching for less humane and less effective methods? You do understand that less humane and less effective methods can result in classical conditioning fallout, don't you? Are these worth risking for the sake of speed alone? Not IMO.


----------



## Westhighlander

cshellenberger said:


> What they DON'T show you are the failures, I have a friend in AC in the LA area, she rescues/rehabbs Neos and Cane's also. She has had to P/U and euthinize several dogs htat he's worked with that have simply SNAPPED and severly injured people/other dogs. The owners continued to use Cesars methods and ended up with a dead dog and at times charges of keeping a vicious animal or a lawsuit.
> 
> She has also rehabbed a couple of dogs that Cesar worked with that developed severe aggression AFTER he worked with them for minor things.


Point taken.


----------



## Trainer

You do realize that this is just a TV show with actors, scripts, props, etc. made for entertainment purposes, don't you? It's not a "how to" show.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

rogueslg71 said:


> and what if the dog see a small trigger (say the first step of your process) and reacts extremely violently?


If the dog reacts violently to a small trigger, you, as the dog's guardian must understand that this is the worst possible training scenario. Would a prudent trainer spend his time training the dog in the worst possible training scenario? Not IMO.



> how would you calm that dog down back to a calm state to start over?


Add distance until the dog is below threshold. And work no closer than the dog is willing to learn. Pia Silvani uses this great analogy...a boiling pot of water. You, as your dog's guardian is to keep the lid on the pot (your dog), and keep it from boiling over. What happens if you peak too many times under the lid? You're likely to be scalded. Same with problematic dogs. The more you force them to work in triggerous(made-up word) conditions, the more likely you are to be scalded. 



> you cant always control the trigger either for example it might be kids outside in the street or something.


If you can't control the trigger, as your dog's guardian, you are responsible to manage the dog so he won't harm anyone. If that means wearing a muzzle, that means wearing a muzzle. No excuses.


----------



## rogueslg71

Curbside Prophet said:


> *Speed is nice, but is it a necessary criteria if the end result is a companionable dog? Many of Cesar's proponents will admit Cesar is a master of his craft. What they are saying is he has good mechanical skill. Those who choose a more humane and effective path can too have good mechanical skill. So wouldn't the humane and effective approach be to improve upon our mechanical skill instead of reaching for less humane and less effective methods? You do understand that less humane and less effective methods can result in classical conditioning fallout, don't you? Are these worth risking for the sake of speed alone? *Not IMO.


 
*i bolded the parts of your posts and mine here that are opinion and left the facts in regular print (if i did this to the entire thread, it would look the same as our posts). cesar is not advocating for you to beat the dog into submission. i just dont get why people who dont like him have to act like hes physically beating these dogs up to make them 'be good'. i dont believe a collar pop is hurting the dog or getting the dog on its back is hurting it either. and how could you say his methods are less effective just because, like ANY person, he has had failures? no matter what method you choose, it could, or could not work with the dog you're trying to train. there are risks of failures and the dog getting worse with any training because there is no one method that works for every dog. like i said each person has a means to an end and since cesar's method is not beating up the dog (which is what some of you are making it seem like) i dont think hes doing anything wrong or mean to the dogs. *JMO.


----------



## KBLover

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Don't make me alpha roll you.


Nooooo! 

I'm sorry. See? I flat on the ground, and I'm evening leaving a pee spot for you so you can REALLY see I'm sorry!


----------



## rogueslg71

Curbside Prophet said:


> If the dog reacts violently to a small trigger, you, as the dog's guardian must understand that this is the worst possible training scenario. Would a prudent trainer spend his time training the dog in the worst possible training scenario? Not IMO.
> 
> 
> Add distance until the dog is below threshold. And work no closer than the dog is willing to learn. Pia Silvani uses this great analogy...a boiling pot of water. You, as your dog's guardian is to keep the lid on the pot (your dog), and keep it from boiling over. What happens if you peak too many times under the lid? You're likely to be scalded. Same with problematic dogs. The more you force them to work in triggerous(made-up word) conditions, the more likely you are to be scalded.
> 
> 
> If you can't control the trigger, as your dog's guardian, you are responsible to manage the dog so he won't harm anyone. If that means wearing a muzzle, that means wearing a muzzle. No excuses.


too bad you didnt answer any of my questions. you cant control all triggers OR EVER 100% predict how a dog will react in any situation. notice i didnt bold the previous sentence because thats a fact, jack.


----------



## cshellenberger

Trainer said:


> You do realize that this is just a TV show with actors, scripts, props, etc. made for entertainment purposes, don't you? It's not a "how to" show.


 
Tell that to the dogs that were Euthed.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

rogueslg71 said:


> *cesar is not advocating for you to beat the dog into submission. *


I agree. *




i just dont get why people who dont like him have to act like hes physically beating these dogs up to make them 'be good'.

Click to expand...

*I like Cesar...I think he's amusing. I don't agree with his reasoning, however.  There in lies the difference. * 




i dont believe a collar pop is hurting the dog or getting the dog on its back is hurting it either.

Click to expand...

*In order for it to be effective, the science says it must be immediate and severe enough to reduce the frequency of the behavior. If the leash pop is not immediate and severe, why are we using them? The prudent trainer knows the leash pop hurts the dog, and the prudent trainer wants to end this method immediately. Your belief does nothing to promote humane and effective uses of a method. *




and how could you say his methods are less effective just because, like ANY person, he has had failures?

Click to expand...

*Because all the dogs that were abused in the name of science say so. * 




no matter what method you choose, it could, or could not work with the dog you're trying to train. there are risks of failures and the dog getting worse with any training because there is no one method that works for every dog.

Click to expand...

*If you can show me where dominance theory is as flexible as learning theory, I'm likely to agree with you. But in terms of approaches, learning theory is far more versatile than the dominance hypothesis. * 




like i said each person has a means to an end and since cesar's method is not beating up the dog (which is what some of you are making it seem like) i dont think hes doing anything wrong or mean to the dogs.

Click to expand...

*Maybe not Cesar, but what about all the fools who idolize Cesar and try it at home in spite of the caveat? This is the contention. Cesar's show takes dog training two steps back, not forward.


----------



## KBLover

rogueslg71 said:


> i just dont get why people who dont like him have to act like hes physically beating these dogs up to make them 'be good'. i dont believe a collar pop is hurting the dog or getting the dog on its back is hurting it either. and how could you say his methods are less effective just because, like ANY person, he has had failures? .



Well, to me, it has nothing to do with failures, or even inflicting pain (though I wonder what would happen if you did try to roll a dog that had back problems, etc and you didn't know it, but just rolled the dog because that's what the method says to do) - but what about future learning? If the dog is learning that he should not offer a behavior because he wasn't cued to do so, how does he learn how to do something new when he doesn't know what's wanted?

I wonder if the dog will stop offering behaviors in an effort to problem solve for want of avoiding a correction or because he's learned that being good is not acting until told what exactly to do. 

I understand that CM isn't really focused on training, however, I wouldn't want to employ a method that makes future learning even harder. 

To me, the an effective method would be one that can keep a dog in control and calm, but has no risk of removing the dog's problem solving capacity and the desire to be an active participant in learning a new behavior.

If CM's methods can do that, then that's great. I'm a believer in doing whatever works for the dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

rogueslg71 said:


> you cant control all triggers OR EVER 100% predict how a dog will react in any situation.


Of course not, but I am no less responsible for my dog's behavior. I don't see how this justifies any methodology, however.


----------



## animalsafe

"This has already been done by Skinner, Pavlov and their followers. I only know of 3 attempts to confirm dominance 'theory' (it's really a hypothesis), and all 3 proved otherwise. So I'm not sure dominance theorists would be interested in doing this...they have nothing to gain."

I am talking about something new and fresh that everyone can observe and see for themselfs. I am talking about a real THROWDOWN.


The kind where you gather the best trainers that represent a particular style or method of training and you throw in 20 of the worst case dog scenerios across different breeds and you do a side by side comparison and track the results based on the various list of critera that people can come up with.....Might be "better" to stick with 3 main types of trainers as in those who will use primarily positive reinforcement,those who will use primarily positive punishment, and those who will use a combination of both.

That would be some powerful stuff in my opinion....And for additional entertainment value we could at the end of it all put the judges in a ring with big boxing gloves and watch them fight it out on what the results of it all "WAS"or "IS" in any of them being correct or incorrect,right or wrong,best or better,good or bad,humane or non-humane, stressful or non-stressful,appropriate or non-appropriate..... just fill in the blank for all the many critera one can (and does) come up with in judgement values if you will.

From my experiences (just mine) in having discussed this
sort of throwdown scenerio with different trainers
of various contrasting perspectives
it is interesting that the ones who seem to dismiss or shy away from this type of comparison scheme are the ones that advocate little,rarely, or no use of positive punishment schemes.

I wonder why that is and if others have experienced this?

cheers


----------



## Pai

Trainer said:


> You do realize that this is just a TV show with actors, scripts, props, etc. made for entertainment purposes, don't you? It's not a "how to" show.


I think the fact that many dog owners don't seem to realize that is what makes some of us worry.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

rogueslg71 said:


> obviously ive seen the show too and know that the dogs arent 'better' in the time span of a tv show. but you cant say that his way doesnt get results too - because they do.




My point is that his results

a. produce unnessecary risk to the handler

b. do NOT produce OPTIMAL RESULTS.



speed is a factor when working with rescues and the limited funds that are supporting their upkeep. But on the flipside, in rescue, the goal is that the dog NEVER COMES BACK. So one chooses the method that produces optimal results i.e. not pushing the dog over threshold, rather raising the dog's threshold so that it is never reached again. that is the difference between real behavioral modification and what Cesar does...

Cesar's methods supress problems through fear and dominence. My methods and the methods of learning theorists dont supress, they modify through reinforcement. 



> and he does emphasize to his clients to stop the dog when they get even show a slight interest in the 'trigger' and not to wait until level 10.
> 
> using his methods will probably get results faster than you because he ALSO 'prevents' the dog from escalating by noticing whats triggering the dog and stopping the dog as soon as interest is shown. and IF the dog reacts violently still, cesar shows the dog that acting violently gets them no where (whereas with the owners, it DOES get them somewhere because the owners give in). i'm not saying its a good idea to get your arm bit off to show a dog that it still wont get him the treat/whatever it wants. but im saying that cesar is a specialist and CAN handle doing this and it DOES work - and it works FAST. cesar can get much faster results doing this AND preventing the dog from going to 'the red zone' instead of only doing what you are.


no. if he was preventing the dog from escalting he would never be on the boob tube with snarling snapping dogs. Prevention of escalating would mean that the dog shows stress signals but is never pushed beyond mere stress signals. Once you see those stress signals you need to stop, take a step back and start your work at the point right before the dog becomes stressed...allowing any kind of snarling or snapping or biting etc etc REINFORCES AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR. and the way he deals with that aggressive behavior that HE IS CREATING is to force the dog to "submit" which effectively CREATES FEAR AGGRESSION....which incidentaly is one of the most dangerous forms of aggression in dogs.

why do dominence folks always fall back on placing emphasis on speed????

why focus on only one aspect of the effectiveness of a method of rehab? why not assess the method as a whole? speed is only one factor, there is also questions such as

What type of behavior does the method ultimatly produce?

What potential does the method have to backfire? 

etc etc. 

id rather have a slowly rehabbed FULLY REHABBED aggressive dog than a quickly rehabbed dog with the potential to revert.



Pai said:


> I think the fact that many dog owners don't seem to realize that is what makes some of us worry.


BINGO! we have a winner.


----------



## animalsafe

I have experienced that some processes can be fast and reliable and others may not be which can depend on and be influenced by a variety of different circumstances all of which can be quite complicated to discern at times.

We could go on and on with the semantics as I do not see in reality where the use of any singular quad in operant conditioning has a absolute value and that is the crux of the issue for me..the movement to dismiss the possibilities to any particular approach rather than to reap the benefits of all and speak in terms of absolutes is rather unnatural in a sense to me... I have experienced any and all to gain reliable results and then again fail. That is why all the testimonials one can experience to that effect to which I believe will be never ending. 



cheers


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

animalsafe said:


> Does slow in itself always equate to being more reliable?
> 
> Does fast in itself always result in unreliablity... as in one good deliverly of a correction?
> 
> We could go on and on with the semantics I do not see in reality where the use of any singular quad in operant conditioning has a absolute value and that is the crux of the issue for me..the movement to dismiss the possibilities to any particular approach rather than to reap the benfits of all and speak in terms of absolutes.. I have experienced any and all to gain reliable results and then again fail. That is why all the testamonials one can experience to thoes effect to which I believe will be never ending.
> 
> 
> cheers


i dont dismiss corrections. i disagree with unnessecary corrections.

and you missed the point...that of evalution of a method based on ALL factors not just speed or whatever. 

i refuse to use ANY corrections because that is my choice. i dont care is one corrects a dog but when one ignores the signals a dog displays...signals of body that are trying to communicate a message to the handler and the handler corrects excessively regardless of the dog's reations...that i have a problem with.

Cesar claims to be a dog psychologist but he has no basis in science. He make extrapolations based on his personal interpretations of displayed behavior, ignoring proven behavioral sets and standards. and in the process creates risky dogs and puts these processes on television for others less apt than he to have specific reaction times to use and abuse with no training and no guidance other than a television show. 

i choose not to use corrections because i CAN and DO get SOLID RESULTS _without_ them. if i dont have to cause unnessary stress to the dog I WILL NOT. as i have said before...there are only TWO circumstances where it is NESSECARY to use physical force....does this mean you cant use physical force in other situations? no. what it means is that with a little thought, YOU DONT HAVE TO. and why cause discomfort when you dont have to????


----------



## animalsafe

In case I did not clearly state my point I do not dismiss the value of any of the conditioners and I do not believe that the use of a single operant can be in reality and considering nature used soley in all circumstances to effectively provide resolution to behavior.

I have experienced failure and have observed failures ( and speak with others who have similiar experiences as such ) regardless of the approach used. It would be worthless to discribe them in detail because it is I said all about semantics that are based on many factors to including agendas and political correctness to say the least.

Once again my testamonial and experience..my own... not meant to trump someone elses experience... I have used positive punishment that has resulted in fast and reliable results where other approaches did not.... and vice versa...do it,have observed it, and experience it all the time actually with many dogs


Someone will attempt to suggest that this is not true and/or could not be true I am sure ..but so be it..


cheers


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> it is interesting that the ones who seem to dismiss or shy away from this type of comparison scheme are the ones that advocate little,rarely, or no use of positive punishment schemes.
> 
> I wonder why that is and if others have experienced this?


There are too many silly reasons to list why people choose positive punishment schemes like Cesar would. I'm sure you're not interested in an exercise of all those silly reasons. But the trainers that I know, who have a logical hierarchy of their tools, I don't know of any that would shy away from proving the humane and effective use of them. Perhaps you've generalized it the way you have because your logic is not in alignment with those who find positive punishment less practical in the real world.


----------



## animalsafe

It depends on what ones definition or perspective to the definition of humane "IS " Who's to say that experiencing no punishment that could otherwise result in a faster or more reliable solution is more humane when looking at the end result.... For lack of a better example to which there are many why not just give the small child some candy over and over when it shows no sign of learning the boundary to crossing the street in heavy traffic verses using a different conditioning approach disregarding of course possible solutions by management schemes? 

This/my attempt at semantics however will not result in proving or disproving absolutes and the argument and debate will go and on. I find it interesting that/when people reflex to focusing the entire debate primarily on one or two attributes when it is not that simple in reality/nature as I have pointed out previously. It seems that some want it both ways and others only one.

Bottom line... sometimes in my own opinion it can be much more humane,less abusive, less nagging, and less stressful in the end to condition a behavior using a correction rather than another approach that might take longer.

I am sure semantics will again come into play on any rebuttal... as that in reality is natural...so I digress..


cheers


----------



## KBLover

animalsafe said:


> I am talking about something new and fresh that everyone can observe and see for themselfs. I am talking about a real THROWDOWN.
> 
> 
> The kind where you gather the best trainers that represent a particular style or method of training and you throw in 20 of the worst case dog scenerios across different breeds and you do a side by side comparison and track the results based on the various list of critera that people can come up with.....Might be "better" to stick with 3 main types of trainers as in those who will use primarily positive reinforcement,those who will use primarily positive punishment, and those who will use a combination of both.


Oh I'd love to see something like this. A trainer competition!

It might not "prove" anything to me (Wally is the only "proof" I need of whatever method is working for him), but I'd love to see this kind of action. 

I think it would be educational also as long as people don't take whatever results of the competition to be a definitive "this way is the best way" mindset. Seeing the various training styles in actual practice would be wonderful.



animalsafe said:


> From my experiences (just mine) in having discussed this
> sort of throwdown scenerio with different trainers
> of various contrasting perspectives
> it is interesting that the ones who seem to dismiss or shy away from this type of comparison scheme are the ones that advocate little,rarely, or no use of positive punishment schemes.
> 
> I wonder why that is and if others have experienced this?
> 
> cheers


Well, for me I don't use positive punishment because it's unneccessary and would do more harm to what I want him to become. I have what would be called a "very soft" dog. He's _already_ highly submissive and can become worried/scared easily. I mean the first thing he did when I was going to pet him softly was lie down and pee. The last thing I need to do is to come down hard on him even WITHOUT physical corrections or other positive punishment methods. Turning my back on him for 10 minutes and ignoring him has set him into a worried state and when I give him attention again, he's like super eager to try again.

With a dog like that - why would I want to pop him with the leash or tap him firmly on the muzzle or alpha roll him? He's already 1 step from overly submitting to me as it is. All any of those things would do is put him back into a fearful state and shut down on me because he's too worried about pacifying me than to learn whatever it is I wanted him to learn.

I want to get him OUT of that mindset. I want him to stop worrying about "am I showing enough submission to keep him happy" or "If I make the wrong move/action, will he get mad?" and more in the line of "okay! how can I solve this puzzle and earn a reward!" 

I mean even now with him trying to learn via shaping - he'll revert back to his worries on occassion and just not do anything. Negative punishment is more than enough for him in this state. I don't need to put my hands on him and be harsh with him and confirm his fears. I want him to think - "if I don't do anything, I won't get anything" and maybe he'll start getting away from that mindset.

Positive punishment is not going to achieve that with Wally. I have a feeling someone already did that to him and made him this way (no proof, but considering my mother said her friend kept saying "Wally needs a good home!" I have to wonder just what exactly happened).



animalsafe said:


> For lack of a better example to which there are many why not just give the small child some candy over and over when it shows no sign of learning the boundary to crossing the street in heavy traffic verses using a different conditioning approach disregarding of course possible solutions by management schemes?


Maybe because no one has ever thought of it that we know of? This sounds like a great way to do it, if the reward is great enough. I mean if yelling at the kid isn't working and spanking him in public isn't working and making him miserable the whole time isn't working - why NOT try a positive oriented apporach and see if it works? 

Positive reinforcement does work with children - it's just not usually the first line of thought in my experience (punishment oriented culture perhaps?). I know, I worked the hardest for teachers that offered rewards to the class for doing well instead of constantly being "told no" and nothing but corrected every time something was wrong.

Oh, and about the nagging - I don't see how positive reinforcement/negative punishment duo is nagging. If he does the behavior - he gets a reward, if he doesn't, he doesn't get anything. Heck, during shaping I'm SILENT - it's just the sound of the click or silence. Don't even look at him. I don't see how I'm nagging him because I don't correct him.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

animalsafe said:


> it can be much more humane,less abusive, less nagging, and less stressful in the end to condition a behavior using a correction rather than another approach that might take longer.


Frankly, I don't know any good trainer worth his weight in salt who doesn't shoot for expediency in their training. So I think you're just making a statement of the obvious, but I don't see how this justifies any one method.

If we're teaching off-leash heel and you're saying 1 leash jerk is more humane than a thousand food rewards for heel, you're wrong. Effective?...only if the leash is on, but that's not our criteria. Faster? You don't get behavior from positive punishment, so it's not only slower, it's virtually impossible. This isn't a game of semantics, these are the facts. 

But let me ask you something. If I can prove my method is effective and humane, but it may take longer than an also effective but less humane method, why do I want to choose to be less humane? If I have a lifetime with this dog, how quickly do I have to accomplish my goal? If my criteria is to make the experience enjoyable for me and the dog, why do I want to rush it? 

I understand that people want to walk their dog off-lead, with the dog in heel, and they want it now, but give me a good reason to lose my sense of humanity for the sake of time. Our life's worth is judged on our humanity, not a timetable.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

I won't spank a kid and I won't physically correct a dog. 



My issues with Cesar's methods are complex, involving distaste for corrections, disgust at flooding and the "alpha roll" and disapproval of showcasing said methods in an incomplete manner that produces such things as my neighbor "alpha rolling" her scared little three month old shih tzu for peeing on the floor....show EVERYTHING that is done and explain in detail including not only indepth on how but also why and what and when and offer classes etc or don't show it at all... 


its funny....I actually catch heat for my own methods....some of which most people find thoroughly disgusting....but the dogs...they love the work...love it...jump at the sight of the clicker, tails wagging furiously, practically breaking their necks in their enthusiasm to figure out what's going on and get to play, to get treats, to interact and more. 

Only one dog has taken a seriously long time...my own dog...but she is coming around...


----------



## Elana55

Well, leave for a day and go do something away from the 'puter and look what happens.. LOL. 

I want to add a couple of things here. I have had the great pleasure of watching a few trainers who had taken dogs to high levels of competition. Some were "correction based" trainers and some were "Positive reinforcement" trainers. 

In the end, the trainers with a lot of success all look pretty much the same when you watch them.. and you know what makes them the same? THEY LET THE DOG KNOW WHEN THE DOG HAS DONE IT RIGHT WITH POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT. Beyond that, THEY ENCOURAGE THE DOG TO GET IT RIGHT AND SET THE DOG UP TO SUCCEED! 

Now.. We had a discussion about time constraints. Zim is under those constraints and she succeeds as a Positive Reinforcement based trainer. For me that is good enough. THAT says it ALL. 

CP.. I did not know I had a Brother out there (way back somewhere in this thread you suggested we had the same Father LOL). I am honored...


----------



## KBLover

Elana55 said:


> Well, leave for a day and go do something away from the 'puter and look what happens.. LOL.


So does it mean it's positive reinforcement or positive punishment to look away from the computer for a day?


----------



## winniec777

cshellenberger said:


> What they DON'T show you are the failures, I have a friend in AC in the LA area, she rescues/rehabbs Neos and Cane's also. She has had to P/U and euthinize several dogs htat he's worked with that have simply SNAPPED and severly injured people/other dogs. The owners continued to use Cesars methods and ended up with a dead dog and at times charges of keeping a vicious animal or a lawsuit.
> 
> She has also rehabbed a couple of dogs that Cesar worked with that developed severe aggression AFTER he worked with them for minor things.


Q.E.D.

Rats...needs to be at least 10 characters. Um...let me see....'nuff said.


----------



## Elana55

KBLover said:


> So does it mean it's positive reinforcement or positive punishment to look away from the computer for a day?


Any work on the computer feels like positive punishment to me. DF's are entertaining and educational and I like the 'puter to look stuff up and sometimes for quick communication or to plan a vacation (excellent for that). 

But there are things lost. I used to have "pen pals" and we wrote letters back and forth. There is something nice in a long, hand written letter..... and I don't get a real newspaper anymore.. I read it on line.. so that nice leisurely cup of coffee and the paper is lost (no daily newspaper saves money too)... 

and work. Last summer I was ill and was restricted from working on the puter to 15 minutes 2x a day. I was not allowed to drive. I did my work at home and hand wrote things which I gave to a professional secretary to type the one day a week I came into the office. I got more work done in those 4 weeks than any time since having to do work on the 'puter. It was amazing. Fact is, if I had someone to do the typing for me I could increase my work out put by 25%. I type about 60WPM too.. but because I was not correcting and typing and writing in fits and starts there was a single edit of my work after typing and it was complete. Way efficient.

Computer work is positive punishment (that is why I am on dial up at home.. it takes 4ever to do anything so I don't.. I go outside instead). My time away from it yesterday? Working in the woods.. getting my parents wood boxes filled up and kindling split... doing a few minor repairs around the house... and looking at the major ones that should be done. 

I will say that this huge long thread is one of the best I have seen in awhile. It almost deteriorated into something less than positive or educational but it has come back strong and I have learned a few things, thanks to CP, Carla (Our mods are the BEST) and Zim. GREAT THREAD (both in information and size!)


----------



## rosemaryninja

I agree with Elana's last paragraph. Around the 9th or 10th pages of this thread I was just waiting for the day it would be closed. I'm glad to see that hasn't happened and I've certainly learned a lot from you guys. One of DF's more productive long threads. Thanks.


----------



## sexysilver

Cesar does not Hurt ANY dog in his training methods.The dogs in his center are all healthy happy go lucky dogs they get feed exercised and loved, his methods of the pack work with the dogs AMAZINGLY and they have worked for me so I wil continue to use his methods on an animal if I need to I had to use his method to correct a problem with one of my girls now the problem doesnt exist. x


----------



## Trainer

sexysilver said:


> Cesar does not Hurt ANY dog in his training methods.


How do you know? I know of at least one dog he killed during training.



> The dogs in his center are all healthy happy go lucky dogs they get feed exercised and loved, his methods of the pack work with the dogs AMAZINGLY


How do you know? Because you see them on TV? What about the ones you don't see?



> and they have worked for me so I wil continue to use his methods on an animal if I need to I had to use his method to correct a problem with one of my girls now the problem doesnt exist. x


Don't you pay attention to the show? In every show the emphasize not to try these methods at home. There is a reason for that. Believe me, ask any good dog trainer, Cesar is not an exceptionally good trainer. He is a very good actor and self promoter.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Trainer said:


> How do you know? I know of at least one dog he killed during training.


How did this happen? He shushed the dog and it died? A leash correction gone too far? From what I've seen of his methods I haven't seen anything that was physically cruel. You can argue that his methods are psychologically damaging to a dog and I'll listen to that argument. I may even agree with it. I haven't seen any of his methods that struck me as cruel though. 




> How do you know? Because you see them on TV? What about the ones you don't see?


I've read his books and from what he says in his books his dogs are treated very well. They're up in the morning, get a chance to relieve themselves then they're loaded in a car for a 2-3 hour run in the hills around LA. Then the dogs are fed and get to rest for a couple of hours while Cesar does work around the center and speaks with clients. Then they get another 2-3 hour run/exercise session. Then they get an hour or so of just play. Then Cesar goes home and one of his assistants stays there over night to care for the dogs. I don't see any of this as cruel. It's possible the guy is lieing through his teeth about the whole thing, but I don't get that vibe from him.



> Don't you pay attention to the show? In every show the emphasize not to try these methods at home. There is a reason for that. Believe me, ask any good dog trainer, Cesar is not an exceptionally good trainer. He is a very good actor and self promoter.


Cesar tells you in all of his books that his techniques are not for everyone and should not be used without expert supervision. That and the reason that everyone is so litigious nowadays is the reason why they have a disclaimer. The Mythbusters play that disclaimer before they do a diet Coke and Mentos experiment lest they be sued by some mother who's kid got sprayed in the eye by pop and is "emotionally scarred" by the experience.


----------



## cshellenberger

sexysilver said:


> Cesar does not Hurt ANY dog in his training methods.The dogs in his center are all healthy happy go lucky dogs they get feed exercised and loved, his methods of the pack work with the dogs AMAZINGLY and they have worked for me so I wil continue to use his methods on an animal if I need to I had to use his method to correct a problem with one of my girls now the problem doesnt exist. x


 
Yes, there HAVE been dogs injured/killed at Milan's facility

http://www.dogexplorer.com/content/view/140/1/


His methods are NOT safe, nor are they viewed as humane by Veterinary Behaviorists.


----------



## hulkamaniac

cshellenberger said:


> Yes, there HAVE been dogs injured/killed at Milan's facility
> 
> http://www.dogexplorer.com/content/view/140/1/
> 
> 
> His methods are NOT safe, nor are they viewed as humane by Veterinary Behaviorists.


To be fair to Cesar in that case Cesar wasn't the one putting the dog on the treadmill it was another dog trainer the dog owner had hired.


----------



## wvasko

Hulk
I'm independently wealthy, I'm a handsome devil, women find me absolutely irresistible, men look and admire me because I'm a hero type figure. I have a 185 I.Q. I don't have to train dogs, I just look at them and they do whatever it is I'm thinking about. Aren't I just an amazing rascal. Oh I forgot I also sell swampland in Florida.:


----------



## Corteo

Hey Wvasko, is this you?










Or is this you


----------



## wvasko

Corteo said:


> Hey Wvasko, is this you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is this you


The man has way too much hair, and that's the way I pick up full grown Mastiffs. Remember legend in my own mind.
Whoops, I didn't even check out the 2nd pic. I must truthfully say the best day of my life I never came close. Of course I do have 2 arms, 2 legs, and a head but after that no comparison.


----------



## Corteo

LOL! I'll try to find another pic 

Edit: How about this?


----------



## wvasko

Corteo said:


> LOL! I'll try to find another pic
> 
> Edit: How about this?


At least you got the Mastiff part right.


----------



## rosemaryninja

hulkamaniac said:


> Cesar tells you in all of his books that his techniques are not for everyone and should not be used without expert supervision. That and the reason that everyone is so litigious nowadays is the reason why they have a disclaimer. The Mythbusters play that disclaimer before they do a diet Coke and Mentos experiment lest they be sued by some mother who's kid got sprayed in the eye by pop and is "emotionally scarred" by the experience.


What is that supposed to mean? That the caveat on Cesar's show is just there as a formality for overtly litigious people, and shouldn't really be heeded?


----------



## Trainer

hulkamaniac said:


> How did this happen? He shushed the dog and it died? A leash correction gone too far? From what I've seen of his methods I haven't seen anything that was physically cruel. You can argue that his methods are psychologically damaging to a dog and I'll listen to that argument. I may even agree with it. I haven't seen any of his methods that struck me as cruel though.


I guess it depends on what you call cruel. To me, causing pain, either physical, mental, or emotional just to get a dog to behave the way you want him to is cruel. CM does that daily. I see it on almost every one of his shows. 



> I've read his books and from what he says in his books his dogs are treated very well. They're up in the morning, get a chance to relieve themselves then they're loaded in a car for a 2-3 hour run in the hills around LA. Then the dogs are fed and get to rest for a couple of hours while Cesar does work around the center and speaks with clients. Then they get another 2-3 hour run/exercise session. Then they get an hour or so of just play. Then Cesar goes home and one of his assistants stays there over night to care for the dogs. I don't see any of this as cruel. It's possible the guy is lieing through his teeth about the whole thing, but I don't get that vibe from him.


He does run his dogs a lot. Thats his secret of manitaining control over them. They are too tired to misbehave. I don't remember every seeing him mistreat his own dogs on his show.



> Cesar tells you in all of his books that his techniques are not for everyone and should not be used without expert supervision. That and the reason that everyone is so litigious nowadays is the reason why they have a disclaimer. The Mythbusters play that disclaimer before they do a diet Coke and Mentos experiment lest they be sued by some mother who's kid got sprayed in the eye by pop and is "emotionally scarred" by the experience.


The reason is the trainer can ger seriously injured and so can the dog. Dogs can be ruined for life using his methods. Top trainers across the country will tell you CM's training methods are much too harsh. Read this entire thread from beginning to end and you will learn he is not what you seem to think.


----------



## cshellenberger

hulkamaniac said:


> To be fair to Cesar in that case Cesar wasn't the one putting the dog on the treadmill it was another dog trainer the dog owner had hired.


Doesn't matter, HIS methods, HIS facility, HIS employees, there have been other lawsuits, you don't hear about them because they aren't from TV executives like this one and they are quickly paid off and hushed by Milan and Nat Geo. 

Honestly, he has a VERY bad rep with LA county AC, of course you'll NEVER hear that unless you happen to 'know' someone on the inside.


----------



## Elana55

so, we have WVasko the Hunk and Carla with the Inside track! 

I am truly running with the... well.. the HOUNDS being on this forum! 

If WV looks like Image #2, I am having him train my dog! Over and Over and Over...... 
(on my way to LA to work with Carla of course!). 

I think that the bottom line here is that CM uses corrections and aversives in his training methodology. Both those things can result in a trained dog, but they can also back fire.. BADLY. If you use the same force on every nail you drive, regardless of the size of the nail, you are going to wreck a few. It is just physics. 

However, if you recognize that there better ways to put things together.. and maybe a hammer is the wrong tool, you will end up with fewer mistakes or errors. 

Now.. if you make those mistakes using that hammer building your deck, you can fix them. If you make those errors with a hammer building a trained dog, you may just end up with a dog that has to be PTS. 

Would seem to me you would exhaust a different way that has the potential to cause the least damage and get the most accomplished. 

CM is entertainment (if you find that sort of thing entertaining).


----------



## Corteo

wvasko said:


> At least you got the Mastiff part right.


LOL! I couldn't find anything else...


----------



## BoxMeIn21

Elana55 said:


> If WV looks like Image #2, I am having him train my dog! Over and Over and Over......


Get in line...


----------



## wvasko

Actually I look more like the Mastiff (except a lot older, the Mastiff is smarter)so both of you rascals will have to go elsewhere for training.


----------



## Inga

Wow! I have been avoiding this thread but just thought I would pop in to see if it was still civil. Turns out things have changed tack somewhere and Wvasko is now collecting a harem?  Heaven's, I really do miss all the fun, don't I?


----------



## wvasko

Inga said:


> Wow! I have been avoiding this thread but just thought I would pop in to see if it was still civil. Turns out things have changed tack somewhere and Wvasko is now collecting a harem?  Heaven's, I really do miss all the fun, don't I?


Now don't you start as if I don't have enough troubles on this thread already. I know there's gonna be hi-jackin charges soon.


----------



## Inga

LOL Isn't hi-jacking the name of the game in a Cesar Millan thread? I just didn't expect it to be you Wvasko nor did I expect it to be that manner of hi-jack.


----------



## wvasko

Inga said:


> LOL Isn't hi-jacking the name of the game in a Cesar Millan thread? I just didn't expect it to be you Wvasko nor did I expect it to be that manner of hi-jack.


Well it all started innocent, I was trying to explain to hulkmaniac not to believe all you read or hear and then it was like a snowball rolling downhill. I personally am not pro or con for Cesar he's a TV star got nothing to do with me. He puts his pants on one leg at a time and he's not doG's answer to dog training nor was he sent here by the devil to do world wide harm to the dog population


----------



## Inga

Well said wvasko. I don't have any need to jump into these conversations either. I mean, I think it is sort of funny to spend a whole lot of energy trying to demonize him or idolize him. Guess I am not much for idolizing anyone though. If you HAD looked like Brad Pitt though, I might have asked you to post more pictures of yourself. lol


----------



## Elana55

wvasko said:


> Well it all started innocent, I was trying to explain to hulkmaniac not to believe all you read or hear and then it was like a snowball rolling downhill. I personally am not pro or con for Cesar he's a TV star got nothing to do with me. He puts his pants on one leg at a time and he's not doG's answer to dog training nor was he sent here by the devil to do world wide harm to the dog population


I agree, but now we all know the REAL story. CM is the VISIBLE star but WV has been hiding behind the scenes and the poparazzi got a photo of him at last.. and we got to see it. W#OOHOO! Made MY otherwise uneventful day!!!! 

Now he is in a corner denying it all and trying to steer the thread back, but the Cat.. err.. Dog.. is outta the bag. 

Now, about that dog training fee...... and remember... I asked FIRST!


----------



## wvasko

Elana55 said:


> I agree, but now we all know the REAL story. CM is the VISIBLE star but WV has been hiding behind the scenes and the poparazzi got a photo of him at last.. and we got to see it. W#OOHOO! Made MY otherwise uneventful day!!!!
> 
> Now he is in a corner denying it all and trying to steer the thread back, but the Cat.. err.. Dog.. is outta the bag.
> 
> Now, about that dog training fee...... and remember... I asked FIRST!


This has got to be a German Breed issue Inga and elana cool your tools. There absolutely will be no training fees for German Breed owners. But your dogs will have to alpha roll me as that will get all my arthritic bones and sore muscles operating properly.


----------



## hulkamaniac

wvasko said:


> Well it all started innocent, I was trying to explain to hulkmaniac not to believe all you read or hear and then it was like a snowball rolling downhill. I personally am not pro or con for Cesar he's a TV star got nothing to do with me. He puts his pants on one leg at a time and he's not doG's answer to dog training nor was he sent here by the devil to do world wide harm to the dog population


That much I agree with you on. I was just trying to stick up for the guy. There are people on here who believe you should only use positive re-inforcers and you should never ever correct a dog or punish a dog for any reason whatsoever. Because of that philosophy they feel that Cesar is Satan incarnate sent here to destroy all dogs. As someone who has read Cesar's books and agrees with a lot of his principles (although not necessarily his methods) I felt the need to stick up for the guy. I don't think his principles are wrong at all, but there are people on here who are of the philosophy that, "if Cesar said it, it must be wrong."


----------



## cshellenberger

hulkamaniac said:


> That much I agree with you on. I was just trying to stick up for the guy. There are people on here who believe you should only use positive re-inforcers and you should never ever correct a dog or punish a dog for any reason whatsoever. Because of that philosophy they feel that Cesar is Satan incarnate sent here to destroy all dogs. As someone who has read Cesar's books and agrees with a lot of his principles (although not necessarily his methods) I felt the need to stick up for the guy. I don't think his principles are wrong at all, but there are people on here who are of the philosophy that, "if Cesar said it, it must be wrong."


 
We don't think he's the devil incarnate, I know Cesar has had some succeses and he has a GREAT heart when it comes to dogs. He does a TON of work trying to rehab the street dogs in TJ and get them adopted. However, I ALSO don't think he's the end all and be all in dog training. I'm aware of the things that have happened and not in denial about them. 

I've USED far more harsh punishment methods than Cesar used, I learned to train dogs using the Keogh method, which advocated VERY harsh punisment 30 years ago. I have since used and seen better results using positive reenforcement and negative punishment. I don't train for a living, but I have helped friends work through problems and trained foster dogs to go to new homes as well as training my own dogs and my mothers dogs fro the time I was 12 until I moved away at 30, and yes, there were many. I've done whelping box socilization from the time I was 8. So I know a 'little' about training dogs, although I'm no "WVasco" LOL


----------



## Corteo

hulkamaniac said:


> That much I agree with you on. I was just trying to stick up for the guy. There are people on here who believe you should only use positive re-inforcers and you should never ever correct a dog or punish a dog for any reason whatsoever. Because of that philosophy they feel that Cesar is Satan incarnate sent here to destroy all dogs. As someone who has read Cesar's books and agrees with a lot of his principles (although not necessarily his methods) I felt the need to stick up for the guy. I don't think his principles are wrong at all, but there are people on here who are of the philosophy that, "if Cesar said it, it must be wrong."


Ditto... I've seen that at times as well


----------



## Tobby-Boys

I like the show I thought I learned allot from him but as soon as I mentioned I was using one of his techniques to stop a sibling dog fight I was torn a new one in these forums O well I think his methods are better used by an export than some of us just dog lovers.


----------



## TxRider

Tobby-Boys said:


> I like the show I thought I learned allot from him but as soon as I mentioned I was using one of his techniques to stop a sibling dog fight I was torn a new one in these forums O well I think his methods are better used by an export than some of us just dog lovers.


Take it all with a grain of salt.

All most people go on is what they see in a short heavily edited TV show, to me that's not enough to justify demonizing or praising him.

I don't see a need for his methods, and the ones I might see a need for I don't think would work with my dog and if they did I don't have the mechanical expertise or timing to pull it off like he does anyway without doing more harm than good.

The thing about positive training is that it's much harder to do harm, and positive methods should at least be tried first IMO.

All I can really take away from the DW show is that it stresses no dog is lost cause.


----------



## jgnmoose

It seems to me like he works primarily with dogs that are out of control with some behavior problem the owners have reached their limit with. I would find it hard to believe that his methods are intended for ordinary dog training. That's probably a very good reason for the disclaimers, most people's dogs don't require that level of correction.

It's really not that different from any other thing in life. You wouldn't discipline a kid who dislikes doing their math homework the same way you would discipline a kid who is borderline hardened criminal would you?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

jgnmoose said:


> You wouldn't discipline a kid who dislikes doing their math homework the same way you would discipline a kid who is borderline hardened criminal would you?


If we're being humane and effective, why not?


----------



## FourIsCompany

Well-said, jgnmoose! You're absolutely right. That's my view of Cesar, too. 

Personally, I LOVE Cesar Millan. I have read all of his books and have seen 95% of his episodes. I do disagree with him on some things and he is *by no means* my only source of information, but he's reaching a lot of people with important information. I love the fact that he's helping people with dogs who would otherwise end up at the pound or be put down. I love how he's following up on every case this season and goes back to help more if they need it. 

I have used his philosophy with all of my dogs, and that makes his harsher techniques absolutely unnecessary. That's the key. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Exercise, discipline, affection... Rules boundaries and limitations... It's jargon, but it's easy for the average person to remember and 100% right on.


----------



## TxRider

jgnmoose said:


> It seems to me like he works primarily with dogs that are out of control with some behavior problem the owners have reached their limit with. I would find it hard to believe that his methods are intended for ordinary dog training. That's probably a very good reason for the disclaimers, most people's dogs don't require that level of correction.
> 
> It's really not that different from any other thing in life. You wouldn't discipline a kid who dislikes doing their math homework the same way you would discipline a kid who is borderline hardened criminal would you?


I don't know if what I've seen him do I would actually call training. Closer to behavior modification.

Not that you see much on a show in the first place.

But using his techniques IMO requires a good eye for the dogs behavior, timing etc. those techniques could do a lot more harm than good on the wrong dog with the wrong problem.

Some are very humane and simple and easy though, and not likely to do harm even if applied wrong. Like his "claiming the space" routine, and the no touch, no talk, no eye contact for not reinforcing separation anxiety and not giving affection when it will reinforce a bad behavior.

While I've seen some dogs on the show totally stressed out after physical handling, it's not all that way.

And most (not all) of the little leash corrections to me tend to be more like a tap on the shoulder to get attention, very well timed, that cause no pain, that most owners on the show much less at home aren't going to be able to pull off. I'm certainly not capable of it so I won't use it.


----------



## Cracker

I was a fan of the show, own his first two books and the first three seasons on DVD so am very familiar with him, and I do like the man. Just not his methods.
He has done the world of dogs some good and some bad. The good is people learning to treat their dogs like DOGS and also, like mentioned before, the "exercise, discipline and affection" mantra. He has also done a lot of good for pitbull's reputations, which is much needed. Being calm and centred yourself is a good thing as well.

The bad, his lumping all behaviours under dominance or submission. Whether this is simply a language issue for him or for simplicity's sake, he often calls something "dominance" that is fear or appeasement behaviour and will call a shut down dog "calm and submissive". He uses flooding, which CAN be effective but can also backfire greatly. He doesn't recognize calming signals, calls "pawing" or jumping to be dominance, and alpha rolls dogs into "submission." 

A truly dominant aggressive dog (though even the behaviourists don't call it that much anymore) is a CONTROLLER. Blocks your path, moves the owner out of the way with his body, stares and shows teeth whenever he feels he is being challenged and when he is not being challenged acts like a regular dog, until the next challenge. These dogs are RARE. I have met a couple of these dogs AND worked with them and their owners. These are the truly dangerous dogs and I manage to work with them without getting physical (cuz I ain't stoopid) and improve their behaviour in other ways. Ninety percent of the dogs out there are NOT like this and to label all unwanted behaviours as dominance is simply ridiculous. It's about TRAINING, people!

And the doorway thing? Leaders do NOT always go first, and in the wild dogs dont' even have doorways so what is with that? Having a dog sit at the door before leaving is a SAFETY issue not a dominance issue! The leaders of a pack (the breeding pair) do not necessarily eat first (they will feed the younguns first) and even the minor members are allowed to resource guard their own food.

Forced submission in the dog world means the other dog is intent on injuring or killing you. I for one do NOT want my dog to think I'm about to injure her to make her submit to me. Dogs "roll" for other dogs voluntarily, they are not forced and it is ritualistic behaviour meant for co operative living in a group. So many misconceptions and so much more for the watching public to know. If I see one more owner rolling their PUPPY for barking at another dog or for correcting a rude behaviour in another dog I am going to alpha roll the people!

If you watch carefully when he pins "Butch" the bulldog in Texas, you will see him talking about pressing on his neck to get him to submit...well, he's a martial arts guy and he is pressing on the vagus nerve, which causes a short circuit in the nervous system to cause virtual temporary paralysis in the dog. (just like Spock's Vulcan pinch...)The scary part of this is, if the dog had a heart condition or other issues that have been undiagnosed the dog's heart could stop and he'd be dead. Just..like..that. And the dog is not submitting, he is physically unable to move. The hand is quicker than the eye here. THis is a sure way to also get an owner to be bitten, badly..and who get's blamed? The dog of course.

A man I know rescued a dachsie. His 11 year old daughter (old enough to be taught dogsmarts) touched the dog roughly while the dog was sleeping. The dog snapped at the kid and the dad pinned the dog on the floor and held her down until she "submitted" (shutdown). Now the dog urinates submissively every time the owner enters the room. He didn't know why. I told him, as nicely as I could (because he truly didn't know) that he had a very fearful dog on his hands and that the pinning was most likely the cause as she had never done it before that incident. He was crestfallen. Said that was what he thought he was "supposed to do"..guess where he got that info from? Now this man is trying desperately to recondition the dog to trust him. It never would have happened if he had known more REAL info on dog behaviour and training. Where do you think the adage "let sleeping dogs lie" came from?

Whether he is saving dogs from certain death or not, I do believe he is doing a disservice to many dogs with his show, simply because the general public takes his word as the "truth", and no they don't follow the "don't do this at home" signs...that's just for liability protection for NG. Thank god I have seen in the last season or so some moments where he said "this is fear" and used positive reinforcement to reassociate something feared to a dog. Maybe he will shift his methods? Who knows. All I know is there is more misinformation in his show than there is true dog behaviour assessment and modification. Sure it may work in many cases...but how many does it NOT work in? How many dogs does he make worse? Have you seen how many times he's been bitten?

Once I started research, after I got a dog that did NOT respond well to the CM methods, I started to get it. If you do some studying up on dog body language, including calming/stress signals and then watch the episodes without the sound (so you cannot hear the talking or the voice over) you will see a lot more going on in those dogs than calm submission or dominance. You will see fear, extreme stress and learned helplessness in many cases.

I am a crossover trainer. I will never go back, and myself, Cracker and the dogs I work with are the better for it.


----------



## sircuddles

Cracker said:


> And the doorway thing? Leaders do NOT always go first, and in the wild dogs dont' even have doorways so what is with that?


Haha, this made me laugh.

I just started reading about dog training and was sort of shocked to find that Milan is... well, generally disliked. Knowing what I know (which isn't much) I've sort of come to the same conclusions as others here. His methods aren't really training, it's more behavior modification. His methods really do require timing and being able to match your intensity in your actions with the dog and the situation. Cesar may explain all this on the show even though we don't see it, but I think there's a lack of responsibility on the shows part.

I think they need to recognize that even though they put that warning in the show, no one is going to listen to it or take it seriously. People *are* going to use these techniques on their dogs and it's more likely to hurt than help. You can't just put information like that out there without *clearly* explaining that only a trained professional is going to be able to do what he does and that instead of doing what he does they need to be calling a local trainer or something similar. It's horribly irresponsible.

One thing that also irks me is that Cesar seems to be all about Cesar. He doesn't consider himself a trainer, so he pays absolutely no attention (clearly) to (scientific) dog behavior, training, or ANYTHING. Cesar does what Cesar does, and that's it. He seemingly makes no attempt to learn new things, change his strategies or accept any new information. He just does what he does and that's the end of the story. I feel like if you tried to explain that his methods are generally considered fairly outdated he wouldn't listen to a thing you say. If this is true, then he really doesn't have animals' interests in mind, now does he? If this is true, he's more concerned with being Cesar than doing everything he can and learning everything he can to help dogs to the most of his ability. And I do believe this is true, as I can't imagine no one has ever told him 'Hey, Cesar, why don't you try operant conditioning?'. He probably just responded 'Operant whosawhatnow? I'm the Dog Whisperer. I friggin' whisper these dogs, I don't need no operant hoozimagadgit'.

After about 3 hours of reading on dog training I realized Cesar is not as great as I thought he was, and I can no longer watch his show because of it. Mostly because if he really cared about dogs, he'd be less concerned with being 'Cesar' and would have the animals' best interests always in the forefront.


----------



## Cracker

Sir Cuddles.
Technically he IS using operant conditioning. If you are familiar with the four quadrants, he is using positive punishment (anything "added" to reduce the frequency of a behaviour)..his tsst, hand "bite", leash corrections and foot "bumping" are all positive punishments, as is the "alpha roll". He may not call it that, but that is what he does. He also does use a certain amount of positive reinforcement (affection when the dog is calm or "submitting"). He also has been known to use classical conditioning, like the case of the golden that was fearful of the garage because of the noise from the air pressure machine the owner used. 

The problem here is that there are many pitfalls to using positive punishment. It DOES work, this is why he is so successful on the show, BUT there are a myriad of ways this can go wrong, especially when he forces submission onto a dog. The dog may stop the aggressive behaviour, but has not learned to THINK differently..the feeling towards what triggered him has not been changed, only the outward behaviour towards it. The risk with this is that the dog can seem "fine" for months or even years, the whole time his brain is going "I HATE THAT THING" and one day, when he is stressed or tired and he is once again put in a situation of being over threshold he may snap...and his unsuspecting owners are unprepared as they think he's been cured. 

This is where classical conditioning would have prevented this sort of thing. Reassociating what the dreaded trigger is so that the dog THINKS differently of it, means no years of going "I HATE THAT THING" but instead, he's been thinking..that thing makes me get good stuff and makes me feel GOOD. Big difference there, mentally, for the dog..and a much safer long term measure for behaviour modification.

The problem with a tv show format for this sort of thing is CC is boring. Yep. Boring. Not a lot of entertainment value in a thing that takes time, effort and vigilance on the part of the owner. Even though it is better for the dog in the long run...long run doesn't work in the entertainment industry. People want the quick fix, the fastfood version of beh. modification. But just as nutritionists say...garbage in, garbage out. 

He says he's not a trainer, because his idea of dog training is teaching a dog obedience skills like sit and stay. But this is not what dog training is, that is a simplistic view...dog training IS behaviour modification and uses the same principles. Now, obedience training a dog is not going to change aggression or fear issues, but it does make it easier to modify behaviour issues as you already will have a dog that responds to basic cues and has a relationship with his human. The two should be used together, the whole point is "I don't want you to do THAT, instead I want you to do THIS"..and then teaching the dog what THIS is!


----------



## jgnmoose

A lot of good points, Cracker. 

If you want to blame something, blame the legacy of Steve Erwin. It's essentially the same genre of programming, i.e. watching gifted individuals handle dangerous animals. I'll bet that if you went to a croc wrangling forum a lot of people probably take issue with the way Steve handled them.

People want to see a big scary croc get loaded safely into a truck, or a big scary dog brought into submission. That's the appeal of the show to the masses. A show on clicker training probably wouldn't make it 2 episodes during prime time. That kind of says a lot about the sad state of entertainment, we need cliff hangers and drama to stick around through the onslaught of commercials every few minutes lol.


----------



## sircuddles

jgnmoose said:


> A lot of good points, Cracker.
> 
> If you want to blame something, blame the legacy of Steve Erwin. It's essentially the same genre of programming, i.e. watching gifted individuals handle dangerous animals. I'll bet that if you went to a croc wrangling forum a lot of people probably take issue with the way Steve handled them.


I don't think that's true. Steve devoted his entire life to saving endangered animals, his work with the zoo and furthering awareness and research on all sorts of species. He always had the animals in the forefront of what he was doing. Cesar just does what he does and seems to exist in his own little bubble. It seems to be that he uses his own techniques and ignores all animal behavior research and studies and developments. That's at least how it seems to me. Steve did a lot of great things worldwide for animals. Cesar just has a TV show.


----------



## jgnmoose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceasar_Milan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Irwin

What you said about Steve is true, but what is he well known for? The same is the case for Ceasar, he doesn't just have a TV show and never done anything outside of that to care for dogs. 

Neither would be the least bit famous outside of the niche of animal fanatics if it werent for the theatrics and drama of their television shows. Neither man would be known if they were traditional animal handlers and trainers, that's just the facts as I see it.

*Irwin, sorry I tend to want to spell it with an E


----------



## FourIsCompany

sircuddles said:


> Steve did a lot of great things worldwide for animals. Cesar just has a TV show.


That's just not true. Cesar is devoting his life to saving endangered dogs, working with rescue organizations and furthering awareness about dogs, puppy mills and people's responsibilities for filling the needs of dogs responsibly. He is dedicated to the rehabilitation and placement of abused and abandoned dogs.

His work in shelters, rescues and prisons is ongoing. He has a non-profit organization, works with K-9 Connection, Pups on Parole, Pets911, saved dogs after hurricanes, gives out grants for spay and neuter programs and much more. 



> Cesar just does what he does and seems to exist in his own little bubble.


It may seem that way to you. That's your take on it and that's fine, but that doesn't mesh with reality. 

Interestingly, I hate the shows where people go out into the wild and torment wild animals to make a TV show. I have never understood Steve Irwin's appeal. To each his own, I guess.


----------



## Westhighlander

A lot of people complain about Cesar and whatever faults he may have, he's the one out there making a difference. He's gotten owners to think about the responsibilities of dog ownership. He's doing his part for shelters, rescues and dogs headed for death row. He's probably the most well known Pitbull advocate out there. So before we criticize a man who has really magnify many important dog issues as well as being a role model to anyone who thinks the American dream is unattainable, ask yourself a question - what have you done lately that makes you think you are better?


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> A lot of people complain about Cesar and whatever faults he may have, he's the one out there making a difference. He's gotten owners to think about the responsibilities of dog ownership. He's doing his part for shelters, rescues and dogs headed for death row. He's probably the most well known Pitbull advocate out there. So before we criticize a man who has really magnify many important dog issues as well as being a role model to anyone who thinks the American dream is unattainable, ask yourself a question - what have you done lately that makes you think you are better?


IMO you don't have to think your "better" then someone to disagree with their methods 

I also think that Cesar has done some wonderful things for the K9 world....and some not so great


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Westhighlander said:


> So before we criticize a man who has really magnify many important dog issues as well as being a role model to anyone who thinks the American dream is unattainable, ask yourself a question - what have you done lately that makes you think you are better?


Is that what it is...a question about who's better? I don't think so. 

There are individuals who do more for dogdom, and have done more for dogdom than CM ever will, yet, they've done so without succumbing to a pop wave. It never was a question about who's better. It's been a question about what would be better for dogdom.


----------



## Westhighlander

pugmom said:


> IMO you don't have to think your "better" then someone to disagree with their methods
> 
> I also think that Cesar has done some wonderful things for the K9 world....and some not so great


Disagree is one thing but criticize/bash is another. If you are going to criticize, then you should have a better method and you better be doing it instead of playing armchair quarterback.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Is that what it is...a question about who's better? I don't think so.
> 
> There are individuals who do more for dogdom, and have done more for dogdom than CM ever will, yet, they've done so without succumbing to a pop wave. It never was a question about who's better. It's been a question about what would be better for dogdom.


What came first, the chicken or the egg? He was doing something right in order to get popular. If anything his methods have gotten better as he has gotten more popular. CM is going to be around a long time, who's to say at the end of his career he won't do just as much for dogdom as anyone else?


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> Disagree is one thing but criticize/bash is another. If you are going to criticize, then you should have a better method and you better be doing it instead of playing armchair quarterback.
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> Why do you assume My way is not better and that I'm not "doing it"?


----------



## Westhighlander

pugmom said:


> Why do you assume My way is not better and that I'm not "doing it"?


I don't, but to have the effect or reach that CM has, you must be very well known. Can I have your autograph?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Westhighlander said:


> He was doing something right in order to get popular.


I wouldn't be so quick to agree that exploiting a mind virus is "right" just because it is popular. 



> If anything his methods have gotten better as he has gotten more popular.


Popular is not synonymous with better. His methods are not new, nor revolutionary, so I'm not sure how you could say he's gotten better with *his* popularity. 



> CM is going to be around a long time, who's to say at the end of his career he won't do just as much for dogdom as anyone else?


Oh I don't know, maybe the not-so-armchair quarterbacks? 

http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance statement.pdf

The last I heard from CM he was *not* concerned with what his critics had to say about his methodology. I would take that to include constructive criticism. He is, as *he* should be, concerned with ratings. As long as he has the ratings, ethics will trail.


----------



## sircuddles

Curbside Prophet said:


> The last I heard from CM he was *not* concerned with what his critics had to say about his methodology. I would take that to include constructive criticism. He is, as *he* should be, concerned with ratings. As long as he has the ratings, ethics will trail.


Hey! You said exactly what I was trying to say... except much better


----------



## Westhighlander

Curbside Prophet said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to agree that exploiting a mind virus is "right" just because it is popular.
> 
> 
> Popular is not synonymous with better. His methods are not new, nor revolutionary, so I'm not sure how you could say he's gotten better with *his* popularity.
> 
> 
> Oh I don't know, maybe the not-so-armchair quarterbacks?
> 
> http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance statement.pdf
> 
> The last I heard from CM he was *not* concerned with what his critics had to say about his methodology. I would take that to include constructive criticism. He is, as *he* should be, concerned with ratings. As long as he has the ratings, ethics will trail.


The last few seasons he has incorporated more treats and less physical methods. Maybe, he'll make you proud and pull out a clicker one day .

The not-so-armchair quarterbacks are not reaching as many people as CM is. CM may not be doing everything right , but he is highly efficient at reaching more people dog owners than the academics. I would be surprised if more than 5% of all dog owners would have the patience or curiosity to read that pdf. 

I really don't think CM is that concerned about his ratings. He was working with aggressive dogs and had his dog center before his show. Hollywood approached him because of his work.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Westhighlander said:


> The last few seasons he has incorporated more treats and less physical methods. Maybe, he'll make you proud and pull out a clicker one day .


But...he's "not a trainer", so why should we expect him to show even a fundamental understanding of how dog's learn? 



> The not-so-armchair quarterbacks are not reaching as many people as CM is.


That would be relative to one point. I'm not sure your reference offers the most advantageous view, however, I could argue it's reached both of us.  In the same breath, I wouldn't argue the grip the dominance meme has, nor is that grip easily explained. 



> I would be surprised if more than 5% of all dog owners would have the patience or curiosity to read that pdf.


You're probably right, just look at how many guardians avoid urgent veterinary care. That doesn't explain, however, why we should favor CM's popularity.



> I really don't think CM is that concerned about his ratings. He was working with aggressive dogs and had his dog center before his show. Hollywood approached him because of his work.


Ah yes, because Hollywood is our ethical reference, and Ozzy Osborn is a great American dad.


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> I don't, but to have the effect or reach that CM has, you must be very well known. Can I have your autograph?




Ok...so CM's way is better because its on TV and can reach more viewers...ah I see 


So all of us that do our part in rescue, fostering, and training or take the time to train our own pets to be breed ambassadors......should just what ?...shut up and sit down because we can't possible have the same effect ...


----------



## Westhighlander

pugmom said:


> Ok...so CM's way is better because its on TV and can reach more viewers...ah I see
> 
> 
> So all of us that do our part in rescue, fostering, and training or own pets to be breed ambassadors......should just what ?...shut up and sit down because we can't possible have the same effect ...


So you are reaching just as many dog owners as he is? I'm not saying you should shut up, but it seems like many people on this thread would like him to shut up.



Curbside Prophet said:


> But...he's "not a trainer", so why should we expect him to show even a fundamental understanding of how dog's learn?
> 
> That would be relative to one point. I'm not sure your reference offers the most advantageous view, however, I could argue it's reached both of us.  In the same breath, I wouldn't argue the grip the dominance meme has, nor is that grip easily explained.
> 
> You're probably right, just look at how many guardians avoid urgent veterinary care. That doesn't explain, however, why we should favor CM's popularity.
> 
> Ah yes, because Hollywood is our ethical reference, and Ozzy Osborn is a great American dad.


He may not be a trainer but he is trying to make people into better owners and if it calls for pulling out treats or a clicker then I can't see why he would object. 

I'm not stating that we should appreciate him for his popularity. I am however stating that he has done a lot of good for dogdom and it is because of his popularity and his TV show. He has an Oprah like effect in the dog world.


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> So you are reaching just as many dog owners as he is? I'm not saying you should shut up, but it seems like many people on this thread would like him to shut up.


of course I'm not reaching as many people...but how dose that make my way any "less" then CM? or what I do any less important?

As I said I think he has good points and bad points.....but I also respect the right to say if you disagree with his methods and why you disagree with out having to compare how big his stick is with how big mine is 

If i chose to speak out against a clothing company that uses child labor to make/sew there clothing......should I have to break out my loom, start weaving my own sweaters and stat a multimillion dollar clothing line before I'm worthy enough to share my onions ?


----------



## FourIsCompany

Curbside Prophet said:


> There are individuals who do more for dogdom, and have done more for dogdom than CM ever will,


There are lots of people who have had effect on the dog world, it's true, but none that I know have reached as many people as Cesar has. Whether his methods are good or bad or better or more for dogdom is subjective. It's your opinion. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I wouldn't be so quick to agree that exploiting a mind virus is "right" just because it is popular.


YOU think it's a "virus". 



> His methods are not new, nor revolutionary,


Nobody is claiming that.



> The last I heard from CM he was *not* concerned with what his critics had to say about his methodology. I would take that to include constructive criticism. He is, as *he* should be, concerned with ratings. As long as he has the ratings, ethics will trail.


Why should he be concerned with his critics when what he does works? Are Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor and Jean Donaldson concerned with their critics? They have plenty to say about Cesar, but have you ever heard him slam them or publish an article saying how wrong they are? In fact, here's what he says about his critics: 



> Absolutely, there are other methods. I'm not the only person who can help people. There are 68 million dogs in America—I can't get to all of them.
> 
> So we need all the professionals to help and accomplish the same goal, which is a balanced dog. How you accomplish that is up to you, as long as you use a humane approach.
> 
> I'm open for possibilities. I'm open for choices. I always welcome new ideas. I'm always eager to learn. I'm never going to close my mind from learning.


This guy is classy and gracious. He wouldn't dream of attacking even his critics. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> That doesn't explain, however, why we should favor CM's popularity.


I don't think anyone is saying that you should. 

No one is saying what other people do is not important or less effective. We are defending the onslaught against Cesar Millan and the work he does. Feel free to disagree with him and say so. I certainly disagree with some of the stuff he says and does and I say so. But to say that he's only interested in his ratings or popularity and doesn't care about the dogs and hasn't done incredible things for dogdom is pure fantasy. Please, share your onions AND your opinions, but if one of your opinions is that Cesar is only interested in money and fame, you're going to hear about the reality of it.


----------



## peppy264

I don't mind people criticizing CM's techniques; some people here are really into training and dogforums is as good a place to debate as anywhere. 

But there is a fundamental point behind what I think Westhighlander is saying.

All dog lovers should thank Cesar Milan.

If you watch his show (or read his books) in an unbiased way, there are a few messages which are endlessly repeated:
- Exercise your dogs. A lot.
- Remember that your dog is an animal, not a small child.
- Set boundaries and rules. Be consistent.
- Show leadership.
- Never get angry / frustrated at your dog. Be calm and assertive.
- Be very aware of your own body language / energy.
- Walk your dog everyday.
- Think positively and live in the moment as the dog does.
- Almost any dog can be trained / rehabilitated.
- Dogs need exercise discipline and affection. Most dogs in America get loads of affection and not enough exercise or discipline.
- the Breed is not the problem. The owner is the problem.

*Who amongst us think it is not a good thing to have those messages broadcast to millions of Americans every week?*

The fact that some people believe there are better techniques to use in dealing with problem dogs is basically irrelevant. The pet owners who are really into training are going to read books and go to classes and do research and follow the path they think is best in any case. What the show does do is deliver very much needed key messages to the millions of dog owners who would otherwise never read a training book.

I salute Cesar Milan !


----------



## Curbside Prophet

FourIsCompany said:


> YOU think it's a "virus".


And dominance theory has been proven where? 



> Nobody is claiming that.


I don't believe I was having this convo with YOU, so YOU pointing that out is not relevant to anything YOU'VE said. 



> Why should he be concerned with his critics when what he does works?


It works? You agree he influences the masses, correct? I have not met 1 person crediting common sense to CM. Does he trademark common sense too? I have met many people credit CM inc. for their dog's poor behavior, and if you and the CM inc. zealots think CM inc. would not/should not be concerned about this, that explains EVERYTHING. 



> Are Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor and Jean Donaldson concerned with their critics?


I've have not once heard them deflect a critic like CM inc. has, so what's your point? They would not need to if their methodology is fact based,, now would they? 



> They have plenty to say about Cesar, but have you ever heard him slam them or publish an article saying how wrong they are?


I have not heard Ian, Karen or Jean once be critical of CM the person, so? But if any of these people have been wrong, someone HAS said something about it to them. Again, so? That comes with the territory. Why does that have to be a slam? Reasonable people can answer their critics with reason, and all those you have mentioned do so without hesitation. 



> This guy is classy and gracious. He wouldn't dream of attacking even his critics.


No one is being critical of CM the person. This is not relevant, nor does it add sense to his methodology. 



> We are defending the onslaught against Cesar Millan and the work he does...But to say that he's only interested in his ratings or popularity and doesn't care about the dogs and hasn't done incredible things for dogdom is pure fantasy.


Onslaught? Now that's a fantasy. DF is but one microcosm in dogdom. 

I'm sorry, but anyone who would trade ethics for ratings does not care for dogs like they want you to believe. You can call this perspective a fantasy, but that doesn't give me a reason to believe you over those who really are interested in effecting dogdom in a favorable way.


----------



## Westhighlander

pugmom said:


> of course I'm not reaching as many people...but how dose that make my way any "less" then CM? or what I do any less important?
> 
> As I said I think he has good points and bad points.....but I also respect the right to say if you disagree with his methods and why you disagree with out having to compare how big his stick is with how big mine is
> 
> If i chose to speak out against a clothing company that uses child labor to make/sew there clothing......should I have to break out my loom, start weaving my own sweaters and stat a multimillion dollar clothing line before I'm worthy enough to share my onions ?


If he get 300,000 dog owners to walk their dog twice a day and you can only reach 100 people, then yes IMO he is more important in dogdom than you. 

Like I said, disagree and criticize/bash is something else. 

In the case of the clothing company, depending on your background, how you protest and why will determine if it is worthy or not.

And if you want to share onions, I'll take some on my burger.


----------



## KBLover

Westhighlander said:


> If he get 300,000 dog owners to walk their dog twice a day and you can only reach 100 people, then yes IMO he is more important in dogdom than you.


That might be true, but then, does that matter to the 100 people she did reach?

Doing good is doing good. Why does "importance" have to come into it?


----------



## pugmom

Westhighlander said:


> *And if you want to share onions, I'll take some on my burger. *





FourIsCompany said:


> *Please, share your onions* AND your opinions, but if one of your opinions is that Cesar is only interested in money and fame, you're going to hear about the reality of it.



I see the two of you cant continue this conversation as adults so I don't see the need to continue it at all

I find it very interesting that while you ask to cease the criticizing/bashing of CM you think nothing of belittling me for something as trivial as a spelling error (obviously over looked by spell check)

Bravo to you both...


----------



## Westhighlander

KBLover said:


> That might be true, but then, does that matter to the 100 people she did reach?
> 
> Doing good is doing good. Why does "importance" have to come into it?


I would think it's more beneficial to have 300,000 well trained dogs compared to 100.



pugmom said:


> I see the two of you cant continue this conversation as adults so I don't see the need to continue it at all
> 
> I find it very interesting that while you ask to cease the criticizing/bashing of CM you think nothing of belittling me for something as trivial as a spelling error (obviously over looked by spell check)
> 
> Bravo to you both...


I'm just teasing. I apologize. Really just kidding around.


----------



## 4dogs3cats

Westhighlander said:


> A lot of people complain about Cesar and whatever faults he may have, he's the one out there making a difference. He's gotten owners to think about the responsibilities of dog ownership. He's doing his part for shelters, rescues and dogs headed for death row. He's probably the most well known Pitbull advocate out there. So before we criticize a man who has really magnify many important dog issues as well as being a role model to anyone who thinks the American dream is unattainable, ask yourself a question - what have you done lately that makes you think you are better?


Hes not the only one. There are plenty of good trainers out there. Hes just the one putting it all on TV. Is he doing that for the dogs? Ask yourself this.

Would he do that TV show is NatGeo didnt pay him for it?

Cuz I have logged hours at the county POUND. I have walked past the back rooms, ya know where they keep all the dumped kittens and puppies. the ones too young and weak to make it, before they euthanize them. I have heard them cry. I have seen them suffer. And Im doing something about it.

And nobody pays me a DIME.



Westhighlander said:


> *I don't, but to have the effect or reach that CM has*, you must be very well known. Can I have your autograph?


Now think about all the people who are using his methods that he TELLS people not to use in the beginning of the show, and doing it WRONG because they arent Cesar. And in doing that alpha roll wrong, they get bit. Or in poking their dog in the neck it attacks a dog. Sure, hes helping the ones WE see him help. But think of all the people doing his methods WRONG. I bet you his NET dogs saved, would surprise you if you included those.



pugmom said:


> Ok...so CM's way is better because its on TV and can reach more viewers...ah I see
> 
> 
> So all of us that do our part in rescue, fostering, and training or take the time to train our own pets to be breed ambassadors......*should just what ?...shut up and sit down because we can't possible have the same effect* ...


No... you have to get on tv!


----------



## FourIsCompany

Curbside Prophet said:


> And dominance theory has been proven where?


It can't be proven as regards to dogs because we can't communicate with them on that level. Neither can it be disproven. Whether people believe in it or not is opinion. 



> I don't believe I was having this convo with YOU


Oh! Understood!  I thought it was an open discussion. 



> I have not met 1 person crediting common sense to CM.


Neither have I. No one is claiming that. 



> I've have not once heard them deflect a critic like CM has, so what's your point?


My point is that those other trainers are critical of Cesar's methods, but he doesn't attack theirs. I haven't heard him deflect his critics. What does that even mean? Do you have a link to Cesar "deflecting his critics"? 



> No one is being critical of CM the person. This is not relevant.


Suggesting that he "trades ethics for ratings and does not care for dogs" *is* critical of the person. That speaks to his personal morals and values. You and others are most definitely criticizing the person. 



> You can call this perspective a fantasy, but that doesn't give me a reason to believe you over those who really are effecting dogdom in a favorable way.


I have no investment in you or anyone here believing me. I'm just putting my opinions and views out there like you are.

pugmom, I was just playing around. I'm sorry. I don't criticize people for stuff like that. I thought it was cute.


----------



## 4dogs3cats

Before I get flamed I do agree with a lot of his ideas. i just chose not to use his methods. My dogs were out of CONTROL not very long ago and now they are all under control. I have spent a LOT of time talking to dogstar off the forum and she has helped me tremendously. I chose to use a clicker and now my dogs are well behaved and stable.

IF everyone used his IDEAS of exercising their dogs, he wouldnt HAVE as many cases to work with. If you look at what he TELLS people to do, a LOT of that would eliminate a lot of the problems he is dealing with. he is working with these dogs because the OWNER was doing something wrong.

I fail to see why people would jump right past positive reinforcement where you can create and shape a behavior, and jump right into correcting the behavior that could have been prevented in the first place!


----------



## Westhighlander

4dogs3cats said:


> Hes not the only one. There are plenty of good trainers out there. Hes just the one putting it all on TV. Is he doing that for the dogs? Ask yourself this.
> 
> Would he do that TV show is NatGeo didnt pay him for it?
> 
> Cuz I have logged hours at the county POUND. I have walked past the back rooms, ya know where they keep all the dumped kittens and puppies. the ones too young and weak to make it, before they euthanize them. I have heard them cry. I have seen them suffer. And Im doing something about it.
> 
> And nobody pays me a DIME.
> 
> 
> Now think about all the people who are using his methods that he TELLS people not to use in the beginning of the show, and doing it WRONG because they arent Cesar. And in doing that alpha roll wrong, they get bit. Or in poking their dog in the neck it attacks a dog. Sure, hes helping the ones WE see him help. But think of all the people doing his methods WRONG. I bet you his NET dogs saved, would surprise you if you included those.


Like I already pointed out, he was doing a lot of good work already with aggressive dogs before his show, so to assume he only does it for TV is wrong.

You may have done a lot but I would have to say he has affected more.

A lot of people may be using his method incorrectly but I would say there are far more people who practices his basic message, of exercise, discipline and affection.


----------



## pugmom

Its hard to tell over the internet when someone changes gears from serious debate to playful banter.....I'm sorry I misinterpreted you meaning

I appreciate both your apologies, Thank you.


----------



## hulkamaniac

There are too many cowboy hats in this discussion and none of them smell good.

Can we just say that Cesar is not a dog trainer (which he freely admits) and works with troubled and problem dogs and that his methods do work on the dogs he works with and thus regardless of the theory behind them they may have some validity when applied to specific situations? Huh? Can we just say that?


----------



## Westhighlander

hulkamaniac said:


> There are too many cowboy hats in this discussion and none of them smell good.
> 
> Can we just say that Cesar is not a dog trainer (which he freely admits) and works with troubled and problem dogs and that his methods do work on the dogs he works with and thus regardless of the theory behind them they may have some validity when applied to specific situations? Huh? Can we just say that?


But that would stop the friendly debate we are having. What fun is that??


----------



## 4dogs3cats

Westhighlander said:


> Like I already pointed out, he was doing a lot of good work already with aggressive dogs before his show, so to assume he only does it for TV is wrong.
> 
> You may have done a lot but I would have to say he has affected more.
> 
> A lot of people may be using his method incorrectly but I would say there are far more people who practices his basic message, of exercise, discipline and affection.


Maybe he has come in contact with more, but I dont think its fair to say he has affected more. For every CM lover I know, I know 5 who feel the opposite. And yes if more people practiced his basic message, he probably wouldnt have as many cases to work with. That proves many a point that there are other ways to achieve the same thing.



hulkamaniac said:


> There are too many cowboy hats in this discussion and none of them smell good.
> 
> Can we just say that Cesar is not a dog trainer (which he freely admits) and works with troubled and problem dogs and that his methods do work on the dogs he works with and thus regardless of the theory behind them they may have some validity when applied to specific situations? Huh? Can we just say that?


Oh I agree. I also think its funny how old this thread is and it was ressurected! I dont hate the guy. I think he has some good ideas. I would NEVER use his extreme methods on my dogs. My dogs also arent extreme cases. My issue with him is the person alpha rolling their dog because it walked out the door first. My issue is the person walking their dog and when their dog goes to smell a fire hydrant getting leash popped because "the forst half of the walk is MY walk, not the dogs."

I saw a guy at the dp a month or so ago that leash popped his dog on a HALTI because "Cesar does it, and he needs to learn." 7 month old german shepherd, by far THE most insecure, unstable, fearful dog I have EVER met. EVERY. SINGLE. THING. was a correction. I just dont feel his methods are necessary for the average Joe. And the average Joe's who use what they learned in the short 30 minute episode (22 because we dont learn anything from commercials,) on their dog who really doesn't need more than some training- THATS my big issue with him.


----------



## FourIsCompany

4dogs3cats said:


> I chose to use a clicker and now my dogs are well behaved and stable.


That's great. But I don't understand this "divide" between the clicker folks and Cesar Millan. There's room for BOTH. *I use both.* It doesn't have to be one or the other. This divide reminds me of Democrats and Republicans or Christians and Atheists. It's NOT necessary and so useless. Because it's ALL for the good of dogs. 



> he is working with these dogs because the OWNER was doing something wrong.


Absolutely! And he's been doing it long before there was a TV show about it. It's been his dream all his life to make the world a better place for the dogs, and he does that by working with the people and rehabilitating the dogs who have been screwed up by people who didn't know that they were doing. 



> I fail to see why people would jump right past positive reinforcement where you can create and shape a behavior, and jump right into correcting the behavior that could have been prevented in the first place!


Again, it's not a matter of positive reinforcement vs correction. He uses both. I use both. AND I have a fundamental disagreement with the notion that it's somehow wrong to teach a dog NOT to do something. The Cesar critics think that +P is ineffective. I beg to differ. It's a matter of opinion and how one chooses to work with their dogs. I have no problem with people not using punishment if they don't want to. But I find it's more effective to include mild punishment in dealing with my dogs. It's not that we reach for it first, it's just one tool in the box and the proponents of "positive only" training don't like that.


----------



## 4dogs3cats

FourIsCompany said:


> That's great. But I don't understand this "divide" between the clicker folks and Cesar Millan. There's room for BOTH. *I use both.* It doesn't have to be one or the other. This divide reminds me of Democrats and Republicans or Christians and Atheists. It's NOT necessary and so useless. Because it's ALL for the good of dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! And he's been doing it long before there was a TV show about it. It's been his dream all his life to make the world a better place for the dogs, and he does that by working with the people and rehabilitating the dogs who have been screwed up by people who didn't know that they were doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not a matter of positive reinforcement vs correction. He uses both. I use both. AND I have a fundamental disagreement with the notion that it's somehow wrong to teach a dog NOT to do something. The Cesar critics think that +P is ineffective. I beg to differ. It's a matter of opinion and how one chooses to work with their dogs. I have no problem with people not using punishment if they don't want to. But I find it's more effective to include mild punishment in dealing with my dogs. It's not that we reach for it first, it's just one tool in the box and the proponents of "positive only" training don't like that.


I agree. I use both. I just don't use his extreme methods. If my dog is doing something wrong, I do correct him. When Kody is on the kitchen table I do say "OFF!" I dont just wait till he gets off and hand him a treat. I view CM debates the same way I view Pit debates.

People always assume there are 2 sides. Pit lovers who say they do no wrong, and pit haters who say they do ALL wrong. Nope. There IS a happy median.

Same here. CM supporters usually dont agree there ARE other methods to train the same thing without the physical correction. But there are plenty that do see that. I watch his show for entertainment purposes. But when he uses flooding, or he uses alpha rolls.... i just cant. I have had issues with Chance and I have NEVER tried to overpower him. Im not going to roll a 70 pound german shepherd on his side and hold him down. then again i am EXTEMELY claustraphobic and when me and my brother used to fight as kids, he would hold me down, and all it would do was get me SO worked up and SO heated, and then I would finally jusy shut down and give in. But it didnt stop me from fighting with him. It made me FEARFUL than anytime we would fight he would hold me down so I would RUN AWAY from him.

But I respect everyones opinions, and I do know CM has done a lot of good for the dogs. I just fail to see why my efforts are not as important just because I am not on TV.


----------



## FourIsCompany

pugmom said:


> Its hard to tell over the internet when someone changes gears from serious debate to playful banter.....I'm sorry I misinterpreted you meaning


Oh, thank you. I always try to maintain a respectful and non-offensive position. But I do have a sense of humor that not everyone "gets", unfortunately.  



4dogs3cats said:


> I just dont feel his methods are necessary for the average Joe. ... THATS my big issue with him.


I know what you mean. But to be fair, he's as clear as he can be to his audience. He really cannot be held responsible for the idiots out there. There are many TV shows, movies and musical artists that suggest things that the average joe shouldn't be doing. Yet Cesar is the only one I ever see take such serious heat for it. 

I put the blame and responsibility where it belongs. On the people who actually go against Cesar's advice and do what he says NOT to do. How can he be blamed for that?



4dogs3cats said:


> I just fail to see why my efforts are not as important just because I am not on TV.


I think they are.


----------



## 4dogs3cats

FourIsCompany said:


> Oh, thank you. I always try to maintain a respectful and non-offensive position. But I do have a sense of humor that not everyone "gets", unfortunately.
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you mean. But to be fair, he's as clear as he can be to his audience. He really cannot be held responsible for the idiots out there. There are many TV shows, movies and musical artists that suggest things that the average joe shouldn't be doing. Yet Cesar is the only one I ever see take such serious heat for it.
> 
> I put the blame and responsibility where it belongs. On the people who actually go against Cesar's advice and do what he says NOT to do. How can he be blamed for that?


If someone uses his method and gets bit, its their fault not Cesars.

Just like its not Marilyn mansons fault for a lot he gets blamed for, or eminem, etc.

unforunately- when you are in the limelight, you get blamed.

BUT- i use mostly PR because I am not going to damage my dog with clicker training. I have beagles, VERY smart, food driven beagles. I taught my foster, JD, to sit, in 4 minutes. i timed it. I would walk around the room, and stop, and every time he sat, I clicked and treated. Then I added the cue "sit." Now, I can be across the DOG PARK from him, and say "JD sit." and he sits. And now we are working on come so he can come get loves when he listens. i am straying away from using treats only, I want them to know that praise counts because I dont bring treats to the DP


----------



## Westhighlander

4dogs3cats said:


> Maybe he has come in contact with more, but I dont think its fair to say he has affected more. For every CM lover I know, I know 5 who feel the opposite. And yes if more people practiced his basic message, he probably wouldnt have as many cases to work with. That proves many a point that there are other ways to achieve the same thing.


Almost everyone I know loves him. I really can't think of anyone that doesn't like him. They do get his basic message and that's really all they do. No much poking or alpha rolling with most people I know.

I think the only one who can come close with affecting as many dog owners on a weekly basis is Victoria Stillwell. So for the average trainer or rescuer, there is no way they can reach/affect this many every week. It's just statistically impossible.


----------



## 4dogs3cats

FourIsCompany said:


> I think they are.


as important? Thank you. 



Westhighlander said:


> Almost everyone I know loves him. I really can't think of anyone that doesn't like him. They do get his basic message and that's really all they do. No much poking or alpha rolling with most people I know.
> 
> I think the only one who can come close with affecting as many dog owners on a weekly basis is Victoria Stillwell. So for the average trainer or rescuer, there is no way they can reach/affect this many every week. It's just statistically impossible.


really? cuz I tell everyone I know to rescue, and I have taught many family members how to work with their dogs, and word spreads. I am JUSt as impirtant as Cesar, because I am doing my part. I am doing as MUCH as I can. is he?


----------



## FourIsCompany

I think we're getting confused (or maybe it's just me?) with the difference between reaching a lot of people and being important. *Everything *we do for the betterment of "dogdom" is important. Just as important as anyone else, even if they DO have a TV show. It's just that Cesar and Victoria (who I also love) reach more people because they have a TV show. What they're doing isn't more important than the millions of people who work in rescues and shelters across the country and even those who work with their own dogs. Or single dog. IMO.


----------



## 4dogs3cats

FourIsCompany said:


> I think we're getting confused (or maybe it's just me?) with the difference between reaching a lot of people and being important. *Everything *we do for the betterment of "dogdom" is important. Just as important as anyone else, even if they DO have a TV show. It's just that Cesar and Victoria (who I also love) reach more people because they have a TV show. What they're doing isn't more important than the millions of people who work in rescues and shelters across the country and even those who work with their own dogs. Or single dog. IMO.


I agree. Someone else said Cesar was more important because he reaches more. My arguement was although he does reach more, it doesnt make him more important. By the way, your GSD's are gorgeous. i fell in love with the breed ever since I got Chance.


----------



## hulkamaniac

4dogs3cats said:


> I just dont feel his methods are necessary for the average Joe. And the average Joe's who use what they learned in the short 30 minute episode (22 because we dont learn anything from commercials,) on their dog who really doesn't need more than some training- THATS my big issue with him.


I don't disagree with that. That's why his show airs disclaimers saying not to try anything he does without consulting a professional. I'm not going to blame Tony Hawk if some jackass breaks his neck trying some ridiculous skateboard maneuver he saw on TV. I'm not going to blame the Mythbusters if someone tries to mix up some home made thermite and it blows up in their face. It's the idiots fault, not the guy on TV.


----------



## Westhighlander

In the context of this thread, important to me means affecting the most number of people. And being a public figure just puts him in a position to get his message out there. I can do a lifetime of work in my area but I couldn't even begin to come close to what he does in a single show like this one: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/3736/Overview12#tab-Videos/06653_00


----------



## TxRider

4dogs3cats said:


> Would he do that TV show is NatGeo didnt pay him for it?


I bet he would, he was doing the same thing before he was on TV.

Here's what he has to say about alpha rolls....

What's your response to those who feel it should not be done and that it's harmful to use this technique?

That's their point of view.

It's the difference between going to school and the dogs being your school. One is the intellectual knowledge, the other one is instinctual. I am instinctual.

I'm open to [other trainers'] beliefs and I'm open to their knowledge.

They close their minds. They say their way is the only way, and my way is the wrong way. That's not a very good leader.

If you study a pack of dogs, the first authority figure is the mom, and the mom does pin the puppies down. It's an instinctual relationship that I have to establish with them. It's for the benefit of their species.


And what he has to say about using other methods....

"Absolutely, there are other methods. I'm not the only person who can help people. There are 68 million dogs in America—I can't get to all of them.

So we need all the professionals to help and accomplish the same goal, which is a balanced dog. How you accomplish that is up to you, as long as you use a humane approach.

I'm open for possibilities. I'm open for choices. I always welcome new ideas. I'm always eager to learn. I'm never going to close my mind from learning."

"What I would like to really express is, don't get stuck on one thing. Always create your own techniques and your own formula.

Exercise, discipline, and affection is Cesar Millan. And calm-assertive energy—you heard it from me.

Just don't get stuck in one way. Then you close your mind and stop growing.

I like that about dogs. They don't close their minds to one way. Humans do. Dogs don't. "


And just to add my own 2 cents, there have been happy well adjusted and very well trained dogs long before anyone ever used a clicker for thousands of years. It's far from the only way to train a good dog humanely and the more recent people putting names to the techniques and writing papers and books on it are only doing what millions of people have also done throughout history by just observing their dogs and working with them.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

FourIsCompany said:


> It can't be proven as regards to dogs because we can't communicate with them on that level. Neither can it be disproven. Whether people believe in it or not is opinion.


Acting on an opinion without confirming facts is the definition of a mind virus. 



> My point is that those other trainers are critical of Cesar's methods, but he doesn't attack theirs. I haven't heard him deflect his critics. What does that even mean? Do you have a link to Cesar "deflecting his critics"?


How can you attack the laws of learning theory? What does it mean? It means he won't answer his critics with reason. He'll just call it a difference of opinion and walk away. 

http://www.komonews.com/home/video/37440019.html?video=pop&t=a



> Suggesting that he "trades ethics for ratings and does not care for dogs" *is* critical of the person. That speaks to his personal morals and values. You and others are most definitely criticizing the person.


Nope. I am being critical of CM inc. Call that a cop-out but CM inc. is much bigger than CM the person, and "professional" ethics is not synonymous with personal ethics. Business people know this.


----------



## peppy264

_



Suggesting that he "trades ethics for ratings and does not care for dogs" is critical of the person. That speaks to his personal morals and values. You and others are most definitely criticizing the person.

Click to expand...

_


> Nope. I am being critical of CM inc. Call that a cop-out but CM inc. is much bigger than CM the person, and "professional" ethics is not synonymous with personal ethics. Business people know this.


Business people don't know this. You are just playing with words. You made a clear attack on the man; you should at least acknowledge that or withdraw it. 

Even if you disagree with his message and techniques I've read nothing here or elsewhere that would indicate CM is not sincere in what he does.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> You made a clear attack on the man; you should at least acknowledge that or withdraw it.


I did not, and will not. 



> Even if you disagree with his message and techniques I've read nothing here or elsewhere that would indicate CM is not sincere in what he does.


You're unwilling or unable to discriminate professional ethics from personal ethics, so I'm not surprised in this response.


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> I did not, and will not.
> 
> 
> You're unwilling or unable to discriminate professional ethics from personal ethics, so I'm not surprised in this response.


How does one engage in unprofessional ethics without compromising personal ethics?

I can see compromising one's personal ethics without compromising business ethics but the reverse is hard for me to see.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> How does one engage in unprofessional ethics without compromising personal ethics?
> 
> I can see compromising one's personal ethics without compromising business ethics but the reverse is hard for me to see.


I don't believe I made or suggested the reverse.


----------



## KBLover

TxRider said:


> And just to add my own 2 cents, there have been happy well adjusted and very well trained dogs long before anyone ever used a clicker for thousands of years.


I bet they used other methods to mark when the dog did the behavior correctly, though. That's all a clicker does.

You could say good boy and give a treat, or a pat on the head - same thing.

Why is it so hung up on the clicker and not the concept overall? Just curious (and not even directing the question at you). People always bring up the clicker and not why the process works. 

It's just pairing something with a reward so that something predicts the reward. It could be a clicker, it could be a gun shot - it's the same concept.

I mean, stopping an ear pinch when the dog completes the retrieve is marking the behavior. Just in a different way. Is there a method that doesn't mark when the behavior is complete in some way? I'd like to know how that would work - sounds interesting...and difficult.


----------



## wvasko

This thread is amazing, I have stated before that I am neither pro or con on Cesar as I personally don't know the man. Common sense dictates that there are some dogs he has helped and since nothing ever is 100% there are some dogs he didn't help. As a very small time trainer I myself never had to worry about changing the great dog-dom world. I just worried about changing the dogs and owners that came to me for help. As far as Cesar goes, I hope he laughs all the way to the bank because there are many world problems much more important that need to be worked on. It's kinda funny whether it's dogs or people problems you got to break some eggs to make an omelet and all of us are egg breakers.


----------



## TxRider

KBLover said:


> I bet they used other methods to mark when the dog did the behavior correctly, though. That's all a clicker does.
> 
> You could say good boy and give a treat, or a pat on the head - same thing.
> 
> Why is it so hung up on the clicker and not the concept overall? Just curious (and not even directing the question at you). People always bring up the clicker and not why the process works.
> 
> It's just pairing something with a reward so that something predicts the reward. It could be a clicker, it could be a gun shot - it's the same concept.
> 
> I mean, stopping an ear pinch when the dog completes the retrieve is marking the behavior. Just in a different way. Is there a method that doesn't mark when the behavior is complete in some way? I'd like to know how that would work - sounds interesting...and difficult.


Say teaching a dog to drink water on command is as simple as repeating "drink some water" every time you see the dog drink. Eventually my dogs drink when I say "drink some water". It's marking a behavior, but I don't use that unique mark for any other behavior and I don't reward when I mark that behavior, only when the dog eventually does it on command, which I test on occasion to see if the dog has associated it.

I teach names of toys and rooms the same way, just repeat the unique name every time I pick it up and the dog is focused on it, or we go into a room. After a while they associate the unique name(mark) with it and you can use it. It's marking but with unique marks I guess and no reward for the mark. Seems the more words they learn the faster they pick new ones up and some get very quick at it.

Maybe that's conditioning or building fast mapping to an extent as well?

A clicker is a consistent mark, it's always the same for a reason, for a purpose. I use unique marks that are unique for each behavior for a reason, or purpose. It's just how I learned through experimentation to train when I was younger. I use a consistent mark like a clicker for sit, stay, down, and other things. Usually "good" or "good girl".

Surely a lot slower at first for many things but I've had dogs that could learn a new name for a place or thing with only showing an item and repeating it's name a few times in the end, and pick up a new behavior in just a few minutes, or chaining commands together very quickly many times the very first time I ask them to. Though for some specific complex behaviors shaping with a clicker would have been quicker.

I will use a clicker and mark/reward with Hope for some of those behaviors. It opens up new possibilities.

Then there's behavior shaping of teaching the dog to train me, to understand "show me" means to offer behaviors to tell me she wants a specific thing until I comprehend it, with the reward being whatever it was she wanted and heaps of praise to mark that behavior. That has always been more difficult for the dog.

Does that make sense?

I self taught myself though when I was much younger, no books, no school, no theory etc. starting back in the 70's, just my own experimentation and observation having a dog all my life and learning. The same way CM sates he learned all that he does.


----------



## Westhighlander

wvasko said:


> This thread is amazing


You know what's amazing? That crazy Dragons thread in off topic. Only 19k more post to catch them guys!


----------



## TxRider

wvasko said:


> This thread is amazing, I have stated before that I am neither pro or con on Cesar as I personally don't know the man. Common sense dictates that there are some dogs he has helped and since nothing ever is 100% there are some dogs he didn't help. As a very small time trainer I myself never had to worry about changing the great dog-dom world. I just worried about changing the dogs and owners that came to me for help. As far as Cesar goes, I hope he laughs all the way to the bank because there are many world problems much more important that need to be worked on. It's kinda funny whether it's dogs or people problems you got to break some eggs to make an omelet and all of us are egg breakers.


Yup I tend to give people I do not know, have never spoken with, and only know little about really a pretty wide benefit of doubt. 

People so sure about what someone like CM thinks, or what motivates him etc. are making assumptions without enough information to base them on IMO. Assumptions I would only make if I went and hung out with the man for a while and knew him personally.


----------



## cshellenberger

Westhighlander said:


> You know what's amazing? That crazy Dragons thread in off topic. Only 19k more post to catch them guys!



Hey it's fun to talk about absolutely nothing, breeding pixels and comparing our scrolls and trying to get the 'new' dragons. It's hording that doesn't cause any problems LOL. What's more is Dragons don't need to be trained, pottied or excercised (I think I'll suggest getting a pet dragon for the next person that comes on here talking about how they want a dog without the hassle)


----------



## Westhighlander

cshellenberger said:


> Hey it's fun to talk about absolutely nothing, breeding pixels and comparing our scrolls and trying to get the 'new' dragons. It's hording that doesn't cause any problems LOL. What's more is Dragons don't need to be trained, pottied or excercised (I think I'll suggest getting a pet dragon for the next person that comes on here talking about how they want a dog without the hassle)


Carla, I just clicked one of your eggs. I'm not sure what exactly that does but I guess it helps them hatch or is that like a CM poke . Maybe I'll alpha roll one of your Dragons.


----------



## cshellenberger

Thanks Westhighlander, my eggs appreciate it! LOL

As far as the CM debate goes, my opinions on him are well published on this site. I'll stick to the techniques I see used everyday at my job (SeaWorld) on animals that could kill a human with ease as well as the dogs, cats, ferrets, a pig and birds they use in their "Pets Rule" show (all of which are rescues and they adopt out when the animal is ready for retirement). I'd love to see Ceasar alpha roll Shamu, he'd end up a crunchy Orca snack!!!


----------



## Corteo

> I'd love to see Ceasar alpha roll Shamu, he'd end up a crunchy Orca snack!!!


This made me actually LOL. 



> I think I'll suggest getting a pet dragon for the next person that comes on here talking about how they want a dog without the hassle


I like this idea!


----------



## TxRider

cshellenberger said:


> Thanks Westhighlander, my eggs appreciate it! LOL
> 
> As far as the CM debate goes, my opinions on him are well published on this site. I'll stick to the techniques I see used everyday at my job (SeaWorld) on animals that could kill a human with ease as well as the dogs, cats, ferrets, a pig and birds they use in their "Pets Rule" show (all of which are rescues and they adopt out when the animal is ready for retirement). I'd love to see Ceasar alpha roll Shamu, he'd end up a crunchy Orca snack!!!


But can I alpha roll your dragon, or at least an egg?


----------



## cshellenberger

LOL If you can figure out how, just beware of the Blacks and the reds, they're the 'warrior' classes!


----------



## winniec777

cshellenberger said:


> Thanks Westhighlander, my eggs appreciate it! LOL
> 
> As far as the CM debate goes, my opinions on him are well published on this site. I'll stick to the techniques I see used everyday at my job (SeaWorld) on animals that could kill a human with ease as well as the dogs, cats, ferrets, a pig and birds they use in their "Pets Rule" show (all of which are rescues and they adopt out when the animal is ready for retirement). I'd love to see Ceasar alpha roll Shamu, he'd end up a crunchy Orca snack!!!


LOL! Now I'm amused about the crunchy snack thing _and_ jealous that you get to work at SeaWorld!!


----------



## TxRider

One other thing about CM.

Though I can't be sure why, the number of dogs that people walk daily in my neighborhood has gone from 1-2 to basically almost every single dog since CM and his show have gotten popular with his message that all dogs need daily exercise like a walk.

That alone is probably enough to make up for some idiots misusing what they see on TV. Millions of happy walked dogs.


----------



## pugmom

TxRider said:


> One other thing about CM.
> 
> Though I can't be sure why, the number of dogs that people walk daily in my neighborhood has gone from 1-2 to basically almost every single dog since CM and his show have gotten popular with his message that all dogs need daily exercise like a walk.
> 
> That alone is probably enough to make up for some idiots misusing what they see on TV. Millions of happy walked dogs.


LOL...thats funny


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> One other thing about CM.
> 
> Though I can't be sure why, the number of dogs that people walk daily in my neighborhood has gone from 1-2 to basically almost every single dog since CM and his show have gotten popular with his message that all dogs need daily exercise like a walk.
> 
> That alone is probably enough to make up for some idiots misusing what they see on TV. Millions of happy walked dogs.


And in other news, the number of times I've seen the next car I will buy has gone up two fold too. Which raises the question, who is the Shelby Whisperer?


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> And in other news, the number of times I've seen the next car I will buy has gone up two fold too. Which raises the question, who is the Shelby Whisperer?


Carroll Shelby of course...

Or J Walter Thompson their marketing agency depending on how you look at it.

Both likely rake in a whole lot more than CM inc.


----------



## wvasko

Curbside Prophet said:


> And in other news, the number of times I've seen the next car I will buy has gone up two fold too. Which raises the question, who is the Shelby Whisperer?


Well since Ford is not bankrupt yet it's an easy choice. Oh yes we bought a new Trailblazer last Sept. I keep telling people about not being brightest bulb in box thing.


----------



## TxRider

pugmom said:


> LOL...thats funny


It is funny, especially the people out walking dogs that have obviously not been walked much in their life if ever, dogs all fat and round and all unsure out about this whole walking around the neighborhood thing..


----------



## Westhighlander

All warranties will be fine, your GM cars will get serviced. It's actually a great time to buy a GM car. I'm actually considering the Camaro SS. http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2010/camaro/gallery.do


----------



## cshellenberger

Westhighlander, I've looked at the new Camaro SS, it pales compared to the Shelby GT 500. We were originally going to buy the Camaro with all the hype surrounding it, but were VERY dissapointed by how cheap it felt inside. I'm a Chevy fan (Currently own an 08 Malibu and a Silverdo 1500 Z) but Chevy came up short on this one! We've already ordered our GT 500, Kona Blue with the White stripes and are expecting it in January. Yes Curb, I'll post picks for you to drool over 

Winniec, It's a fun job, but honestly it's only until I can find something that pays better unless I can jump into a leadership position soon. I'm making a bit less than I would be other places for comparable work ad since they've been bought out by the Dutch (Inbev) alot of the better 'perks' have been taken away.


----------



## pugmom

TxRider said:


> It is funny, especially the people out walking dogs that have obviously not been walked much in their life if ever, dogs all fat and round and all unsure out about this whole walking around the neighborhood thing..


well I'm not so sure you can say a dog has never had exercise in its life just because its fat 

case in point......every day I see 2 different owners ...one that has a huge overweight sausage of a Rottie....but I know it gets walked every day because i see them on my way home like clockwork

and One that has 2 choc. labs that remind me of potato bugs..LOL...but again I see them right around the time I'm taking my daughter to school in the am..walking walking walking

I agree CM has brought the need for exercising you pet to the attention of the GP....but so have a lot of other people and programs ...in general I think the ideas about pet ownership have changed greatly in the last 10 years


----------



## TxRider

I guess the point was lost, that if you are a CM detractor you cannot very well hang responsibility for teaching millions of idiots an arguably bad technique like an alpha roll he only does with a minority of dogs and doesn't even recommend....

Without also acknowledging what he stresses more than anything else with every single owner, of every single on dog, on every single show he's ever done. Which is that you should walk or exercise your dog daily if you want a healthy well mannered dog, and that it is responsible for getting millions of people, idiots and otherwise, off their duffs and walking their dogs.. 

Not if your intellectually honest anyway.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Westhighlander said:


> All warranties will be fine, your GM cars will get serviced. It's actually a great time to buy a GM car. I'm actually considering the Camaro SS. http://www.chevrolet.com/vehicles/2010/camaro/gallery.do


GM warranties backed by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam. Yeee Haw. I still would not buy a new car GM or otherwise, but then I wouldn't buy a new car under any circumstances. Maybe when I've got a few mill stashed away one day, but not until then.


----------



## TxRider

pugmom said:


> well I'm not so sure you can say a dog has never had exercise in its life just because its fat


I don't, I tend to talk to other owners when I'm out walking or working out front and they walk by. They tell me themselves their dog is new to going for a walk.

Since mine walks well, I often volunteer to walk with them as it helps some of the dogs. Especially people getting drug around by strong unruly dogs.


----------



## Westhighlander

cshellenberger said:


> Westhighlander, I've looked at the new Camaro SS, it pales compared to the Shelby GT 500. We were originally going to buy the Camaro with all the hype surrounding it, but were VERY dissapointed by how cheap it felt inside. I'm a Chevy fan (Currently own an 08 Malibu and a Silverdo 1500 Z) but Chevy came up short on this one! We've already ordered out GT 500, Kona Blue with the White stripes and are expecting it in January. Yes Curb, I'll post picks for you to drool over


The GT 500 costs so much more than the SS. I haven't seen the inside of the SS but I'm surprised you think it's cheap. What did you think was cheap about it? The other car I'm looking at is the 370Z which I've been in and I think is the best sports car value out there. Only problem is that it is really small.



hulkamaniac said:


> GM warranties backed by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam. Yeee Haw. I still would not buy a new car GM or otherwise, but then I wouldn't buy a new car under any circumstances. Maybe when I've got a few mill stashed away one day, but not until then.


Yes, but if you are ever going to buy one, now is the time to do it. Some cars are just being given away.


----------



## pugmom

TxRider said:


> I guess the point was lost, that if you are a CM detractor you cannot very well hang responsibility for teaching millions of idiots an arguably bad technique like an alpha roll he only does with a minority of dogs and doesn't even recommend....
> 
> Without also acknowledging what he stresses more than anything else with every single owner, of every single on dog, on every single show he's ever done. Which is that you should walk or exercise your dog daily if you want a healthy well mannered dog, and that it is responsible for getting millions of people, idiots and otherwise, off their duffs and walking their dogs..
> 
> Not if your intellectually honest anyway.


I don't think your point was lost...I just happen to not agree 100% with saying all dogs that are being walked today are because of CM......but I don't feel like I am a CM detractor or Intellectually dishonest so you must have been speaking to another member


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> Not if your intellectually honest anyway.


dog-man?


----------



## TxRider

hulkamaniac said:


> GM warranties backed by the full faith and credit of Uncle Sam.


I heard someone refer to GM as now being "Government motors" the other day...

I haven't bought a new car in 12 years, and I doubt I ever will again. Currently I'm rebuilding an old 1953 Dodge big flat fender power wagon truck from the frame up, every single nut and bolt and moving part, and putting a 4cyl turbo diesel in it which should net mid 20's city, 30 or so highway. And maybe making it an electric hybrid later.  I'm well past the halfway mark and I can't wait to get it on the road.

Though the new stangs have been about the most tempting new vehicle in years.


----------



## pugmom

TxRider said:


> I don't, I tend to talk to other owners when I'm out walking or working out front and they walk by. They tell me themselves their dog is new to going for a walk.
> 
> Since mine walks well, I often volunteer to walk with them as it helps some of the dogs. Especially people getting drug around by strong unruly dogs.


Its very nice of you to dedicate so much of your time ....


----------



## Curbside Prophet

cshellenberger said:


> We've already ordered our GT 500, Kona Blue with the White stripes and are expecting it in January. Yes Curb, I'll post picks for you to drool over


Don't do it! I have 188K on my 98 GT. I want at least 200K before upgrading. I don't need anymore reason to upgrade sooner!


----------



## cshellenberger

Actually, when yuo price out what you'd have to put on the SS to get it compare the difference is only about 5,000 and it still comes up WAY short on HP. We got really turned off when my knees (I'm 5'7") and DH knees (5' 10") hit the bottom of the steering column also the head room in the back of the GT is better. The GT is leather inside standard, that's an option on the SS and the leather is cheaper feeling. We also fell in love with the new Sync system in the GT which doesn't cost an extra subscription fee to use and is Bluetooth compatable with our iPhones and allows us to have a voice recognition with the iPhone as well. Of course we found a ford dealership that doesn't mark up the GT $10-20,000 and are instead getting it 200 under invoice, so around 48,000 WITH navi.


----------



## TxRider

pugmom said:


> I just happen to not agree 100% with saying all dogs that are being walked today are because of CM.


Never said or implied that. I'm quite certain I started off saying... "Though I can't be sure why." As well as saying a few people in my neighborhood already walked them.



pugmom said:


> Its very nice of you to dedicate so much of your time ....


Doesn't take any time, I'm out walking anyway why not walk with someone else especially if it will help them and make a new friend and enjoy some conversation while were at it? It's just being neighborly. 

Maybe it's a Texas thing but I was raised that way.

If I'm pressed for time I don't do it, or only walk as far as my house.


----------



## Westhighlander

cshellenberger said:


> Actually, when yuo price out what you'd have to put on the SS to get it compare the difference is only about 5,000 and it still comes up WAY short on HP. We got really turned off when my knees (I'm 5'7") and DH knees (5' 10") hit the bottom of the steering column also the head room in the back of the GT is better. The GT is leather inside standard, that's an option on the SS and the leather is cheaper feeling. We also fell in love with the new Sync system in the GT which doesn't cost an extra subscription fee to use and is Bluetooth compatable with our iPhones and allows us to have a voice recognition with the iPhone as well. Of course we found a ford dealership that doesn't mark up the GT $10-20,000 and are instead getting it 200 under invoice, so around 48,000 WITH navi.


Really? The 2SS is under 35k and that includes leather. The other options are really just cosmetic.

I really like this car. Lucky I have a small dog! http://www.nissanusa.com/microsite/nismo/?intcmp=NismoZ.Promo.ZCoupe.Home.P2


----------



## pugmom

TxRider said:


> One other thing about CM.
> 
> Though I can't be sure why, the number of dogs that people walk daily in my neighborhood has gone from 1-2 to basically almost every single dog since CM and his show have gotten popular with his message that all dogs need daily exercise like a walk.
> 
> That alone is probably enough to make up for some idiots misusing what they see on TV. Millions of happy walked dogs.


Yeah I can see where I got confused....you are in no way saying or implying in this statement that CM is the reason that almost every single dog is now being walked in your neighborhood ...and millions around the world...jeez how did I make that leap.....my bad


----------



## TxRider

pugmom said:


> Yeah I can see where I got confused....you are in no way saying or implying in this statement that CM is the reason that almost every single dog is now being walked in your neighborhood ...and millions around the world...jeez how did I make that leap.....my bad


Exactly, just saying he could be, I'm not sure. Gimme a break..


----------



## pugmom

TxRider said:


> Never said or implied that. I'm quite certain I started off saying... "Though I can't be sure why." As well as saying a few people in my neighborhood already walked them.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't take any time, I'm out walking anyway why not walk with someone else especially if it will help them and make a new friend and enjoy some conversation while were at it? It's just being neighborly.
> 
> Maybe it's a Texas thing but I was raised that way.
> 
> If I'm pressed for time I don't do it, or only walk as far as my house.


Like I said that is very nice of you to walk with all your neighbors...seems like a nice place to live


----------



## wvasko

Westhighlander said:


> The GT 500 costs so much more than the SS. I haven't seen the inside of the SS but I'm surprised you think it's cheap. What did you think was cheap about it? The other car I'm looking at is the 370Z which I've been in and I think is the best sports car value out there. Only problem is that it is really small.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but if you are ever going to buy one, now is the time to do it. Some cars are just being given away.


I do agree with time to buy even last Sept GM had the big employee discount sale and we never would have purchased without it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Westhighlander said:


> I really like this car. Lucky I have a small dog! http://www.nissanusa.com/microsite/nismo/?intcmp=NismoZ.Promo.ZCoupe.Home.P2


I like the Z, but I prefer Audi's TT styling better. But I've only owned Mustangs, so it would be a huge leap for me to change.


----------



## Westhighlander

Curbside Prophet said:


> I like the Z, but I prefer Audi's TT styling better. But I've only owned Mustangs, so it would be a huge leap for me to change.


The TT is nice but that starts at $45k. The Z fully loaded is under $40k and will beat my old 911.


----------



## Cracker

I want a car, any car, four wheels and a motor will do. 
Definitely post pics for my dream wall..sigh..someday. When I'm a rich and famous dog trainer like CM!

(thought I'd try to get back on topic...lol)


----------



## lilmiss

i love cesar millan !! i watch his shows every night ! and i like how he uses the way that dogs would do it in their language ! i like him WAY better then tht dude who stars on at the end of leash ! cesar is kind but yet stern with his teachings ! if only more ppl woud practice what he does and it was so true when he said if ppl actually took the time to fix their mistakes with a breed that is banned we would have banned dogs ! cuz there is no bad dog just a bad owner !

as i was reading the threads..........ALL dgs came from wild ancestors,wolves,dingo's ext.....even though dingos are like the only wild dog that likes being alone wolves like staying and hunting to together and if thats not a pack then i want to know what is ! 
y do u think that when a dog is un-rulely he doesnt like listening...its cuz he think he is dominent over u, or as it is called a pack leader, since dogs like being around other dogs they are very sociable so if a dog is timid he wont approach the dominent one in comand but if he is the dominent one he wont take beef from anyone (exuse the pun) so like i said dogs like ppl and so if we dont step up to the plate and demand respect he will run all over us cuz he thinks well if she dont mind i must be the pack leader ! so yes dogs wouldnt try and be leaders if they never knew what a pack was !


----------



## wvasko

lilmiss said:


> i love cesar millan !! i watch his shows every night ! and i like how he uses the way that dogs would do it in their language ! i like him WAY better then tht dude who stars on at the end of leash ! cesar is kind but yet stern with his teachings ! if only more ppl woud practice what he does and it was so true when he said if ppl actually took the time to fix their mistakes with a breed that is banned we would have banned dogs ! cuz there is no bad dog just a bad owner !
> 
> as i was reading the threads..........ALL dgs came from wild ancestors,wolves,dingo's ext.....even though dingos are like the only wild dog that likes being alone wolves like staying and hunting to together and if thats not a pack then i want to know what is !
> y do u think that when a dog is un-rulely he doesnt like listening...its cuz he think he is dominent over u, or as it is called a pack leader, since dogs like being around other dogs they are very sociable so if a dog is timid he wont approach the dominent one in comand but if he is the dominent one he wont take beef from anyone (exuse the pun) so like i said dogs like ppl and so if we dont step up to the plate and demand respect he will run all over us cuz he thinks well if she dont mind i must be the pack leader ! so yes dogs wouldnt try and be leaders if they never knew what a pack was !


Oh! Oh! another big can of worms just popped open, have fun everybody.


----------



## Westhighlander

wvasko said:


> Oh! Oh! another big can of worms just popped open, have fun everybody.


I'm sticking to cars on this thread...for now at least.


----------



## lilmiss

wvasko said:


> Oh! Oh! another big can of worms just popped open, have fun everybody.


what is tht suposed to mean ? LOl


----------



## FourIsCompany

lilmiss said:


> what is tht suposed to mean ? LOl


Many people strongly disagree with what you wrote about dogs and wolves, etc. I think the poster may have been expecting some dramatic posts in disagreement, maybe? I don't know. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. 

I love Cesar Millan, too. I think he's doing a great thing for people AND dogs.  And he's a powerful advocate for bully and other breeds.


----------



## lilmiss

FourIsCompany said:


> Many people strongly disagree with what you wrote about dogs and wolves, etc. I think the poster may have been expecting some dramatic posts in disagreement, maybe? I don't know. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.
> 
> I love Cesar Millan, too. I think he's doing a great thing for people AND dogs.  And he's a powerful advocate for bully and other breeds.


YES right on !!
like hello if dogs did not desend from wolves (witch are dogs,but are ferrel) then where the heck did they come from ?


----------



## FourIsCompany

I think it's the "dominance" thing that some disagree with. The word means different things to different people and sparks emotions in some.  I'm totally neutral on the word and I know what it means to me, so it doesn't bother me when Cesar uses it.


----------



## lilmiss

FourIsCompany said:


> I think it's the "dominance" thing that some disagree with. The word means different things to different people and sparks emotions in some.  I'm totally neutral on the word and I know what it means to me, so it doesn't bother me when Cesar uses it.


oh ok but domince just means power.....it means they rule the roost not u ! thats how i see it !


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

FourIsCompany said:


> And he's a powerful advocate for bully breeds.



advocate maybe....but...

he sends a bad...bad....BAD message.

he totally disregards the nature of "bully" breeds...especially pit bulls.


a serious problem facing pits is the tendancy to go to extremes in people's opinions about them.

people either love them or hate them.

but its only people who know them and understand their somewhat unique nature that have it right...

that is...they are loving sweet people friendly dogs....with more of a tendancy to be truly dog aggressive than other breeds.

I really wish he would actually research the breed carefully before making some of the dangerous suggestions I've seen him make like leaving a pit who has had aggressive episodes alone with another dog. 

ask any true apbt enthusiast. look at any info published by said enthusiasts. 

"never trust your pit not to finish a fight"

pits are not as dog social as other breeds. they were bred for 100 years to fight other dogs. that's truth and its important truth. 

because when you choose this breed you gotta step up. you can't be just like any dog owner. they aren't recommened for first time owners for very good reasons. to be a TRUE bully advocate...one has to speak the truth..both the positive and the negative.

as is his stance on pits is very dangerous. and detrimental to the breed...no matter what good intentions he may have. 

pits have a greater tendancy to be dog aggressive than other breeds. plain and simple.



lilmiss said:


> YES right on !!
> like hello if dogs did not desend from wolves (witch are dogs,but are ferrel) then where the heck did they come from ?


ummm wolves...are not dogs. have you ever met a wolf? I have. they aren't dogs. 

they are both CANIDS. and thus have common ancestors but they aren't alike. ask nekomi or trumpetjock. they have met moe wolves than me and are better at explaining.


----------



## lilmiss

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> advocate maybe....but...
> 
> he sends a bad...bad....BAD message.
> 
> he totally disregards the nature of "bully" breeds...especially pit bulls.
> 
> 
> a serious problem facing pits is the tendancy to go to extremes in people's opinions about them.
> 
> people either love them or hate them.
> 
> but its only people who know them and understand their somewhat unique nature that have it right...
> 
> that is...they are loving sweet people friendly dogs....with more of a tendancy to be truly dog aggressive than other breeds.
> 
> I really wish he would actually research the breed carefully before making some of the dangerous suggestions I've seen him make like leaving a pit who has had aggressive episodes alone with another dog.
> 
> ask any true apbt enthusiast. look at any info published by said enthusiasts.
> 
> "never trust your pit not to finish a fight"
> 
> pits are not as dog social as other breeds. they were bred for 100 years to fight other dogs. that's truth and its important truth.
> 
> because when you choose this breed you gotta step up. you can't be just like any dog owner. they aren't recommened for first time owners for very good reasons. to be a TRUE bully advocate...one has to speak the truth..both the positive and the negative.
> 
> as is his stance on pits is very dangerous. and detrimental to the breed...no matter what good intentions he may have.
> 
> pits have a greater tendancy to be dog aggressive than other breeds. plain and simple.


of course i do agree, but i dont think he is saying anything arong about the breed except for it is just anothr dog and with pits u can train the same way, just it might take a bit longer, and so saying its not the dogs fault but mans cuz they made thm to fight and any dog including the pit can be trained not to do what what they were bred for......like for example his pit, daddy hes a good example !


----------



## FourIsCompany

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I've seen him make like leaving a pit who has had aggressive episodes alone with another dog.


Hmmm. I don't remember that. 



> to be a TRUE bully advocate...one has to speak the truth..both the positive and the negative.


I have heard him do just that.


----------



## lilmiss

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> advocate maybe....but...
> 
> he sends a bad...bad....BAD message.
> 
> he totally disregards the nature of "bully" breeds...especially pit bulls.
> 
> 
> a serious problem facing pits is the tendancy to go to extremes in people's opinions about them.
> 
> people either love them or hate them.
> 
> but its only people who know them and understand their somewhat unique nature that have it right...
> 
> that is...they are loving sweet people friendly dogs....with more of a tendancy to be truly dog aggressive than other breeds.
> 
> I really wish he would actually research the breed carefully before making some of the dangerous suggestions I've seen him make like leaving a pit who has had aggressive episodes alone with another dog.
> 
> ask any true apbt enthusiast. look at any info published by said enthusiasts.
> 
> "never trust your pit not to finish a fight"
> 
> pits are not as dog social as other breeds. they were bred for 100 years to fight other dogs. that's truth and its important truth.
> 
> because when you choose this breed you gotta step up. you can't be just like any dog owner. they aren't recommened for first time owners for very good reasons. to be a TRUE bully advocate...one has to speak the truth..both the positive and the negative.
> 
> as is his stance on pits is very dangerous. and detrimental to the breed...no matter what good intentions he may have.
> 
> pits have a greater tendancy to be dog aggressive than other breeds. plain and simple.
> 
> 
> 
> ummm wolves...are not dogs. have you ever met a wolf? I have. they aren't dogs.
> 
> they are both CANIDS. and thus have common ancestors but they aren't alike. ask nekomi or trumpetjock. they have met moe wolves than me and are better at explaining.


well i said that dogs came from wolves wolves of course r wild but they are a dog.......like how do u explain the husky and malimute ? they practically howl like wolves !


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

lilmiss said:


> of course i do agree, but i dont think he is saying anything arong about the breed except for it is just anothr dog and with pits u can train the same way, just it might take a bit longer, and so saying its not the dogs fault but mans cuz they made thm to fight and any dog including the pit can be trained not to do what what they were bred for......like for example his pit, daddy hes a good example !


no...some pits will never be trustworthy around other dogs. no matter what kind of training. that's where he is wrong. 

does this mean they can't ever be around dogs? no. does this mean all of them are like this? no. not by a pretty fair stretch.

it means management.

www.badrap.org
www.pbrc.net

both these sites cover the basics of the issue.


----------



## lilmiss

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no...some pits will never be trustworthy around other dogs. no matter what kind of training. that's where he is wrong.
> 
> does this mean they can't ever be around dogs? no. does this mean all of them are like this? no. not by a pretty fair stretch.
> 
> it means management.
> 
> www.badrap.org
> www.pbrc.net
> 
> both these sites cover the basics of the issue.


boy u dont have faith ! thats like saying youll never learn anything if you dont try !!


----------



## Westhighlander

There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded.
~ Mark Twain


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

lilmiss said:


> boy u dont have faith ! thats like saying youll never learn anything if you dont try !!


um. nice spot on judgement there without knowing much about me.

Pit Bulls are my breed. I love them. I own them. I rescue and train them. I want to be a responsible breeder of them. I've been very close with several hundred of them. I would do nothing all day long but hang out with pit bulls and pit bull people if I could.

and no its not like having no faith or not trying.

its FACT. 

not all dogs are going to be what you want or respond to training of any kind. harsh reality but reality nonetheless.



Westhighlander said:


> There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded.
> ~ Mark Twain


you know...this at first glance looks extremely insulting. not that the allusion to demeaning me really matters.

just saying. -_-


----------



## MissMutt

lilmiss - would you trust an off the track Greyhound not to chase a rabbit even after having not done it for years and years?

It's instinct. Disregarding that an instinct of ANY kind can pop back up at any time is irresponsible. The same way they recommend no offleash for sighthound breeds and huskies, they recommend not leaving a Pit Bull alone with other dogs. And, when present, dog aggression cannot be cured.. only managed.


----------



## FourIsCompany

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you know...this at first glance looks extremely insulting.


And second glance and third glance. To me, anyway. But you're right. It doesn't matter. 

I agree with you that pits need management. I love all dogs, but I don't see myself as strong enough or knowledgeable enough to own a pit bull. I admire those who do well with them though. They need champions.


----------



## Westhighlander

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you know...this at first glance looks extremely insulting. not that the allusion to demeaning me really matters.
> 
> just saying. -_-





FourIsCompany said:


> And second glance and third glance. To me, anyway. But you're right. It doesn't matter.


Take a fourth glance then, who said I was directing it to you?


----------



## lilmiss

ok ok i guess i will hav to agree on the point that u cant take instinct away....but i dont nessesarly agree with that pits cant never be trusted like a poodle could bite your hand off meaing u shouldnt trust any dog alone then ! cuz a dog is a dog ! and i still belive with all my might wolves are dogs !! there r just more wild and bigger !


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

FourIsCompany said:


> Hmmm. I don't remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard him do just that.



its on youtube...and someone...I think it was MissMutt...posted a thread about it a while back. he left a pit locked in a kennel with another dog. 

as for the truth....I have never heard him admit that dog aggression is real and that it sometimes is incurable. or that it is prevalent in pits bulls. or that you shouldn't leave a pit alone with another dog.


----------



## MissMutt

lilmiss said:


> ok ok i guess i will hav to agree on the point that u cant take instinct away....but i dont nessesarly agree with that pits cant never be trusted like a poodle could bite your hand off meaing u shouldnt trust any dog alone then ! cuz a dog is a dog ! and i still belive with all my might wolves are dogs !! there r just more wild and bigger !


No one said Pits can't be "trusted." That's an open statement. They can't be trusted ALONE with OTHER DOGS. Because if something happens... the Pit Bull will mostly likely finish the fight.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Westhighlander said:


> Take a fourth glance then, who said I was directing it to you?


just because you have no evidence of what I do doesn't mean I don't do it.

I don't need to prove anything to you. 

and here's a piece of advice...

not everything you see on tv is representative of the truth. go work with the breed and then come back and throw your quotes around.


----------



## MissMutt

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> its on youtube...and someone...I think it was MissMutt...posted a thread about it a while back. he left a pit locked in a kennel with another dog.
> 
> as for the truth....I have never heard him admit that dog aggression is real and that it sometimes is incurable. or that it is prevalent in pits bulls. or that you shouldn't leave a pit alone with another dog.


Don't think I posted it, but I do know what you're talking about.


----------



## Westhighlander

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> just because you have no evidence of what I do doesn't mean I don't do it.
> 
> I don't need to prove anything to you.
> 
> and here's a piece of advice...
> 
> not everything you see on tv is representative of the truth. go work with the breed and then come back and throw your quotes around.


You're a little sensitive there? Your argument is illogical. You don't need to prove anything to me but I have to go do something to prove it to you? 

I don't have any evidence of what you do but do you have any evidence of what I've done? By your logic, how do you know what I know or don't know?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Westhighlander said:


> Your a little sensitive there? You argument is illogical. You don't need to prove anything to me but I have to go do something to prove it to you?
> 
> I don't have any evidence of what you do but do you have any evidence of what I've done? By your logic, how do you know what I know or don't know?



not at all sensitive. what you think of me has zero bearing on my life. 

I read your posts earlier in this thread. what I got from them is that you seem to feel that because cesar is on tv...he is somehow a cut above everyone else in the world who works with dogs in general.

well.

my comments on the pit bull aspect of his show do not come just from me.

what I say is confirmed to me by my experience, but not just my experience. One man(Cesar's) word against that of hundreds of people? lol. 

go hop on any given pit forum and ask them if they recommend leaving a pit alone with another dog. I can say with certainty the answer will confirm what I've said.

I don't know you so no I can't say with certainty what you have or haven't done.

but

I do know that people with extensive experience in the agreed with what I've said. currently 100% of the time. 

so call it an educated guess


----------



## Westhighlander

Cesar being on TV has nothing to do with him being better than everyone else. The fact that he is on TV means he will reach a and affect more dog owners than most of us combined - that was my point. 

Did you see this show you are referring to or at least provide a link? I've seen many of his shows and do not remember this one.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Westhighlander said:


> Cesar being on TV has nothing to do with him being better than everyone else. The fact that he is on TV means he will reach a and affect more dog owners than most of us combined - that was my point.
> 
> Did you see this show you are referring to or at least provide a link? I've seen many of his shows and do not remember this one.



and my point is that what he is reaching people with isn't gospel. and has many flaws. and that since it IS tv, its presented in a dramatic manor....combine all that with your point..and it begins to look like...at least to me..that him reaching so many people isn't such a stellar thing after all.


yes I did see it. im looking for it. I didn't have it on hand or I would have posted It already


----------



## Mr Pooch

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and that since it IS tv, its presented in a dramatic manor....combine all that with your point..and it begins to look like...at least to me..that him reaching so many people isn't such a stellar thing after all.


I agree 1 million%...u ever see the episode with the ACD?

TV is TV,the *real* dog trainers are not seen there,they are out busting a gut to train dogs to the best of their abilty without the *tv added bonus* 

I also agree with the *reaching so many people* aspect,people all love Daddy but WE who own Pit bulls know that they dont all come as easily packaged as him.


----------



## Westhighlander

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and my point is that what he is reaching people with isn't gospel. and has many flaws. and that since it IS tv, its presented in a dramatic manor....combine all that with your point..and it begins to look like...at least to me..that him reaching so many people isn't such a stellar thing after all.
> 
> 
> yes I did see it. im looking for it. I didn't have it on hand or I would have posted It already


If you read the all of my posts then you'll see that reaching all those dog owners with his basic message is my point. Not his actual training methods. 

Also, how do you think he got on TV in the first place?


----------



## TxRider

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> its on youtube...and someone...I think it was MissMutt...posted a thread about it a while back. he left a pit locked in a kennel with another dog.
> 
> as for the truth....I have never heard him admit that dog aggression is real and that it sometimes is incurable. or that it is prevalent in pits bulls. or that you shouldn't leave a pit alone with another dog.


Maybe he has never met one he couldn't manage or cure, from what I understand some of the dogs he has in his pack are ex illegal fighting dogs..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

TxRider said:


> Maybe he has never met one he couldn't manage or cure, from what I understand some of the dogs he has in his pack are ex fighting dogs, who have killed other dogs.


so what?

I have a dog in my house who has torn another dog's ear off.

she's in my avatar. I have other dogs in the house.

Bad Rap has rehabilitated fighting dogs.

they all say the same thing: Don't leave a pit in a situation that's out of your sphere of influene.

Diane Jessup, Founder of Lawdogs USA, former ACO, police dog trainer and major Pit Bull Advocate who's been called on as an expert in numerous hearings involving pit bulls and been called as an evaluator of bust dogs...says the exact same things....don't trust your pit not to scrap.

I could go on, name after name, qualification after qualification, website after website, book after book, forum after forum of hundreds of posts all reiterating that same point.


and here is a fundamental thing about fighting dogs that most don't understand..

just because a dog has been fought...that doesn't mean its a fighting dog. any dog under the right(well..wrong) circumstances can be goaded into fighting. this doesn't make them a fighting dog. a dog need not be dog aggressive to be fought in a pit.



Westhighlander said:


> If you read the all of my posts then you'll see that reaching all those dog owners with his basic message is my point. Not his actual training methods.
> 
> Also, how do you think he got on TV in the first place?


pfft how did Johnny Knoxville get on TV in the first place? by being charismatic in his "area of expertise". they wouldn't put someone on TV who is "boring"

and as for his basic message....can be a good thing...depending on how people interpret it.


exercise? sure! lets run the dog on the treadmill for several hours while I take a bath, do my nails and blab on the phone. OOPS! forgot he was even there! oh and I should probably think about getting him some water too!

Discipline? Great! That one's easy. Dog screws up..I hit dog. So simple!

Affection? Of course! Fifi can have as much steak as she wants for being mommy's darling little wuvvy dovvy oooo! Fifi's looking a bit fat...I wonder if I should be worried?

and of course that's exaggerated but I think you get my point.


----------



## TxRider

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and my point is that what he is reaching people with isn't gospel. and has many flaws. and that since it IS tv, its presented in a dramatic manor....combine all that with your point..and it begins to look like...at least to me..that him reaching so many people isn't such a stellar thing after all.


You could say the same about anyone that reaches millions on TV though, and people do. I don't know anyone on TV I would take their message as gospel, not even the TV preachers..  Certainly not news media, or documentary makers either.

Why would I hold CM to a higher standard?


----------



## Westhighlander

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> pfft how did Johnny Knoxville get on TV in the first place? by being charismatic in his "area of expertise". they wouldn't put someone on TV who is "boring"
> 
> and as for his basic message....can be a good thing...depending on how people interpret it.
> 
> 
> exercise? sure! lets run the dog on the treadmill for several hours while I take a bath, do my nails and blab on the phone. OOPS! forgot he was even there! oh and I should probably think about getting him some water too!
> 
> Discipline? Great! That one's easy. Dog screws up..I hit dog. So simple!
> 
> Affection? Of course! Fifi can have as much steak as she wants for being mommy's darling little wuvvy dovvy oooo! Fifi's looking a bit fat...I wonder if I should be worried?
> 
> and of course that's exaggerated but I think you get my point.


No, he got on TV because he had a very good reputation working with very aggressive dogs. Hollywood approached him, not the other way around. He was quite well known before his TV show. 

Your points makes me think you have never watch the show as well as not know anything about him or what he teaches dog owners.

Again, a lot of this was covered in many of the previous pages.


----------



## FourIsCompany

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> so what?
> I have a dog in my house who has torn another dog's ear off.
> 
> she's in my avatar. I have other dogs in the house.


Just curious here. You never leave her alone with another dog? I don't know that much about them.


----------



## lilmiss

MissMutt said:


> No one said Pits can't be "trusted." That's an open statement. They can't be trusted ALONE with OTHER DOGS. Because if something happens... the Pit Bull will mostly likely finish the fight.


well then if a peron feels a pit is not capable of being a lone ith any moving thing does that not reflex its owner ? cuz like i said its not only the pit ! other dogs could just snap to !
PS, going bk to the wolf thing......its also like saying a tiger aint a cat, like go figure !


----------



## Willowy

lilmiss said:


> its also like saying a tiger aint a cat, like go figure !


Tigers are cats, but cats aren't tigers..........

Dogs with potential to be dog aggressive shouldn't be left with other dogs in an unmanaged situation. Those with potentially DA dogs (not just pits, other breeds and individual dogs too) are used to this and it's no big deal.


----------



## lilmiss

TxRider said:


> Maybe he has never met one he couldn't manage or cure, from what I understand some of the dogs he has in his pack are ex illegal fighting dogs..


that is true he has like 5 pitbulls and german shephards and rotties. and they get along just fine ! 

he has even said thta out of all the dogs he helps he never been able to help 2 of them so meaning he does sort of admit that there is aggression. he even says that some dogs are in the red zone of agression, and he does have pits and rotties and shephards with other dogs all together at his facility and the seem to get along quite well but what ppl have to understand is that not everyone is perfect so let bigns be bigons.......i like cesar cuz he has simpler tactics that work i believe but thats my opinion



Willowy said:


> Tigers are cats, but cats aren't tigers..........
> 
> Dogs with potential to be dog aggressive shouldn't be left with other dogs in an unmanaged situation. Those with potentially DA dogs (not just pits, other breeds and individual dogs too) are used to this and it's no big deal.


ya but u cant just single them out...its like dont let one apple spoil the bunch, all dogs including pits yes may very well potentionsl will always have a bad boone but dogs all have different personalities ! and cesar never once leaves his dogs unintendid, his wife or coworkers are there and they know what to do if something happens !


----------



## peppy264

Arguing that someone must know what they are doing because they are on TV is illogical. Arguing that someone must not know what they are doing because they are on TV is even more illogical.

There are obviously lots of different opinions on the value of CM's methods.

What is indisputable is that by broadcasting a handful of messages (exercise your dog, remember it is an animal not a child, set rules, walk daily, never get angry/frustrated, be a leader, be aware of your body language, etc) to millions of Americans each week CM's impact on the overall dog world is immense and extremely positive. If you love dogs and care about their well being you should be thankful to CM.

Note, I am talking about the overall dog world, those millions and millions of dogs out there with average owners, not the top 0.0001% who are into competitions, extensive training, read dogforums, etc etc. They mostly don't need CM, its true. But they are a tiny minority.


----------



## lilmiss

peppy264 said:


> Arguing that someone must know what they are doing because they are on TV is illogical. Arguing that someone must not know what they are doing because they are on TV is even more illogical.
> 
> There are obviously lots of different opinions on the value of CM's methods.
> 
> What is indisputable is that by broadcasting a handful of messages (exercise your dog, remember it is an animal not a child, set rules, walk daily, never get angry/frustrated, be a leader, be aware of your body language, etc) to millions of Americans each week CM's impact on the overall dog world is immense and extremely positive. If you love dogs and care about their well being you should be thankful to CM.
> 
> Note, I am talking about the overall dog world, those millions and millions of dogs out there with average owners, not the top 0.0001% who are into competitions, extensive training, read dogforums, etc etc. They mostly don't need CM, its true. But they are a tiny minority.


so who needs him ? ppl who hve the time for his techniques or th rich ones ? is that what u mean ?


----------



## RonE

Paris Hilton has had her own TV show.


----------



## rosemaryninja

lilmiss said:


> so who needs him ? ppl who hve the time for his techniques or th rich ones ? is that what u mean ?


No, I think peppy is referring to people who have an above average knowledge of dog behaviour and training. I'd say most of the regulars on DF don't need Cesar to tell them not to anthropomorphise, not to excessively coddle your dog, etc. Most of us already know these things.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

Westhighlander said:


> No, he got on TV because he had a very good reputation working with very aggressive dogs. Hollywood approached him, not the other way around. He was quite well known before his TV show.
> 
> Your points makes me think you have never watch the show as well as not know anything about him or what he teaches dog owners.
> 
> Again, a lot of this was covered in many of the previous pages.



yeah...hollywood approached him. they liked the way he looked and acted on camera so he got a show. if he had been bad on camera etc etc. some other trainer, regardless of method....would have gotten the show...perhaps Ed Frawley 

and I watched his show religiously when I first got this dog I have now. the dog aggressive one. when I first started trying to figure this all out. but as I sought out more opportunities to be around these behaviors in order to try to understand them..the less and less I watched his show...because I saw people helping the same sort of dogs without his methods, with methods that made sense on a scientific level...and worked. beautifully.



FourIsCompany said:


> Just curious here. You never leave her alone with another dog? I don't know that much about them.


pm me if you would like to discuss it 
its a bit off topic.



peppy264 said:


> Arguing that someone must know what they are doing because they are on TV is illogical. Arguing that someone must not know what they are doing because they are on TV is even more illogical.
> 
> There are obviously lots of different opinions on the value of CM's methods.
> 
> What is indisputable is that by broadcasting a handful of messages (exercise your dog, remember it is an animal not a child, set rules, walk daily, never get angry/frustrated, be a leader, be aware of your body language, etc) to millions of Americans each week CM's impact on the overall dog world is immense and extremely positive. If you love dogs and care about their well being you should be thankful to CM.
> 
> Note, I am talking about the overall dog world, those millions and millions of dogs out there with average owners, not the top 0.0001% who are into competitions, extensive training, read dogforums, etc etc. They mostly don't need CM, its true. But they are a tiny minority.


im not saying he doesn't know what he's doing because he's on tv.

im saying that 

it is disputable that his message is helpful to every average joe owner. because people are individuals who interpret things individually. 

my own sister, leash popping her seven pound puppy to a ridiculous extent because she "saw Cesar do it and it worked" is prime example.

it is disputable. human diversity makes it disputable.

and yeah...this stuff is all covered back before...

I just brought up the pit thing...didn't really care to get too much into the rest of it.


----------



## Cracker

L'il Miss,

Peppy is not talking about who has money, he's talking about the average pet owner as a person who gets a dog as a family pet with little or no real dog knowledge except, I feed it, love it and occasionally take it for a walk. Most of the people (but not all) on dog forums such as this wonderful one are serious dog sport hobbyists, groomers, trainers, breeders/showpeople and rescue advocates hoping to assist the "average" dog owner in answering their questions about their dogs behaviour etc.

The trick to forum participation is to read and then reread the posts first, don't type the first thing that comes into your head. Try to figure out what is being said in context of the thread. Be clear about who you are talking to and about why you say what you say.

Now, as to your "dogs are wolves" statements. Since you don't understand/know the true differences and similarities I would suggest you do some research. Read David Mech, he is the foremost scientist when it comes to wolves. There is a also a fantastic book called "Do Dogs Laugh" by Jake Page which is a relatively easy read about the evolution of dogs. These are good places to start. I read a new book every week if I can, information is power, young lady. 

If you want to be part of a discussion, especially one like this that has many facets and emotions behind it, it is best to come armed with information beyond the fact you like the show and think CM's stuff works. If you just want to learn, then ASK questions...don't doubt everything people post just because you think you know the answers. 

We all know what we know, but we don't know ALL.

As for the pitbull discussion:
Pitbulls were bred for dog aggression, for "gameness" but not for people aggression. Not all pitbulls are DA but many are. Raised properly, bred for temperament and properly socialized they make fantastic pets, therapy dogs and competitors in dog sport, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be stupid to put two together in a small space unsupervised by a human. In fact, I wouldn't do that with many dogs at all, regardless of breed.
Dogs are animals. It is our job as their guardians to ensure they (all breeds) are not put into situations where they feel the need to aggress.
Because CM is "on top" of things at his dog center, constantly correcting his dogs as they meld with the group and exercises them to the point of practical exhaustion they simply don't have the energy to kick each other's butts. This has nothing to do with the dogs "learning to get along" as a group in a normal social fashion, but simply shows how his controlling methods keeps them too tired to fight. His is not a true social hierarchy as evidenced in true packs (co operative) but is more of a dictatorship because if he DIDN"T do this, their would be chaos. Similar to the original wolf pack studies where they threw a bunch of unrelated wolves together in a pen and watched them sort it out, it was ruling by force. In the typical dog owner's world they don't need to do the same sort of dictatorship, because one or two dogs does not make an unnatural pack like his.


----------



## wvasko

Cracker



> In fact, I wouldn't do that with many dogs at all, regardless of breed.


That statement is one that will probably keep you out of a lot of dog trouble and you obviously won't know anything about the trouble/heartbreak you saved yourself because it just didn't happen. I just wonder how many dogfights would just not ever happen, something to think about.


----------



## FourIsCompany

peppy264 said:


> Arguing that someone must know what they are doing because they are on TV is illogical. Arguing that someone must not know what they are doing because they are on TV is even more illogical.


Excellent point. Using his TV popularity* for or against* a case of his competence, effectiveness or correctness is just grasping at straws. It's irrelevant and doesn't really prove or indicate anything. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> pm me if you would like to discuss it
> its a bit off topic.


I don't want to have a discussion about it. I just asked a yes-or-no question. It is not off topic. You have used the example of leaving a pitbull alone with another dog as an indication that Cesar Millan is *not *a good advocate for bully breeds. Then you brought in your personal experience of having a bully that has bitten another dog's ear off. I'm just asking if you leave her alone with other dogs, as you ridicule Cesar for doing.



> I just brought up the pit thing...didn't really care to get too much into the rest of it.


And I have yet to see or remember this episode and I've been watching him for years. It's not that I think you're not being honest, it's that many times, people have made claims about him that were later found to be a misunderstanding or an exaggeration. I have searched the site and do not find the post you refer to. 

I don't think Cesar Millan left a dog-aggressive pitbull alone in a kennel with another dog.


----------



## Foyerhawk

I am not a fan


----------



## Westhighlander

CM's basic message is deeper than what many think.

Exercise - He encourages people to walk their dog. The way he walks his dog accomplishes two things. The obvious is physical exercise, a good dog is a tired dog. The second is having the dog focus on the walk itself and paying attention to you. CM always controls the walk and the dog is focused on him. So no pulling, random sniffing, barking at other dogs. This tires the dog out mentally and establishes you as the focal point of your dog's attention.

Discipline - CM may or may not know it but he is practicing a modified NILIF approach. Want to eat? You must sit first. Want to go out? Sit calmly by the door first. Want to get on the couch, only if I say so. He is simply controlling the resources in many of his techniques.

Affection - Further extension of NILIF. Dog must be calm before he gets affection which is just another resource.

Yes part of getting on TV is being charismatic. But guess what? Part of being a good trainer/behaviorist is being able to communicate with the dog owner. If you're not, you won't have any clients sooner or later.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Westhighlander said:


> Part of being a good trainer/behaviorist is being able to communicate with the dog owner. If your not, you won't have any clients sooner or later.


Likewise with a hefty success rate. Agree with him or not, if the people he works with were not satisfied and even extremely pleased to the point of applauding his knowledge and talent, coming back months later to share their success and their own dogs' behavior and wonderfulness, then Mr. Millan would have no clients. 

He's neither perfect nor the dirt some would have us believe. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle. And people's opinions of him run the gamut in between, most skirting the edge of extremism, IMO.


----------



## Cracker

wvasko said:


> Cracker
> 
> That statement is one that will probably keep you out of a lot of dog trouble and you obviously won't know anything about the trouble/heartbreak you saved yourself because it just didn't happen. I just wonder how many dogfights would just not ever happen, something to think about.


8 years at a vet clinic who took aggressive animals no one else would see, 8years of dogwalking "special needs" dogs and 2 years of training work in the walking sector I have had three dog fights/attacks happen. I've been bitten badly twice. Pretty good numbers. We can't control everything but I do my best to put PREVENTION right up there with all the other management tools and behaviour mod tools I have in my box.

Doing my best to prevent aggression, accepting that it DOES happen and happens FAST, and knowing what to do if it does occur by safely breaking up a fight is key. And yes, it's heartbreaking when it does happen, as it can really set a dog back if you are doing behaviour mod or dealing with a dog with fear issues.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Basing what someone does on TV may be illogical IF...the harm they cause is done only to themselves. Foregoing common, basic, and fundamental ethics to use counter productive methodology on a voiceless animal for TV show drama is beyond all logic, it's repulsing and insulting...and the experts agree.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> Basing what someone does on TV may be illogical IF...the harm they cause is done only to themselves. Foregoing common, basic, and fundamental ethics to use counter productive methodology on a voiceless animal for TV show drama is beyond all logic, it's repulsing and insulting...and the experts agree.


I think it's a ridiculous oversimplification to paint Cesar as Satan's gift to dog training.


----------



## FourIsCompany

hulkamaniac said:


> I think it's a ridiculous oversimplification to paint Cesar as Satan's gift to dog training.


I agree. It's equally as misguided to paint him as God's.  

Where's the center? 

I said to someone yesterday: I guess it's popular to be an extremist of one form or another these days. I never have been extreme in any of my beliefs. I like the middle of the road, where I can see both sides...


----------



## cshellenberger

lilmiss said:


> YES right on !!
> like hello if dogs did not desend from wolves (witch are dogs,but are ferrel) then where the heck did they come from ?



They descended from wild dogs, whose pack structure is completely different. However this was 10's of thousands of years ago and the similarity has been bred out of them. We have created an animal that is a 'permanent puppy' mentally. 

Cesar does NOT use the 'dogs language', he completely ignores it. He ignores common calming signals dogs give (licking lips, head turning ect) or calls them dominance. The fact is, most bad behaviors aren't born of dominance, they're born of fear or lack of training (or BOTH) a dog will take charge of it's surrounding when it feels the owners don't to better control so it can be less afraid. 

Now, that said I do agree with him that we HAVE to take control of the dog and it's environment, I disagree with HOW we should do it. I agree that a tired dog is a good dog as well, once excess energy is expended the dog is better able to focus on what is needed from it and to learn.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

FiC

no. never.

and the incident in question was years ago, within hours of getting her, on the first day I owned her. and she has not harmed another dog since.

not onlu that but she can play with dogs(under supervision) and socialize.

if there are other dogs in the house, she does not leave my sight. 

the idea is that if a fight does happen...I will be there to stop it.

I know a guy who left two pits (who were siblings) who had been fine for eight years being alone together one day he came back home to bleeding, dying dogs. it happens. 

and many of the incidents I've read in the news about pits killing someone's dog have the common factor of the owner not being present.

pit owners have to take these things into consideration.

my dog is gentle. loving with people, highly intellegent and well trained.

she also gets "shark eyes" when she sees dogs as we walk. she will behave herself around them...but she still has that instinctual reation...the same one she has when she sees a squirrel. 

we've been to scores of trainers(including one who learned training at Cesar's center )
and behaviorists. I've worked with her on my own. im not going to give up. but it has been close to four years. 


im still looking for the link. will post when I find it


----------



## Westhighlander

I don't think CM is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I do think he is doing more good than bad. I think he truely wants to help and has helped a lot of dog owners in the world.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> I think it's a ridiculous oversimplification to paint Cesar as Satan's gift to dog training.


Then why paint this "oversimplification" on my statement? The ridicule (and knee-jerking) you speak of is owned by you. 

It appears as though many, perhaps even you, do not agree with all of his methodology. Do I need to sugar-coat my sincerity to meet your approval? If so, understand this does not register as one of my tasks.


----------



## jgnmoose

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> advocate maybe....but...
> ummm wolves...are not dogs. have you ever met a wolf? I have. they aren't dogs.
> 
> they are both CANIDS. and thus have common ancestors but they aren't alike. ask nekomi or trumpetjock. they have met moe wolves than me and are better at explaining.


This is true, but it's not that simple in my opinion. 

You won't find cattle, chickens, and horses in the wild that aren't feral domesticated stock. They have many similarities to their wild cousins that are just in their nature, after dozens or possibly hundreds of generations as domestic stock animals. Cattle are still herd animals after an almost unmeasurable length of time as livestock born and bred by humans. Dogs aren't wolves, no. They do share familiar behavior traits with their distant cousins in the wild. 

The unfortunate thing about dogs is that the original purpose of a breed is a hard label to shake. As an example, my GSP/Lab gets me all kinds of hunting questions when we're out and about. People "assume" he's a perfectly honed bird hunting dog without even asking if he's been trained to. The truth is he nearly craps himself at anything louder than a firecracker, but that's not what people expect to hear about him.

Rots and Pit Bulls deserve a break. People think what they do about them because of legend and image. To be honest, if you go to the worst neighborhood in the area where I live you will find a very high number of mutts and crossbreeds that resemble Rots and Pit Bulls. The people who keep them reinfoce the negative image.


----------



## FourIsCompany

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and she has not harmed another dog since.


Thank you for answering.  You sound like an extremely responsible pit owner. I wish all were as conscientious as you. 



Westhighlander said:


> I don't think CM is the greatest thing since sliced bread but I do think he is doing more good than bad. I think he truely wants to help and has helped a lot of dog owners in the world.


Yes, there is that middle I was speaking about. I sometimes make the mistake of letting the extremes drown out the middle.  My bad. 

From someone who loves Cesar Millan, but doesn't agree with him on everything, AND uses many other resources for training and behavior, AND also uses a clicker almost daily recently, I think it's important to remain somewhat objective, if possible. But I know it isn't always possible.


----------



## TxRider

cshellenberger said:


> They descended from wild dogs, whose pack structure is completely different. However this was 10's of thousands of years ago and the similarity has been bred out of them. We have created an animal that is a 'permanent puppy' mentally.


That said, dogs are much more similar to wolves than different. The difference is quite slight indeed overall. Much closer than we are to any ape, closer than horse is to donkey.. Closer than a chimp and a monkey.

Closer than wolf or dog is to a fox for example, which cannot interbreed.

When they can interbreed and produce viable fertile offspring they are very close indeed. Not to mention share the majority of instincts and behaviors.

Some of the latest DNA studies actually point to 95% of dogs originating from probably 3 female grey wolves in east asia.

DNA also points to some breeds like a GSD being much closer to wolves genetically than the majority of dogs, pointing to some further interbreeding with wolves at some earlier point in the breeds ancestral line.

We seem to have made dogs ourselves, separated them from wolves ourselves, as experiments with other canids have suggested. Such as what Dmitry Belyaev showed by interbreeding selectively for friendliness with humans with wild foxes, ending up in 40 or so generations with a tame fox, which just happened to show dog like behavior as well as dog like changes in physical traits when compared to a wild fox.

The line of thought I find most logical, is that we humans domesticated wolves as hunter/gatherers, and the change to what we know as the dog happened as we changed from hunter gatherers to more agricultural in nature and started domesticating animals and the wolf traits were a handicap we then selectively bred out of them. Archeological as well as DNA evidence matches this as wolf bones are found along with humans past 100,000 years ago, up until about 15,000 years ago when dog bones can be differentiated more clearly as time passes.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

jgnmoose

yes rotts and pits deserve a break...but with pits at least...the only way they will get that break is if we have the TRUTH out there..

not "all pits are murderous man eating monsters"

AND not " all pit bulls are the sweetest baby dumplings ever who wouldn't hurt a flea"

the truth: In the breed standard in the section on temperment, aggression towards humans is a disqualification. Not allowed. Any dog who displays human aggression should be removed from the gene pool. Why? because of dogfighting. in the pits the dogs had to be handled extensively by a variety of strangers while at the height of stimulus and sometimes in excessive pain. Any dog who bit was shot. 

which produces things like that dog Phoenix in Baltimore, being friendly and wagging her tail despite burns on 95% of her body. 

dog aggression however hasn't been a concern until recent years due to one of the purposes of the breed: dogfighting. Which actually didn't become illegal until not really that long ago. and a little known tidbit is that just because a dog displays aggression towards other animals, does NOT mean they will be aggressive towards humans. the two issues are fairly distinct from a behavioral standpoint. 

to overstate aggression in pit bulls IS WRONG. but to understate aggression in Pit Bulls IS WRONG AS WELL. 

if people don't have the truth they they are unable to be fully prepared to be responsible pit owners. 

and the only way the breed will get that break is if owners behave responsibly.

now been fun folks but I got class!


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> Foregoing common, basic, and fundamental ethics ....


A grotesque and insulting exaggeration, even if you do not believe in his techniques. No basis for challenging his ethics.



> ...to use counter productive methodology...


maybe in your opinion but I'd hardly consider exercise, daily walks, telling Fido to get off the couch, etc as counter-productive.



> on a voiceless animal for TV show drama is beyond all logic, it's repulsing and insulting...


Yes telling millions of Americans each week to exercise their dogs, set rules, not get mad at them, remember they are animals, etc - very repulsing and insulting .... to dog haters everywhere.



> and the experts agree.


Experts being of course people YOU agree with. I've seen lots of criticism of certain of CM's techniques by "experts" (which is fair game) but none that have remotely used the sort of language and vitriol that you do. Its hard to take seriously anybody who speaks as you do, or refuses to balance their arguement by acknowledging the positive aspects of the message that CM puts out. 

Its one thing to argue that somebody is wrong, quite another to question his ethics.


----------



## TxRider

peppy264 said:


> Experts being of course people YOU agree with. I've seen lots of criticism of certain of CM's techniques by "experts" (which is fair game) but none that have remotely used the sort of language and vitriol that you do. Its hard to take seriously anybody who speaks as you do, or refuses to balance their arguement by acknowledging the positive aspects of the message that CM puts out.


Not to mention a lot of what "experts" cite is little more than their opinion. 

None of them are necessarily the gospel of dog speaking the "one truth" from on high.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> She also gets "shark eyes" when she sees dogs as we walk. she will behave herself around them...but she still has that instinctual reation...the same one she has when she sees a squirrel.


I know that look. Mine gets it often for little furries. 110% "I want to kill that" look.

For me the only issue I have with pitties is that they get the aggressive "I'm going to kill that" thing, like mine and many breeds do to cats, squirrels and rabbits toward things most dogs won't.

That they have higher tendency to direct that at not just dogs, but any type of being, more often than other breeds. That tenacious mindset of not just I'm going to bite you and make you run away, but I'm going to bite you and hold on and keep going till your dead.

Like there's a lot less "in between" behavior possible, it's either full on or full off where most breeds have more "in between" modes of posture, bark, challenge, charge, bluff, bite, retreat, etc. does that make sense?

But that too could just be from the small exposure I've had and what I've read. I haven't owned or been around that many to know how prevalent it really is. I judge each dog as an individual.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> A grotesque and insulting exaggeration, even if you do not believe in his techniques. No basis for challenging his ethics.


"Grotesque and insulting exaggeration" is one opinion. Saying such an opinion is ignorant, would also be an opinion. However, despite your misguided assertion, I absolutely do have a basis to challenge his ethics if not for the sake of my own judgment. Anyone who would overlook his ethics only demonstrates their disconnect from what pro b-modists actually do. Perhaps you are ignorant of what pro b-modists do, and that's ok. But I would say that first before assuming so much on my statements. 

The first tenet of b-mod is do no harm. If you are at all grounded, you understand doing "no harm" is subjective, and open to criticism. If you don't like my criticism, don't read my posts. Problem solved. 



> maybe in your opinion but I'd hardly consider exercise, daily walks, telling Fido to get off the couch, etc as counter-productive.


IF walking your dog was the only message CM inc. cared to deliver there wouldn't be much to debate. 



> Yes telling millions of Americans each week to exercise their dogs, set rules, not get mad at them, remember they are animals, etc - very repulsing and insulting .... to dog haters everywhere.


There's nothing preventing CM inc. and NGC from producing a show that seeks to demonstrate humanity at every level, even if it is mundane in a TV sense. Short of that, he absolutely accepts my criticism and that from the experts in the field. You should too. 



> Experts being of course people YOU agree with.


Not just me. Many much smarter than you or I also employ the same logic too.



> I've seen lots of criticism of certain of CM's techniques by "experts" (which is fair game) but none that have remotely used the sort of language and vitriol that you do.


I'm flattered that you would compare my words shared on a dog forum with those from "experts", but to equate my words shared on this dog forum or any other with those surviving peer review is remiss IMO. 



> Its hard to take seriously anybody who speaks as you do, or refuses to balance their arguement by acknowledging the positive aspects of the message that CM puts out.


It's clear you don't understand my concern, nor have you experienced the backlash I have resulting from CM inc.. This, I'm afraid, does not put you in a position to make a personal arguments. Nor are these arguments favored or allowed on our forum. 



> Its one thing to argue that somebody is wrong, quite another to question his ethics.


Questioning the ethics of others is not only natural, it is necessary.


----------



## FourIsCompany

TxRider said:


> None of them are necessarily the gospel of dog speaking the "one truth" from on high.


Which is the one true religion?


----------



## Westhighlander

hmm, if CM pulls out a clicker next season will he be "The One"?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Westhighlander said:


> hmm, if CM pulls out a clicker next season will he be "The One"?


Just a reminder to everyone, religious debates are not allowed on our forum.


----------



## pamperedpups

Westhighlander: ...not if he's still poking dogs in the neck with his hands, collar popping dogs, hip tapping dogs with his feet, forcing dogs into submissive downs, flooding dogs, creating learned helplessness in dogs, preaching outdated alpha therory, etc.


----------



## Corteo

Curbside Prophet said:


> *
> There's nothing preventing CM inc. and NGC from producing a show that seeks to demonstrate humanity *at every level, even if it is mundane in a TV sense. Short of that, he absolutely accepts my criticism and that from the experts in the field. You should too.


 _bold added_ 

This is from the dictionary:



dictionary said:


> hu⋅man⋅i⋅ty  /hyuˈmænɪti or, often, yu-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hyoo-man-i-tee or, often, yoo-] Show IPA
> –noun, plural -ties. 1. all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
> *2. the quality or condition of being human; human nature*.
> 3. the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence


 _emphasis mine_

These are dogs we are talking about, not humans. 



> Not just me. Many much smarter than you or I also employ the same logic too.


This statement is a fallacy

I agree with the person who said he teaches a modified version on NILIF. My 2 cents


----------



## Westhighlander




----------



## Curbside Prophet

Corteo said:


> These are dogs we are talking about, not humans.


I don't follow your point. It's human nature to cause no harm to our companion animals. Do you disagree? 



> This statement is a fallacy


It's a statement of fact...if one can be modest.


----------



## TxRider

FourIsCompany said:


> Which is the one true religion?


ROFL... That's funny..

Was watching that Victoria gal on TV the other day trying to fix a door aggressive little pair of ankle biters, seemed all she did with the dogs was scale aversives up from starting with a loud horn(totally ineffective) scaling up from there... I'm thinking what? I thought people said she's an "all positive" trainer...

I don't watch that much TV anyway, but I get more out of watching Hope cock her head, look goofy and run around the house looking for where the angry dog is than I get from either show.  The surround system gets her every time..

Don't forget the holistic and all natural trainers out there too..


----------



## pamperedpups

TxRider said:


> Was watching that Victoria gal on TV the other day trying to fix a door aggressive little pair of ankle biters, seemed all she did with the dogs was scale aversives up from starting with a loud horn(totally ineffective) scaling up from there... I'm thinking what? I thought people said she's an "all positive" trainer...


What is an "all positive" trainer? 




TxRider said:


> Don't forget the holistic and all natural trainers out there too..


...care to explain?


----------



## hulkamaniac

Again, can we not all agree that regardless of the theory behind his methods his methods do in fact work? Can we not all agree that his preaching exercise is actually a good thing and that this resolves a lot of dog problems in an of itself? Can we not all agree that giving a dog rules, boundaries and limitations is a good thing? Can we not all agree that affection is a resource and thus making a dog earn it is arguable a good thing as well? Can we not all agree that CM is neither Satan incarnate nor the be all and end all of dog training?


----------



## pamperedpups

A friend of mine who works at Petco and I were joking about this in the store yesterday after I noticed something a bit "off" about one of Millan's products...










*Don't make me break out the Discipline Sausage!*


----------



## TxRider

pamperedpups said:


> What is an "all positive" trainer?


From her bio on her web page...

"Stilwell is passionate about using positive reinforcement training methods that enhance a dog's ability to learn while increasing confidence. The results are a healthy, well-adjusted pet. She is firmly against the use of forceful, dominance-based training techniques which often result in 'quick fixes' but ultimately cause more long-term harm than good."

Where does a loud jarring horn in the face figure into that concept?



> ...care to explain?


http://www.holisticdogtrainers.com/

http://naturaldogtraining.com/



pamperedpups said:


> A friend of mine who works at Petco and I were joking about this in the store yesterday after I noticed something a bit "off" about one of Millan's products...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't make me break out the Discipline Sausage!*


Now that's just hilarious... I wonder if he's even aware of this.

I'm sure he's got people beating down his door to put his name and pic on anything dog related they can sell, probably just has an agent deciding all of it and doing the deals for him.

Like the sports guys with shoes and cereal and whatever else an agent can get a buck from.

Maybe a puppy training pad with his face on it for selling to the dectractors out there...


----------



## pamperedpups

TxRider said:


> "Stilwell is passionate about using positive reinforcement training methods that enhance a dog's ability to learn while increasing confidence. The results are a healthy, well-adjusted pet. She is firmly against the use of forceful, dominance-based training techniques which often result in 'quick fixes' but ultimately cause more long-term harm than good."
> 
> Where does a loud jarring horn in the face figure into that concept?


It certainly doesn't seem to fit, but then neither does the description "all positive." 





TxRider said:


> http://www.holisticdogtrainers.com/
> 
> http://naturaldogtraining.com/


Thanks. I've heard of the drive (or natural) trainers, but find it unfortunate that there's not more information provided by the ICHDTB.


----------



## FourIsCompany

pamperedpups said:


> *Don't make me break out the Discipline Sausage!*












That just sounds so wrong! LOL

About humanity... It's the quality of being humane. Humane is: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans *or animals*.

Cesar is compassionate, sympathetic and considerate of animals. That's why he does what he does. Many times the alternative for these problem dogs is death or lifelong confinement and segregation. His corrections are humane when you consider the alternatives.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> From her bio on her web page...
> 
> "Stilwell is passionate about using positive reinforcement training methods that enhance a dog's ability to learn while increasing confidence. The results are a healthy, well-adjusted pet. She is firmly against the use of forceful, dominance-based training techniques which often result in 'quick fixes' but ultimately cause more long-term harm than good."
> 
> Where does a loud jarring horn in the face figure into that concept?


Well, positive reinforcement is a concept in OC. So too is positive punishment. Stillwell's emphasis is on +R, but I don't take that to mean excluding +P. I've also never heard/read or seen air horns being used as a forceful, dominance-based technique. Do dominance theorists use air horns based on dominance?


----------



## TxRider

FourIsCompany said:


> That just sounds so wrong! LOL
> 
> About humanity... It's the quality of being humane. Humane is: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans *or animals*.
> 
> Cesar is compassionate, sympathetic and considerate of animals. That's why he does what he does. Many times the alternative for these problem dogs is death or lifelong confinement and segregation. His corrections are humane when you consider the alternatives.


Humane is also subjective. Varies drastically from person to person and especially culture to culture. It's a belief system based value.


----------



## Pepper

I like Stillwell....

The only part about Cesar I like is that he shows the media that pitbulls are good  

But...it didn't help that he showed up on a Bones episode and had to "put down" aggressive pits..


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Well, positive reinforcement is a concept in OC. So too is positive punishment. Stillwell's emphasis is on +R, but I don't take that to mean excluding +P. I've also never heard/read or seen air horns being used as a forceful, dominance-based technique. Do dominance theorists use air horns based on dominance?


That was just where she started, she escalated from there until she found an aversive that sent the little snarling ball fleeing into the house and under a chair.

It was case where Cesar typically just stands in the doorway and "claims the space" probably with all body language and without a sound or touch making it clear he's in control of the doorway and the dog is not welcome to go there.... Maybe a tap on the shoulder or a "psst" if needed. Ending with the dog either walking away, or sitting calmly looking at him and receiving affection as reinforcement for that behavior.

Which is more humane? You tell me.


----------



## peppy264

Apparently air horns are acceptable as long as you are explaining them with the right terminology, preferably found in a 'peer reviewed paper'. Otherwise, you are an unethical inhumane brute. LOL


----------



## pamperedpups

TxRider said:


> Which is more humane? You tell me.


Can I use a lifeline? I'd like to call the dog...


----------



## Pepper

> or sitting calmly looking at him.


I think instead of calmly, you should use confused.

Do you think the dog really knows that he is claiming the space, when dogs don't stand in front of doorways tapping eachother on the shoulder? Or do you think he's just in the door way telling him not to be there, so the dog is like..okay...?

The horn is doing the same thing, except the dog doesn't connect his owner, with the aversive. He connects him freaking out at the door to the airhorn.

She's done it with counter surfers too. That way the dog knows not to steal food when the owner is out of the room too. Same with the yappers, it teaches them even when the owners aren't there, they still can't go berserk at the door.


----------



## cshellenberger

FourIsCompany said:


> Which is the one true religion?


Neither, there is no 'One' true religion. However each share truths;

Exercise is needed to have a happy well adjusted dog.

Leadership is needed to have a happy well adjusted dog.

Socailization is needed to have a happy well adjusted dog.

It's HOW we get there that's different.

BTW, Behavior Modificatin doesn't always use clickers, that's just one tool in the arsenal.


----------



## TxRider

Pepper said:


> I think instead of calmly, you should use confused.
> 
> Do you think the dog really knows that he is claiming the space, when dogs don't stand in front of doorways tapping eachother on the shoulder? Or do you think he's just in the door way telling him not to be there, so the dog is like..okay...?


Yup pretty much. Dog is thinking ok, you don't want me there, I get it.

He communicated to the dog effectively, humanely, what he expects of him. 

Dogs are very in tune to human body language don't forget, peer reviewed science and all they are better at reading humans than humans are at reading each other. They do it better than chimps can. He didn't scare it, he calmly communicated going to the door freaking out wasn't allowed by the human.

"claiming the space" is for the owners benefit, to tell the owner how to think of it in a way they can rationalize in their human brain.



> The horn is doing the same thing, except the dog doesn't connect his owner, with the aversive. He connects him freaking out at the door to the airhorn.


 Only because the owner wasn't honking it, Victoria was.

She scared the $%&^ out of it. It was hiding under a chair shutting down.

If it doesn't associate it with the human, you can also get a dog who is scared to go the door, and likely will bolt out just to get past that scary spot.


----------



## FourIsCompany

TxRider said:


> Humane is also subjective.


I totally agree.  



Pepper said:


> Do you think the dog really knows that he is claiming the space, when dogs don't stand in front of doorways tapping eachother on the shoulder? Or do you think he's just in the door way telling him not to be there, so the dog is like..okay...?


I think it's the same thing. 



cshellenberger said:


> Neither, there is no 'One' true religion. However each share truths;


Exactly my point. (that was my attempt at humor, by the way.)



> BTW, Behavior Modificatin doesn't always use clickers, that's just one tool in the arsenal.


Oh, I know. I dabble in both "religions". I'm pretty good with the clicker. As I said, it was supposed to be humorous.


----------



## TxRider

cshellenberger said:


> Neither, there is no 'One' true religion. However each share truths;
> 
> Exercise is needed to have a happy well adjusted dog.
> 
> Leadership is needed to have a happy well adjusted dog.
> 
> Socailization is needed to have a happy well adjusted dog.
> 
> It's HOW we get there that's different.
> 
> BTW, Behavior Modificatin doesn't always use clickers, that's just one tool in the arsenal.


Woohoo!

And different dogs will get there better using different techniques. Just like different kids learn better with different techniques and methods of teaching.

An ADD kid, benefit from different methods than a dyslexic kid who needs different methods than a slightly autistic kid, who needs different methods than a little prodigy with genius IQ or a kid with Asperger syndrome..

And both CM, Victoria and others all make mistakes some times trying to figure it out for each dog. Nobody is perfect.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Does it really matter what the theory is as long as the method works? Seriously? If my car has a flat tire and one guy replaces the flat tire on the theory that the car needs four round tires to run properly and another guy replaces the flat tire just because he wants everything to be a matched set and the flat one clearly doesn't match does it really matter? The tire gets replaced either way.


----------



## pamperedpups

...it matters, hulk, if one guy replaces your tire with a donut.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> Apparently air horns are acceptable as long as you are explaining them with the right terminology, preferably found in a 'peer reviewed paper'. Otherwise, you are an unethical inhumane brute. LOL


Understanding the question > knee jerking.



pamperedpups said:


> Can I use a lifeline? I'd like to call the dog...


Bingo! 

Ineffective aversion, no matter what the aversion is, is determined by the dog and it teeters on the inhumane if the handler continues to use the ineffective aversion or escalates it. Did VS inc. continue or escalate the use of the air horn after it proved ineffective? If not, this would demonstrate a humanity.

Exhaustion, flooding, unjustified physical punishments, are all CM inc. tacts which CM inc. has used to elicit harmful psychological side-effects...all for you, his TV viewers. These effects are clearly visible to those who can attest to its effect. Most of his viewers cannot, many here at DF cannot. 

CM inc. also agrees its methodology is unethical...otherwise why the caveat? The CM zealots want us to ignore the ethics question, but in doing so I believe we're overlooking reality....people will try this at home. The caveat is merely to cover CM inc's arse. 

Hey, you see someone get a painful tatoo on TV and think _it's cool_, so you get one for yourself...more power to you. That is an individual choice. We see someone needlessly and forcibly restrain a helpless dog in the name of "leadership", I'm sorry, but you're no leader of ours.



hulkamaniac said:


> Does it really matter what the theory is as long as the method works?


A brick thrown at the dog's head will get the dog to down. You tell me, does the method matter? If so, you hold some judgment (dare I say ethics) to conclude which method is preferred over others.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> A brick thrown at the dog's head will get the dog to down. You tell me, does the method matter? If so, you hold some judgment (dare I say ethics) to conclude which method is preferred over others.


In that case I question the method, but that's an extreme case. But if one guy gets my dog to wait at the door by "claiming space" and issuing verbal corrections and another lady gets my dog to wait at the door by giving them treats does it matter? The dog still waits by the door with either method.

It's like kids. I know some parents who have very well behaved kids and they constantly threaten the lives of said kid if they misbehave. Actually, this used to be the way all kids were raised just a few decades ago. I also know parents who would never lay a hand on their kids and they also have very well behaved children. As long as the kid behaves does it matter how they got there?


----------



## pamperedpups

I'd say that matters a lot depending upon the sort of relationship you want to have with your dogs (or anyone else, for that matter).


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> In that case I question the method, but that's an extreme case. But if one guy gets my dog to wait at the door by "claiming space" and issuing verbal corrections and another lady gets my dog to wait at the door by giving them treats does it matter? The dog still waits by the door with either method.


Is classical conditioning weighted? If so, yes, it is a matter. Balancing Pavlov first, before Skinner, is the matter.


----------



## KBLover

hulkamaniac said:


> Actually, this used to be the way all kids were raised just a few decades ago.


I was never raised this way, and I am old enough to have been raised during some of those "few decades ago."

If anything, I was raised on the +R/-P pairing.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> Is classical conditioning weighted? If so, yes, it is a matter. Balancing Pavlov first, before Skinner, is the matter.


I still don't see why it matters. I wanted a dog that waited at the door. Cesar "claimed space", used body language and verbal corrections. Victoria made the dog sit and gave him treats for staying there. In either case, I got what I wanted - a dog that waits at the door. Why does it matter how they got there or what theory is behind their method.


----------



## KBLover

Just a question - why do we argue people instead of methods?

If Stillwell blew a horn and scared the daylights out of a dog - that's as +P as anything else.

It's like "clicker training" which is really mark-and-reward method. 

I guess I just don't get it.


----------



## txcollies

pamperedpups said:


> I'd say that matters a lot depending upon the sort of relationship you want to have with your dogs (or anyone else, for that matter).


I don't think that's entirely true. You can still train using a lot of corrections and more old fashioned ways and still come out a fair trainer with a wonderful dog that adores you.

Look at Diane Baumans dogs, totally awesome. 

*shrugs* look at some of our top obedience dogs. 

It all comes down to how you feel comfortable training your dog, what works for the dog, and not one method will work for every dog, even that "miracle" called a clicker. In fact, anyone who says that this method will work for any dog, (or horse, even - I come from horse training also) doesn't have theirfacts straight.

You don't have be to labeled as cruel or abusive just because you aren't a pure positive trainer. I know plenty of great dog trainers who a very fair but still teach forced retrieve, use collar corrections, and do all those things labeled by the common pet owner as "atrocious"

As for me, I train my dogs using a balanced approach. That is what works best for us. I usually stay out of discussions on forums like this because to me they waste time that I could be using toward training and actually getting out there and showing the world my results to back up my training. I have had my dogs go on to be outstanding obedience, therapy and service dogs, so I guess what I'm doing is working for me.


----------



## hulkamaniac

KBLover said:


> I was never raised this way, and I am old enough to have been raised during some of those "few decades ago."
> 
> If anything, I was raised on the +R/-P pairing.


I'm a relatively young guy and was raised with the, "We brought you into this world and we can take you out philosophy." I think I turned out halfway decent, though my mother disagrees. She'd like a daughter in law and some grandkids. That's another thread though.


----------



## KBLover

hulkamaniac said:


> I still don't see why it matters. I wanted a dog that waited at the door. Cesar "claimed space", used body language and verbal corrections. Victoria made the dog sit and gave him treats for staying there. In either case, I got what I wanted - a dog that waits at the door. Why does it matter how they got there or what theory is behind their method.


In that case - probably not.

But if you smacked the dog for poking his nose an inch past the door or just body-blocked him - I'd say that's a difference. Would you care if the dog sat because he's scared of getting his nose smacked or sitting because you won't get out of the way unless he does?

Does that mean "nose smacking" is wrong in and of itself? Probably not - especially if it doesn't rattle your dog. But if I smacked Wally's nose, it would be wrong because he's already fearful and I'm feeding that instead of using a non-threatening method. 

To me, that's why it matters.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> I still don't see why it matters. I wanted a dog that waited at the door. Cesar "claimed space", used body language and verbal corrections. Victoria made the dog sit and gave him treats for staying there. In either case, I got what I wanted - a dog that waits at the door. Why does it matter how they got there or what theory is behind their method.


Because, despite your perspective, it's not about just your needs/wants/desires. If you agree that you have a relationship with your dog, your dog's needs/wants/desires are considered too. Now you tell me...which is preferred? Both beings wanting to occupy the same space together, or both beings wanting to oppose eachother's space? If the first is preferred, method is a matter. If the second is preferred, a brick will do.

Yes, some dogs are more forgiving than others, but this is not a reason to lose sight of our humanity.


----------



## KBLover

hulkamaniac said:


> I'm a relatively young guy and was raised with the, "We brought you into this world and we can take you out philosophy." I think I turned out halfway decent, though my mother disagrees. She'd like a daughter in law and some grandkids. That's another thread though.


Yeah, I'm sure that method works and I'd say you're pretty decent based on your posts  

Actually, you're a dog lover - you can out fine


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Ineffective aversion, no matter what the aversion is dtermined by the dog and it teeters on the inhumane if the handler continues to use the ineffective aversion or escalates it. Did VS inc. continue or escalate the use of the air horn after it proved ineffective? If not, this would demonstrate a humanity.


Escalated to a stronger aversion (compressed air) that sent the dog running into the house and hiding under a chair afraid to come out.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> Where's the center?


Don't know if I'm in the center, but I just see CM as someone using Premack Principle and some Operant Conditiong.

Other than working with dogs that are super aggressive, etc, I don't see what he does that anyone else really can't. Guess that's why I'm not impressed *shrug*.

NILIF (or Premack - both are basically the same thing, do for me and I'll do for you), and any trainer uses some aspect of operant conditioning and could use the same quadrants he uses (whichever, or all as the case is).


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> Escalated to a stronger aversion (compressed air) that sent the dog running into the house and hiding under a chair afraid to come out.


My question was whether she repeated the aversion for the same effect. Not whether compressed air is aversive or what level of aversion you thought it to be.


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> Because, despite your perspective, it's not about just your needs/wants/desires. If you agree that you have a relationship with your dog, your dog's needs/wants/desires are considered too. Now you tell me...which is preferred? Both beings wanting to occupy the same space together, or both beings wanting to oppose eachother's space? If the first is preferred, method is a matter. If the second is preferred, a brick will do.


Hulk didn't say anything about a brick, and comparing standing in front of the door and using a little body language to make your dog stay at a distance to hitting a dog with a brick is just silliness.

As far as the dog no longer wanting to occupy his owner's space, thats just another silly exaggeration. "My owner wouldn't let me come to the door, he told me to stay back! The nerve of him! He's such a jerk, I'm through with this guy, he can stay in his space and I'll stay in mine". LOL. Sorry thats not how dogs think. Fido will still love you.


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Both beings wanting to occupy the same space together, or both beings wanting to oppose eachother's space? If the first is preferred, method is a matter. If the second is preferred, a brick will do.


So a brick will do? A brick is a better alternative to "claiming the space" or even remotely equivalent? Hmm. 

Personally I want mainly two things. First for the dog not to bolt past me outside every time a door opens, which is clearly not occupying the same space with each other.

Second not to crowd the door and give plenty of room when visitors are trying to come in which is also not occupying the same space with each other, which technically two beings cannot do anyway.

So calmly communicating in whatever verbal or nonverbal way for the dog to give some space, to not rush to the door when I go to the door, is fine with me as long as the dog understands it and I'm causing the dog no harm. Yes a brick would do, so would a 12 guage I guess.

I prefer CM's calm straightforward approach of making it clear not to come to the door unless called, over scaring the bejeesus out of my dog or hitting her with a brick. 

The dog has wants, but clearly the dog will be denied and asked to willingly forego some of those desires, in -anyone's- training theory.



Curbside Prophet said:


> My question was whether she repeated the aversion for the same effect. Not whether compressed air is aversive or what level of aversion you thought it to be.


Yes she did repeat it, several times, until obviously and visibly frustrated it didn't have an effect she escalated to a different one.

I am sure she will repeat it with other dogs, and I assume she tried it with this dog because it had worked with previous dogs.

I haven't seen CM try one aversion or method repeatedly with the same dog without effect either and not move on.

I fail to see your point for the question.


----------



## pamperedpups

TxRider said:


> So a brick will do? A brick is a better alternative to "claiming the space" or even remotely equivalent? Hmm.



So if "claiming the space" doesn't work, where does the owner go from there? For some dogs it might take a brick.

If a marker and treats don't work, I have play with toys. I also have the option of turning the dog standing back away from the door into an opportunity for the dog to earn the reward of going through the door on cue (premack).


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> So a brick will do? A brick is a better alternative to "claiming the space" or even remotely equivalent? Hmm.


What would make you suggest I am saying a brick is a better alternative? I hoped to suggest there are reasons to prefer one technique over another. I trust you prefer some techniques over others. You must have some judgment why claiming space is better than a brick...that is the point. Believe it or not pro b-modists use a protocol to move from one technique to the next. Not just what's worked for them before. 



> The dog has wants, but clearly the dog will be denied to willingly forego some of those desires, in -anyone's- training theory.


Not true. The dog can be motivate to behave, and they can be motivated to behave for those desires.


----------



## FourIsCompany

pamperedpups said:


> ...it matters, hulk, if one guy replaces your tire with a donut.


A donut wouldn't *work*, though. The car wouldn't operate with a donut as a tire... Having it work was the premise. 



pamperedpups said:


> I'd say that matters a lot depending upon the sort of relationship you want to have with your dogs.


We all want to have great relationships with our dogs. Why the assumption that people who don't use the methods you approve of don't have good relationships with their dogs? It's an invalid assumption. And I can prove it. I have empirical evidence. 



KBLover said:


> Other than working with dogs that are super aggressive, etc, I don't see what he does that anyone else really can't. Guess that's why I'm not impressed *shrug*.


But no one is claiming he invented anything.  Being impressed with Cesar Millan is like being impressed with a really good public speaker. Let's use Obama as an example. During our history, there have been people who have said the same things he has said in his speeches. But he puts it altogether in a really cool speech and delivers it with passion and emotion and out comes this moving speech that people all over the world are impressed with! 

So, the next day at work, your friend says to you, "Obama is a great speaker". 

Do you reply, "I don't see what he said that anyone else hasn't."? 

No one is claiming that Millan has invented a new way of dealing with dogs. He just delivers an effective and comprehensive package to millions of people in a way that they can understand. It's no biggie, but it's pretty cool in the eyes of a LOT of people. And when some go after his character and personal ethics because of it, and put him down for being inhumane, it's grasping at straws.


----------



## pamperedpups

FourIsCompany said:


> A donut wouldn't *work*, though. The car wouldn't operate with a donut as a tire... Having it work was the premise.












They work fine, just not for long and not going very fast...


----------



## FourIsCompany

pamperedpups said:


> They work fine, just not for long and not going very fast...


What? That looks like a tire to me.


----------



## pamperedpups

FourIsCompany said:


> We all want to have great relationships with our dogs. Why the assumption that people who don't use the methods you approve of don't have good relationships with their dogs? It's an invalid assumption. And I can prove it. I have empirical evidence.


Of course we all want to have great relationships with our dogs. I never assumed anything different. I just fail to see how great a relationship can be with someone who would rather spend most of their time setting someone up for failure and correcting them with punishment, rather than teaching them how to do what they wanted and rewarding them for their successes.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> Yes she did repeat it, several times, until obviously and visibly frustrated it didn't have an effect she escalated to a different one.


To a different noise aversion? Switching an approach is not an escalation. It's not clear in your statement that's what she did. 

If she in fact repeated the air noise to startle the dog to flee, without reinforcing some other behavior, and without a decrease in the problem behavior, that is, IMO, teetering on the inhumane. 



> I fail to see your point for the question.


I defined the border of inhumanity as repeating ineffective aversion. The effect of the behavior is in the frequency of the behavior. It's not clear whether she was effective or not with this technique. It sounds as though she abandoned the aversion when she didn't get the desired, operant response (humanity).


----------



## pamperedpups

FourIsCompany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spare_tire


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> What would make you suggest I am saying a brick is a better alternative? I hoped to suggest there are reasons to prefer one technique over another. I trust you prefer some techniques over others. You must have some judgment why claiming space is better than a brick...that is the point. Believe it or not pro b-modists use a protocol to move from one technique to the next. Not just what's worked for them before.


Ahh then you just weren't clear to me.

What is protocol, if not "what has worked before"... nit..

To me you have to get the dog away from the door in the first place somehow. Lure it, carry it, push it, kick it, and communicate that you want it to stay at a distance when you go to the door and reward it for doing so when it does. Teaching an alternate behavior is all you are doing.

CM's method is simple and straightforward, requires no harm, no touch, only body language and positive reinforcement. VS's seemed much more indirect, and much more harmful side effect prone (in this case).

Alternately you could teach the dog to go to a place when visitors come to the door. There's not only one way to go about this.



> Not true. The dog can be motivate to behave, and they can be motivated to behave for those desires.


But that's a future thing, they can be, but they don't pop out of the womb that way. Nor do they come from a shelter that way.

Surely they can, but for instance mine deeply desires to kill every squirrel she sees. It seems to be her deepest desire in fact.

She will not be allowed to fulfill that desire, she is denied it daily. I demand she doesn't by holding her leash, fencing her in and not allowing her the opportunity.

She may be able to be motivated to not desire to kill a squirrel, but it's very likely she will always desire it greatly. Cats are close second.

She may learn there is something more desirable at some point, she may eventually forget squirrels exist. 

But for now she is definately being asked to deny fullfilling her deepest or at least strongest desire and likely always will be. 

No trainer or training theory can change what is now, only what may be in the future.


----------



## FourIsCompany

pamperedpups said:


> I just fail to see how great a relationship can be with someone who would rather spend most of their time setting someone up for failure and correcting them with punishment...


What makes you think anyone is doing that? People who appreciate Cesar are not preferring to spend most of their time setting someone up for failure and correcting them with punishment. Where did you get this idea?


----------



## KakiO

Ok, after reading most (not all) of your comments, let me say that after watching my first episode of DW @ 4.5 years ago, the light suddenly clicked in my head. Had been having issues w/ my chow/shiba mix. Adopted as a puppy by a friend, litter had been found in a dumpster. He had to move, so I took her. Typical chow temperament, loving and faithful, but VERY protective of me. Raised with a cat, but now has high prey drive (she saw some does crossing the road at camping this weekend and was howling to get out of the car and chase them). She also thinks (thought) she was alpha female. 
Saw my first epsode, light clicked on. Whereas she was impossible to walk (pulling, fearful of certain objects), started walking her EVERY single day. Not easy at first, but she learned to heel. ALso, for over a year old, add her poor previous disciplinary manners (headstrong, stubborn, nippy) to her chow temperament (and/or german shepherd in with the shiba) and I had a handful to deal with. She learned her manners thru exercise, discipline and affection. Wheras she would challenge me over say, a pig ear, when I would resort to the DW's "bite" with his hand and rolling her to a submissive position on the ground, it was the ONLY thing that worked with her. I had to become the 'alpha female' and she had to accept it. She always accepted my boyfriend as the 'alpha male', but would challenge me as the 'alpha female'. She still thinks she's the 'alpha female' at times and is very protective of me (nice when you're out walking on the river levee), but is the most dedicated dog I've ever owned. (Used to have GSPointers and a Weimie. All dogs were fantastic, but it's def a toss up btwn her undying dedication and our prev Weimie.
So, to answer the question, I'd have to say the DW's have worked for me and my dog. I still have issues with dog agression (she'll want to fight large dog that comes by, but she's been attacked 3x by, of all dogs, every single one a Golden Retriever (!)). She's ok with most dogs, but I can def see where their energy carries over to her reaction to them. She hates Goldens on sight and esp hates this intense, bad energy border collie. 
Am not going to try any of DW's 'red zone' lessons, but would love for him to see if he can resolve it. So yes, I'd be open to him working with her. (She was never socialized right as a puppy).
Certain methods work for certain dogs. I can't see the DW working with our hunting dogs, they were always so eager to please and hunt. Current dog tho, chow mentality, def needed DW's methods of thinking/training.
You do what you need to do/read/study in order to make your dog a good citizen. You can love or hate the DW. He, for me, is amazing.


----------



## FourIsCompany

pamperedpups said:


> FourIsCompany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spare_tire


Well, then it doesn't "work". Working means *getting virtually the same results* as a tire.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> To me you have to get the dog away from the door in the forst place somehow.


Agreed, however you have to measure the opportunity for learning. If the dog is bolting out the door, you are in the worst possible training scenario. IMO, the best learning is had through impulse control exercises, and a bomb proof sit, in prep for door exit behavior. Management and extinction is about as aversive as we need to be.



> CM's method is simple and straightforward, requires no harm, no touch, only body language and positive reinforcement. VS's seemed much indirect and much more side effect prone.


I disagree on the CM inc. perspective. CM's body language is to effect b-mod by way of threat (fear). I don't know anyone who would agree these kind of threats are a benefit to a relationship through b-mod. If its not about the relationship, again, a brick will do. I do agree that an air horn in not an appropriate first try and prone to the response you say she got. 



> But that's a future thing, they can be, but they don't pop out of the womb that way.


Every dog is born to learn, now! 



> Surely they can, but for instance mine deeply desires to kill every squirrel she sees. It seems to be her deepest desire in fact.


No one is arguing that we have to sometimes find a different outlet for our dog's desires or that we have to employ a greater responsibility for urgent need. There's no need, however, to threaten a dog if we want to 'train' appropriate behavior.

ETA:Ah crap! Sorry Tx, I hit edit instead of quote in your previous response. I deleted it for clarity. My apology.



TxRider said:


> Actually I don't think it was even aversive from the dogs perspective at all, or at least not enough to noticeable.


I think you're confusing aversion with punishment. Punishments are not punishers if they are ineffective. Aversion is aversion is aversion. 



> Technically teaching a different behavior through fear.


Or extinction. It's hard to wrap my brain around the loss of an appetitive consequence being something to fear. 

ETA II:You have a very odd (amusing) comprehension ability peppy.


peppy264 said:


> Hulk didn't say anything about a brick, and comparing standing in front of the door and using a little body language to make your dog stay at a distance to hitting a dog with a brick is just silliness.


My original statement was about a brick effecting down, though a brick can effect door bolting behavior too, assuming you have good aim. I do not. 



> As far as the dog no longer wanting to occupy his owner's space, thats just another silly exaggeration. "My owner wouldn't let me come to the door, he told me to stay back! The nerve of him! He's such a jerk, I'm through with this guy, he can stay in his space and I'll stay in mine". LOL. Sorry thats not how dogs think. Fido will still love you.


I don't believe your comical anthropomorphism fits what I was alluding to. In fact I'm certain of it.


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Agreed, however you have to measure the opportunity for learning. If the dog is bolting out the door, you are in the worst possible training scenario. IMO, the best learning is had through impulse control exercises, and a bomb proof sit, in prep for door exit behavior. Management and extinction is about as aversive as we need to be.


And for pup, that would surely be my exact solution. For an adult shelter dog with established behavior, I'm a bit more open for alternate strategies, and experimentation. Some of CM's included, or anyone else's methods that might work if they are reasonable.

I have mine trained for exit already. 3 weeks in she goes from jumping and whining excitement when I get the leash, to a rock solid sit at the door for me to hook it on the collar without a word said, to a fairly solid stop at the threshold until I say "ok".

And all I used was praise, and probably 3-4 handfuls of treats.

The squirrel/cat thing I may never overcome though. I'm wide open for any methods to consider besides a brick.. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> I think you're confusing aversion with punishment. Punishments are not punishers if they are ineffective. Aversion is aversion is aversion.


What I meant was, to be an aversion, it has to have the effect of actually averting something.

If it doesn't avert attention, or behavior, or something it's just a noise.

The air seemed both aversive and punishing.

As for the edit thing, don't sweat it, I mod my own 10,000 member board and a couple others. It's not something I haven't done myself a few times.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> And for pup, that would surely be my exact solution. For an adult shelter dog with established behavior, I'm a bit more open for alternate strategies, and experimentation.


If it can prove effective there wouldn't be a need for alternate strategies. Adult dogs are equipped with the same learning tools as puppies. Proven ineffective, yes, we need to try something else or alter our expectations.


----------



## Cracker

I have a couple of things to say. So MANY posts! Not that I'm surprised, being a CM thread these things are always um, interesting.

Firstly. Purely positive does not exist. Positive based trainers use Positive reinforcement and negative punishment, two quadrants of Operant conditioning. Very rarely positive punishment is used in an emergency management situation. I haven't seen anyone say this here,but it usually comes up so I'm "preempting" for clarityositive trainers do not let their dogs run willy nilly without rules nor do we "ignore" all unwanted behaviours. I personally find this thought offensive and see it a lot in the forums. I ain't no pushover, but I CHOOSE to use this method through a sense of empathy for my fellow living creatures. This is MY ethic. 

Stillwell uses aversives (P+) occasionally, though usually relatively mild ones (verbal). I personally think an air horn used on a dog, with it's extremely sensitive hearing is TOO aversive. I would not have used it. Aversives can and do work, otherwise they wouldn't be part of the OC, but I do believe they are not, in 99 percent of cases, necessary. A bit of thought about the motivations of the dog, a bit of thought about how best to train the WANTED behaviour to replace the unwanted and then a bit of work is all that is necessary. Hey we're the ones with the opposable thumbs and the bigger brains! In fact, I had a similar issue with one of my client's dogs, a little staffy "linebacker" who THREW herself full tilt at the door everytime someone knocked or rang the bell. Less than half an hour of teaching "go to your mat" when the door is knocked on or doorbell rung and that dog was RUNNING to the mat for reinforcement, and her ultimate reward was the person coming in the door! (Premack at it's finest).

The "problem" with Cesar's method of claiming the space AND Stilwell's aversion training for this problem, is, do we know for sure the dog will not go in the space if Cesar (or the other humans) are not there? Will they develop an aversion to the space itself? Hmmmm. The possibility of this going wrong is high. We watched the staffy on a CC camera. After a couple of days of short sessions (and management) the dog was going to the mat if people were there or not. Reinforcing the behaviour increases it's occurrence, regardless of the "human" factor, because she learned the Doorbell was the cue, not the human telling her to go to the mat. 

A bit about Positive punishment (which, in case you have not read my earlier posts I DO NOT RECOMMEND)...in order to be effective it must be delivered EVERY time the behaviour occurs, it must be delivered within 1-2 seconds of the behaviour itself, and it must be aversive enough to prevent the behaviour occurring again but NOT aversive enough to cause fear in the dog. 

That requires a very fine sense of timing, application and consistency. This is NOT appropriate for the average dog owner, as most do not have the ability to deliver it properly or effectively and POTENTIALLY damages the dog, whether that is physically or mentally. Some of the tougher dogs, not corrected with enough aversion, develop punishment calluses where they can be inured to the discomfort and the punishment loses ALL effectiveness. 

If you are suppressing an unwanted behaviour through correction, the IMPULSE the behaviour is linked to is not removed, just the behaviour...so the potential for an aggressive dog to shut down and BEHAVE for a period after training is there, but so is the risk of the behaviour returning after stewing inside the dog for while, coming back full force and unexpectedly..a possible ticking bomb. So yes, it can work, yes it can be effective and YES it CAN do harm if not applied correctly. And for those of you who say you have great relationships with your dogs even with using P+ then that is simply the blessing of dogs and their ability in many cases to forgive their owners...says a LOT about dogs and their emotional capacity for love. Still doesn't mean it's okay, at least not in my books. My mother was abusive, I still love her. Stockholm syndrome is an interesting thing.

Using R+/P- does not cause physical or psychological harm if your timing or intensity are not sufficient, all that happens is the particular behaviour you are training may take longer to occur and your dog may get an extra treat. Big dillyo deal. 
Yes, it takes good timing and understanding of the theory behind the training for it to be effective, just like any form of training. Management of unwanted behaviour is key as well...but the chances of you doing harm are almost nil. 
This does not work that way in the other forms of training that involve aversives. 
If you are working on rear brain reactive behaviours like fear, using R+ in a classical conditioning way CHANGES the way the dog THINKS about the feared trigger instead of just supressing it's reaction. This in my opinon, is a better, safer and much less stressful long term solution for the dog and the owner. Unfortunately it takes longer. No micky d fast food training here. So, like anything else worth doing, it is worth doing right.

I will reiterate that I am VERY familiar with Cesar's methods. I own his first three seasons on DVD and his first two books. I love his exercise, discipline and affection mantra and his no talk, no touch, no eye contact for insecure dogs. I used to believe in all his dominance talk..but with education have seen that though the simplicity of his basic messages is good, his lack of insight into true behaviour and body language/calming signals of dogs can create more issues than he or his fans can easily solve.

For whoever was asking about drive training earlier..check out Neil Sattin's blog. It has some good info. 
There is also an interesting blog entry on Lee Charles Kelly's blog about Cesar's body language being like a predator (which is used in natural dog training..it's a predator/prey drive thing). It's interesting, regardless of your inclinations in training methods.


Holy cow, I didn't mean this to be so long. Sorry guys.


----------



## hulkamaniac

This is my main issue with a lot of CM detractors. They think that just because his underlying theory is bad (which I am more than willing to concede) that his methods are also equally bad. The logic just does not hold up. 

Since this thread popped back up I went back and watched a couple of episodes since I haven't seen any in awhile. In one he dealt with a food aggressive dog. He did his "claiming space" routine again and it worked. Not once did he he physically touch the dog. He also had an episode where he dealt with a dalmation in a fire house who was out of control. The dog jumped on people, knocked kids over, stole food off people's plates, etc..... What did Cesar tell them to do? He told them to exercise the dog and establish clear rules in the firehouse. No one was allowed to let the dog eat off their plate and there were certain areas of the firehouse that the dog was never allowed to enter. Guess what? It worked. 

It bugs me that people go from "theory is incorrect" to "methodology is incorrect." That's just not the case. That's never, ever the case. You can have incorrect theory and yet get the result you want. At the same time you can have a correct theory and incorrect methodology and not get the result you want.


----------



## TxRider

I read a very interesting piece by a human body language expert about Cesar and watching his movement and body language both with dogs and with owners.

Was interesting reading for sure.

Anyway, like I said the most I get out of any TV dog shows is the entertainment value I get from watching my dog react to the dog sounds on TV... 

I think CM and VS both do far more good than harm.


----------



## Westhighlander

Cracker said:


> There is also an interesting blog entry on Lee Charles Kelly's blog about Cesar's body language being like a predator (which is used in natural dog training..it's a predator/prey drive thing). It's interesting, regardless of your inclinations in training methods.


Lee Charles Kelly has some unusual training methods and has a huge chip on his shoulder. He's always fighting with Andrea Arden on urbanhound.com http://www.urbanhound.com/default.asp. Andrea on the other hand is great, I went to her classes with my puppy. I think she's better than VS. Like CM, Andrea is another case where she did a lot of work with shelter/rescue dogs which led to her own show now. http://animal.discovery.com/tv/underdog-to-wonderdog/doggie-wonder-team/andrea-arden.html


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> If it can prove effective there wouldn't be a need for alternate strategies. Adult dogs are equipped with the same learning tools as puppies. Proven ineffective, yes, we need to try something else or alter our expectations.


The need is because I have to manage exits now, with a big strong dog that desires to kill neighbors pets, not a pup that is much more manageable.

A bomb proof sit takes time, as does a bomb proof recall. Meanwhile I have to go outside several times a day including walks.

If an alternate strategy can work just as well and just as humanely with results now not depending on dependencies of training other things first I have no problem using it. There is no one and only "right" way in my book.

LOL, right now she's demanding in no uncertain terms, in her own very submissive, affectionate and ever so indirect manner that it's time to go walk a few miles and will be physically pushing my arms away from the keyboard and getting very direct about it soon if I don't comply...  Gotta love dogs..


----------



## peppy264

Cracker said:


> So yes, it can work, yes it can be effective and YES it CAN do harm if not applied correctly. And for those of you who say you have great relationships with your dogs even with using P+ then that is simply the blessing of dogs and their ability in many cases to forgive their owners...says a LOT about dogs and their emotional capacity for love.


Well I think it does tell you that dogs do accept reasonable corrections (physical and verbal) without holding a grudge (something you see in dog on dog communication all the time). Its not a question of forgiveness, which is a human trait. Dogs use P+, as you say, with each other. Its simple, direct communication. Dogs expect it and accept it. It does nothing to hurt the relationship; in fact it reinforces the leader - follower relationship you want with your dog.

Equating P+ with abuse goes too far. Can it be? Yes. Is their potential for harm? Yes. Will a reasonable dog loving person harm their dog using P+ in a reasonable manner (in addition to positive re-enforcement, which virtually everyone uses)? No. You have to be aware of your dog. If it is fearful, an entirely different approach may be needed. Average dog is not going to be harmed by a stare, a 'No', or even one of CM's famous little pokes. If you are so out of touch with your dog that you are going to harm him using P+, then you are probably a hopeless case whatever method you use.

As far as which method is "best", I don't really care - I expect it depends on the handler and the dog. But the important thing to me, is that the dog gets disciplined and trained by SOME method, and does not wind up at the pound. As such, broadcasting CM's messages (most of which I think you support - ie exercise, etc) to millions every week is an overwhelmingly positive thing.

By the way, I think Cracker's posts are amongst the best of DF.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> You can have incorrect theory and yet get the result you want. At the same time you can have a correct theory and incorrect methodology and not get the result you want.


The problem with this logic is, when the results are not what you want, you at least have some ground to stand on when modifying your means and methods with sound theory. The same can't be said of incorrect theory, or correctly stated...incorrect hypothesis.



peppy264 said:


> If you are so out of touch with your dog that you are going to harm him using P+, then you are probably a hopeless case whatever method you use.


That's quite assumptive. Some are so opposed to this statement that they don't need P+ to be an effective handler with any type/kind of dog. I've experienced this first hand. If this isn't a goal, even for CM inc., we aren't interested in being humane.



peppy264 said:


> By the way, I think Cracker's posts are amongst the best of DF.


At least we have some common ground.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> The problem with this logic is, when the results are not what you want, you at least have some ground to stand on when modifying your means and methods with sound theory. The same can't be said of incorrect theory, or correctly stated...incorrect hypothesis.


I don't disagree with that. My problem is with people who make the argument that since Cesar's underlying theories are incorrect that every single one of his methods and techniques are also incorrect. That's just not the case at all.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Cracker said:


> I personally think an air horn used on a dog, with it's extremely sensitive hearing is TOO aversive.


I agree. I don't believe in shocking (startling) my dog in any way. I don't use noise aversion, although I know people who do and I don't have a problem with it. But something that scares or hurts the dog's ears is too far for me. I use MILD aversives.



> Hey we're the ones with the opposable thumbs and the bigger brains!


One of the things that stuck in my mind when I was preparing for my first puppies years ago was "You have to be smarter than the dog". And I still aim for that to this day. LOL Whenever something is happening that I don't want to happen, I go into observation and analysis mode to figure out how I can use the advantage of my brain to change things.



Westhighlander said:


> Lee Charles Kelly has some unusual training methods and has a huge chip on his shoulder. He's always fighting with Andrea Arden on urbanhound.com


I've done my share of arguing with him, too, but I like him quite a bit (I must have missed the chip) and I've gotten a lot out of reading his and Sattin's blogs. As with Cesar, I certainly don't agree with everything he says and thinks.


----------



## Westhighlander

FourIsCompany said:


> I've done my share of arguing with him, too, but I like him quite a bit (I must have missed the chip) and I've gotten a lot out of reading his and Sattin's blogs. As with Cesar, I certainly don't agree with everything he says and thinks.


Actually, he's usually the one arguing. Andrea just ignores him. I think he's just jealous of her.

As for the chip, he's always trying to point out why the other trainers are wrong and he's right.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Westhighlander said:


> Actually, he's usually the one arguing. Andrea just ignores him. I think he's just jealous of her.
> 
> As for the chip, he's always trying to point out why the other trainers are wrong and he's right.


Cesar has said before that the one thing two dog trainers will always agree on is that a third dog trainer is wrong.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Westhighlander said:


> As for the chip, he's always trying to point out why the other trainers are wrong and he's right.


I guess a few of us around here have chips on our shoulders, then, eh? LOL I do understand what you're saying. He has very strong opinions and is sure he's right. I never had a problem with him, though. I actually love debate, as long as there are no personal attacks and he never did that. I'll have to go look at the link you posted, I don't know who Andrea is. 



hulkamaniac said:


> Cesar has said before that the one thing two dog trainers will always agree on is that a third dog trainer is wrong.


Cesar has said that, but again, he's not the first to say it. It's an old saying among dog trainers.


----------



## Corteo

Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't follow your point. It's human nature to cause no harm to our companion animals. Do you disagree?


I agree with you completely. I'm saying, that our dogs should not be treated like humans. So humanity is the wrong word to use. I'm not saying that we need to hit dogs with lead pipes, etc, but our relationship is different than with humans.

I would say it is like this: Dog training is a lot like child discipline. There is a camp that says, that you should be the child's equal (clicker). and there is the camp that says that "spare the rod, spoil the child"(CM, Prong collars, choke collars, shock collars, etc). I say that group 2 is fine as long as you don't over to it. Spanking, can easily turn into abuse. But it is fine, when used correctly.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Corteo said:


> I agree with you completely. I saying, that or dogs should not be treated like humans. So humanity is the wrong word to use. I'm not saying that we need to hit dogs with lead pipes, etc, but our relationship is different than with humans.


We can only be human...humanity *is* the right word. Being humane, treating animals as the animal they are *is* the definition of humanity. 



> I would say it is like this: Dog training is a lot like child discipline. There is a camp that says, that you should be the child's equal (clicker). and there is the camp that says that "spare the rod, spoil the child"(CM, Prong collars, choke collars, shock collars, etc). I say that group 2 is fine as long as you don't over to it. Spanking, can easily turn into abuse. But it is fine, when used correctly.


Your camp perspective is one, overly simplistic version IMO. Some may feel this way but I see it much different than that, and it has nothing to do with equating dogs to children, being anthropomorphic, or humanity being the wrong word. 

Camp one wants to control what can be controlled, antecedents and consequences (OC trainers). Camp two wants to control the dog (dominance theorists). 

You can systematically, without emotion, justify the aversions you speak of in camp one...OC trainers can and have justified the use of a prong (me included); by quantifying behavior and adhering to a common sense principle of weighing intrusiveness (from least to most) and its effect. Camp two has no means of doing that - it's not about the application of sound theory, it's the dog's fault. These are the two camps I see. 

IMO camp one is in a much better position then camp two in terms of demonstrating humanity; simply because learning theory is founded on verifiable/usable laws.


----------



## TxRider

FourIsCompany said:


> Cesar has said that, but again, he's not the first to say it. It's an old saying among dog trainers.


What I find funny is the schools of thought if you will, about how a dog thinks and learns in regards to training.

I read several different schools of though about it, and several of them though they have different philosophies about how the dog learns and thinks, and what a dog's mind is capable of they still in the end use the same basic principles for their techniques they just rationalize why it works differently.

The big argument always seem to stem from an almost fundamentalist religious type zealotry about how a dog thinks and learns.

And each also seems to always misrepresent the facts about the others philosophy. Either they don't understand it, or intentionally misrepresent it to argue that it is wrong.

CLK for example states many things about dogs and wolves as fact that are just not true, and his theory about how dogs learn and think is a bunch of hooey for the most part. It's just his way of rationalizing the same thing others do in a different way. 

It works for him and some others agree so it must be right. He selectively chooses some science to reinforce his point of view, and discards what doesn't.

Like the bible, you can find rationalization and justification for almost anything. People have and will forever it seems.

The techniques he recommends work regardless, and can be explained as to how and why they work through several theories of how dogs think and learn. Examples I see him give of why another school of thought doesn't work are generally misrepresentation of that school of thought.

It's just a human condition we are all prone to. It's the ones who don't recognize this in themselves, and are quite forceful in their pushing of their philosophy on others that scare me.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Camp two has no means of doing that - it's not about the application of sound theory, it's the dog's fault.


Speaking of an overly simplistic version...

Just because you don't see a sound theory or understand one doesn't mean there isn't one.

In my experience I tend to see camp 2 consistently saying it's -always- the owner's fault, not the dog. If you put CM in camp 2 certainly CM says it in every single case, no exceptions.

"I rehabilitate dogs, I train people" is his calling card.

Both camps seek to communicate and interact with the animal in such a way as to condition the animal to willingly respond to future requests for behavior. They just rationalize how to do so, and how it works in the dogs mind differently from each other.

And for the most part the same principles and methods are used to get there at the root of it.


----------



## Corteo

> In my experience I tend to see camp 2 consistently saying it's -always- the owner's fault, not the dog. If you put CM in camp 2 certainly CM says it in every single case, no exceptions.


I agree completely


----------



## TxRider

Corteo said:


> I agree completely


I mean take NILIF for example. It's simply making sure to religiously exert overt dominance in every aspect of the dogs life for every resource you allow.

Nothing in life is free means the dog must do something for me, submit to my dominance and my will, for anything it gets.

Submit to my dominance or I exert it and you get nothing.. No food, no play, no affection... nothing, until you submit to my will and do as I ask.

OC can be rationalized the same way. I have the resource you desire, but you cannot have it unless you do as I want. You are the dominant half of that equation, exerting your dominance and requiring the dog comply to gain the resource.

In shaping you even make the poor dog have to experiment to figure out what your will actually is. Which is good in that the dog learns a process it can reliably use to figure out what that will is that it must submit to in a way seems to be natural for the dog and that it can understand.

Of course this can be rationalized differently, and surely some will take offense at this rationalization. In the end whatever theory helps the human process, rationalize and make decisions on how to humanely communicate desires and conditioning to the dog and get results is all that matters.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

but its not ALWAYS the owner's fault.

sometimes there are neurological conditions involved.

somethimes the conditions are physiological, genetic etc.

behavior is a response to environment.

humans are not the only environmental factor.


----------



## hulkamaniac

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> but its not ALWAYS the owner's fault.
> 
> sometimes there are neurological conditions involved.
> 
> somethimes the conditions are physiological, genetic etc.
> 
> behavior is a response to environment.
> 
> humans are not the only environmental factor.


Those are the exceptions and not the rule though. If I have a dog who is running around peeing on everything in the house, what is more likely - a UTI or an unhousebroken dog? The first should certainly be ruled out, but the second is far more likely. The first is no one's fault, the second is my fault and not the dog. No, humans are not the only environmental factor, but they are generally the only environmental constant. 

We've all seen children that behave like angels when their parents are around and behave like hellions when they're not. (Some of us may have been those children. I certainly would not admit to it.) The variable then is the parents or in the case of a dog, it's the handler. My dog behaves in public the same way he behaves in my house because I'm around and I enforce my will on the dog. Whether I make my dog behave using dominance (convincing him that bad things will happen if he doesn't) or I use positive re-inforcement (convincing him that good things will happen if he does), as long as the dog behaves I don't see where we have an issue.


----------



## Corteo

TxRider said:


> I mean take NILIF for example. It's simply making sure to religiously exert overt dominance in every aspect of the dogs life for every resource you allow.
> 
> Nothing in life is free means the dog must do something for me, submit to my dominance and my will, for anything it gets.
> 
> Submit to my dominance or I exert it and you get nothing.. No food, no play, no affection... nothing, until you submit to my will and do as I ask.
> 
> OC can be rationalized the same way. I have the resource you desire, but you cannot have it unless you do as I want. You are the dominant half of that equation, exerting your dominance and requiring the dog comply to gain the resource.
> 
> In shaping you even make the poor dog have to experiment to figure out what your will actually is. Which is good in that the dog learns a process it can reliably use to figure out what that will is that it must submit to in a way seems to be natural for the dog and that it can understand.
> 
> Of course this can be rationalized differently, and surely some will take offense at this rationalization. In the end whatever theory helps the human process, rationalize and make decisions on how to humanely communicate desires and conditioning to the dog and get results is all that matters.



I know. You are right.


----------



## TxRider

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> but its not ALWAYS the owner's fault.
> 
> sometimes there are neurological conditions involved.
> 
> somethimes the conditions are physiological, genetic etc.
> 
> behavior is a response to environment.
> 
> humans are not the only environmental factor.


Of course. You can't expect a dog missing a back leg to learn to stand up and beg.

Or in my case, it's not my fault Hope is how she is, she was 3yrs old when I got her. It is my fault how she will be 5 years from now though.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

hulkamaniac said:


> Those are the exceptions and not the rule though. If I have a dog who is running around peeing on everything in the house, what is more likely - a UTI or an unhousebroken dog? The first should certainly be ruled out, but the second is far more likely. The first is no one's fault, the second is my fault and not the dog. No, humans are not the only environmental factor, but they are generally the only environmental constant.
> 
> We've all seen children that behave like angels when their parents are around and behave like hellions when they're not. (Some of us may have been those children. I certainly would not admit to it.) The variable then is the parents or in the case of a dog, it's the handler. My dog behaves in public the same way he behaves in my house because I'm around and I enforce my will on the dog. Whether I make my dog behave using dominance (convincing him that bad things will happen if he doesn't) or I use positive re-inforcement (convincing him that good things will happen if he does), as long as the dog behaves I don't see where we have an issue.


my point is that other factors do come into play that aren't directly related to the owner.

or controllable by the owner.

and those factors are not always health related either. that's just the most obvious example.

treating *all* behavior as *either* dominent or submissive tends to gloss this consideration over.

many times it can be both. it can be neither(according to any given definition of each)

case in point.

fear aggression. as a result of one's roomate spanking one's dog when one isn't home. this has nothing to do with the owner if there are no obvious signs given by the dog that the roomate is being physical with it.

very possible. 

factors vary over such a wide range of circumstances its hard to pidgeonhole it as "owner's fault*


----------



## TxRider

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> treating *all* behavior as *either* dominent or submissive tends to gloss this consideration over.


I don't believe I've seen anyone do this though, certainly not CM.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> Just because you don't see a sound theory or understand one doesn't mean there isn't one.


Ah yes, the comical _just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist_ statement. Makes me giggle. Equally comical...there may be a boogieman under our bed. There is no evidence for it, but you can't _prove_ that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be committed to believing with respect to the boggieman? 



> In my experience I tend to see camp 2 consistently saying it's -always- the owner's fault, not the dog. If you put CM in camp 2 certainly CM says it in every single case, no exceptions.


If you only parse one statement out of CM inc's entire message, you could parse this, however, that is not the totality of his message. 



> "I rehabilitate dogs, I train people" is his calling card.


This in no way justifies the methods he does use. 



> Both camps seek to communicate and interact with the animal in such a way as to condition the animal to willingly respond to future requests for behavior. They just rationalize how to do so, and how it works in the dogs mind differently from each other.
> 
> And for the most part the same principles and methods are used to get there at the root of it.


Frequency of behavior is used in the definitions of learning theory...you'll find no usage in dominance theory. Why not just call the cat in the hat a cat?



TxRider said:


> I mean take NILIF for example. It's simply making sure to religiously exert overt dominance in every aspect of the dogs life for every resource you allow.


This is a completely inaccurate portrayal of NILIF. A testament to the absurdity dominance thinking can have on such a simple concept like NILIF. 

No, NILIF is not about exerting dominance. In fact it can be portrayed exactly the opposite. We want the dog to win the resource (dominance). 


> Nothing in life is free means the dog must do something for me, submit to my dominance and my will, for anything it gets.
> 
> Submit to my dominance or I exert it and you get nothing.. No food, no play, no affection... nothing, until you submit to my will and do as I ask.


Wrong again. The dog's behavior is voluntary. No "must", no submission to your "will". Just because you use a criteria to effect the dog's voluntary behavior, this does not mean dominance...it means intelligence. 



> OC can be rationalized the same way. I have the resource you desire, but you cannot have it unless you do as I want. You are the dominant half of that equation, exerting your dominance and requiring the dog comply to gain the resource.


Again, wrong. From the dog's POV you would be the submissive half...you're the one giving up the resource.



> In shaping you even make the poor dog have to experiment to figure out what your will actually is. Which is good in that the dog learns a process it can reliably use to figure out what that will is that it must submit to in a way seems to be natural for the dog and that it can understand.


No "make". The behavior is voluntary. Just because the dog satisfies your criteria, this does not mean the dog lost (submissive). Both beings win, and dominance is defined in a winner and a loser. This is simply not the case. 

In the same breath, if the dog fails to behave, both human and dog are losers (not dominance).


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Ah yes, the comical _just because it hasn't been proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist_ statement. Makes me giggle. Equally comical...there may be a boogieman under our bed. There is no evidence for it, but you can't _prove_ that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be committed to believing with respect to the boggieman?


Misrepresentation, an a poor attempt to redirect, belittle and dismiss. 

I didn't claim because it wasn't proven it doesn't exist, I said because you don't understand it, or believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Boogeymen are not proven to exist, results CM achieves do exist, they are obvious, they are real. There is evidence, on TV every night with many very satisfied clients recorded on tape. I can go watch it on youtube.



> If you only parse one statement out of CM inc's entire message, you could parse this, however, that is not the totality of his message.


It wasn't intended to represent his "totality of his message" whatever you misrepresent that to be, it was simply refuting your assertion that "camp 2" believes it's the dog's fault. An obvious falsehood and total misrepresentation of fact.

"Camp two has no means of doing that - it's not about the application of sound theory, *it's the dog's fault.*"

Context.... 



> Frequency of behavior is used in the definitions of learning theory...you'll find no usage in dominance theory.


Sure I would, that's just another misrepresentation of a theory you don't adhere to. I'll find frequency of behavior used in some form in any training method or learning or behavior theory or any discussion of behavior modification of any kind.



> Why not just call the cat in the hat a cat?


Why not just call NILIF the overt display of dominance requiring an overt display of submission to gain a resource that it is?

Or shaping with OC for that matter?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> I didn't say because it wasn't proven, I said because you don't understand it, or believe it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Does gravity exist? The theory exists. However, some people don't understand or believe gravity exists. There just happens to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest gravity does exist. Dominance theory...not so much. So excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by dominance theory. 



> Boogeymen are not proven to exist, result CM achieves do exist, they are obvious. There is evidence, on TV every night with many very satisfied clients recorded on tape. I can go watch it on youtube.


Ah yes, so a satisfied client proves his logic? Even when his methods can be explained using the law of parsimony? Thank you for giving us an example of what a mind virus is. You're certainly affected. 



> It wasn't intended to represent his "entire message", it was simply refuting your assertion that camp 2 believes it's the dog's fault. An obvious falsehood and total misrepresentation of fact.


Ummm no. It *is* a fact dominance theorists attribute dominance as a character trait of the dog...it is not.


----------



## KBLover

TxRider said:


> Why not just call NILIF the overt display of dominance requiring an overt display of submission to gain a resource that it is?
> 
> Or shaping with OC for that matter?


So if I wait until Wally barks to put his food down to encourage him to use his "voice" more (i.e. shaping, essentially) how is barking showing submission?

Is barking a submissive act? 

How is shaping dominating a dog? 

I don't remember operant conditioning being about dominating a dog. I thought it was about applying consequences (i.e. results) to behavior, something that happens all the time via the environment, and I'm just one more thing in his environment to try behaviors on. 

If I'm holding food and he paws me, I ignore him. He lies down, maybe he'll get a tidbit. I'm not dominating him. In fact, I didn't even give any direct command. His behavior was rewarded by his environment (in this case, me) so he'll lie down more often in that context in the future.

I don't see how that falls into dominance theory?


----------



## peppy264

There seems to be 3 mini debates going on about Dominance Theory, P+ training and CM, all of which are different but somewhat related.

For the pro-CM grouping I think I can generalize and say that they see a lot of value in dominance theory (though not claiming that dom theory explains everything under the sun), that P+ training methods are effective and have their place alongside positive reinforcement, and that CM makes a major positive contribution to the dog world by sending important messages to millions of dog owners every week.

Obviously the anti CM grouping sees less (or zero) value in dominance theory, believe P+ training methods should a smaller (or zero) role and more or less consequently have a more negative view of CM.

My simple question to the anti-CM's:
CM's show is watched by millions of dog owners each week for several years now. Do you believe that the overall population of dogs in America are better or worse off due to the CM show?


----------



## hulkamaniac

KBLover said:


> So if I wait until Wally barks to put his food down to encourage him to use his "voice" more (i.e. shaping, essentially) how is barking showing submission?
> 
> Is barking a submissive act?
> 
> How is shaping dominating a dog?
> 
> I don't remember operant conditioning being about dominating a dog. I thought it was about applying consequences (i.e. results) to behavior, something that happens all the time via the environment, and I'm just one more thing in his environment to try behaviors on.
> 
> If I'm holding food and he paws me, I ignore him. He lies down, maybe he'll get a tidbit. I'm not dominating him. In fact, I didn't even give any direct command. His behavior was rewarded by his environment (in this case, me) so he'll lie down more often in that context in the future.
> 
> I don't see how that falls into dominance theory?


Depends on how you look at it. Your will is that he barks in order to get his food. Until he does he does not get fed.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> But no one is claiming he invented anything.  Being impressed with Cesar Millan is like being impressed with a really good public speaker. Let's use Obama as an example. During our history, there have been people who have said the same things he has said in his speeches. But he puts it altogether in a really cool speech and delivers it with passion and emotion and out comes this moving speech that people all over the world are impressed with!
> 
> So, the next day at work, your friend says to you, "Obama is a great speaker".
> 
> Do you reply, "I don't see what he said that anyone else hasn't."?
> 
> No one is claiming that Millan has invented a new way of dealing with dogs. He just delivers an effective and comprehensive package to millions of people in a way that they can understand. It's no biggie, but it's pretty cool in the eyes of a LOT of people. And when some go after his character and personal ethics because of it, and put him down for being inhumane, it's grasping at straws.



Point taken.

Though, there are those (maybe not _here_ at this forum/thread, and it could be argued we, the collective at this forum, are less typical of the "average" dog owner/trainer/handler) who do think CM all but invented dog training. 

I talked to someone the other day. They noticed how well Wally was behaving off-leash and how he sat on his own when I stopped at an intersection. They asked if I used CM's methods, and I said, "No, at least not directly. Some things he does all trainers do, but not any specific methods from an episode, for example, and haven't read any of his books (and I probably should, if only for information/awareness)." And the lady was like in shock. She said, "How did you train him without using CMs techniques?" As if I was some kind of new CM or something LOL

So, there's those out there who may well think CM invented "modern" dog training, or at least is the only way to train a dog successfully, right or wrong.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with his humaneness or character as a person or even a trainer. Just a little insight to my frame of reference towards pretty much any method, not just CMs.

I guess to me method is method and theory is theory and it doesn't matter if CM or VS did it - it still goes back to the same things at the core whether you call it dominance or operant conditioning or Premack Principle or NILIF.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> My simple question to the anti-CM's:
> CM's show is watched by millions of dog owners each week for several years now. Do you believe that the overall population of dogs in America are better or worse off due to the CM show?


Worse. The reality is, people do try his methods at home. When it's those methods as seen on his show which cause a dog to be euthanized (I have first hand experience of this, more than I care to share), I have no means to support CM inc., or claim TDW in any way benefits dogdom. Zero. Euthanasia is the ultimate consequence resulting from the show, so I have to say worse.


----------



## KBLover

hulkamaniac said:


> Depends on how you look at it. Your will is that he barks in order to get his food. Until he does he does not get fed.


Hmm...makes sense.

Though - which way is the proper way to look at it?

Did he bark to make me give up the resource, or did I hold the resource until he submitted and then I allowed him to have the resource?


----------



## peppy264

KBLover said:


> I talked to someone the other day. They noticed how well Wally was behaving off-leash and how he sat on his own when I stopped at an intersection. They asked if I used CM's methods, and I said, "No, at least not directly. Some things he does all trainers do, but not any specific methods from an episode, for example, and haven't read any of his books (and I probably should, if only for information/awareness)." And the lady was like in shock. She said, "How did you train him without using CMs techniques?" As if I was some kind of new CM or something LOL


This is an example of the good that CM does and the power of the reach of the show. Whether or not the lady thought CM invented dog training is irrelevant. The lady was obviously oblivious to other dog training info, but has now received CMs messages. If/when she has a dog - she will be a better owner.


----------



## pugmom

peppy264 said:


> This is an example of the good that CM does and the power of the reach of the show. Whether or not the lady thought CM invented dog training is irrelevant. The lady was obviously oblivious to other dog training info, but has now received CMs messages. If/when she has a dog - she will be a better owner.


That is a very big leap.........so from just watching the show she is going to be a better dog owner?...how so?


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> Worse. The reality is, people do try his methods at home. When it's those methods as seen on his show cause a dog to be euthanized (I have first hand experience of this, more than I care to share), I have no means to support CM inc., or claim TDW in any way benefits dogdom. Zero.


A well spoken, extreme, irrational and indefensible position (IMHO) but thank you for responding so clearly.


----------



## hulkamaniac

KBLover said:


> Hmm...makes sense.
> 
> Though - which way is the proper way to look at it?
> 
> Did he bark to make me give up the resource, or did I hold the resource until he submitted and then I allowed him to have the resource?


True. Typically though with NILIF, the human gives a command and thus initiates the exchange. For example, I walk up to my dog with a food bowl in my hand. I tell the dog to sit. If the dog sits, he gets fed. If he doesn't, I put the food away. So, the dog is forced to submit to my will (sit) or I with hold valuable resources (food). If the dog doesn't submit, I am not harmed by the exchange as the dog not eating doesn't hurt me. He however does go hungry and is more likely to sit when I tell him to next time. (This assumes the dog already knows how to sit of course.) If he obeys, both of us benefit. I get a trained dog and the dog gets a meal.

When you think about it, it's not too unlike sitting a child in the corner for not listening. If the kid listens the parent and the child both benefit. If the kid doesn't, the kid suffers (sitting in the corner) while the parent is not necessarily harmed. (Yes, I know there are some parents who will agonize over having to put their kids in the corner, but I'm generalizing here.)


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Does gravity exist? The theory exists. However, some people don't understand or believe gravity exists.


Yes some people deny existence in the face of evidence. Evidence such as obvious results to the point hollywood takes notice and makes it famous.



> There just happens to be an overwhelming amount of evidence to suggest gravity does exist. Dominance theory...not so much. So excuse me if I'm underwhelmed by dominance theory.


People underwhelmed with gravity theory come to mind.



> Ah yes, so a satisfied client proves his logic? Even when his methods can be explained using the law of parsimony? Thank you for giving us an example of what a mind virus is. You're certainly affected.


I have a mind virus now egads!.

CM shows results all the time, behavior results you can see in the dog, and follow up interviews that reinforce that the methods had the desired long term effects.

To equate that with "the boogeyman" in terms of it's existence is rather weak.



> Ummm no. It *is* a fact dominance theorists attribute dominance as a character trait of the dog...it is not.


Define character trait, and dominance, in the context you are presenting in this instance.

Or simply answer this.

Two dogs, one resource. Both desire it. Who gets it and why?

Is the instinctive method used a character trait?


----------



## FourIsCompany

KBLover said:


> She said, "How did you train him without using CMs techniques?" As if I was some kind of new CM or something LOL


Oh, Lord! LOL That's funny. To be fair, I don't talk to a lot of dog owners off line. And the ones I do talk to aren't interested in talking about different methods or philosophies, so there may be a bunch of Cesar-worshipers out there that I don't even know about or come into contact with. It may sound cold, but that's not my problem. And I don't think it's Cesar's either. But he gets blamed for it. When I defend him, it's because of HIM, not because of how ignorant people interpret or use his methods. 



> I guess to me method is method and theory is theory and it doesn't matter if CM or VS did it - it still goes back to the same things at the core whether you call it dominance or operant conditioning or Premack Principle or NILIF.


Agreed! I never think in terms of "dominance". That's just so foreign to me. It doesn't bother me that Cesar talks about it or thinks dogs are challenging his dominance (What does that even mean?) or being dominant. But I do think there's a definite pack order in my dogs. And I can relate my thoughts and observations of my pack to what he says. He never describes "dominance", so how do I know what he means? I don't. So, I use MY definition of dominance to relate to it. That's all I can do. 

Ant the fact is, we can't control the dog-owning public. There are people out there kicking their dogs to try to make them stop barking or whatever and we can't do a thing about it. All I can do is the very best with my dogs and come on here and waste time talking to others about these words.  We're surely not going to change the average dog-owning public by discussing them here and DEFINITELY not by slamming and libeling Cesar Millan...


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> A well spoken, extreme, irrational and indefensible position (IMHO) but thank you for responding so clearly.


Irrational? How? Death is the ultimate consequence of the show...how can I rationalize over that (ever) when other factors can be attributed to the benefits you've observed, that you now attribute to the show?


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> Worse. The reality is, people do try his methods at home. When it's those methods as seen on his show which cause a dog to be euthanized (I have first hand experience of this, more than I care to share), I have no means to support CM inc., or claim TDW in any way benefits dogdom. Zero. Euthanasia is the ultimate consequence resulting from the show, so I have to say worse.


I disagree with that. I stated earlier that I put people who use Cesar's techniques at home in the same category as someone who sees the Mythbusters mix up homemade thermite and blows themselves up attempting to duplicate it. In both cases you see disclaimers that say not to try what you see at home. Cesar's says not to try what you see without consulting an expert. I don't think that's an unreasonable assertion to make. 

People should not try many of Cesar's techniques at home. There are some of his techniques however that are perfectly safe. I see no danger in the "claiming space" routine. I see no danger in issuing verbal corrections to a dog. I see no problem with mild leash corrections. These are the things I see him do most often on the show. If you refer to his techniques in dealing with aggressive dogs then I would say that these techniques should almost certainly never, ever be done at home without consulting a professional. Most people (and I include myself here) do not have the knowledge and expertise to safely deal with highly aggressive dogs regardless of what they think.


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> Death is the ultimate consequence of the show...


And you question why I describe your views as being 'extreme' ?


----------



## TxRider

KBLover said:


> So if I wait until Wally barks to put his food down to encourage him to use his "voice" more (i.e. shaping, essentially) how is barking showing submission?
> 
> Is barking a submissive act?


There is a primary resource the dog desires, in this case food.

You make it clear you have the food, and wally can't have it unless he submits overtly to your demand and barks. Dominance doesn't get much more clearly defined.



> His behavior was rewarded by his environment (in this case, me) so he'll lie down more often in that context in the future.
> 
> I don't see how that falls into dominance theory?


Environment? You are the sole gate keeper and giver of what he requires to survive.

If you don't want to be dominant, pour all his food out of the big bag into a giant bucket and let him have food whenever he wants, for "free".

When you withhold food, play, access to outdoors, and require a very specific and overt act of submission to your will before you will give those you are being overtly dominant.

Not that it's a bad thing, it's a good thing, a required thing.

But to limit all thought of "dominance" theory to single misrepresented aspect of an old wolf research paper that was modified somewhat later, and point to a few possible misuses of the term is just not honestly and objectively addressing dominance.

It's intentionally intellectually dishonest at worst, ignorant at best.


----------



## Westhighlander

Not coming up with much.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cesar+milan+dog+die&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=


----------



## FourIsCompany

I'm not speaking to anyone in particular. But NILIF is ALL about dominance and submission. Anyone who denies that is just parsing words. 

You have the resource (food, treat, ability to open doors, etc) and the dog wants something from you. He must submit to your desire to get what he wants. If he doesn't, he doesn't get it. You can word it anyway you want to avoid the idea that you're employing dominance over your dog, but it's transparent.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> To equate that with "the boogeyman" in terms of it's existence is rather weak.


 It would be weak if I were equating the boogieman with results. I’m afraid you’re alone in this progress. 


> Or simply answer this.
> 
> Two dogs, one resource. Both desire it. Who gets it and why?



Beach and Dunbar likely were the closest to explain why one dog gets ‘it’ over another. The conclusion…size (when a puppy) and experience (when an adult).

However, I don’t want my dog’s treats, ever. Blech! The last time I sniffed a dog’s butt it was bad, bad news. 



> Is the instinctive method used a character trait?



I have no idea what you mean to ask. Is the “instinctive method” yet another unfounded theory to explain away behavior? If so, it doesn’t exist in my reality.



peppy264 said:


> And you question why I describe your views as being 'extreme' ?


Facts can be extreme...saying so doesn't rationalize why the rest should supersede the facts.


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Worse. The reality is, people do try his methods at home. When it's those methods as seen on his show which cause a dog to be euthanized (I have first hand experience of this, more than I care to share), I have no means to support CM inc., or claim TDW in any way benefits dogdom. Zero. Euthanasia is the ultimate consequence resulting from the show, so I have to say worse.


Is euthanasia the most common consequence of the show? 

If a vaccine that will save millions from a virus will have a bad reaction in a few hundred, several of whom were your patients and they died...

You could not see any benefit to the vast majority who didn't die of that virus?

Like say a measles vaccine? It kills some people, so it has no redeeming value?


----------



## Westhighlander

Something for everyone. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominance

dom⋅i⋅nance
  /ˈdɒmənəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dom-uh-nuhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. rule; control; authority; ascendancy.
2. the condition of being dominant.
3. Psychology. the disposition of an individual to assert control in dealing with others.
4. Animal Behavior. high status in a social group, usually acquired as the result of aggression, that involves the tendency to take priority in access to limited resources, as food, mates, or space.
5. Neurology. the normal tendency for one side of the brain to be more important than the other in controlling certain functions, as speech and language.
Also, dom⋅i⋅nan⋅cy.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> I'm not speaking to anyone in particular. But NILIF is ALL about dominance and submission. Anyone who denies that is just parsing words.
> 
> You have the resource (food, treat, ability to open doors, etc) and the dog wants something from you. He must submit to your desire to get what he wants. If he doesn't, he doesn't get it. You can word it anyway you want to avoid the idea that you're employing dominance over your dog, but it's transparent.



To use the example of the barking for food I mentioned earlier, does that mean if for some reason he didn't bark, he's challenging my dominance? Where would it be less dominance and more him just not understanding what I want, especially in the beginning? Where does the dominance model draw the line if optimally used? Where is it used in teaching a new behavior - or is dominance not used to teach behaviors?

But then if it all goes back to dominance and everything else is just different names for the same thing (for example, I say I use operant conditioning to teach behaviors) - does that mean that the dog understands all behaviors in all contexts and you have to exert a form of dominance to get him to perform? After all, even in operant conditioning the dog has something I want, he just doesn't understand what I want in order to get it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Macho Man Rules! said:


> I disagree with that. I stated earlier that I put people who use Cesar's techniques at home in the same category as someone who sees the Mythbusters mix up homemade thermite and blows themselves up attempting to duplicate it.



I understand you’re disagreement, but the people you are speaking of do it to themselves. Dogs should be afforded our protection, always, even from ourselves. 



> In both cases you see disclaimers that say not to try what you see at home. Cesar's says not to try what you see without consulting an expert. I don't think that's an unreasonable assertion to make.



What do you propose is the reason for the caveat? If you think it’s to prevent people from trying it at home, you’re fooling yourself. A lawyer wrote the caveat to cover CM inc’s arse.



> People should not try many of Cesar's techniques at home. There are some of his techniques however that are perfectly safe.



Agreed!



> I see no danger in the "claiming space" routine. I see no danger in issuing verbal corrections to a dog. I see no problem with mild leash corrections.


 What if the dog suggests differently?


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Beach and Dunbar likely were the closest to explain why one dog gets ‘it’ over another. The conclusion…size (when a puppy) and experience (when an adult).


The dominant pup determined by size, the dominant adult by experience (as well as size I would say).

One will gain the resource over the other, or dominate.



> I have no idea what you mean to ask. Is the “instinctive method” yet another unfounded theory to explain away behavior? If so, it doesn’t exist in my reality.


Two dogs, one resource, only one dog can have it and it's a resource neither can carry away. 

What method do they use in their interaction to decide who gets it?

Which dog doesn't get the resource, and why does he decide to not continue to try? 

To say dominance is not a natural character trait of dogs is absurd. Unless you confine the term to a narrow meaning that nobody I'm aware of uses in that restrictive a fashion. Not honestly at least.

Another example, puppy getting too rough with mother dog, mom pins it down by it's neck and holds it.. Dominance?



KBLover said:


> To use the example of the barking for food I mentioned earlier, does that mean if for some reason he didn't bark, he's challenging my dominance?


Possibly, more likely he just does not know what you want him to do.



> Where would it be less dominance and more him just not understanding what I want, especially in the beginning? Where does the dominance model draw the line if optimally used? Where is it used in teaching a new behavior - or is dominance not used to teach behaviors?


You are being dominant regardless of whether he understands what you want or not simply by withholding the resource. Whether he is challenging that dominance or not -does- depend on whether he know what you want or not.



> But then if it all goes back to dominance and everything else is just different names for the same thing (for example, I say I use operant conditioning to teach behaviors) - does that mean that the dog understands all behaviors in all contexts and you have to exert a form of dominance to get him to perform? After all, even in operant conditioning the dog has something I want, he just doesn't understand what I want in order to get it.


Exactly, and those who demonize dominance "theory" I've notice restrict their interpretations to things that are not even relevant, or misrepresent to a great degree what dominance is.


----------



## hulkamaniac

FourIsCompany said:


> I'm not speaking to anyone in particular. But NILIF is ALL about dominance and submission. Anyone who denies that is just parsing words.
> 
> You have the resource (food, treat, ability to open doors, etc) and the dog wants something from you. He must submit to your desire to get what he wants. If he doesn't, he doesn't get it. You can word it anyway you want to avoid the idea that you're employing dominance over your dog, but it's transparent.


Honestly, I've never looked at NILIF as a dominance thing, but it really is when you look at it that way. Even from a dog's perspective, here is someone giving her a command and if she does not obey she is punished by having resources with held. She must comply. She wants affection. She wants food. She may not want to sit, but she really, really wants that food.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> Is euthanasia the most common consequence of the show?


It's the only consequence that I have first hand experience with. So I don't believe you're asking me a fair question. I have not experienced the other consequences you all easily credit to CM inc. 



> If a vaccine that will save millions from a virus will have a bad reaction in a few hundred, several of whom were your patients and they died...
> 
> You could not see any benefit to the vast majority who didn't die of that virus?


Your argument doesn't follow. You're suggesting that the total impact of CM inc. is known, documented, and verifiable, like the risks associated with vaccination. They are not known. They are assumed and asserted by his fanatics. Fanaticism does not explain the actual occurrence. 

For example, CM doesn't offer much in the way of veterinary advise, yet, more and more guardians use their vet in keeping the health of their dog. Statistics can show this change. Why? Who is this credited to? Couldn't the benefits you claim from CM's show be nothing more than an already existing occurrence? It's a leap IMO to attribute CM inc. with any resounding benefit to dogdom. 

If what you need is me to agree exercise (in moderation), is great for dogs, I would not disagree. If you need me to agree TDW saves lives, I have to disagree or lie. I choose to disagree.



hulkamaniac said:


> Even from a dog's perspective, here is someone giving her a command and if she does not obey she is punished by having resources with held. She must comply. She wants affection. She wants food. She may not want to sit, but she really, really wants that food.


That's assuming a lot on the dog to the point of being anthropomorphic. If the dog understood the cue (it was proofed), and the dog volunteered a no sit to a sit cue, the dog got exactly the resource he wanted. Your punishment would not be a punisher. If we're only going to include our valuation of the resource in hand, we might as well be dominant centric to a fault.


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> It's the only consequence that I have first hand experience with. So I don't believe you're asking me a fair question. I have not experienced the other consequences you all easily credit to CM inc.


And I have many experiences first hand none of which involve euthanasia. I openly acknowledge yours, and empathize, you seem to equate mine with a mythical "boogeyman" and tell me I have a mind virus..



> Your argument doesn't follow. You're suggesting that the total impact of CM inc. is known, documented, and verifiable, like the risks associated with vaccination.


I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm AM suggesting that that it is far more likely the good outweighs the bad, form my personal experience and a wide variety of sources outside my direct experience, as well as his own clients long term results they profess.



> Couldn't the benefits you claim from CM's show be nothing more than an already existing occurrence?


Possibly, but it also possible they are not. I am open to either examined fairly and objectively.



> If what you need is me to agree exercise (in moderation), is great for dogs, I would not disagree. If you need me to agree TDW saves lives, I have to disagree or lie. I choose to disagree.


All I desire is honest discussion, objective reason, and critical thought.

CM is a just another guy doing his best for himself and people's dogs. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they deported him back to Mexico... Intellectually dishonest nonrepresentational disparagement of anyone irks me though, even if I dislike the target.


----------



## FourIsCompany

KBLover said:


> To use the example of the barking for food I mentioned earlier, does that mean if for some reason he didn't bark, he's challenging my dominance?


Not necessarily. I don't know what it means, but it _could _be that he doesn't want what you have enough to work for it or that he doesn't know the behavior you want. YOU are the dominant one in NILIF, not the dog. *And the NILIF proponents cringe* LOL



> Where is it used in teaching a new behavior - or is dominance not used to teach behaviors?


I have the treat. If you want it, you will work your little hiney off trying to figure out how to get me make the clicking noise, which means treat. *If you don't, you don't get the treat. *The dog must perform to get the treat. I'm not MAKING him perform, but I control the goodies.

I don't even connect the word dominance to a dog's personality. As I've said before dominance is a BEHAVIOR, not a personality trait. Some dogs display dominance behaviors more than others, but that doesn't make them "dominant dogs". They are dogs who, for whatever reason, are displaying dominant behaviors.


----------



## Westhighlander

TxRider said:


> CM is a just another guy doing his best for himself and people's dogs. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they deported him back to Mexico... Intellectually dishonest nonrepresentational disparagement of anyone irks me though, even if I dislike the target.


They can't deport him. http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/editorials/editorial_35.php


----------



## TxRider

FourIsCompany said:


> I don't even connect the word dominance to a dog's personality. As I've said before dominance is a BEHAVIOR, not a personality trait. Some dogs display dominance behaviors more than others, but that doesn't make them "dominant dogs". They are dogs who, for whatever reason, are displaying dominant behaviors.


Agreed.

And displaying dominant as well as submissive behavior is a natural part of a dogs makeup. They would have no such displays if they had no purpose in survival in a social group. Basic science in animal behavior.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> One will gain the resource over the other, or dominate.


 In this instance yes; if both wanted the resource and one gains it, the winner is dominant, by definition. However, the definition is not defined on instances. The definition is defined on a repeated winning in each instance. The Beach-Dunbar experiment did not demonstrate a dominance hierarchy. No experiment has demonstrated a dominance hierarchy among dogs. 


TxRider said:


> Two dogs, one resource, only one dog can have it and it's a resource neither can carry away.
> 
> What method do they use in their interaction to decide who gets it? Which dog doesn't get the resource, and why does he decide to not continue to try?



I’m not a dog so let me put it in a context we can understand… Say the resource is the last slice of pizza. We would evaluate our preference for the last slice of pizza. Is the last slice worth eating? That depends on a whole lot more than it being available and us both wanting it; dare I say it depends on our relationship. Do I like you to begin with? Are we on a deserted island? Are there any Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders on this island? 

That’s how I would decide whether I want the last slice or whether I would defer it to you…an evaluation of preferences, which can be snap judgments. 



> To say dominance is not a natural character trait of dogs is absurd. Unless you confine the term to a narrow meaning that nobody I'm aware of uses in that restrictive a fashion. Not honestly at least.



Then I am absurd and proud that I have a true foundation for my absurdity. I don’t care to get into the absurdity that is dominance theory…I trust you can discover its very flawed nature on your own.



> Another example, puppy getting too rough with mother dog, mom pins it down by it's neck and holds it.. Dominance?


 Ritualized behavior. What exactly is the resource being contested? I don’t believe both parties are contesting the same resource.



Big Tx said:


> And I have many experiences first hand none of which involve euthanasia. I openly acknowledge yours, and empathize, you seem to equate mine with a mythical "boogeyman" and tell me I have a mind virus..


 You’re doing it again. I 'm not the one equating results, experience, with the theory. The boogieman and dominance theory are both mind viruses (fact). Are you a dominance theorist? If so, why don’t you also believe in the boogieman? This is my comparison. 


> I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm AM suggesting that that it is far more likely the good outweighs the bad, form my personal experience and a wide variety of sources outside my direct experience, as well as his own clients long term results they profess.


 I can’t/don’t care to argue your experience, nor should you argue with mine. I gave you my logic, employ it, or employ your own…it doesn’t change what I know to be fact, nor does it change my conviction. 


> Possibly, but it also possible they are not. I am open to either examined fairly and objectively.


 What objectivity is there in death? Dead is dead as far as I know. 



> CM is a just another guy doing his best for himself and people's dogs. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they deported him back to Mexico... Intellectually dishonest nonrepresentational disparagement of anyone irks me though, even if I dislike the target.


 Sounds like a personal problem, one I don’t care to delve on. Neither should you.


----------



## FourIsCompany

TxRider said:


> Intellectually dishonest nonrepresentational disparagement of anyone irks me though, even if I dislike the target.


I feel the same way. People rag on Paris Hilton and Britney Spears and who defends them? Me. *Not* because I like them. I don't. I couldn't care less about them. But they're just doing what they're doing, living their lives, being in the limelight (which I think is at the bottom of many people's hatred toward celebrity - jealousy) and doing the best with what they have. They don't deserve this onslaught of attack, IMO. 



TxRider said:


> And displaying dominant as well as submissive behavior is a natural part of a dogs makeup. They would have no such displays if they had no purpose in survival in a social group. Basic science in animal behavior.


Perfectly-said! Bravo! LOL

Here's a picture I captured of Cara and B'asia displaying dominant and submissive behaviors respectively. I think it's cool. 










Close up.










Just a note on dominance: Westhighlander's definition of dominance included as the first definition: rule, control, authority and ascendancy. As humans, we make the *rules*, we *control *the resources, we are the *authority *as regards those rules and we *govern *the lives of all who live with us (home, property belongings, activities). We are the dominant entity in the relationship. It is NOT an equal relationship or else we'd be pottying where we choose and the dog would be pottying where he chooses.


----------



## peppy264

TxRider said:


> those who demonize dominance "theory" I've notice restrict their interpretations to things that are not even relevant, or misrepresent to a great degree what dominance is.


It is amusing to see how some NILF promoters go to such lengths and create such tortured explanations of how NILF has nothing to do with and is so different from dominance theory, when the actual techniques are so similiar. It all has the smell of some sort of irrational 'religious' conviction that dom theory is evil rather than any logic.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> It is amusing to see how some NILF promoters go to such lengths and create such tortured explanations of how NILF has nothing to do with and is so different from dominance theory, when the actual techniques are so similiar.


How are the ABC's of learning tortuous at all? Technique does not = logic of theory. 

And for those interested in where a dog pees...both me and my dog pee where we want to. Where my dog pees just happens to be where I'd want her to pee, too. My dog is allowed to pee as she needs...there is no logic to explain withholding this basic need from a dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi

question


How often has anyone seen Cesar call for veterinary examination before embarking on "behavioral modification"?

its been about six months since I've seen the show. just curious....


----------



## Curbside Prophet

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> How often has anyone seen Cesar call for veterinary examination before embarking on "behavioral modification"?


I believe every dog is screened prior to filming or it could be the case they just haven't filmed behavior driven by a medical condition.


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> You're suggesting that the total impact of CM inc. is known, documented, and verifiable, like the risks associated with vaccination. They are not known. They are assumed and asserted by his fanatics.


Well first you claim that the statements _"Death is the ultimate consequence of the show..._" and "_Euthanasia is the ultimate consequence resulting from the show_" are *"facts"* and then you imply that the positive impact of CM is unknown and just the speculation of fanatics. *LOL* Very objective. 

There is a huge number of dogs put down every year due to 'behavorial problems'. For every dog that is ruined by using to much force, too domineering an approach, etc how many are ruined by a lack of exercise, a complete lack of training, a lack of rules and discipline, treating them like children?. 100? 1,000? 10,000?

I care about helping the 10,000 much more than the odd person who misinterprets the show so badly that he ruins his dog (though this itself sounds like a crock to me, blaming CM for what is really just a bad owner).


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> Perfectly-said! Bravo! LOL
> 
> Here's a picture I captured of Cara and B'asia displaying dominant and submissive behaviors respectively. I think it's cool.


That's an awesome picture. It almost makes me want to go stare at Wally until he hangs his head or something 

Then again, the next time I *want* him to look at me, he probably wouldn't, at least not for long. Sure makes it hard to teach steady eye contact. Hard enough teaching him that looking at me WAS okay to begin with. Guess that's just because he's a very (maybe overly) submissive dog as it is.

I've seen the dominance/submission displays and even seen some from Wally. His mostly involve tail positioning and/or body height with occasionally he'll sit/lie down if I give him "that look".

I just never thought of it in terms of reinforcing/teaching behaviors. I've always thought of it as more of a social thing, an "out of the classroom" sort of situation (i.e. non-training) since dogs don't have "formal training sessions" with each other. I guess the operant model just removes any need for me to think about it. I don't have to wonder if Wally's "testing" me if he doesn't perform or if he just doesn't understand yet. I just see behavior and deliver the result.



peppy264 said:


> I care about helping the 10,000 much more than the odd person who misinterprets the show so badly that he ruins his dog (though this itself sounds like a crock to me, blaming CM for what is really just a bad owner).


But what about the dog that was ruined.

In the "global" yeah, 10,000 positive is "worth" more than 1 negative - but I wonder if that odd negative sees it that way?

It's why I wouldn't do some of those things to Wally - be they VS's air horn or CM-ish pokes/jabs he's been said to use, or other similar things. 

Yeah, those techniques could have, and probably have help 1000s of dogs, but if I use them _exactly as I saw them_ and ruin Wally, what does that get me?

It still all goes back to doing what's best for your individual dog - which is why I don't get why these arguments start about which is "better". There is no better except what works better for your dog, imo.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy said:


> Well first you claim that the statements _"Death is the ultimate consequence of the show..._" and "_Euthanasia is the ultimate consequence resulting from the show_" are *"facts"* and then you imply that the positive impact of CM is unknown and just the speculation of fanatics. *LOL* Very objective.


 You forgot reasonable too. 



> There is a huge number of dogs put down every year due to 'behavorial problems'. For every dog that is ruined by using to much force, too domineering an approach, etc how many are ruined by a lack of exercise, a complete lack of training, a lack of rules and discipline, treating them like children?. 100? 1,000? 10,000?


 One would be too many. 



> I care about helping the 10,000 much more than the odd person who misinterprets the show so badly that he ruins his dog (though this itself sounds like a crock to me, blaming CM for what is really just a bad owner).


 A bad owner, yes, who was inspired to follow the same unethical path as CM inc. Now I wonder where he got that inspiration from.


----------



## FourIsCompany

peppy264 said:


> There is a huge number of dogs put down every year due to 'behavorial problems'.


And probably hundreds of them are saved by Cesar's efforts. Many of his clients were ready to put their dogs down before they called Cesar. 

What's all this about Cesar killing dogs now? 



KBLover said:


> I just never thought of it in terms of reinforcing/teaching behaviors.


Like I said, I don't think about "dominance" in terms of dealing with my dog. We just hang out and do our thing. And I'm not a dog, so I don't have a tail to hold high or even want to try to communicate with my dogs on that level. That's between them. But when we're talking here about what dominance really is - or our relationships with our dogs - I say we are the dominant ones in the relationship because we control the way things go. Not every waking moment, but we do designate the rules and make sure they're followed. 



> I guess the operant model just removes any need for me to think about it.


That's cool.  It's not something that we have to think about, but I've always had an interest in figuring out why and how things work, including people and dogs. 



> But what about the dog that was ruined.


What dog? Did I miss something? Did Cesar ruin a dog?

And if Cesar's methods have prevented hundreds of dogs from being put down, if one dog was "ruined", then he's still WAY in the black as regards dog's lives and quality of life.


----------



## hulkamaniac

I googled "Cesar Milan death". I found one case where someone sued CM claiming that their lab was strangled by walking on a treadmill at CM's facility. Unfortunately, it's hard to blame Cesar for this one as it's unclear whether he was even present at the time and his company claims that another trainer not employed by him was using his (CM's) facilities to work with the dog. 

I also searched, "Cesar Milan Euthanasia" and came up with nothing about him causing dogs to be euthanized. I'm not sure that it's accurate to state that the end result of Cesar's training methods is death and/or euthanasia. If every single dog he worked with ended up having to be euthanized it's doubtful he would still be in business, much less on the air. If every dog he worked with ended up being PTS, his clients would not recommend him to their friends.


----------



## Cracker

Ay Carumba! Such discussions of semantics!

Dominance and submission happen. Yep. This is necessary in any cooperative society, human or otherwise. The choice here is do you exert your dominance in a physical manner (dominance theory, ie being the alpha, with the poke, bite, pin method) or do you exert your dominance in a manner that does not involve physical touch (ie NILIF) and manners training..teaching sit, wait, down etc. 
I choose to do it the non confrontational way, in a win win scenario..you scratch my back and I scritch the dog's bum...(metaphorically speaking..lol). It's a trade for a performed service..a paycheck for working for me. I AM the dominant one, simply by default (remember, I open the doors, the dog food bag, etc) so there is no need for force.

So yes, NILIF is dominance in a sense. But it is NOT the dominance that most people (John Q. Public) think of, or apply, when using the methods that CM, and others, often use. Unfortunately, for many, dominance implies extreme control over every behaviour not deemed "appropriate"..even normal and natural dog behaviours. My dog does not get corrected for correcting another dog who just bum rushed her in the park..the other dog showed bad dog communication skills and deserved to be told off..a sniff is one thing, a proctology exam another thing completely! Jumping up is not dominance, neither is humping (believe me, real dominance mounting starts with chinning..not excitement), pawing behaviour (appeasement) or running out the door.

I would rather not force compliance. I would rather mediate it. I am the captain, but we are a team. I draw up the play, the team runs it and success is achieved that benefits both parties (points on the scoreboard.). I get the manners I like, she gets the reward (whether that be a treat, some play time, a walk, a chance to run after a squirrel, whatever SHE finds most rewarding). I myself am rewarded as well because holy cow my dog is AWESOME. Win Win. 

Owners who look to "win" all the time..with no benefit to the dog can have that backfire. I have a client with an EXTREME resource guarder. He went from guarding his bowl (empty OR full) to guarding the furniture, the dining room table, the hallway etc. His owner vacillated between "I need to win" and avoidance of the issue and got himself bitten, badly, several times. HE thought that physically removing the dog from what he was guarding or taking away an item would "teach the dog" that he was "the boss". Boy, that was dumb. What did it get him? It got him a dog that guarded MORE and it got him sent to the emergency room. I convinced him to give up the "I need to win", worked on NILIF and luring and rewarding the dog for moving away from whatever he was guarding (trading up) and the improvement was marked. Not instant, mind you. But six months later they can eat at the table, sit on the couch and go to the bathroom in the middle of the night without finding the dog sitting in the middle of the hallway with this teeth bared. If only I could have convinced them to use a crate...can't win em all.

Now, on the subject of anthropomorphism...it isn't the evil people have decided it to be either. 

There is nothing wrong with anthropomorphising (dang that's a hard word to type) to an extent as it implies EMPATHY. Dogs have many of the same emotional wirings as we do in their brains, lacking only advanced logic and language (verbal) skills. So empathizing in a sense of "he was frightened by that thing, if it was me I'd feel XYZ" is not wrong. In thinking some about how a dog FEELS about something a lot can be done to change how he feels (Classical conditioning) and in doing so, change or modify a behaviour, even aggression.

I treat my dog as I would my child (and no that does not mean as my EQUAL..)but whether I think of her as an equal or not, she IS, by being a living, feeling being; worthy of understanding, empathy, protection, leadership and teaching. No spanking, no yelling, no demeaning and hopefully little frustration and anger on my part (hey, no one is perfect). Negative punishment works fine for me. Acting like a poophead at the park? You're leashed, kiddo. Too bad, so sad. Don't wait outside the kitchen while I'm cooking? Begging at the table? No leftovers in your dish today. Too bad, so sad.

Anthropomorphizing does not imply you don't realize your dog is a dog. What I find funny though, is that many people who demonize anthropomorphizing, think that acting like a dog (mimicking a dog's bite, alpha rolling a dog) works because they are acting "like a dog would"....ummm..double standard anyone? LOL.

I'm pretty darn sure my dog knows I am not a dog. Not POSITIVE mind you, but I think it's a safe bet that the fact I don't snack out of the litter box and I pee in a toilet may make that pretty clear.

By the way, thanks for the props guys. I do try.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> What dog? Did I miss something? Did Cesar ruin a dog?
> 
> And if Cesar's methods have prevented hundreds of dogs from being put down, if one dog was "ruined", then he's still WAY in the black as regards dog's lives and quality of life.


I don't know if he has or hadn't - that was in response to the 10,000 helped dogs vs the ruined one. 

And while he may be in the black, that one ruined dog probably doesn't see it that way - nor the owner that has him.

But I guess it can't be helped that the "global" has to minimize the individual. Though for me - my individual (Wally) means more than the "global" when it comes to how I need/should deal with him.


----------



## hulkamaniac

KBLover said:


> I don't know if he has or hadn't - that was in response to the 10,000 helped dogs vs the ruined one.
> 
> And while he may be in the black, that one ruined dog probably doesn't see it that way - nor the owner that has him.
> 
> But I guess it can't be helped that the "global" has to minimize the individual. Though for me - my individual (Wally) means more than the "global" when it comes to how I need/should deal with him.


I'm sure the one person who has a reaction to the smallpox vaccine and dies doesn't think the vaccine is worth it. That doesn't mean that the vaccine doesn't do good work though. There hasn't been a smallpox outbreak in decades.


----------



## FourIsCompany

I had heard about the lab. He lived, by the way. And I have never heard of a dog being euthanized in connection with Cesar. The idea is ridiculous. If there were people whose dogs were "ruined" or euthed, I think it would be pretty apparent on the Internet. Google "Cesar Ruined my Dog". People on dog boards make the claim that so many dogs are ruined, but I have NEVER seen one bit of evidence. It's like a viral email. Full of wild claims but zero evidence. 



Cracker said:


> I would rather not force compliance. I would rather mediate it. I am the captain, but we are a team. I draw up the play, the team runs it and success is achieved that benefits both parties (points on the scoreboard.). I get the manners I like, she gets the reward (whether that be a treat, some play time, a walk, a chance to run after a squirrel, whatever SHE finds most rewarding). I myself am rewarded as well because holy cow my dog is AWESOME. Win Win.


I agree with this 100%.  



> Owners who look to "win" all the time..*with no benefit to the dog* can have that backfire.


Are there really owners like that? If so, I can't help but wonder why they have a dog... 

So, the whole human dominance over dog mindset is "I need to win *and the dog needs to lose*"? That's pretty sad. Like I said before I don't know many average Joe dog owners. And I think I'm kinda glad. 



> can't win em all.


Bwa-ha-ha! 

I agree with you on anthropomorphizing. Good post, as usual. 

And hulk addressed the one in 10,000 issue. Sure if we look through a very narrow perspective, things are going to look a certain way. But it doesn't reflect the reality of the bigger picture. And it's hypothetical anyway. We still don't know about this one ruined dog.


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> In this instance yes; if both wanted the resource and one gains it, the winner is dominant, by definition. However, the definition is not defined on instances. The definition is defined on a repeated winning in each instance. The Beach-Dunbar experiment did not demonstrate a dominance hierarchy. No experiment has demonstrated a dominance hierarchy among dogs.


Actually many studies have demonstrated or observed a dominant hierarchy in dogs from African wild dogs, dingos, feral dogs in India and Italy and several breeds of domesticated dogs ad interbreed mixes. Read more science.

Studies show a significant difference in ranking behavior between breeds with some more linear and some with rank groups as well as a recent Hungarian study in animal cognition that shows subordinate ranked dogs learn by observation faster than dominant ranked ones.

Nothing that will surprise most people who have lived with a group of dogs. 



> What objectivity is there in death? Dead is dead as far as I know.


Objectivity in a discussion. Not every dog of every owner who has watched CM is dead are they? Nor are they all perfect dogs now. Objectively reality lies somewhere in between.

Objectivity that facts like the one above you might actually not be correct about.

A reasonable objective perspective?

http://dogservicenetwork.com/blog/2719/dominance-a-nine-letter-swear-word/

Of course more recent studies have observed familial pack structure in dingos and feral dogs when not interfered with by humans. With a much wolf like structure, complete with the breeding male helping raise offspring in feral dogs, and dominant female dingos expressing it through killing off most of subordinate females pups.

It's also been shown through DNA studies that dogs are indeed descended from wolves, and a few breeds have been remixed with wolves in the not so distant past and are closer than others.


----------



## Cracker

In the episode with the two manic and fear aggressive min pins...the female was eventually euthanized.
BUT..the woman of the home had her own unique set of fears relating to dogs, so, to be fair..it wasn't Cesar "causing" the dog to be pts...it was the woman's incapability to cope with longterm behaviours that obviously, Cesar's visits and advice were not able to cure.

Oh, and Fouriscompany..yes, many "average" dog owners think this way and yes, they often quote (or misquote) CM.

Working with dogs is easy, HUMANS..not so much..lol


----------



## peppy264

Cracker said:


> I am the captain, but we are a team. I draw up the play, the team runs it and success is achieved that benefits both parties (points on the scoreboard.).


I for one admit that I see our relationship as myself being the benevolent dictator/god and he being my absolute servant in every respect. We are not a team and their is no sense of equality. I am always right, I always win, I never apologize, he is not allowed to threaten in any way, etc etc. I believe it is in a dog's nature to totally accept this lower status.

But that doesn't mean he doesn't get just as many treats, walks, affection etc as any other dog or is any way treated badly. 

Can it be taken to far? Sure. Can thinking of your dog as your teammate or partner be taken to far? Sure. You get anecdotes all the time of people complaining how their dog runs the household, often to the eventual demise of the dog.

People have to do what works for them, fits in with their personality and philosophy, and the particular dog. I for one could not only do positive only training. Its just not in my mindset or nature. If I tried it would be a disaster. But my dog is s decently trained, very good natured, has a good life IMHO and his relationship with myself and my family is exactly what I want it to be. How does this make me an unethical or cruel owner?

My advise is always: Do what works for you and your dog, just make sure you train him one way or another, because it is the lack of training (and exercise) which spells disaster. Promoting training methods that you prefer is fine, but I've little patience with people who say that dominance theory is "wrong" or P+ is cruel etc; all they do is discourage people from using tools which may well be the difference between them training their dog and Fido ending up at the pound.


----------



## TxRider

Cracker said:


> to be fair..it wasn't Cesar "causing" the dog to be pts...it was the woman's incapability to cope with longterm behaviours that obviously, Cesar's visits and advice were not able to cure.


I would add Cesar's visits and advice and her responsibility to follow through weren't able to cure.

Average joe owner is likely a pretty responsible owner, but average is around the middle by definition, and leaves almost half as well below average owners...

I see myself as just a human, I receive affection and companionship from my dog. She receives the same from me with a lot less rules to follow than I have to, and pretty darn sweet ride with easy food, good health care, exercise you name it. Anything she wants within reason.

I think she definitely gets the better end of the deal...


----------



## Curbside Prophet

TxRider said:


> Actually many studies have demonstrated or observed a dominant hierarchy in dogs from African wild dogs, dingos, feral dogs in India and Italy and several breeds of domesticated dogs ad interbreed mixes. Read more science.


Yes, studies based on the human construct of dominance theory have demonstrated dominance hierarchies exist...I don't deny this, and I've also said the reification of such memes is difficult to explain. However, if you research the the models used to define dominance in these studies you'll learn they enter the realm of human projection and fantasy. Read more science? I've read more science than is necessary for this forum, this argument, this subject. I've done my due diligence, you'll just have to take my word for it...or not. It won't matter either way. 



> Nothing that will surprise most people who have lived with a group of dogs.


Yes because amateur observers make the best observations. 

We all have herd the term "pecking order"...it spawned from the observation of chickens and the observable linear hierarchy (as defined by the human construct) that exists between them. An interesting point dominance theorist have difficulty explaining is in this factoid... A group of chickens if left to relate for x amount of time, do in fact develop a linear hierarchy. However, if the chickens are separated for a few months, and the same chickens are reintroduced into the same coop, they in fact form a linear hierarchy, but...they do not form the same linear hierarchy. Why?

Dominance is not a character trait (dominance theory). Dominance is an attribute of a context driven relationship. Hierarchies of individuals do not exist without some preconceived, pre-postulated definition of what the hierarchy is. As such it is highly conducive to human error, bias, and prejudice - flawed. As a descriptor (only), it is not subject to human error, bias, or prejudice. 



> Objectively reality lies somewhere in between.


Reality can only exist relative to me. I am honestly being objective of my reality. I don't have reason to do otherwise, nor do I understand why you would suggest I'm not being objective simply because I don't agree with YOUR perspective. 

Earlier you said it was possible that the benefits to dogdom could be attributed to a natural occurrence, and not CM inc. This can only mean my reality *is* within reason, and I *am* being objective.


----------



## hulkamaniac

FourIsCompany said:


> I had heard about the lab. He lived, by the way. And I have never heard of a dog being euthanized in connection with Cesar. The idea is ridiculous. If there were people whose dogs were "ruined" or euthed, I think it would be pretty apparent on the Internet. Google "Cesar Ruined my Dog". People on dog boards make the claim that so many dogs are ruined, but I have NEVER seen one bit of evidence. It's like a viral email. Full of wild claims but zero evidence.


I for one don't doubt that this ruined dog actually exists somewhere. No one is perfect and Cesar has worked with hundreds of dogs. It would be unrealistic to assume that every single one of them was a rousing success. I do wonder about the circumstances surrounding said "ruined dog." Is it a dog that numerous trainers had worked with and failed to cure and Cesar also failed and thus got blamed? Is it a dog that was a submissive dog but loved to dart out the door and some owner Alpha rolled him repeatedly because of something he saw on TV and Cesar got blamed? Is it a dog that had minor behavior issues and Cesar worked with him directly and now the dog is ruined? What does it mean by the dog being "ruined" anyway?


----------



## TxRider

Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, studies based on the human construct of dominance theory have demonstrated dominance hierarchies exist...I don't deny this, and I've also said the reification of such memes is difficult to explain. However, if you research the the models used to define dominance in these studies you'll learn they enter the realm of human projection and fantasy.


Which I guess is why the studies showed no or almost no hierarchical order in some breeds, ranging to a linear order in others, as well as other differences.

Objective observation explains it. No need for projection nor fantasy or projection and fantasy but a different one for each breed... LOL...

And I guess Male feral dogs defending pups and regurgitating food for them was just some optical illusion and not pack behavior, as well as DNA research showing dominant breeders, their lineage etc. backing up observed monogamist pairing in familial packs of feral dog was an optical illusion as well.

They must have just projected fantasy DNA onto a human construct..


----------



## FourIsCompany

hulkamaniac said:


> It would be unrealistic to assume that every single one of them was a rousing success.


I'm not assuming he has 100% success. I'm sure there are dogs who came out of it no better than they went in. I _am_ saying that to assume that some came out *worse * (or "ruined by Cesar") requires more evidence. There's a lot of room between "ruined" and rousing success. 



> I do wonder about the circumstances surrounding said "ruined dog." Is it a dog that numerous trainers had worked with and failed to cure and Cesar also failed and thus got blamed?


I can certainly see that possibility. The clients often say that they've tried everything and Cesar was their last hope. That's what I suspect happened with the Min Pin that was euthed. 



> Is it a dog that was a submissive dog but loved to dart out the door and some owner Alpha rolled him repeatedly because of something he saw on TV and Cesar got blamed?


In which case, the owner is to blame. Cesar would never advocate the rolling of a submissive dog. 



> Is it a dog that had minor behavior issues and Cesar worked with him directly and now the dog is ruined?


That seems the most unlikely to me to happen and the one that I would consider to be Cesar's fault. 



> What does it mean by the dog being "ruined" anyway?


You'll have to ask those that are making that claim.


----------



## hulkamaniac

FourIsCompany said:


> I'm not assuming he has 100% success. I'm sure there are dogs who came out of it no better than they went in. I _am_ saying that to assume that some came out *worse * (or "ruined by Cesar") requires more evidence. There's a lot of room between "ruined" and rousing success.


I don't doubt that. I also don't doubt that are probably dogs somewhere who came out worse for their CM experience. The question is "How much worse?" and "What does ruined mean?" I'm not sure how that adjective applies to a dog. A ruined car tire is one I can't drive on. A ruined door is one that won't open or shut. A ruined meal is one I can't eat. What is a ruined dog?



> I can certainly see that possibility. The clients often say that they've tried everything and Cesar was their last hope. That's what I suspect happened with the Min Pin that was euthed.


This is possible and why I would like to see the story of this "ruined dog."



> In which case, the owner is to blame. Cesar would never advocate the rolling of a submissive dog.


There are some who would blame Cesar as much as they'd blame the Mythbusters if someone blew themselves up trying to mix up home made thermite. If someone sees something done on TV and tries it (regardless of whether they try it the way it's done on TV) the people on TV are at fault. Look we all know wrestling on TV is fake. We also know that the wrestlers are trained on how to safely perform the moves they perform. They still get blamed though when some jackass in his back yard hurts himself trying to perform some sort of aerial maneuver he has no business doing.



> That seems the most unlikely to me to happen and the one that I would consider to be Cesar's fault.


I have no idea how likely it is. Like I said, I have yet to see or hear anything about this "ruined dog."



> You'll have to ask those that are making that claim.


And I am. Show me the money or retract your claim please.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> Are there really owners like that? If so, I can't help but wonder why they have a dog...
> 
> So, the whole human dominance over dog mindset is "I need to win *and the dog needs to lose*"? That's pretty sad. Like I said before I don't know many average Joe dog owners. And I think I'm kinda glad.


Oh yeah, I get all kinds of comments when Wally's off leash. Many assume I threaten him to an inch of his life. Some think I've "dominated" him to the point where he's learned he'd better sit or else. Some think I starved him to get him to sit like he does (What?), some think he follows my directions well because I do nothing but bark orders at him and never let him move without permission. That's the ideas I get about "dominance". It's not just simply resource control in the minds of the people I've met.

I had someone tell me Wally was destined to be a hard time as he "grows up" (he assumed he's a puppy because he's a small dog) because I let him explore the field as he wished or stopped when he caught an interesting scent and followed/investigated it. 

I wasn't being "dominant enough" because I "let him decided when to stop walking and sniff".

I asked him - how will that make him give me a hard time? 

He said, well, he's deciding the walk and so he's taking control over you. If you call him, he won't come because he told you he's not walking.

So I walked away from Wally. He didn't see me, still sniffing away. I was probably, 40-50 feet from Wally. The guy looked at me like I was crazy.

I called "Here!" And Wally came _charging_ (I swear - he has one speed - OMGWTFLOL Run Fast!!11!!), At about 20 feet, I gave my signal for a Front and he...kinda...slowed down and stumbled into a sit and was looking right up at me. He got five treats and I looked at the guy. He was like


----------



## FourIsCompany

hulkamaniac said:


> And I am. Show me the money or retract your claim please.


I didn't make the claim! LOL


----------



## hulkamaniac

FourIsCompany said:


> I didn't make the claim! LOL


Didn't say you did, but others in this thread have and I would like to see the proof.


----------



## BoxMeIn21

I think this might be the longest CM thread in DF history....

Carry on.


----------



## Cracker

Just to be clear, Peppy. I don't think you being your dog's "god" is necessarily a bad thing. Being adored is GOOD, being respected is GOOD. I'm pretty sure Cracker thinks I'm the be all and end all too. Nothing wrong with being powerful, as long as it's not taken for granted, nor abused. "Power may corrupt but absolute power corrupts absolutely."

And because my quote was in your post and you mentioned being accused of being abusive, I just wanted it to be known that I personally do not see your form of training (as you described it) as abusive. I'm glad you have a good relationship and it's true not everyone is suited to certain styles of training.I also agree that the difference in the majority of the cases that are seen in Cesar's show are evidence of lack of GOOD training. 

I just think that if you CAN train a dog successfully without ever having to yell, poke, roll or anything else physical (in the sense of physical PUNISHMENT)..then why not do it?

The reason I've chosen to go R+ is twofold.
One: I have a soft dog who shuts down or cowers at the slightest correction or raised voice.
Two:I have a temper of my own, yep and a fiery one (it ain't pretty), and I have found, in my experience, that if I am working with a dog that is not responding to traditional training (ie a leash correction or an owner who just doesn't "get it") I get frustrated and the dog gets frustrated; frustration does not bode well for anyone and no one is learning anything. 

This is actually what's kind of funny, is that a lot of folks (no one in particular here) think R+ is "soft" and for "soft PEOPLE"..lol. I am far from soft in many ways. This style works for me because it removes any opportunity I may have to overcorrect, to nag, to physically overpower my dog (except in an emergency). I was a good handler then, but I was starting to find work stressful and that is totally sensed by the dogs, continuing the cycle. 

The "Zen" quality of R+ style training has been good for me, good for the dogs I work with and has helped ME to become a calmer, more peaceful person. This is what Cesar refers to when he speaks of "energy". I am a much better handler now, as my frustration with the dogs and their owners is much less. I am also now a Reiki practitioner, a form of energy therapy, so when CM speaks of energy I get it. He doesn't explain it well in his first book (Cesar's Way) but does a better job of it in the second book. 

This is a case of knowing and accepting my own personality and temperament, not just looking at the type of dog I'm working with.


----------



## wvasko

BoxMeIn21 said:


> I think this might be the longest CM thread in DF history....
> 
> Carry on.


Yes a couple pages back I said a can of worms was being opened, I take it back as this is a dump truck of worms. People seem to be enjoying themselves though(at least I hope so)I don't know if any problems are being solved, but everybody is getting a say so and that can't be bad whether you agree or not with input.


----------



## FourIsCompany

hulkamaniac said:


> I would like to see the proof.


I would, too. There have been claims made that he ruined dogs, that he has caused the death of dogs and that his methods are bad for dogs, not to mention that he is a bad advocate for bully breeds.

I see no proof of any of these. *IF* they are true, I would like to see more evidence than someone's opinion. Without proof, that's all these claims are. Opinions.



Cracker said:


> Nothing wrong with being powerful, as long as it's not taken for granted, nor abused.






> I just think that if you CAN train a dog successfully without ever having to yell, poke, roll or anything else physical (in the sense of physical PUNISHMENT)..then why not do it?


Ditto. And that's what I personally do. As has been said, though, Most of the clients who come to _Cesar _have tried everything else and he is their last hope for a problem situation. It doesn't surprise me that he uses punishment. The dogs he deals with are comparable to gang members in society, not the average teen who doesn't keep his room clean. 



> The "Zen" quality of R+ style training has been good for me, good for the dogs I work with and has helped ME to become a calmer, more peaceful person.


I've got to say, you are the best advocate for +R training that I've ever seen. Your non-judgmental, non-preachy approach to giving your opinion and advice to others is a highly refreshing change from everything I have EVER read from other +R trainers. Congratulations.


----------



## BoxMeIn21

wvasko said:


> Yes a couple pages back I said a can of worms was being opened, I take it back as this is a dump truck of worms. People seem to be enjoying themselves though(at least I hope so)I don't know if any problems are being solved, but everybody is getting a say so and that can't be bad whether you agree or not with input.


Are you sure those were worms in that dump truck?


----------



## FourIsCompany

Nothing is "being solved". There's nothing to solve.  We're having a discussion. And a fairly mature, civil, pleasant discussion, considering the subject matter. I don't see a problem (wormy or otherwise) with sharing insights and opinions, coming together on common ground when it's possible and agreeing to disagree when it's not...


----------



## wvasko

BoxMeIn21 said:


> Are you sure those were worms in that dump truck?


Not gonna jump in there, I not smart, but I not that stupid


----------



## BoxMeIn21

FourIsCompany said:


> Nothing is "being solved". There's nothing to solve.  We're having a discussion. And a fairly mature, civil, pleasant discussion, considering the subject matter. I don't see a problem (wormy or otherwise) with sharing insights and opinions, coming together on common ground when it's possible and agreeing to disagree when it's not...


No one said there was a problem...in fact, this is probably the most civil CM thread in the history of DF, too.


----------



## Corteo

> this is probably the most civil CM thread in the history of DF


Agreed. People are actually being mature.


----------



## jiml

My problem with Cesar (and i dont dislike all his shows) is his all stick no carrot approach. and the fact that really he over simplifies a dogs existence to pure dominance. Everything and I mean everything is due too two things lack of exercise and dog being dominant. This simply is not reality. 

at times he does great things whether everyone agrees with the tech. other times he over simplifies things to the point that its obvious that he (in some areas) doesn't have a clue. Dogs are not dominant to laser pointers and holding a dogs tail up while walking by tying it to a rope will not make a dog more confident.


----------



## KBLover

jiml said:


> Dogs are not dominant to laser pointers and holding a dogs tail up while walking by tying it to a rope will not make a dog more confident.


I wish it were that simple for Wally. 



Cracker said:


> The reason I've chosen to go R+ is twofold.
> One: I have a soft dog who shuts down or cowers at the slightest correction or raised voice.
> Two:I have a temper of my own, yep and a fiery one (it ain't pretty), and I have found, in my experience, that if I am working with a dog that is not responding to traditional training (ie a leash correction or an owner who just doesn't "get it") I get frustrated and the dog gets frustrated; frustration does not bode well for anyone and no one is learning anything.


This is pretty much me in a nutshell. Soft dog with fearful tendencies and if you replace temper with impatience, you will have described me.



Cracker said:


> This is a case of knowing and accepting my own personality and temperament, not just looking at the type of dog I'm working with.


This is something that would be good for trainers in general to mention. I don't see any of the "TV trainers" mention things like this and that would go a ways to "training the owners" to independently handle their dogs, imo.


----------



## FourIsCompany

jiml said:


> My problem with Cesar (and i dont dislike all his shows) is his all stick no carrot approach.


He actually uses quite a few rewards, including treats, praise, massage, toys and companionship. I'm surprised you say this, really. He doesn't use all carrots OR all stick. It's a balanced approach. Some of each. He assesses the dog to find his motivation and then works with that, by using whatever he thinks will work best for that particular situation. 



> Everything and I mean everything is due too two things lack of exercise and dog being dominant. This simply is not reality.


Actually, most of the time, the dogs he's seeing ("problem dogs") aren't getting enough exercise and the leadership in the house is inconsistent at best. I'm amazed at how much a dog can change with a regular exercise program and consistently-applied NILIF. That's really all he's saying, but he uses the word "dominance" and it freaks people out. 

Cesar's not perfect. He does make mistakes, IMO, but he is human.


----------



## jiml

He doesn't use all carrots OR all stick. It's a balanced approach>>>>


I guess its always in perception. I'm not against correction or even techniques like flooding that he uses. but he is mostly stick. the rewards are subtle at best. 

I was actually at a training class 2 days ago and observed a trainer tell someone that her dog was being dominant because when it lied down its paw was on the persons foot. where do you think she got this idea? I know her and I know where.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

jiml said:


> My problem with Cesar (and i dont dislike all his shows) is his all stick no carrot approach. and the fact that really he over simplifies a dogs existence to pure dominance. Everything and I mean everything is due too two things lack of exercise and dog being dominant. This simply is not reality.
> 
> at times he does great things whether everyone agrees with the tech. other times he over simplifies things to the point that its obvious that he (in some areas) doesn't have a clue. Dogs are not dominant to laser pointers and holding a dogs tail up while walking by tying it to a rope will not make a dog more confident.


The best way I've found to combat the triviality in the show is to mute the television, and let the dog narrate.


----------



## FourIsCompany

jiml said:


> where do you think she got this idea? I know her and I know where.


I would guess she got it from Cesar by your inference.  But just as his ideas about exercise, discipline and affection are nothing new, so is the idea that a dog placing his paw on the person is a dominance display, or, as NILIF calls it, Attention on Demand. 

The instructor may or may not be right about the dog, but it's hardly Cesar's responsibility how people interpret a dog's body language.


----------



## Cracker

I agree that CM does use occasional R+...Affection IS part of the mantra and I have also seen him once or twice (seasons 1-3) use classical conditioning for fearful dogs. I would certainly like to see it done MORE but there has been a shift over the three seasons. More info on dog body language would go a long way towards "releasing" the "he's being dominant when he does that" miscommunication. That is the part that ticks me off the most. 

Have any of you actually met a truly controlling dog? Of the "dominant aggressive" type, where there is handler aggression (not just dog/dog aggression, these are two different issues). These dogs are FREAKY. Thank dog it's a rarity...from my memory I would say, the Butch the bulldog episode was a pretty good example of this type of dog. 

I look forward to season four on DVD. I don't have cable so I buy the seasons when they come out. I haven't seen It's me or the Dog on DVD yet, but would like that as well. I think it's important to KNOW what it is he does (regardless of agreement of his philosophy and methods), be able to assess it's worthiness and be properly prepared to discuss it if necessary. Debating methods is only worthwhile if there is knowledge of both sides of the debate. Most of the R+ trainers I know are crossover trainers so have a pretty good knowledge of all of the four quadrants and training styles. (Now, if we could get them all to use R+ with the PEOPLE they talk to..LOL.)

I myself use his show for examples of calming signals, head turns, lip licking and avoidance (what Cesar often calls "calm submission") when in our trainer discussion meetings. This is helpful for when in class a client says "he's being stubborn" or "but he KNOWS it!" and the dog is showing signals that he is uncomfortable, overstressed or needs to go outside for a pee break! I honestly would like to see the trainer I am mentoring under do an info session at the beginning SANS dogs..to discuss the basics of learning, generalization, and dog body language. Not everyone is into learning theory, but a basic nutshell night would be so helpful for when they start the classes. But of course, this is why I'm volunteering at her class..to learn what I like and don't like about class environments (I do my own privates, but not classes) so that when I'm ready and have a place to hold them I can develop an effective and FUN environment for everyone.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> The instructor may or may not be right about the dog, but it's hardly Cesar's responsibility how people interpret a dog's body language.


That's true, but I think he and trainers in general should mention body language more. I think sometimes it's forgotten that training is as much communication as it is punishment and reward - and dogs communicate largely through body language.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Cracker said:


> Have any of you actually met a truly controlling dog?


I haven't. Jaia can be pretty strong-willed at times, but nothing like Butch! Not even *close*. 



> (Now, if we could get them all to use R+ with the PEOPLE they talk to..LOL.)


Oh! how many times I have said that same thing! LOL



> (I do my own privates, but not classes) so that when I'm ready and have a place to hold them I can develop an effective and FUN environment for everyone.


I would LOVE to come to your class! 

I must admit to nagging my dogs sometimes, especially Jaia. I don't _like _to use punishment, but I realized that my nagging about this particular problem wasn't working (after 3 years  ) and I decided to use punishment with him the other day. It wasn't extreme. In fact, it was pretty mild, but was 100% effective as it stopped the behavior, but now, I find myself feeling bad (guilty?) because when the situation arises and he doesn't do the same thing he's done for 3 years now, I wonder if he's okay with it. 

I just wonder if there's something else I could have done. I wonder how +R proponents would have handled it. Maybe I'll start a thread in Training to get some input. Edited to add link.


----------



## Westhighlander

I'm beginning to think the anti-CM fanatics' claims are just urban legends. I can find nothing on any dogs actually dying because of CM. I do find a lot of people who thank CM for helping them.

If CM was responsible for several deaths, NGC would be sued, he would be sued and his show would have been canceled a long time ago.


----------



## peppy264

Cracker said:


> Two:I have a temper of my own, yep and a fiery one (it ain't pretty), and I have found, in my experience, that if I am working with a dog that is not responding to traditional training (ie a leash correction or an owner who just doesn't "get it") I get frustrated and the dog gets frustrated; frustration does not bode well for anyone and no one is learning anything.
> 
> .......
> 
> This is a case of knowing and accepting my own personality and temperament, not just looking at the type of dog I'm working with.


Good points. Its quite interesting how much you learn about your own temperament when working with a dog, somehow the civility or reservations you have automatically with people are not there. I'm usually the first to scoff at concepts like 'negative energy' etc ...... but the reflection of your own energy (or body language) that you see from your dog is amazing and instructive. Dog training needs you to remain calm and do nothing out of anger (a point CM makes repeatedly). When you say that for someone who cannot control their temper it is best to avoid P+, that is sensible advice. 

I've always thought that CM's show is less about dogs then it is about the owners. Can they remain calm? Can they be assertive? Can they overcome their own fears / inhibitions / pre-conceived ideas? I used to laugh when people would talk about 'the power of positive thinking blah blah...' and now after CM's show I don't anymore, there is something to it. Forget about the past, don't think about the bad things that might happen, picture what you want to happen and live in the moment like your dog. Right On !

Regardless of the pros/cons of his methods, its brilliant television. And though I don't watch much TV, I'd be hard pressed to name someone on the tube with equivalent charisma / humour.


> I've got to say, you are the best advocate for +R training that I've ever seen. Your non-judgmental, non-preachy approach to giving your opinion and advice to others is a highly refreshing change from everything I have EVER read from other +R trainers. Congratulations.


+1. People who pretend that their ways are "proven" completely right and other ways are completely wrong, in an area as fuzzy as dog training, are not only foolish but also loose all credibility and ability to influence others.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Westhighlander said:


> I'm beginning to think the anti-CM fanatics' claims are just urban legends. I can find nothing on any dogs actually dying because of CM. I do find a lot of people who thank CM for helping them.
> 
> If CM was responsible for several deaths, NGC would be sued, he would be sued and his show would have been canceled a long time ago.


I tend to agree with you. Several people have posted in this thread about how Cesar "ruined dogs" and "the end result of his methods is euthanasia", but no one has cited a single case. Yes, I've heard the friend of a friend stories, but I've also heard friend of a friend stories about Bigfoot and other critters. They're called urban legends. Where are the links to documented, first hand accounts? I can't find them on the 'net. Just the story of the one dog who was injured on a treadmill when CM may not have even been around.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> I tend to agree with you. Several people have posted in this thread about how Cesar "ruined dogs" and "the end result of his methods is euthanasia", but no one has cited a single case. Yes, I've heard the friend of a friend stories, but I've also heard friend of a friend stories about Bigfoot and other critters. They're called urban legends. Where are the links to documented, first hand accounts? I can't find them on the 'net. Just the story of the one dog who was injured on a treadmill when CM may not have even been around.


If you're referring to my comments I never said CM ruined any dog. What I did say is that *I* have first hand experience of CM inc's methods (the mantra Cesar's Way) leading to a dog's euthanasia, and those methods being credited to CM inc. You're not going to find this on the net, but you're welcome to come visit my shelter and speak to our on-site behaviorist. She can vouch for all the claims I've made here. But if you're hoping such evidence must be convenient to be true, you're wrong. Remember, the internet is the bathroom wall of society, according to a wise ol' professor of mine. There's a huge difference between questioning business ethics and knee-jerking the CM zealots want to make of it. Questioning ethics = good. Knee-jerking = bad.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> If you're referring to my comments I never said CM ruined any dog. What I did say is that *I* have first hand experience of CM inc's methods (the mantra Cesar's Way) leading to a dog's euthanasia, and those methods being credited to CM inc. You're not going to find this on the net, but you're welcome to come visit my shelter and speak to our on-site behaviorist. She can vouch for all the claims I've made here. But if you're hoping such evidence must be convenient to be true, you're wrong. Remember, the internet is the bathroom wall of society, according to a wise ol' professor of mine. There's a huge difference between questioning business ethics and knee-jerking the CM zealots want to make of it. Questioning ethics = good. Knee-jerking = bad.


So essentially you are blaming CM for things people who claimed to be his followers have done? What are the specifics of the case and what exactly did these people do that led to this dog being euthanised? Are we talking about an aggressive dog that was made worse by an inexperienced amateur trying to do what he saw on tv? Are we talking about a simple, misbehaving dog that was turned aggressive by trying to use CM's methods? What is the example?


----------



## peppy264

Its difficult to decide which is more illogical:

i) basing your opinion on a negative experience with one dog while disregarding the potential positive effects of CM's messages on millions of other dogs / owners, or

ii) blaming CM's methods for the death of a particular dog, when in fact to attribute such blame you would likely have to know far more about the dogs actual background and training then you possibly could from the point of view of a shelter. 

In any case, if you really believe opinions should be based on anecdotes, then we have one negative anecdote (the methods killed the dog) from you and several hundred positive anecdotes (the methods saved my dog) from the show.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> So essentially you are blaming CM for things people who claimed to be his followers have done?


No, for the 100th time. I hold CM inc responsible for failed ethics that encourages others to apply the same failed ethics.



> What are the specifics of the case and what exactly did these people do that led to this dog being euthanised?


There have been many cases, a hand full just on the first day i sat behind a surrender desk, and I can attest that some of these dogs should not have been euthanized; though they did bite their guardian/guardian's child/stranger and our laws prohibit biters from being adopted out by the City.



> Are we talking about an aggressive dog that was made worse by an inexperienced amateur trying to do what he saw on tv?


Every dog bit a human resulting from a technique mimicked from CM inc. As I said earlier, the reality is people do try Cesar's Way at home (by admission). 



> Are we talking about a simple, misbehaving dog that was turned aggressive by trying to use CM's methods? What is the example?


Likely in every case.


----------



## KBLover

hulkamaniac said:


> I tend to agree with you. Several people have posted in this thread about how Cesar "ruined dogs" and "the end result of his methods is euthanasia", but no one has cited a single case. Yes, I've heard the friend of a friend stories, but I've also heard friend of a friend stories about Bigfoot and other critters. They're called urban legends. Where are the links to documented, first hand accounts? I can't find them on the 'net. Just the story of the one dog who was injured on a treadmill when CM may not have even been around.


Just curious, are there a lot of links to dogs ruined by any training method from first-hand, I-did-it-right-and-it-screwed-my-dog experiences?

Not saying that CM has or hasn't ruined dogs, I don't know and am not going to claim he did. Just wondering how info of that nature at all can be found and how reliable it would be. 

I mean, if someone relates to me a first-hand account (again, I don't have one and it could apply to any "system" or technique), does it not exist/matter because there's no link on the internet?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> In any case, if you really believe opinions should be based on anecdotes, then we have one negative anecdote (the methods killed the dog) from you and several hundred positive anecdotes (the methods saved my dog) from the show.


At least you're afforded some wonder. I can't reason with any ability how a dog's actual death is a worthy sacrifice for the perceived positives (including those anecdotes).


----------



## Corteo

jiml said:


> My problem with Cesar (and i dont dislike all his shows) is his all stick no carrot approach.


I agree with this. Though the opposite could very correctly be said about only positive training. Everything in moderation.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> No, for the 100th time. I hold CM inc responsible for failed ethics that encourages others to apply the same failed ethics.


He encourages people to a) work with their dogs and b) seek out the advise of a professional. How is this unethical?



> There have been many cases, a hand full just on the first day i sat behind a surrender desk, and I can attest that some of these dogs should not have been euthanized; though they did bite their guardian/guardian's child/stranger and our laws prohibit biters from being adopted out by the City.


What are the circumstances of these cases? Someone who alpha rolls a dog that this darting out of the door because they believe it is a dominance issue is not doing what Cesar teaches regardless of what you think.



> Every dog bit a human resulting from a technique mimicked from CM inc. As I said earlier, the reality is people do try Cesar's Way at home (by admission).


What technique and what was the problem with the dog before the technique? You hold Cesar responsible for people walking their dogs, establishing rules/boundaries/limitations and then giving affection? This is Cesar's way. How is this harmful?



> Likely in every case.


Likely? Just likely? You would say that the end result of Cesar's method is euthanasia just because some dogs "likely" were harmed by his techniques applied by someone who saw his show. Seriously? Every single dog was a dog that was a leash puller or who jumped on the furniture or who darted out the door and the owner used verbal corrections and mild leash corrections causing the dog to become aggressive and a biter?



Corteo said:


> I agree with this. Though the opposite could very correctly be said about only positive training. Every thing in moderation.


I would not disagree with this. There are so many schools of thought on dog training out there and all of them work under certain circumstances and with certain dogs. It's the responsibility of the trainer to know the dog they're training and know what techniques are likely to work on that particular dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> He encourages people to a) work with their dogs and b) seek out the advise of a professional. How is this unethical?


This is not unethical, nor is it the totality of his message. 



> What are the circumstances of these cases? Someone who alpha rolls a dog that this darting out of the door because they believe it is a dominance issue is not doing what Cesar teaches regardless of what you think.


One dog was alpha rolled for exhibiting fear towards a stranger, the dog escaped the guardians grasp and redirected aggression towards the stranger. One dog was neck jabbed for barking at a cat outside of a window, and the dog redirected and bit the guardian. One dog would not heel when kicked to do so, and when the dog "protested" (over threshold), he was "restrained" until calm and kicked again on the portions of the walk until he bit his guardian. I could go on and on, but I don't know how anyone could argue by the guardians own admission that, CM inc's demonstrated techniques lead to the dog's biting, would demonstrate CM inc's ethics are sound. 



> What technique and what was the problem with the dog before the technique?


Understand you're asking for my opinion. These dogs had no problems (they could have done well with ethical b-mod) other than their guardians were introduced to techniques demonstrated by CM inc. 



> You hold Cesar responsible for people walking their dogs, establishing rules/boundaries/limitations and then giving affection? This is Cesar's way.


Again, that is not the totality of Cesar's Way...I thought you read his books? Anyway, no I do not hold CM responsible for anything. For the 101th time I hold CM inc. responsible for demonstrating unethical b-mod techniques that cause harm to an unprotected being. 



> Likely? Just likely? You would say that the end result of Cesar's method is euthanasia just because some dogs "likely" were harmed by his techniques applied by someone who saw his show. Seriously?


Yes seriously. "Likely" as in not all. Despite your knee-jerking I am a reasonable person, and my mama will tell you so. 



> Every single dog was a dog that was a leash puller or who jumped on the furniture or who darted out the door and the owner used verbal corrections and mild leash corrections causing the dog to become aggressive and a biter?


No. I'd say every single one was a dog who should not have been subjected to Cesar's Way.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Curbside Prophet said:


> This is not unethical, nor is it the totality of his message.


Exercise, Disciple, and Affection. This is plastered all over his merchandise and is quoted all over his show. This is the CM message.




> One dog was alpha rolled for exhibiting fear towards a stranger, the dog escaped the guardians grasp and redirected aggression towards the stranger.


Finally some examples that we can talk about. This is all I was asking for all along. I appreciate it. You will never see Cesar alpha rolling a fearful dog. You see Cesar alpha rolling aggressive dogs, not fearful ones. We can debate the alpha roll all day long. I'm not a fan of it except possibly in very extreme cases. Even then, if I had such an extreme case where I would consider such an extreme method, I'd be talking to a behaviorist, not trying to deal with such an aggressive dog myself. This is an example of someone incorrectly applying something they saw on TV. I would not blame Cesar for this.



> One dog was neck jabbed for barking at a cat outside of a window, and the dog redirected and bit the guardian.


Cesar's method in this situation is usually verbal corrections followed by a touch on the neck. This touch is applied instantly. I've never seen a single dog on his show exhibit aggressive behavior after being touched on the neck. Was this an animal aggressive dog (which could conceivably show aggression in such a case) or a dog that simply liked to chase cats? Would we not agree that a dog that loves to chase cats should be approached differently from an animal aggressive dog?



> One dog would not heel when kicked to do so, and when the dog "protested" (over threshold), he was "restrained" until calm and kicked again on the portions of the walk until he bit his guardian.


I have never seen Cesar kick a dog, much less kick a dog in order to get the dog to heel. Every time I've seen him get a dog to heel it's by sliding the leash/choke chain under the neck and using mild leash corrections or taps on the flank with the leg. I've ever seen him kick a dog. Kicking a dog would certainly qualify as abuse and I would not pretend to make apologies for any owner who did this.



> I could go on and on, but I don't know how anyone could argue by the guardians own admission that, CM inc's demonstrated techniques lead to the dog's biting, would demonstrate CM inc's ethics are sound.


When has Cesar alpha rolled a fearful dog? Now, he's flooded fearful dogs a time or two (a technique that is certainly questionable in the dog training world), but I've never seen him alpha roll a fearful dog. I was able to find a handful of pro-alpha roll sites (the technique is pretty widely discredited and rightfully so. Some sites say it may have some validity in the hands of an expert dealing with an extremely aggressive dog) and none claimed that one should use an alpha roll on a fearful dog. Also, when has Cesar kicked a dog? Perhaps he has done so off camera, but I've never seen him doing it on camera and I've certainly never heard him advocating it.



> Understand you're asking for my opinion. These dogs had no problems (they could have done well with ethical b-mod) other than their guardians were introduced to techniques demonstrated by CM inc.


And those guardians applied those techniques incorrectly. It's sad that the dogs suffered for it. If I try to duplicate Ben Franklin, fly a kite in a storm and electrocute myself is it Franklin's fault? Or mine? And this is a case of me doing it exactly like he did. These guardians did not apply the techniques correctly.



> Again, that is not the totality of Cesar's Way...I thought you read his books? Anyway, no I do not hold CM responsible for anything. For the 101th time I hold CM inc. responsible for demonstrating unethical b-mod techniques that cause harm to an unprotected being.


What's the difference? Can you hold a company responsible and not the guy who sets the philosophy for said company? I contend that you cannot. I don't blame GM for going under. I blame the people running the company for their poor decisions which caused the company to go under.



> No. I'd say every single one was a dog who should not have been subjected to Cesar's Way.


You can make this argument and I have no problem with it. It's a matter of opinion and you're certainly entitled to yours. There are many, many schools of dog training and lots of cowboy hats out there. Some are smellier than others to certain people. I don't think there's one particular way to train every single dog. Training a dog to acquire a new behavior is different than training a dog to not perform a certain behavior. Some dogs are more submissive than others. Some dogs are more responsive to input from a human than others. My cocker spaniel will do anything I wish just because it makes me happy. My basset will only behave if there's food involved. What I think is irrelevant. I have to train them differently. All dogs are this way IMO.


----------



## Pepper

Someone tell me why they think Alpha rolling works when there's no such thing as an alpha male and female in a dog pack, I would appreciate hearing this.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> Exercise, Disciple, and Affection. This is plastered all over his merchandise and is quoted all over his show. This is the CM message.


Yes, he has products to sell. So what? Why should this supersede ethics?



> You will never see Cesar alpha rolling a fearful dog. You see Cesar alpha rolling aggressive dogs, not fearful ones.


Your wrong. Jindo was a fearful dog, and if I cared to think about it I'm sure I could find other examples.



> I've never seen a single dog on his show exhibit aggressive behavior after being touched on the neck.


You have not watched all his shows then. I've seen CM walk away with bloodied hands for jabbing a dog, and the dog's guardian bitten per CM inc's advise. I'm not sure why you missed these episodes, and no, I'm not going to do the tedious task of finding a link for these example...it's not that important. Especially when respectable organizations and experts in the field have the same concerns as me. 



> Would we not agree that a dog that loves to chase cats should be approached differently from an animal aggressive dog?


Not necessarily, no. 



> I have never seen Cesar kick a dog, much less kick a dog in order to get the dog to heel. Every time I've seen him get a dog to heel it's by sliding the leash/choke chain under the neck and using mild leash corrections or taps on the flank with the leg.


We can play a game of semantics, but it won't change the end result. Sugar coating what he does, does not change what he does. 



> When has Cesar alpha rolled a fearful dog?


Again, Jindo would be just one example. 



> Also, when has Cesar kicked a dog?


Most of the dogs that have lead his walk were kicked. It's astonishing that you've missed all these instances.



> And those guardians applied those techniques incorrectly. It's sad that the dogs suffered for it. If I try to duplicate Ben Franklin, fly a kite in a storm and electrocute myself is it Franklin's fault? Or mine? And this is a case of me doing it exactly like he did. These guardians did not apply the techniques correctly.


Agreed, they applied incorrect techniques that were demonstrated on TDW. Unless you saw these people apply the technique, I'm not sure how you could claim they did so incorrectly. Even correctly applied techniques fail. But I would contend techniques justified on incorrect theory would fail more often. 

Again, fly a kite and electrocute yourself, that is your individual right. Fly a kite and attach it to your dog, per Ben Frank's demonstration, Ben Frank is unethical, and so are you in the treatment of your dog. 



> What's the difference? Can you hold a company responsible and not the guy who sets the philosophy for said company? I contend that you cannot. I don't blame GM for going under. I blame the people running the company for their poor decisions which caused the company to go under.


The difference is a matter of perspective and which ethics would apply. Our shelter employs euthanasia vets that do not agree with the ethics of the law on personal levels, but fulfill their obligations to their employer. The two can be exclusive. 



> I don't think there's one particular way to train every single dog.


No one has suggested that, not even me. 



> Training a dog to acquire a new behavior is different than training a dog to not perform a certain behavior.


The laws of learning theory are universal, and do not change with behavior. Just as the law of gravity does not change at any point on Earth, and most of the universe. 



> Some dogs are more submissive than others. Some dogs are more responsive to input from a human than others. My cocker spaniel will do anything I wish just because it makes me happy. My basset will only behave if there's food involved. What I think is irrelevant. I have to train them differently. All dogs are this way IMO.


The application of learning theory in no way suggests what the application of learning theory should be. Our humanity and ethics dictate how we should apply the theory. If a humane and effectve technique will do, our humanity and ethics dictate a brick is not the solution. Short of that, a brick or euthanasia would solve all problem behaviors to the not so tidy end.


----------



## peppy264

Hulk, I wouldn't bother trying to make sense of it. When somebody fervently believes something to be true, that belief itself becomes a filter through which they see the world. Their filtered experiences of the world then become reinforcing to the original belief which makes the filter even stronger. If you fervently believe that there is a Wall Street conspiracy behind every fall in the market, then you will undoubtedly find further evidence of the conspiracy when you speak to your accountant friend who just lost his job at a bank. If you fervently believe that CM Inc is evil, etc then you will see the reach of his show behind failed dogs/owners that you meet. It is the filter at work. Its one of the reasons that anecdotes don't make up for either real statistical studies or common sense.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Pepper said:


> Someone tell me why they think Alpha rolling works when there's no such thing as an alpha male and female in a dog pack, I would appreciate hearing this.


The theory it's based on applies to wolves. It's further extended that since dogs and wolves are related that the theory applies to dogs too. It does have an effect on the dog. Experts seem to agree for the most part that the only reason one dog would roll another on his side or back by force would be to kill him. I'm not a fan of it at all, but there are some experts who claim it may have an application in extreme cases with extremely aggressive dogs. Others say it should never be used.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, he has products to sell. So what? Why should this supersede ethics?


The point is Exercise, Discipline, and Affection is his message. Disagree with it if you want and that's fine, but it's still his message.



> Your wrong. Jindo was a fearful dog, and if I cared to think about it I'm sure I could find other examples.


I have not seen every episode of Dog Whisperer and don't profess to be an expert on the show. I do recall seeing this one if it's the same one you're referring to. The dog's name was JonBee. He was fine indoors and aggressive on walks or perhaps the other way around. My memory is not entirely clear. In any case, the dog snarled, growled at people (perhaps his owners too) and bit Cesar several times as Cesar alpha rolled him. Disagree with the technique and that's fine, but the dog was an aggressive dog.



> You have not watched all his shows then. I've seen CM walk away with bloodied hands for jabbing a dog, and the dog's guardian bitten per CM inc's advise. I'm not sure why you missed these episodes, and no, I'm not going to do the tedious task of finding a link for these example...it's not that important. Especially when respectable organizations and experts in the field have the same concerns as me.


No, I've not seen all his shows and I freely admit it. I've seen most of season 1, some of season 3 and an episode here and there of the later seasons. I've never seen it. Don't need links, but references to particular dogs or even episode numbers would be helpful.



> Not necessarily, no.


We would have to agree to disagree then. My cocker spaniel loves to chase cats. It's clear that his intent is playful though (no snarling, growling or anything like that). I feel perfectly capable of training him to not do this and we're still working on it. If I had a dog who went after cats snarling and growling I would not feel that I had the expertise to handle the problem and would seek the help of a professional.



> We can play a game of semantics, but it won't change the end result. Sugar coating what he does, does not change what he does.


A kick is defined as "to strike with the foot or feet." (Dictionary.com) Strike is defined as, "to deal a blow or stroke to." Blow is defined as "a sudden, hard stroke as with a fist or weapon." Thus we could define a kick as "To deal a sudden, hard stroke with the foot or feet." I have never seen Cesar deal a sudden, hard stroke to a dog. I've seen him nudge (to push slightly) dogs. I've never seen him kick dogs. There's a difference. 



> Again, Jindo would be just one example.


See above. 



> Most of the dogs that have lead his walk were kicked. It's astonishing that you've missed all these instances.


Apparently my vision is worse than I thought.



> Agreed, they applied incorrect techniques that were demonstrated on TDW. Unless you saw these people apply the technique, I'm not sure how you could claim they did so incorrectly. Even correctly applied techniques fail. But I would contend techniques justified on incorrect theory would fail more often.
> 
> Again, fly a kite and electrocute yourself, that is your individual right. Fly a kite and attach it to your dog, per Ben Frank's demonstration, Ben Frank is unethical, and so are you in the treatment of your dog.


But they applied the techniques in an incorrect situation. We all know Cesar advocates the alpha roll for aggressive dogs so lets take that for example. We also know that a dog bolting out of the door is not a dominance issue at all, but an issue of proper training. We also know that Cesar does not alpha roll door darters, but instead does his "claiming space" thing. Let's say that an idiot owner alpha rolls their dog for darting out the door. We can agree that this could cause a dog that is obviously not dominant to shut down completely, possibly engage in fear biting and eventually have to be euthanised. Is this CM's fault or the idiot owner incorrectly applying something he saw on TV?



> The difference is a matter of perspective and which ethics would apply. Our shelter employs euthanasia vets that do not agree with the ethics of the law on personal levels, but fulfill their obligations to their employer. The two can be exclusive.


I would disagree with that, but that's a topic for another thread. I would never willingly obey a law I found to be unethical. I'm a computer tech and if they passed a law that any e-mail I saw on a client's computer that may disagree with current government policy should be reported I would have to choose between either not obeying the law or finding another line of work. Again, a discussion of personal ethics vs business ethics is another topic though. 



> No one has suggested that, not even me.


But you have suggested that CM's methods should not be considered by anyone training their dogs? or have I misunderstood you? If so, I apologize.



> The laws of learning theory are universal, and do not change with behavior. Just as the law of gravity does not change at any point on Earth, and most of the universe.
> 
> The application of learning theory in no way suggests what the application of learning theory should be. Our humanity and ethics dictate how we should apply the theory. If a humane and effectve technique will do, our humanity and ethics dictate a brick is not the solution. Short of that, a brick or euthanasia would solve all problem behaviors to the not so tidy end.


I have no doubt that Cesar considers his techniques not only humane, but effective. He doesn't strike me as a stupid guy and he probably has studied learning theory. What you consider humane and effective may be completely different from my definition. Take child rearing for example. Some people consider spanking inhumane and ineffective. Other parents swear by it. I've met well adjusted children raised by both schools of thought so it seems to me that both are equally effective and (in the eyes of their practitioners at least) equally humane.


----------



## Pepper

> Experts seem to agree for the most part that the only reason one dog would roll another on his side or back by force would be to kill him.


So then, Cesar is showing the dog he wants to kill it by forcing it on its back? 

How would that make the bond closer between human and dog if you are showing the dog you will kill it if it doesn't stop doing whatever it's doing. Wouldn't it be easier, and more humane to just show the dog what to do, rather than throwing it on the ground(and I have seen him pick up a little dog on a leash by it's neck and flip it on to the ground, so don't say he hasn't thrown them on to the ground)

I think people don't think of how the dog would feel, what they are thinking, how they are seeing everything. The public is seeing some professional trainer who is able to flip dogs on their backs and make them "submit", how do you think the dog feels if someone just came and flipped them over, or prodded them, or hit their with their foot.

How would you feel if someone did that to you and didn't try to positively show you how to act.

I think a lot of people need to stop thinking dogs are just animals who can be tossed around and forced to submit like they are mindless drones, when in fact they can and do think for themselves, and I think they deserve enough respect to be shown how to do something, not punished for not knowing how to act because they've never been shown how.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> It is the filter at work.


Filter? Ya, let me tell you what the filter is... Not working at the surrender desk and working with dogs I can try to help.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Pepper said:


> So then, Cesar is showing the dog he wants to kill it by forcing it on its back?
> 
> How would that make the bond closer between human and dog if you are showing the dog you will kill it if it doesn't stop doing whatever it's doing. Wouldn't it be easier, and more humane to just show the dog what to do, rather than throwing it on the ground(and I have seen him pick up a little dog on a leash by it's neck and flip it on to the ground, so don't say he hasn't thrown them on to the ground)
> 
> I think people don't think of how the dog would feel, what they are thinking, how they are seeing everything. The public is seeing some professional trainer who is able to flip dogs on their backs and make them "submit", how do you think the dog feels if someone just came and flipped them over, or prodded them, or hit their with their foot.
> 
> How would you feel if someone did that to you and didn't try to positively show you how to act.
> 
> I think a lot of people need to stop thinking dogs are just animals who can be tossed around and forced to submit like they are mindless drones, when in fact they can and do think for themselves, and I think they deserve enough respect to be shown how to do something, not punished for not knowing how to act because they've never been shown how.


Again, I'm not an advocate of the alpha roll. I'm merely explaining the theory behind it. It definitely has an effect on a dog. That much can't be denied. I guess it comes down to would you rather have a dog that behaved because he's scared you might kill him or would you rather have a dog that is extremely aggressive and really should be PTS. I confess I don't care much for either option.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

hulkamaniac said:


> The point is Exercise, Discipline, and Affection is his message. Disagree with it if you want and that's fine, but it's still his message.


How can I disagree with a message that has no inherent meaning? 



> Disagree with the technique and that's fine, but the dog was an aggressive dog.


I disagree with the method and anyone who would segregate aggression as the expression of fear. 



> We would have to agree to disagree then. My cocker spaniel loves to chase cats. It's clear that his intent is playful though (no snarling, growling or anything like that). I feel perfectly capable of training him to not do this and we're still working on it. If I had a dog who went after cats snarling and growling I would not feel that I had the expertise to handle the problem and would seek the help of a professional.


And that "professional" would likely approach both animals the same. You agree that dogs are individuals and as such one display of aggression does not naturally exclude one technique from another, different display of aggression. If a less intrusive mildly aversive technique will do, we should not exclude it for a more intrusive more aversive technique on a whim, or for TV. I would go on to say if a person is more effective with a more aversive technique, they should try to improve their technique and seek to be less aversive (humanity). Reasonable? 



> A kick is defined as "to strike with the foot or feet." (Dictionary.com) Strike is defined as, "to deal a blow or stroke to." Blow is defined as "a sudden, hard stroke as with a fist or weapon." Thus we could define a kick as "To deal a sudden, hard stroke with the foot or feet." I have never seen Cesar deal a sudden, hard stroke to a dog. I've seen him nudge (to push slightly) dogs. I've never seen him kick dogs. There's a difference.


Still semantics and it changes nothing. 



> Apparently my vision is worse than I thought.


So too the obvious nature of your sarcasm. But I can't help you with your vision or your sarcasm. 



> But they applied the techniques in an incorrect situation.


That's your opinion, one you're basing on my cursory description of a third party description. You have no reason to assume one way or the other.



> We all know Cesar advocates the alpha roll for aggressive dogs so lets take that for example.


I've never heard him call it as such...I have read him credit the Monks for this technique. A technique the Monks now regret sharing. I wonder what the breaking point will be when CM inc. regrets it too. Maybe never. 



> Let's say that an idiot owner alpha rolls their dog for darting out the door. We can agree that this could cause a dog that is obviously not dominant to shut down completely, possibly engage in fear biting and eventually have to be euthanised. Is this CM's fault or the idiot owner incorrectly applying something he saw on TV?


Fault, which is different from ethics, legally (as far as I know), can only reside with the dog's guardian. Ethically, forgoing common, fundamental practices for TV, can/should be criticized. Obviously the show's caveat is not enough. 



> Again, a discussion of personal ethics vs business ethics is another topic though.


Yes, and precisely the reason I choose not to claim CM is unethical. I've even gone so far as to claim I like CM. 



> But you have suggested that CM's methods should not be considered by anyone training their dogs? or have I misunderstood you? If so, I apologize.


My take...you've misunderstood many things I've stated, but I blame the nature of words for that, not you, so no apology would be necessary. 



> I have no doubt that Cesar considers his techniques not only humane, but effective. He doesn't strike me as a stupid guy and he probably has studied learning theory.


I believe CM mentions Leon S. Whitney as one of his teachers (an author he read) in his first book. Whitney's books were published in the 1950's and 60's. I've also heard him state that he's read (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) "every single dog book", but then failed to name one contemporary author. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe CM (the person) is not humane or intelligent. It's not like he won the lottery to gain all his business success. 



> What you consider humane and effective may be completely different from my definition.


Of course, but that does not mean as "professionals" we can't both follow the same ethical approach. The link in my sig would be one such approach, and it excludes no technique.


----------



## Cracker

Well, here is where I have to be "opinionated"...The Jonbee case makes me livid.

I was just trying to find the JonBee episode, but it turns out I've lent that disk to my mentor to watch..so I will have to go with memory here. I've watched that particular episode many a time and also use it regularly to show extreme stress signs in a dog. 

IF I remember correctly, JonBee was a rescue Jindo who showed what was termed "dominant behaviours" though no details were given aside from the fact the owner was worried because THE DOG WOULDN'T LET HIM ALPHA ROLL him. That's it. The owner thought there was a problem because the dog wouldn't submit to him. In a nutshell. So...Cesar struggled with the dog, muzzled with a cloth muzzle, which is unsafe at the best of times, hung it by the leash, pinned it down until it SHUT DOWN and then massaged him to "show him it was okay" and to show "affection" when he was being submissive. He wasn't being submissive. He wasn't showing deference. He had given up because he was exhausted, both physically and mentally. The amount of stress and fear that dog had to endure just so his owner could "make him submit" was horrendous. 

That dog was a fearful dog. In fact every Jindo I have met has been a high strung fearful dog. I have no doubt in my mind JonBee was as well. Since the agreed upon thought on alpha rolls is that the dog may think you are killing it, how can this be questioned? He didnt' want his owner to alpha roll him because he didn't trust him not to hurt or kill him. He likely became aggressive BECAUSE his owner kept trying to pin him down. 

My soft dog wouldn't allow me to roll her physically, though other handling is easy peasy..it would freak her out, that doesn't make her dominant! But she will "offer" me her belly at times for affection, though if I took to rolling her I think that would end. 

Why is it even necessary to want to have your dog "able to submit" that way? His tongue was turning purple, he was panting a mile a minute (in a cloth muzzle, not meant for extended periods of time because the dogs cannot breath properly in one) and by the end of it was completely shut down. A term known as "learned helplessness".

Way to win that one.

These are the episodes that make my stomach turn. Who says your dog MUST submit to manhandling? You want to rub his belly? Earn his trust. Train him responsibly, manage his problems and get help...but just to be able to say your dog can be rolled? Yikes.

This is why so many disagree with his methods. These extreme cases where the analysis of the behaviour is incorrect, the modification of the behaviour is barbaric and the mental health and long term behaviour issues are not taken into account. This sort of case is likely to eventually backfire...the dog becoming a bomb in a fur coat.


----------



## Gingergal

Sorry haven't read all pages here! 

But if it hadn't been for watching dog whisperer and I had gotten a dog before. I know a 100%, I'd have a neurotic dog caused by giving it affection affection affection and not understanding how important the walk is. 

And yes pack leader. It is so obvious pack leader works with dogs as you see it before your eyes in the show. He doesn't even touch a dog etc (some of the time) but by something simple as walking out a door 1st when the dog is calm - you see a miracle!

I feel sorry for Cesar as in his books and he repeats it so many times, i*f you don't have calm and assertive energy all the time with the dog, it doesn't matter what techniques etc you use.* Then when people use his techniques wrongly - not being calm or assertive, he gets blamed.

It amazes me that some of my friends have read his books and still don't get this! They wonder why their dog won't listen to them when they "shh" and it's so obvious they are unsure when doing it 

As Cesar says in his book if you have a happy go lucky dog and don't need any of this - great. 

We see very extreme cases on his show sometimes and of course it wouldn't happen if people gave the dog "boundaries and limits" as well as exercise, discipline (not punishment) in the 1st place. Maybe if we all did that, he wouldn't be needed!

When I first started watching the show I wasn't sure, but after a while and seeing the dog relaxed around Cesar (they were NOT fearful) after he worked with them. I am completely convinced, and a huge fan.
They actually seemed calmer and happier. And it made sense to me, so many others methods didn't.

But as HE says, if you are not 100% sure whatever it is, when you are working with a dog you should get an expert in. Dog's can pick up on uncertainty.

All I can say is I am so pleased his show is on so so helped me!


----------



## Cracker

I am glad you've had success. 
I do recommend you read the thread though so you can keep up with the discussion at hand. It's an interesting read.


----------



## Pepper

> When I first started watching the show I wasn't sure, but after a while and seeing the dog relaxed around Cesar (they were NOT fearful) after he worked with them. I am completely convinced, and a huge fan.
> They actually seemed calmer and happier. And it made sense to me, so many others methods didn't.


Watch the show with the volume off and you'll see how unhappy and how fearful many dogs are.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Pepper said:


> Watch the show with the volume off and you'll see how unhappy and how fearful many dogs are.


This one always confuses and humors me. Is it that you think we (people) can't see and hear at the same time? Or that we soak up every word Cesar says _regardless _what's before our eyes? You think we just accept his explanation of situations without taking the whole scene into context? We'd have to be pretty stupid to do that, wouldn't we? I've heard this suggestion before and it's kind of insulting, really. I don't need to turn the volume down to see the dogs any more than I need to close my eyes to hear what someone is saying. I'm discerning that way.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Cracker said:


> Well, here is where I have to be "opinionated"...The Jonbee case makes me livid.
> 
> I was just trying to find the JonBee episode, but it turns out I've lent that disk to my mentor to watch..so I will have to go with memory here. I've watched that particular episode many a time and also use it regularly to show extreme stress signs in a dog.
> 
> IF I remember correctly, JonBee was a rescue Jindo who showed what was termed "dominant behaviours" though no details were given aside from the fact the owner was worried because THE DOG WOULDN'T LET HIM ALPHA ROLL him. That's it. The owner thought there was a problem because the dog wouldn't submit to him. In a nutshell. So...Cesar struggled with the dog, muzzled with a cloth muzzle, which is unsafe at the best of times, hung it by the leash, pinned it down until it SHUT DOWN and then massaged him to "show him it was okay" and to show "affection" when he was being submissive. He wasn't being submissive. He wasn't showing deference. He had given up because he was exhausted, both physically and mentally. The amount of stress and fear that dog had to endure just so his owner could "make him submit" was horrendous.
> 
> That dog was a fearful dog. In fact every Jindo I have met has been a high strung fearful dog. I have no doubt in my mind JonBee was as well. Since the agreed upon thought on alpha rolls is that the dog may think you are killing it, how can this be questioned? He didnt' want his owner to alpha roll him because he didn't trust him not to hurt or kill him. He likely became aggressive BECAUSE his owner kept trying to pin him down.


It's been a long time since I've seen that episode, but I recall it a bit differently. I thought I had it laying around on my hard drive somewhere, but can't locate it. Anyhow, after thinking about it a bit longer, I believe (and I'm working off an admittedly faulty memory) that the case was something like this: The owner for some reason (rehabbing an injury perhaps) walked long distances on a daily basis. He would encounter strays, take them in, rehab them and adopt them out. He had done this a dozen or so times before he ran into Jonnbee. He had Jonnbee back up to a healthy weight and had taught the dog how to heel on a leash. The dog was fine outside and showed no signs of aggression towards anyone. Inside the house though, he was extremely aggressive and would growl and snap at his owners and refuse to allow himself to be touched. The owner stated that he would not feel comfortable adopting Jonnbee to anyone out of the fear that he would bite someone. This was the problem that Cesar was addressing as best as I can recollect it.

Edit: I did find the episode. It's from Season 2. Gonna check it out now.


----------



## peppy264

Yeah, and its a shame when the dog is unhappy because they are no longer allowed to bite their owner or eat the neighbors dog.......

These are all dogs with serious problems making their owner's lives miserable, if the dog has to go through some "unhappiness" to solve its problems then so be it. And in reality, most of these dogs ain't that "happy" even before CM shows up. Or as CM would say, they aren't 'balanced'.

Saw an episode the other night with some large dog (akita mix?) had bitten its owner several times. CM takes it for a walk, it sees the neighbors dog, goes nuts, bites CM several times on the arm. CM rides it out (film editing or not you have to admit the guy has guts and control over himself) and eventually forces the dog to lie down. Was the dog happy at that point? LOL. Its not really the point is it?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> Yeah, and its a shame when the dog is unhappy because they are no longer allowed to bite their owner or eat the neighbors dog.......


You're assuming the dog WANTS to bite the owner. Voluntary behavior exists in OC, not CC.



> Was the dog happy at that point? LOL. Its not really the point is it?


CC is always a point in b-mod.



Pepper said:


> Watch the show with the volume off and you'll see how unhappy and how fearful many dogs are.


This is one reason why I can't stand loud, obnoxious popcorn eaters at the movie theater. 1) you can't enjoy the movie as it was meant to be enjoyed, and 2) some people are completely unconscious of their influence on others.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Here's the deal on the Jonnbee episode:

The owner was a cancer survivor. As part of his rehab, he started taking long walks and he'd see strays. If he saw a dog 2-3 times he would try to catch it and take it home where he and his wife would nurse the dog to health if necessary, train it and rehome it. At the time of the episode, he had done this for 37 dogs. The wife described Jonnbee as "aggressive." The guy states that the problem is, "he won't submit to me in the house." 

I have to give it to Cracker here. The idiot owners states, "When we're in the house, no matter what we're doing, if I try to turn him over he'll attack me." Video is shown of the owner telling the dog to sit then trying to grab him. The dog snarls and attacks. I'm with Cracker here. It's likely the guy had tried to roll the dog numerous times before they took this film. The dog certainly is afraid of his owner indoors.

The owner describes to Cesar how he has had a trainer come over and roll Jonnbee, but Jonnbee fought him the whole time and bit the guy as soon as he let him up. Another trainer advised them to have the dog PTS. There is no point of reference here as to what the dogs behavior in the house was like before the stupid owner tried to alpha roll him. You never see the wife interact with the dog indoors. I have no idea what his behavior toward her is outdoors. You see clips of her rubbing the dogs belly outside. 

Cesar meets the dog outside and the dog sits there quietly and leashed while Cesar talks to the camera about what he's going to do. The dog looks around, looks at the camera, looks at Cesar, but never approaches him. When Cesar approaches Jonnbee, his tail is tucked between his legs, he's skittish and does appear uneasy. (Side note: this is why you socialize your puppies early and often.) 

Next Cesar takes the dog inside. Jonnbee is on a leash, walks through the house with Cesar with no problems and lies quietly by Cesar's side. Cesar is able to pet Jonnbee and massage him with no issues whatsoever. The put a muzzle on the dog for no reason (he has not bitten or even snarled at anyone yet) and his entire demeanor changes. Suddenly, he won't let anyone touch him. Even Cesar comments that the muzzle caused the problem. Cesar takes the muzzle off and the dog is fine until he tries to roll him. Eventually, Cesar chokes out the dog with the leash (you see Cesar loosen the leash after the dog is on the ground) and rolls him. 

I cannot defend Cesar or his methods in this episode and will not even try. The dog is pretty clearly fearful of his owner. Why? Because the guy tried to roll him for no reason. The dog is skittish around Cesar at first, but then he is absolutely fine around him until Cesar tries to roll him too.


----------



## Pepper

> I cannot defend Cesar or his methods in this episode and will not even try. The dog is pretty clearly fearful of his owner. Why? Because *the guy tried to roll him for no reason*. The dog is skittish around Cesar at first, but then he is *absolutely fine around him until Cesar tries to roll him *too.


Therefore, Cesar rolled him over for no reason. You should not try to "dominate" a dog that is acting aggressive because of fear, that's just not right.

The dog is not fighting being rolled over because he wants to dominate you, he's fighting because he's freaked out and wondering why in the heck is someone trying flip them on their back, which is a very exposed position.

I'm pretty sure if some guy walked up to you who scared you, and tried to flip you over, you'd be pretty freaked out.

I don't see why people think dogs are going to be okay with this and not react to such a stressful situation.


----------



## Cracker

Thanks for the research Hulkamaniac.

Cesar getting bitten by that dog in the episode Peppy talks about is an example of displaced aggression. That is a dog in a highly stimulated state. Can't even say state of mind here because the dog is NOT thinking at that point, simply reacting. This IS what CM likes to call a red zone moment. The dog has built up enough cortisol and adrenaline in his system at the sight of his trigger to completely shut off his thinking brain and go on pure instinct, funnily enough he is most likely NOT usually human aggressive. He would just as likely attack the fencepost next to him if he couldn't get at the other dog. Peppy do you remember the details of when and where the dog bit the owner? What the situations were?

And yes, the fact that CM stays calm while being bitten (adrenaline is a good painkiller) is pretty impressive.

Do you recall the rest of the episode? Was the dog only aggressive on walks? Was it a case of leash reactivity as opposed to generalized dog aggression?

Either way, if this dog feels he needs to attack other dogs at such a level, trying to teach him not to through force is likely to create more issues over time. The problem with punishment tactics in these cases is that that dogs learn through association and if every time he sees a dog (regardless of his reaction) he is forced into submission he will learn to associate the punishment with the dogs in his brain. He may, for a time, not show any aggression, because of fear of the punishment occuring, but the whole time his brain is STILL going "Kill the dog, kill the dog, that dog means BAD THINGS HAPPEN. and one day his self control will simply run out and he will, at this point absolutely lose it again...and this time, his owner, lulled into thinking the dog is now "safe" will be unprepared to deal with the bomb that just went off in his hands.

This would be the perfect case for classical conditioning (working under threshold, feeding the dog high value rewards every time he sees a dog) so that CHEMICALLY his brain relearns how to react to the sight of another dog. It is literally changing how he feels about the other dog. The prediction changes to "every time I see a dog good things happen"...serotonin and dopamine are released in his brain and the aggressive reaction is stopped before he is even conscious of it. 

The part that people don't like about that method is it takes TIME, patience, preparedness, planning and management...it's also a bit too scientific or counter intuitive for some. The thought of rewarding a dog for an uwanted behaviour bugs them..but the idea is not to reward the behaviour, the dog doesn't even really know it's being rewarded, it is simply a chemical reaction to a visceral pleasure (taste of something good) being related to something that it normally doesn't see as "good". It's brain plasticity, neuroscience, and it works. It's not a quick fix, but it's not a panacea either.

The use of CC continues until you are getting a calmer reaction and are decreasing the threshold to the trigger (the other dog)..once the calm occurs (after a lot of work) you switch to OC where you ask the dog for a behaviour to earn the reward. See the dog? Sit. Watch me. Good dog.

Less dramatic? For sure. Good for TV? Most likely not, better and safer for all involved? Definitely.


----------



## Pepper

> The use of CC continues until you are getting a calmer reaction and are decreasing the threshold to the trigger (the other dog)..once the calm occurs (after a lot of work) you switch to OC where you ask the dog for a behaviour to earn the reward. See the dog? Sit. Watch me. Good dog.


That's how I train all the reactive dogs I've had, whether it be reactive to running kids, bikes, or dogs. I would rather show my dog the right way to act(how I'd want to be shown how to do something), rather than force him fearfully to behave(who would like that happening to them?).


----------



## peppy264

Cracker, well I watched that episode almost 48 hours ago so of course I don't remember much, my brain being the mush it is, but I will do my best.....

As I recall, the problems occurred on walks on leash when the dog would see another dog, go berserk, and when being restrained by the leash, would start attacking the owner.

And I believe CM made the "diagnosis" that the dog was not being so much aggressive as dominant, it wanted to go over and dominate those dogs (not harm them per se). I think he basically said it was relatively rare case of a truly dominant dog, or something to that effect.

Later, after the initial big fight I mentioned before, he makes the dog lie down in a submissive position in front of a number of other neighborhood dogs.

His advice to the owner was to the effect that now the dog had learned he can be calm/submissive to this one dog, but it has to be repeated to many dogs .... just the start of a long process etc. 

Thats my memory dump; apologies to CM Inc for mistakes. 

I do think it is a bit questionable to analyze the episodes in this way. It is TV, we see a little highlight package. Based on the highlights I'm sure we can pick apart (or support) just about anything. We don't really know the details.

I brought the example up to make a simple statement: if you are trying to help a seriously problematic dog (destined in all likelihood to be PTS) its hardly relevant whether or not he is "happy" during the process. Whats relevant is whether or not it works.




> Either way, if this dog feels he needs to attack other dogs at such a level, trying to teach him not to through force is likely to create more issues over time. The problem with punishment tactics in these cases is that that dogs learn through association and if every time he sees a dog (regardless of his reaction) he is forced into submission he will learn to associate the punishment with the dogs in his brain. He may, for a time, not show any aggression, because of fear of the punishment occuring, but the whole time his brain is STILL going "Kill the dog, kill the dog, that dog means BAD THINGS HAPPEN. and one day his self control will simply run out and he will, at this point absolutely lose it again...and this time, his owner, lulled into thinking the dog is now "safe" will be unprepared to deal with the bomb that just went off in his hands.


Maybe. Or maybe not. I hear what you are saying but it is very much a hypothesis, not 1+1=2. If I jerk my dog's chain every time he walks too far in front of me does that mean that in his head for 5 years he keeps thinking 'must get ahead, must get ahead' then one day takes off? I don't think so, I don't think thats reflected in the history of the millions of dogs who learned to heel by leash corrections.

Likewise for your CC example. I'm not sure why in one case (treats) you can claim a "chemical association" and in the other case (CM) the original behaviours are just put on the shelf. It seems to me that it is equally logical to say that CM's approach over time builds a chemical reaction but once the treats disapear in the other approach the aggressiveness will return. 

I can't sit hear and say that I think CM's way is better or worse than Cracker's way. The methodology may be less important than the person applying it; I am sure that your average punter was not going to fix that dog just with a bag of treats and I don't see many people allowing themselves to be bit several times while staying calm and collected.. To me, helping an out of control Akita who has bitten multiple people is strictly graduate school of dog training, and kudos to anybody willing to take it on by any method, because the dog is otherwise likely toast.

Of hugely more relevance is how people treat their 8 wk old pup when they take it home. Thats where bzillions of dogs get ruined and eventually PTS. And thats where CM's nice neat little package of messages and philosophy do, IMHO, a great deal of good. Maybe someone else can put together another TV show made up of just positive training which will be just as popular and can deliver useful advice to millions of Americans each week - then I'll promote that person just as much as CM. Till then, I still salute CM.

In fact Cracker, you have been receiving accolades from both sides of the debate here, maybe you should start a TV show? _Hi. My name is Cracker. I used to be like you. I used to get mad at my dog. I used to scream at him. But I found a better way. Let me share it with you ......._


----------



## Pepper

> Maybe someone else can put together another TV show made up of just positive training which will be just as popular and can deliver useful advice to millions of Americans each week - then I'll promote that person just as much as CM. Till then, I still salute CM.


Victoria is a wonderful trainer, and uses no harsh methods such as alpha rolling, foot prodding, leash corrections, finger poking, etc...

She does not believe in the pack method, or the dominance theory, because she knows dogs are not wolves, and she has said that.

She has delt with more aggressive dogs since coming to the US, and still has not had to use any harsh methods.

Frankly, she gives reasonable, and safe methods to people. Not methods in which a person could be bitten in the face(alpha rolling)


----------



## KBLover

peppy264 said:


> I brought the example up to make a simple statement: if you are trying to help a seriously problematic dog (destined in all likelihood to be PTS) its hardly relevant whether or not he is "happy" during the process. Whats relevant is whether or not it works.


I want the best of both worlds, realistic or otherwise. 

I want Wally happy and confident AND breaking through his issues. 

I don't want him not "acting fearful" just because he's learned to just clam up and curl into a ball. I want him not acting fearful AND acting confident and calm. 




peppy264 said:


> Maybe. Or maybe not. I hear what you are saying but it is very much a hypothesis, not 1+1=2. If I jerk my dog's chain every time he walks too far in front of me does that mean that in his head for 5 years he keeps thinking 'must get ahead, must get ahead' then one day takes off? I don't think so, I don't think thats reflected in the history of the millions of dogs who learned to heel by leash corrections.
> 
> Likewise for your CC example. I'm not sure why in one case (treats) you can claim a "chemical association" and in the other case (CM) the original behaviours are just put on the shelf. It seems to me that it is equally logical to say that CM's approach over time builds a chemical reaction but once the treats disapear in the other approach the aggressiveness will return.


Based on Wally, I can see the chemical reaction in a visable change in his whole demeanor the whole walk. He walks slower, he's alert but not frantic, he's "bouncy" with his walk, just a happy dog. 

If I just jerk him around - I get a different dog, more anxious - nervous about the environment AND my reaction to his reaction. Total opposite. 

It's not about "millions of dogs" imo. It's about what you do with the dog you're working with. If it works for millions of dogs and not Wally - the millions of dogs don't matter to me. I'm not working with them at that moment in that space/context.

Food has ben shown to release chemicals in the dogs system to calm them down. I haven't read anything that shows redirection does that, but it can "consume" the energy and channel it into something else (whatever you redirected to dog towards) so both work (and I use both), just for different reasons, imo.


----------



## peppy264

Pepper said:


> Victoria is a wonderful trainer, and uses no harsh methods such as alpha rolling, foot prodding, leash corrections, finger poking, etc...


Victoria who? Never heard of her (except on DF). And I suspect, virtually all those people who I meet on dog walks who mention 'that dog whisperer guy' haven't heard of her either.

I'm not knocking what she's says or does, I've never seen her show. I hope she's terrific and 5 years from now has an audience 10 times bigger than CM and that's great for dogs everywhere. But in the meantime, don't blame CM that (relatively) nobody is watching her and don't discredit CM for the good that he does.

Some people have said in effect - 'there are better methods, they just are not such a neat package, they don't make as good TV'. Well, here's some news from you: if your goal is to help as many dogs as possible then 'having a net package' and 'making good TV' are critical. 

Better a good message delivered to millions than a great message delivered to hundreds.


----------



## Westhighlander

Pepper said:


> Victoria is a wonderful trainer, and uses no harsh methods such as alpha rolling, foot prodding, leash corrections, finger poking, etc...
> 
> She does not believe in the pack method, or the dominance theory, because she knows dogs are not wolves, and she has said that.
> 
> She has delt with more aggressive dogs since coming to the US, and still has not had to use any harsh methods
> Frankly, she gives reasonable, and safe methods to people. Not methods in which a person could be bitten in the face(alpha rolling)


I like VS but she does like to use loud sounds to scare the dogs from the trash, counter surfing etc..

She does believe in hierarchy in the family structure with the dog being on the bottom.

I've also rarely seen VS work with really aggressive dogs.


----------



## Cracker

Peppy, I agree that critiquing episodes isn't going to change the general public's view, but it might make someone less experienced here in the forums THINK about the method's suggested and the theories suggested and be willing to try something other than punishment based training. If that means one happier dog I'm good with that.

And it's not just about not making the dog unhappy, it is about making a better dog, one that is safe in society. If I can do that without causing UNDUE stress (all of us have stress at one time or another) then I'm happy with that.

Victoria Stilwell is a brit. Had a successful run in the UK with her show "It's Me or the Dog" and is a certified behaviourist (not simply a trainer). Her first foray into american TV was "Greatest American Dog" and she now has a US version of "IMOTD" on Animal Planet. She has her own "character", only wears black and is "brit snarky". She also has a great website and forum for positive trainers. DF'er Cheetah is a regular there as well as on here. You can catch some clips on Youtube if you are interested. 

I would love to be able to quote bits and pieces of your post here, to atleast separate the topics..but have yet to master the quote button..lol. You'll all have to just put up with my popping into different subjects in my posts. 

In CC, the food builds up "pleasure" and corrections build up "stress" or drive hormones. This is part of the reason drive trainers often use leash corrections or a prong to increase excitement/drive. It may look like rewarding the dog's behaviour but at a chemical level is changing the neuron links in the brain. I'm sorry if I go on about that a lot, I am such a behaviour geek and neuroscience and plasticity are kind of my thing. LOL. Did you know that excess of stress hormones (glucocorticoids) can actually kill off neurons in the hippocampus (the seat of emotions)? Where the pleasure hormones can create new ones? New neurons mean NEW behaviours and new associations are created.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

And again, thanks for all the positive feedback guys. When I figure out how to make the behaviour mod fun and interesting and I lose 30 lbs and ten years I'll go for a show..lol.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Westhighlander said:


> I like VS but she does like to use loud sounds to scare the dogs from the trash, counter surfing etc..


Victoria Stillwell

I like her, too, but as with Cesar, I don't agree with her methods or philosophy 100% and scaring the bejesus out of a dog to change his behavior is not acceptable to me. It's a *VERY harsh* thing to do, in my opinion. 



> She does believe in hierarchy in the family structure with the dog being on the bottom.


She does talk about dogs being pack animals. Understanding Dog Packs So, she uses strong aversives that scare the dog (aversives I would NOT use) and she believes in packs, but she's not Cesar or as popular as Cesar, so she's okay. LOL Her ethics are intact.  And I have no interest in demonizing her the way people go after Cesar... I don't get it. 



> I've also rarely seen VS work with really aggressive dogs.


I've never seen her work with dogs at the aggressive level that Cesar does.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Pepper said:


> Therefore, Cesar rolled him over for no reason. You should not try to "dominate" a dog that is acting aggressive because of fear, that's just not right.
> 
> The dog is not fighting being rolled over because he wants to dominate you, he's fighting because he's freaked out and wondering why in the heck is someone trying flip them on their back, which is a very exposed position.
> 
> I'm pretty sure if some guy walked up to you who scared you, and tried to flip you over, you'd be pretty freaked out.
> 
> I don't see why people think dogs are going to be okay with this and not react to such a stressful situation.


In this particular episode I got the distinct impression that the dog was not acting aggressive at all until Cesar or his owner tried to roll him. Up until then the dog was fine. It's possible that the dog had other issues, but they were not shown or talked about during the show. The main issue presented was, "the dog will not submit to me in the house."


----------



## peppy264

Cracker said:


> ... excess of stress hormones (glucocorticoids) can actually kill off neurons in the hippocampus (the seat of emotions)? Where the pleasure hormones can create new ones? New neurons mean NEW behaviours and new associations are created.


Hmmmmm, maybe I overrated your TV potential ........._Mildred, she said something about hippo's, Mildred come here I think she is going to train a hippopotamus now ...._


----------



## FourIsCompany

Now *THAT'S* exciting TV! LOL Hippo training with Cracker. I like it. Might as well. It's a lot better than "I'm a celebrity - Get me Outta Here"! LOL


----------



## BoxMeIn21

FourIsCompany said:


> It's a lot better than "I'm a celebrity - Get me Outta Here"! LOL


I think any show is better than that one. Really...who's the genius that thought that one up??


----------



## hulkamaniac

Could not find anything on Victoria Stillwell on youtube aside from some promo videos. There were clips on Animal Planet of her working with an aussie though. The dog engaged in counter surfing. Victoria held a plate of food in front of the dog and when the dog went for she pulled it back and when he sat, she gave him praise and rewards. A different approach from Cesar's "claiming space" routine, but seemed effective. I don't see Cesar's technique in this case as harmful though.

The other problem the dog had was that he would lunge at other dogs while out on walks. It was clear that this was excitement and not aggression. Victoria addressed this by pulling the dog off the path (leash corrections) and then trying to get the dog to focus on her and not the other dog. She used treats and when the dog focused on her he got a treat. As soon as she treated him though, he immediately went back to lunging for the other dog. Eventually she ended up body blocking him from the other dog. After some time the dog calmed down and was allowed to great the other dog. While this method is one that could be done by anyone at home I found it less effective than Cesar's method of leash and verbal corrections. Of course the main reason Cesar's method works so well for him is he is able to issue said corrections the second the dog even thinks about going towards the other dog. This is something that is not so easily duplicated at home.


----------



## RonE

> who's the genius that thought that one up??


Possibly the same folks that brought us Paris Hilton in "Simple-minded" or whatever that show was called.

My standard response (I think I have a Word file somewhere so I can just copy and paste) to the Cesar Milan controversy is that I watch the show because there are dogs in it. I wouldn't try most of the stuff he does on the show because I recognize that a lot of it is entertainment. 

I love _Dirty Jobs_ with Mike Rowe and I wouldn't try most of that stuff, either. The list goes on and on. Anybody want to try out _Deadliest Catch_? There's hardly anything on TV that I would try at home.

I did watch Victoria Stillwell in _It's Me or the Dog_ last night and I usually come away with something basic that I CAN try at home. The dogs she's dealing with have the kinds of problems I can relate to.

I think Cesar is charismatic, personable and entertaining, but I can't relate the issues he deals with to anything I see in my own life and my own dogs. I have all of his books and, some day, I'll probably read them - for the entertainment value. 

I don't mean that in a disparaging way.


----------



## hulkamaniac

My thoughts are kind of summed up like this: In my experience the truth and the best way of doing things rarely lie on the extremes. However, the best entertainment is almost always on the extremes. We watch reality tv even though we know this is not how normal people really act. It's an extreme and it's entertaining (sometimes). We watch people jump dirt bikes 30-40 ft in the air and do flips because it's extreme. We even watch sports like baseball on TV because it's also extreme. The people playing do not perform at levels that all of us perform at. I can swing a bat, but I can't hit like Pujols. I can throw a fastball, but I can't throw one like Santana. They're extremely good. I'm average at best. 

I find advocates of dominance theory on the extreme just as much as those who advocate no aversives and that a dog should never receive any kind of punishment for bad behavior, just encouragement to perform good ones. Both are on the extremes IMO. That does not mean that there's not some truth in both of them. If I want to keep my dog out of my trash can what is more effective - using an aversive every time he goes near the trash can, rewarding him every time he's not even close to the trash can or a mixture of both? I think people who dismiss CM completely are missing out some very interesting and sometimes useful tactics. You have to realize though that the dogs he works with are not the average dogs you see on the street.


----------



## FourIsCompany

*Hulk*, here are some VS videos. 

Video
Excerpts of Many Shows

*RonE*, If I were a teacher, I would give you an A+ for your post.  

I look at what Cesar does in several categories.

1) harsh physical corrections (neck bite, rolling) Don't try these at home! 
2) mild physical interaction (claiming space) and "energy" interactions. Go ahead and try these at home. 
3) overall message (EDA, walk your dog, not fuzzy humans, NILIF, etc.) Definitely DO these at home! 

I have no use for #1. Not because I think it's wrong, I just have good dogs, owed _in part_ to #s 2 and 3. And if I did need #1, I would see a behaviorist. 

So, I would have to say that I *do* try most of the stuff he does on the show, because #1 is the smallest of the categories. 



RonE said:


> I love _Dirty Jobs_ with Mike Rowe and I wouldn't try most of that stuff, either. The list goes on and on. Anybody want to try out _Deadliest Catch_? There's hardly anything on TV that I would try at home.


What about Wife Swap? Ack! I can't imagine!


----------



## Cracker

Yep, that's me "Hippo Trainer to the Stars"! LOL

Hey, I can tell when I've lost my audience..

RonE..definitely an A+. And I really can't stand most reality TV shows, watching everyone do their worst to each other breaks my rose coloured glasses!


----------



## RonE

> What about Wife Swap? Ack! I can't imagine!


I almost mentioned _Wife Swap_, but I didn't want to admit that I'd ever heard of it.


----------



## Inga

FourIsCompany said:


> *Hulk*, here are some VS videos.
> 
> Video
> Excerpts of Many Shows
> 
> *RonE*, If I were a teacher, I would give you an A+ for your post.
> 
> I look at what Cesar does in several categories.
> 
> 1) harsh physical corrections (neck bite, rolling) Don't try these at home!
> 2) mild physical interaction (claiming space) and "energy" interactions. Go ahead and try these at home.
> 3) overall message (EDA, walk your dog, not fuzzy humans, NILIF, etc.) Definitely DO these at home!
> 
> I have no use for #1. Not because I think it's wrong, I just have good dogs, owed _in part_ to #s 2 and 3. And if I did need #1, I would see a behaviorist.
> 
> So, I would have to say that I *do* try most of the stuff he does on the show, because #1 is the smallest of the categories.
> 
> 
> 
> What about Wife Swap? Ack! I can't imagine!


First I want to agree with this about Cesar Millan. I think that the exercise, discipline and then affection thing is great. Too bad most folks seem to only hear number 1 and try to practice it all the time.
I have heard of so many people rolling their puppies to "become Alpha over the puppy" meanwhile puppy is losing confidence in himself and his "master".

As far as wife swap goes.... I just think it is ridiculous.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Inga said:


> As far as wife swap goes.... I just think it is ridiculous.


Now, now, don't know it 'til you've tried it. Oh wait....


----------



## Westhighlander

Inga said:


> I have heard of so many people rolling their puppies to "become Alpha over the puppy" meanwhile puppy is losing confidence in himself and his "master".


Funny thing is CM rarely works with puppies. I can't remember a puppy episode from the ones I have seen.


----------



## peppy264

I can remember a couple of puppy episodes. e.g. dalmation pup in firehall episode. They wanted him to stop stealing food, running into the street, climbing on visitors etc. No rolling the puppy, LOL. Lots of claiming space and setting limitations;body language and SSSST. Nothing any reasonable person would think may damage a pups confidence, make it fearful etc.


----------



## Westhighlander

peppy264 said:


> I can remember a couple of puppy episodes. e.g. dalmation pup in firehall episode. They wanted him to stop stealing food, running into the street, climbing on visitors etc. No rolling the puppy, LOL. Lots of claiming space and setting limitations;body language and SSSST. Nothing any reasonable person would think may damage a pups confidence, make it fearful etc.



Ah, I remember that one now. How old was that puppy, seemed pretty big.


----------



## Cracker

I remember that one too..the dog was named after the street the firehall was on..
He was about 5 months old I believe, a dalmation puppy. 
The teaching of manners without physical correction was good and then CM brought in a clicker trainer to teach the dog to 'Stop. Drop. and Roll" so they could take him to elementary schools to help teach fire safety. 
Now if they'd just realized that the clicker training is not just for "tricks"...lol.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Cracker said:


> I remember that one too..the dog was named after the street the firehall was on..
> He was about 5 months old I believe, a dalmation puppy.
> The teaching of manners without physical correction was good and then CM brought in a clicker trainer to teach the dog to 'Stop. Drop. and Roll" so they could take him to elementary schools to help teach fire safety.
> Now if they'd just realized that the clicker training is not just for "tricks"...lol.


That seems to be the way I remember it. I was thinking the dog was 4 months old though. I remember his name was Wilshire. His story was the first half of the Butch the bulldog story. Someone in this thread recommended watching that to see a truly dominant, alpha type dog. I don't think I've ever seen a dog bite his owner for no reason whatsoever until I saw that ep. The guy just came near his golf cart and the dog would charge and bite at him.


----------



## jiml

Id say that I have seen him roll plenty of fearfull dogs. Id also say most aggression is fear based.

in a diff note anyone ever see the dog whisperer south park episode?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYbkLVcXWNo


----------



## Westhighlander

jiml said:


> Id say that I have seen him roll plenty of fearfull dogs. Id also say most aggression is fear based.
> 
> in a diff note anyone ever see the dog whisperer south park episode?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYbkLVcXWNo


Is that the only proof the anti-CM zealots have?


----------



## jiml

jonbee episode

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/dog-whisperer/2494/Overview#tab-Videos/03208_09

I think this dog is fearfull. 

Truthfully one can always find differences with trainers. I tend to not put much faith in the claims people put on techniques causing a dog to be put down. Im sure that there are pleanty of dogs put down because clicker training was too time consumeng and not used properly. fact is everyones reasoning and life is different and a lot of people that should not even have a dog certainly are not going to handle anything but the perfict pooch well.

For me its the episodes like this one (this technique was actually once recommened too me by a stranger when my dog was being fearful at a street fair) that braught cesar down a bunch of notches. Its also something Ive seen him do in other episodes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DZ1aqDK6Ik


----------



## Westhighlander

If I remember correctly Jonbee was going to the shelter if his issue couldn't be helped. I wonder what would have happened to him if that happened.


----------



## hulkamaniac

Westhighlander said:


> If I remember correctly Jonbee was going to the shelter if his issue couldn't be helped. I wonder what would have happened to him if that happened.


Honestly, I think he would've been adopted by someone. He was a fearful, skittish dog, but I've seen fearful and skittish dogs in shelters before. His aggression problem was directly caused by the owner trying to roll him. If you watch the episode, the dog had no problems with Cesar (although he was a bit scared of him) until Cesar tried to roll him.


----------



## jiml

If I remember correctly Jonbee was going to the shelter if his issue couldn't be helped. I wonder what would have happened to him if that happened>>>

what does this even mean? 

Im just pointing out that he DOES roll fearfull dogs ( i cant find the clip of him chasing a dog into a corner to do it) And the discussion should be - Is this technique best suted for this situation? If the wrong tech is used wont the dog still go to the shelter? did the dog go to the shelter anyway? If this does work can the owners apply it successfully? Unlees Cesar takes the dog for an extended period I would doubt him rolling the dog and becoming ALPHA translates well to all humans.

I am in fact a cesar fan but I also have my problems with him. And really with people that treat him like a dog training god which I think the tail clip shows he is not.


----------



## Westhighlander

jiml said:


> If I remember correctly Jonbee was going to the shelter if his issue couldn't be helped. I wonder what would have happened to him if that happened>>>
> 
> what does this even mean?
> 
> Im just pointing out that he DOES roll fearfull dogs ( i cant find the clip of him chasing a dog into a corner to do it) And the discussion should be - Is this technique best suted for this situation? If the wrong tech is used wont the dog still go to the shelter? did the dog go to the shelter anyway? If this does work can the owners apply it successfully? Unlees Cesar takes the dog for an extended period I would doubt him rolling the dog and becoming ALPHA translates well to all humans.
> 
> I am in fact a cesar fan but I also have my problems with him. And really with people that treat him like a dog training god which I think the tail clip shows he is not.


CM's techniques are only one part of the discussion in this epic. Too many pages here to rehash the other points, but they are there if you want to read them.



hulkamaniac said:


> Honestly, I think he would've been adopted by someone. He was a fearful, skittish dog, but I've seen fearful and skittish dogs in shelters before. His aggression problem was directly caused by the owner trying to roll him. If you watch the episode, the dog had no problems with Cesar (although he was a bit scared of him) until Cesar tried to roll him.


I saw this episode a long time ago so I'll have to check it out again. I do remember it was a particularly "wild" one.


----------



## Cracker

Zealots???!!! Where???? LOL
Ya gotta watch out for those zealots, you know they make you drink the tainted Kool aid that turns you into an R+ trainer? 

(Takes a sip)...I like the cherry flavour best.

Depending on the shelter they were speaking of, Jonbee may have been euthed, may have been fostered and then adopted out. Hard to say.


----------



## FourIsCompany

The owners on the show kept JonBee. 

JonBee's Follow Up



> JonBee's violence was precisely why we needed Cesar. We had tried *other trainers who recommended that we euthanize JonBee*. Cesar was JonBee's last hope. Having been in the room, I can guarantee you that Cesar was not choking JonBee.
> ...
> It was a repeat of what Scott and *I had experienced with JonBee many times since we brought him home.* JonBee did not need to be provoked to become that violent.
> ...
> He no longer has to try to dominate the pack because he now knows he is not the boss. Our episode was filmed in October 2005. Since then we have been working with JonBee every day just as Cesar taught us, and *his behavior has not relapsed one bit, nor is his spirit broken - quite the contrary - he is a happy, well-behaved, sweet, loving boy *who soaks up all the love and affection we give him, and which he so deserves after the horrific abuse he endured in his first years.


----------



## jiml

That is interesting. My gut would say that Cesar rolling the dog(removing the debate on rolling and whether the dogs aggr was fear based) is that it would not translate to other humans and I would find it hard to believe that 1 session is going to cure a spontaneously aggressive dog. 

But then Im sure the episodes are edited so he may have spent some time. and Im not sure on what there homework was


----------



## FourIsCompany

jiml said:


> That is interesting. My gut would say that Cesar rolling the dog(removing the debate on rolling and whether the dogs aggr was fear based) is that it would not translate to other humans and I would find it hard to believe that 1 session is going to cure a spontaneously aggressive dog.


That's what so many people don't understand about Cesar's way of doing things. It's not about "alpha rolling" the dog to show who's boss, or whatever, like so many people seem to think. It's about calming a wildly violent and uncertain dog. The rolling didn't translate to other humans, but Cesar trained the other humans in calm leadership, which they practiced every day, and _THAT'S_ what made the change in JonBee. Not what Cesar did, but what he trained the owners to do.


----------



## peppy264

I just watched the infamous JonBee episode on youtube. To be fair, the dog was attacking both its owner and CM far before the 'flip you over stage'. I'm not sure about you guys, but I don't want a large dog trying to bite me in my living room because I touched him on the butt. The dog had a serious problem; it was not a case of a perfectly good dog who just refused to be rolled over. I think thats confirmed in the later comments from the owner quoted above. Maybe there is a better way of addressing the problem but the problem was there.

I personally wouldn't live with a dog that would try to bite me if I made him lie down, roll over etc. No chance. If a dog is truly submissive to you and trusts you then he's not going to attack you for virtually any reason. If I walk by and accidentally step on my dog's foot, causing him some fair pain, he's not going to snap at me, he's going to look at me and say 'I'm sorry'. And I want that same respect by the dog towards the other members of my family. Otherwise, you have an unsafe dog IMHO.

So did the CM treatment help the dog here? Did he learn he could submit and had to submit and not be hurt or did he just 'shut down', whatever that means? I think you could interpret it several different ways, with no particular logical rigor to any of them. The owners seem to think it worked, so the proof is in the pudding on this one but the case for extending it, or not extending it, to other nutso dogs is mostly conjecture. 



> Cesar "broke" him, just as a professional would break a wild horse. Only after a horse is broken can he be ridden. Likewise, JonBee has been broken and has now become a member of our pack.


Thats a quote from JonBee's owner, not CM. The analogy with 'breaking a horse' is not one I've ever heard CM make, but is maybe interesting. Anybody know anything about horses?


----------



## jiml

Ill be honest. I mostly clicker train but have no problems with corrections in dog training. The problems i generally have with him are , i feel he is heavy handed at times when its not warrented and I think intellectual. sometimes he will do something (the tail thing again) and more often say something(or give an explanation) that i just think is a bunch of ignorant hooey. I don't deny that he has a gift for handling.


----------



## Westhighlander

jiml said:


> and Im not sure on what there homework was


CM's homework is always the same to all owners.


----------



## FourIsCompany

I mostly clicker train and use positive reinforcement, too. Cesar does get heavy handed at times, I agree. Whether it's warranted or not is pretty much a judgment call - and since I'm not there, I don't know the background, I haven't analyzed the dog and I don't know what the owners have agreed upon, it's hard for me to make that call at all. 

Are there dogs who "need" the kind of heavy handling Cesar does or else end up with a needle in their veins? I don't know. Knowing the range of dog temperaments and the sheer number of dogs in the US, I would say odd are that probably a tiny minority of them might be headed for the chamber if not for the heavy handling of CM. 

If I judge him on his character, his love of dogs, his successful cases, his philosophy and his personality, I can't find a thing wrong with him. If I hold him responsible for every idiot out there who rolls their dog because he's fearful or kicking their dogs, then yeah, he's a real danger. But I don't. 

jiml - How do you know the tail thing absolutely never works with any dog? If there's a 2% chance that it will work, and it doesn't harm the dog, what's ignorant hooey about that? LOL I'm with you on some of the stuff he says, some of his explanations. Not that I think it's ignorant hooey, but I do disagree with him on some things. But then again, I disagree with EVERYONE on some thing.


----------



## peppy264

From Wilkopedia ....._The Rarey technique is a method of calming horses that have become vicious and fearful of humans due to abusive handling or other traumatic events. The word rareyfy, meaning "to win by love" or "to tame a horse by kindness", entered the English language because of this technique.

Rarey began by tying one of the traumatized horse's legs with a strap so that the horse could not stand on it. This gave him control over the horse and quickly tired the animal out. Then, Rarey would gently but firmly cause the horse to lie down on a comfortable surface. Once the horse was lying on its side, Rarey could use his weight, concentrated at a strategic point, to keep the horse from rising. While the horse was thus unable to protect itself, Rarey showed it that it was still entirely safe with him by touching and stroking it on all parts of its body. The result was that the horse learned that it could be entirely safe in Rarey's company, and from that beginning it was relatively easy to demonstrate to the horse that it did not need to protect itself from most other humans._

THE FASCINATING thing is that they acknowledge an ongoing debate of whether force is required to make a horse submit to human demands or whether gentler, more trust based methods should be used AND the above Rarey technique is considered to be on the trust side, not the force side.

They made a movie about Rarey called ......the Horse Whisperer (I'm not joking).

All a bit ironic don't you think?


----------



## ambercober

When I first rescued my dog 3 years ago I was pretty much on any banwagon I could climb *lol. I had done research on dogs, breeds specific info, dog sat and dog walked to be responsible and reasonably informed for the big step. What I didn't learn about was seperation anxiety, environmental allergies, past issues of his previous life with things like basements etc. I did anything and everything from kong, crates, half a dozen confangled collars all in the name of having a happy normal lifestyle with my dog. While I don't watch his show anymore, it's just not to my tastes at the moment, he did a fantastic job of showing what dogs can really be like when life isn't perfect. I now have discarded most of his day to day teachings but only because he was able to name and organize what my dogs behaviour was and get me and my dog started on a good road. It's been a long time since I first brought my dog home and he's come leaps and bounds from 3 years ago. Ceaser was able to teach me the basics of a human and dog relationship and what is needed from me to keep it on track. I had someone in my home on a weekly basis that talked about a lot of the issues I was seeing in seperation anxiety, I also didn't have to pay for that advice each week *wink*. While I think people take that information as gospel I can be more objective and discard what I don't like, but pick out the good sensible information.


----------



## Cracker

I thought the horse whisperer was Monty Roberts? Not sure about this Rarey person..wikipedia is not always factual. I am curious...off to google!
Hmm.

What I would like to know about JonBee is, was he a biter before his owner tried forcing him to submit? I cannot disagree that obviously the owner is happy with the results and that JonBee is still around and living with his owners who love him. But I would be interested to see if what the dog was like before the show, when the owner first took him in. Obviously, this is something we may never know.

I agree that I wouldn't want my dog to snap at me if I stepped on her foot, and I'm pretty darn sure she wouldn't..but if she was seriously injured I would muzzle her..working at a vet for 8 years I have seen even the nicest of animals try to defend themselves when cornered, injured or very ill. This is one of the reasons teaching bite inhibition (rather than "never use your mouth") is so important in a puppy...an adult dog will do far less damage if they feel they need to defend themselves (for whatever reason, though it should be a good one) if they have been taught to use their mouths correctly.


----------



## Westhighlander

Cracker said:


> What I would like to know about JonBee is, was he a biter before his owner tried forcing him to submit? I cannot disagree that obviously the owner is happy with the results and that JonBee is still around and living with his owners who love him. But I would be interested to see if what the dog was like before the show, when the owner first took him in. Obviously, this is something we may never know.


_It was a repeat of what Scott and I had experienced with JonBee many times since we brought him home. JonBee did not need to be provoked to become that violent. Had it been a chore to provoke JonBee into such violent behavior, Scott and I would not allow anyone to do so for the sake of a TV show._
http://ngccommunity.nationalgeograp...a-readers-criticism-of-cesars-techniques.html


----------



## peppy264

> What I would like to know about JonBee is, was he a biter before his owner tried forcing him to submit?


The owners found JonBee as a stray, so had no background for him. They had rescued quite a few dogs previously. When they got him he was underweight etc. As he got his strength back he started to become aggressive. Its not clear on the show how exactly the first biting incidents took place.

It seems there are a few different episodes where people rescued a dog in poor health, said it was very submissive / docile at first, and then later as it got physically stronger became more dominant and/or aggressive. Sort of interesting.


----------



## Cracker

Yes, Highland, I saw that...but did he try to roll the dog as soon as he got him home, try to force him into being handled? I don't buy the fact that the dog (especially since he has been rehabilitated) was not provoked to bite in some way, even unintentionally. I'm not questioning he bit at all...but what were the circumstances in which the bites happened?
Aggression that is COMPLETELY unprovoked and does not have a stimulus of some kind to trigger it is idiopathic and IMO cannot be cured regardless of training method.

Yes Peppy, this is why when someone rescues a dog I always make sure they understand that there is usually a "honeymoon" period..many behaviour issues do not appear until the dog has settled in somewhat. Stress can exacerbate behaviours but can also "hide" them. Rescues are an unknown quantity, and to them so are their new owners.


----------



## peppy264

Cracker said:


> Yes Peppy, this is why when someone rescues a dog I always make sure they understand that there is usually a "honeymoon" period..many behaviour issues do not appear until the dog has settled in somewhat. Stress can exacerbate behaviours but can also "hide" them. Rescues are an unknown quantity, and to them so are their new owners.


I am going to quote you in all these DF threads where people are telling a first time dog buyer to get an adult dog/rescue because 'you will know all about any problems he has from the shelter'. Sorry about abusing your good name .....


----------



## Cracker

LOL Peppy...Rescue is awesome and also a huge responsibility. The rescues/shelters can tell you what they know, but often don't know the whole story unless the dog has been fostered somewhere in a home for awhile. MANY are fine but it is important to realize that no dog is perfect and if it's in a rescue in the first place, it likely hasn't been raised perfectly. They can also be incredible teachers, as mine has been. I wouldn't trade my fearful, separation anxiety prone Crackhead for anything. Without her, I wouldn't be where I am now, or on the road I am travelling.

Good rescuers know this and try their best to fit the dog with the right owners, none of them want to see the dog back on their doorstep in six months, likely to only get worse with repeated stays in shelter.

And no worries about my "good name", I try to tell it as it is. Sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong...though don't tell anyone..it's a secret!


----------



## KBLover

peppy264 said:


> If I walk by and accidentally step on my dog's foot, causing him some fair pain, he's not going to snap at me, he's going to look at me and say 'I'm sorry'. And I want that same respect by the dog towards the other members of my family. Otherwise, you have an unsafe dog IMHO.


Heh if I stepped on Wally's foot, he'll probably yelp and then wonder why I stepped on his foot. He'd probably get a bit anxious too because "suddenly" his paw started hurting and he'd be sniffing his paw.

I don't think he'd be saying "I'm sorry" to me, though. I wouldn't call him unsafe.


----------



## pugmom

peppy264 said:


> They made a movie about Rarey called ......the Horse Whisperer (I'm not joking).
> 
> All a bit ironic don't you think?



I always thought that is where Cesar got the name ....ether from the Nicholas Evans book/and the Movie based on the book....or from Monty Roberts


----------



## FourIsCompany

Cracker said:


> Aggression that is COMPLETELY unprovoked and does not have a stimulus of some kind to trigger it is idiopathic and IMO cannot be cured regardless of training method.


I think that's the case with Jonbee. Jonbee was apparently not "fixed" by Cesar. His owners relinquished him to an animal shelter and then he ended up at a Jindo Rescue because of aggression, but he's up for adoption again? (as of Jan '09)



> JonBee does well with nondominant males. He currently takes daily pack walks with many male dogs. In social settings, with friendly males he is just fine. He does well with female dogs and it is unknown how he is with cats. He does well with respectful teenagers and is usually fine with strangers after a proper introduction. JonBee should not be placed in a home with small children.


To me, this appears to be one of the dogs who has an aggression issue and one of his stops in his life was Cesar. That doesn't mean he wasn't aggressive before Cesar. In fact, that's why Cesar was called. Jonbee was found on the street, battered and beaten and fearful. Here's a little more about his history.


----------



## Cracker

After watching the episode again, what stood out for me, during the intro was Scott saying that Jonbee was missing hair around his neck, most likely from being tied out for long periods. I have seen dogs at the vet and the shelter with collars embedded in their necks from being too small, being on too long etc. This would certainly cause a dog to be fearful of having a collar on or from being touched around the neck or grabbed by the collar area. He also had scars that show he had been abused. Dogs like this learn that humans and their feet, hands and other items cause pain. 

Scott had Jonbee lie down, no problem, as soon as he touched the dog's hind end the dog reacted. This is not unprovoked aggression..this is touch reaction..that dog was most likely, yanked, kicked and threw himself at the end of his chain repeatedly to try to protect himself. Yes, this is MY _interpretation_ of what MAY have happened in his past. 

And now this dog has been to two rescues (one associated with CM, as you will see in the blog post and one Jindo breed rescue). I believe this dog could be rehabilitated using classic conditioning to work on his touch reactivity, can't say for sure but I do think it would be possible. He walks in groups well, gets along with people with proper introduction and is responsive to obedience training, this all bodes well if he could be gotten over his touch reactivity. 

If Scott and his wife felt after Cesar's visit that they had it under control and then later on found the problem was continuing (which we can assume, since they relinquished the dog due to aggression) this COULD be an example of the ticking time bomb I talked about earlier...you suppress the behaviour, for a while, but not how the dog FEELS about the trigger. Cesar didn't cause this behaviour, whomever beat the crap out of this poor dog in the beginning did...but his rescuers need to have him submit, and Cesar's "teaching" him to submit more likely than not more deeply entrenched his mistrust of human hands/touch. Doesn't matter that their intent was good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## Westhighlander

Cracker said:


> If Scott and his wife felt after Cesar's visit that they had it under control and then later on found the problem was continuing (which we can assume, since they relinquished the dog due to aggression) this COULD be an example of the ticking time bomb I talked about earlier...you suppress the behaviour, for a while, but not how the dog FEELS about the trigger. Cesar didn't cause this behaviour, whomever beat the crap out of this poor dog in the beginning did...but his rescuers need to have him submit, and Cesar's "teaching" him to submit more likely than not more deeply entrenched his mistrust of human hands/touch. Doesn't matter that their intent was good, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


Who knows what they did after CM left. He might have told them one thing and they did another.


----------



## FourIsCompany

Cracker said:


> *you suppress the behaviour, for a while, but not how the dog FEELS about the trigger.* Cesar didn't cause this behaviour, whomever beat the crap out of this poor dog in the beginning did...


I tend to agree with you. I think not knowing the reason for the dog's extreme reactivity should be a sign to proceed with extreme caution. I don't believe JonBee should have been forced. I think CC whould have given him a better chance, but may have been equally unsuccessful.


----------



## jiml

How do you know the tail thing absolutely never works with any dog?>>>

I just don't. In fact I cant see why anyone would think it would do anything butthe opposite.

the tail is the symptom bot the cause. If I put an insecure person in a brace to keep his chest out and shoulders back its not going to make him self confident.


----------



## FourIsCompany

jiml said:


> If I put an insecure person in a brace to keep his chest out and shoulders back its not going to make him self confident.


I'm not so sure that it wouldn't help. If an insecure person, who normally walks with their shoulders bent, gets cleaned up, puts on a nice outfit, smiles at people and walks tall, there's evidence to indicate it brightens his mood. It's not a cure all, but it helps. It's the "act as if" concept.


----------



## peppy264

Curious, how do you know the Jonbee in the rescue add is the same Jonbee from the CM show? 

Assuming it is, what do you think about the write-up?

_JonBee has been fully rehabilitated and is now calm, friendly and ready for placement. JonBee was owner relinquished due to aggression. He was a rescue living with a couple who could not/would not master calm assertion. With good pack leaders he is the perfect dog._

To me this is very sugar coated. His previous owners were, by any standards, pretty experienced with dogs. The dog has seen upteen number of trainers including CM, several of which apparently told the owners to put the dog down. At one time in his life he was likely significantly abused and abandoned. He has a history of biting his owners (ie not just aggression towards strangers or other dogs). Perfect dog? LOL

_He is absolutely loving and adorable, bright, sweet, sensitive, responsive and really shows his enjoyment of any time our volunteers spend with him._
Just don't touch him on the butt or he will rip your face off.


I could use this story and this add as yet another arguement to tell people: Buy a puppy ! You don't know what you are getting! It could be another JONBEE !!! RUN!


----------



## jiml

I'm not so sure that it wouldn't help. If an insecure person, who normally walks with their shoulders bent, gets cleaned up, puts on a nice outfit, smiles at people and walks tall, there's evidence to indicate it brightens his mood. It's not a cure all, but it helps. It's the "act as if" concept.>>>

this is not what he is doing. He is using the brace. He is FORCING the dog into a posture. You dont need a degree in psych to know this is stressfull to a fearfull dog.

The walk itself may be calming. AS said Im not as against his flooding techniques as some, they are stressfull but they often work. but forcing a posture and expecting the behavior to follow is hooey

I just watched the full show and it does not say anything about unprovoked attacks it says that "indoors" trying to roll him to get him to submit he attacks. thats pretty specific


----------



## FourIsCompany

peppy264 said:


> Curious, how do you know the Jonbee in the rescue add is the same Jonbee from the CM show?


The humane society and rescue organization are both in Templeton, CA.



> http://www.ksby.com/Global/story.asp?S=10224851
> We'll start with Jon Bee. He is a 6-year-old Jindo mix. He comes to us from the Second Chance at Love Humane Society in Templeton. He was featured on an episode of "The Dog Whisperer" a couple of years ago.





> Assuming it is, what do you think about the write-up?


That write-up was written on February 8, 2006. A lot could happen between then and April, 2009, which is when the above rescue item is dated. 

The relinquishers apparently _thought _he was calm, friendly and ready. 



> I could use this story and this add as yet another arguement to tell people: Buy a puppy ! You don't know what you are getting! It could be another JONBEE !!! RUN!


Well, fortunately, JonBee is the exception to the rule.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> I could use this story and this add as yet another arguement to tell people: Buy a puppy ! You don't know what you are getting! It could be another JONBEE !!! RUN!


You could but it would be a gross generalization. It would be more accurate to say if you can't raise and train a shelter dog you have no business in buying a puppy, nor does the breeder have any business in selling you one.


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> You could but it would be a gross generalization. It would be more accurate to say if you can't raise and train a shelter dog you have no business in buying a puppy, nor does the breeder have any business in selling you one.


I think just about any responsible person body willing to put in a reasonable effort can effectively raise a puppy. There's some shelter dogs (e.g. JonBee) who you would be a fool to put with an inexperienced dog owner. There is no way you can say that a large dog with a long history of fear or aggression problems is not more of a challenge than an 8 wk old puppy from a breeder. Thats nonsense.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> I think just about any responsible person body willing to put in a reasonable effort can effectively raise a puppy.


You're contradicting yourself. Either people are responsible to handle a dog like Jonbee or they are not. Why would you caution against a shelter dog if people *are* responsible to begin with?



> There's some shelter dogs (e.g. JonBee) who you would be a fool to put with an inexperienced dog owner.


There's one JonBee, you would be remiss to assume there are others without investigating it for yourself, and your individual needs. It would be remiss to make any recommendation based on the exception. On a whole, shelter dogs *are* adoptable and make for long-lived companions. 



> There is no way you can say that a large dog with a long history of fear or aggression problems is not more of a challenge than an 8 wk old puppy from a breeder. Thats nonsense.


Let's clarify this... It's nonsense to you...perhaps because you don't have the ability. It's presumptuous on your part to assume this of others, however. It's presumptuous of you to assume others can't make good choices.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> I'm not so sure that it wouldn't help. If an insecure person, who normally walks with their shoulders bent, gets cleaned up, puts on a nice outfit, smiles at people and walks tall, there's evidence to indicate it brightens his mood. It's not a cure all, but it helps. It's the "act as if" concept.


Do dogs think like this, though?

If a dog is nervous/afraid enough to drop his tail in the first place, would raising his tail artificially suddenly change the way he feels about whatever? 

If his emotional state isn't changed - his tail is just going to drop down when you let go. (or even if he left it there, the emotions haven't changed as likely the tail is just one of several signals the dogs is sending). The tail helps communicates the internal state, it doesn't _create_ the internal state.

Dogs don't fake it well and I think they have a hard time being taught to fake it. It's like if you were afraid of spiders and a big, mean-looking Tarantula is 2 inches from your hand, and while you're freaking the heck out, I tell you to "Smile and act happy!" I have a feeling that wouldn't work very well. You're probably going to be focused on the object of your fear and not even thinking about trying to fake happiness.


----------



## FourIsCompany

KBLover said:


> Do dogs think like this, though?


I don't think it has much to do with thinking. More with emotion. 



> If a dog is nervous/afraid enough to drop his tail in the first place, would raising his tail artificially suddenly change the way he feels about whatever?


Well, that's the question, isn't it?  I'm not saying it definitely does, I'm just saying it's possible. And the success Cesar had with that Vizsla was pretty amazing. 



> The tail communicates the internal state, it doesn't _create_ the internal state.


I understand. But that gets us back to acting as if. If a dog's tail is between his legs because he's feeling submissive, and someone lifts it up, *could it possibly* have an effect on his internal state? I don't mean magically change it back to a confident dog, I mean could it have ANY effect? Might it help at all?



> You're probably going to be focused on the object of your fear and not even thinking about trying to fake happiness (and maybe not even hearing what I'm saying depending on how freaked you are).


But do dogs think like that?  

I'm not saying it's true, but I don't see how anyone can say it's false, either.


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> You're contradicting yourself. Either people are responsible to handle a dog like Jonbee or they are not. Why would you caution against a shelter dog if people *are* responsible to begin with?


There's no contradiction for anyone reading or writing plain English rather than playing with words.

There's a lot of totally responsible people who have no experience with dogs who would be ill advised to take home a shelter dog like JonBee with a history of fear and aggression problems.



> There's one JonBee, you would be remiss to assume there are others


JonBee is not the only dog in a shelter with severe fear or aggression problems.



> On a whole, shelter dogs are adoptable and can make for long-lived companions.


I never said that most shelter dogs were not adoptable, I only said that some are not suited for inexperienced dog owners. Hardly a controversial statement. The sad thing is to see a shelter sugar coat a description of a very problematic dog. It undermines the work that all shelters do and lowers the confidence people can have in shelters. Someone who is pro-shelter should be bothered by this without any obfuscation.



> Let's clarify this... It's nonsense to you...perhaps because you don't have the ability. It's presumptuous on your part to assume this of others, however. It's presumptuous of you to assume others can't make good choices.


First time dog buyers look to advice from others to help them with their choices. They will put some trust in what people at a shelter will tell them. If the shelter people want to pitch a JonBee as the 'sweetest dog ever' or don't believe that a large dog with a long history of fear or aggression problems is more of a challenge than an 8 wk old puppy then some bad choices may well be made.


----------



## jiml

don't see how anyone can say it's false, either>>>>

I will. Its false and changing the position of a dogs tail manually has nothing to do with its "state of mind" other than possibly acting to distract the dog because something strange is pulling up on its tail. But that is not what cesar is saying he thinks the physical position effects the dogs "state of mind"

here it is again - http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/player.html?channel=39678 

click all vids then "Persistence Pays Off"

2:38 - “I’m taking the dogs tail out from between his legs, because that creates fear”

the fear is not in the dogs tail its in his head.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> There's a lot of totally responsible people who have no experience with dogs who would be ill advised to take home a shelter dog like JonBee with a history of fear and aggression problems.


And there are "a lot of totally responsible people who have no experience with dogs who would be ill advised to take home a" puppy. We don't need to argue against buying a puppy too, do we? Why would you not assume both are critically important choices? 



> JonBee is not the only dog in a shelter with severe fear or aggression problems.


How would you know? IF I'm looking for a shelter dog have you been to my shelter and surveyed all their dogs? If not, you are arguing for something that may not exist. If I'm well prepared to accept such a dog, why would you argue against my choice?



> I never said that most shelter dogs were not adoptable, I only said that some are not suited for inexperienced dog owners. Hardly a controversial statement.


You stated Jonbee would be an argument against adopting a shelter dog and for buying a puppy. Did Jonbee come out of thin air? Or was he too a puppy once? 



> The sad thing is to see a shelter sugar coat a description of a very problematic dog.


I thought I read Jonbee was a stray. Who would be available to sugarcoat that? 



> Someone who is pro-shelter should be bothered by this without any obfuscation.


It would be bothersome, but we have no reason to generalize it that way or argue against adopting, now do we.



> First time dog buyers look to advice from others to help them with their choices. They will put some trust in what people at a shelter will tell them. *If* the shelter people want to pitch a JonBee as the 'sweetest dog ever' or don't believe that a large dog with a long history of fear or aggression problems is more of a challenge than an 8 wk old puppy then some bad choices may well be made.


There's a whole bunch of *IF* we can dig up on breeders too. Do we need to argue those *IF*s for people to choose adpotion? I would find that contradictory to your argument since Elsa entered my life from a suggestion made by a breeder.


----------



## Cracker

When I worked at the vet I often had the discussion with potential dog owners about whether to get a puppy or an adult, breeder or rescue, pet store etc. (I think you all know what I would say about petstore puppies..).
I always told them that rescue is an awesome thing and there are MANY good dogs out there that do not have "issues", but that there is also the chance that the dog they pick MAY have issues of varying difficulty. Puppies, beyond the researching breeders aspect, are a LOT of work as well and also requires much assistance in training and rearing a good, stable dog.

I always lean to the side of rescue, whether through shelters or specific breed rescues. I encourage people who wish to rescue to research dog behaviour BEFORE they look at the dogs. Know what they expect, how much work they can put in and whether they think they would be able to deal with the common stuff like separation anxiety or fearful behaviour. Then ask questions. Lots of them. Ask to speak to the behaviour staff at the shelter, not just the attendants. That's what helped me choose between Cracker and her littermate/sister.

There are always risks, no matter where you get a dog from.


----------



## KBLover

FourIsCompany said:


> I understand. But that gets us back to acting as if. If a dog's tail is between his legs because he's feeling submissive, and someone lifts it up, *could it possibly* have an effect on his internal state? I don't mean magically change it back to a confident dog, I mean could it have ANY effect? Might it help at all?


I gave it a rough, impromptu "field test"

I intentionally set him up in a situation where he's uncertain of an object. 

His tail went down, as expected. While he was focused on the object, I tried to lift his tail.

Not only was there actual resistance (it's like he didn't want me to lift his tail), lifting it didn't change his demeanor at all. If anything, he got more nervous because he couldn't keep it down (I never expected the resistance to his tail being moved).

I went out and got the mail and there were some kids around being all loud. Again, as expected, he got nervous, tail lowered, other signs of stress. He sat down with his tail under him, one of his signs of stress. I pulled the tail out (again, some resistence), but no change in his emotions.

He followed me to go back home, still nervous and looking at those kids. I stopped and pulled his tail up. He spun around like something was about to get him from behind but saw it was just my hand. Needless to say, he didn't calm down any.

What did? The look-at-that game. I'll stick with CC (a proven working method with a logical reason for it working) over the fake it strategy  

Oh, and I do think dogs think like that (the situation with the fear trigger being close by). They are going to be focused on what the feel is threatening and send it calming signals or display signals of their stressed state. 

I don't see how the tail trick could work with a fearful dog. If anything, I'd be more afraid of interfering with his signals he's communicating than to send a "false message", which, depending on the situation, might cause more problems.

I certainly wish I had seen this episode to see what CM actually did. Did he just lift the tail, or was there some CC/OC going on as well?


----------



## jiml

I certainly wish I had seen this episode to see what CM actually did. Did he just lift the tail, or was there some CC/OC going on as well?>>>>>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DZ1aqDK6Ik


----------



## FourIsCompany

jiml, I had never seen the "Persistence Pays Off" episode and I'm not talking about that episode. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 



KBLover said:


> Did he just lift the tail, or was there some CC/OC going on as well?


Oh, yes, there was a lot of other input to the dog. The lifting of the tail was only one piece of the puzzle. The dog's name was Booker, a Vizsla. They had moved from the country and he was having a hard time adapting to the noise and hustle bustle of the city. 

Cesar took him roller blading and that helped a lot. Then they went for a walk. Booker's tail was still between his legs, though, so Cesar looped the other end of the leash around Booker's tail and held the leash in the middle. (it looked like a doggie briefcase) His owner was amazed at the difference it made.


----------



## jiml

jiml, I had never seen that episode and I'm not talking about that episode. Sorry for the misunderstanding>>>

we are talking about the same episode I just was just showing that cesar truly believes this tail hooey. 

Im sorry you can tell me how much better you thought the dog was. When I saw the episode I thaught it was hooey when I see the clip i think its hooey and I truelly cant see why anyone would believe this isnt hooey. Im starting to like that word LOL


----------



## peppy264

Curbside Prophet said:


> You stated Jonbee would be an argument against adopting a shelter dog and for buying a puppy. Did Jonbee come out of thin air? Or was he too a puppy once?


You have a very odd (amusing) comprehension ability CP.

So as not to bore the others excessively I'll only comment on one of your little rebukes. I did not say that Jonbee was an arguement against adopting a shelter dog. I did say that the fact that a shelter put out such a sugar coated glowing description of him, while omitting so much of the negative parts of his history, in an effort to get him adopted was an arguement against adopting a shelter dog, as that sort of behavior by a shelter undermines the credibility of all shelters.

I would have expected a pro-shelter person to have taken equal offence to the description given by the shelter, argued that it was not indicative of shelter behavior, and claimed that in fact it would be highly unlikely that a shelter would let a dog like JonBee go home with a first time dog owner believing that he was taking home 'the sweetest dog in the world' without full disclosure and a very frank discussion of all the potential problems and challenges.

If I was running the shelter I would want the people adopting JonBee to get a complete picture of his background, good and bad, and I would not release him to anyone who did not have experience with dogs. I would not compromise people's safety, even for the sake of saving a dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> So as not to bore the others excessively I'll only comment on one of your little rebukes. I did not say that Jonbee was an arguement against adopting a shelter dog. I did say that the fact that a shelter put out such a sugar coated glowing description of him, while omitting so much of the negative parts of his history, in an effort to get him adopted was an arguement against adopting a shelter dog, as that sort of behavior by a shelter undermines the credibility of all shelters.


You're, again, being presumptuous in qualifying your statement. You are presuming the dog was not rehabilitated. You're presuming the dog is better off in a shelter than in a home. You're presuming the shelter would not give the potential adopter "full disclosure" at the time of adoption. 



> If I was running the shelter I would want the people adopting JonBee to get a complete picture of his background, good and bad, and I would not release him to anyone who did not have experience with dogs. I would not compromise people's safety, even for the sake of saving a dog.


If you were running a shelter, you'd have a lot of dogs on your hands, with no one visiting. You need people to get in the door, first. There's nothing in the description to argue someone should purchase a puppy instead JonBee. There's nothing in the description that is questionable or objectionable from an ethics POV. The only thing we can conclude is you make a lot of assumptions about a shelter you know nothing about. 

Had you said it would be prudent to investigate the shelter before taking JonBee home, that would be a great idea. Suggesting the next obvious choice is a puppy...not so much.


----------



## peppy264

Well you can see a lot of the history of JonBee from the original show and a few links above. Then read the description from the shelter. And you don't see anything in the description that is questionable or objectionable? *LOL.*



> If you were running a shelter, you'd have a lot of dogs on your hands, with no one visiting. You need people to get in the door, first.......You're presuming the shelter would not give the potential adopter "full disclosure" at the time of adoption.


Thats great, so we write a misleading description to suck people into the shelter, but we'll give them the real info when we have them there and we can get them to look into JonBee's lovely eyes and tell them, 'take him home today ........or we don't know what may happen'. Nice.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

peppy264 said:


> Well you can see a lot of the history of JonBee from the original show and a few links above. Then read the description from the shelter. And you don't see anything in the description that is questionable or objectionable?


Do we know what rehab JonBee had since being on TDW? No. Therefore it *is* presumptuous on your part to assume he is not rehabed and could not be placed in a suitable home.



> Thats great, so we write a misleading description to suck people into the shelter, but we'll give them the real info when we have them there and we can get them to look into JonBee's lovely eyes and tell them, 'take him home today ........or we don't know what may happen'. Nice.


You're assuming all the misleading information. So look in the mirror. What do you know about the dog's rehab? Everything they wrote can be true, and a "responsible" guardian would be able to assess this for themselves, and rather eaisily IMO. They don't need you amateur opinion of JonBee's b-mod potential, that you gleaned from a TV entertainment show, to make a good choice.


----------



## KBLover

jiml said:


> I certainly wish I had seen this episode to see what CM actually did. Did he just lift the tail, or was there some CC/OC going on as well?>>>>>
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DZ1aqDK6Ik



That's just weird! I know this wouldn't work for Wally. He'd be utterly freaked about having the leash on his tail by itself.

Still not sure that holding up a dog's tail will create a confident dog, never mind that if the dog feels his tail needs to go down, it would seem better to actually "attack" the dog's lack of confidence/negative association than it would even touching the tail.

Ah well, I know using CC/OC actually works on Wally. Touching his tail while he's fearful - I don't think that would work.


----------



## Westhighlander

KBLover said:


> Ah well, I know using CC/OC actually works on Wally. Touching his tail while he's fearful - I don't think that would work.


Sometimes an owner's concerns and worries manifests itself in their dog's behavior.


----------



## KBLover

Westhighlander said:


> Sometimes an owner's concerns and worries manifests itself in their dog's behavior.


True.

But my thinking is, if he's one step from getting out of there - reaching down and lifting his tail is probably the last thing I need to do. He's wound up enough and then to have something touch near his rear "out of nowhere"...

And if he's far enough away from the trigger that he's just "mildly fearful" wouldn't classical conditioning approaches work better than lifting his tail?


----------



## Westhighlander

KBLover said:


> True.
> 
> But my thinking is, if he's one step from getting out of there - reaching down and lifting his tail is probably the last thing I need to do. He's wound up enough and then to have something touch near his rear "out of nowhere"...
> 
> And if he's far enough away from the trigger that he's just "mildly fearful" wouldn't classical conditioning approaches work better than lifting his tail?


Yes, CC approaches might definitely work better. I'm just suggesting because you don't have confidence in the tail lifting method that already is sending negative energy to the dog. So, if someone who does think it would work might actually pull it off.


----------



## hulkamaniac

The things I miss when I actually work all day instead of goofing off. My comments - 

On the tail - Yeah, it sounds silly. It probably doesn't work, but what harm does it do? You're not physically hurting the dog and I think I can guage my dogs mood regardless of what his tail is doing. You're not hurting the dog at all, I see no real harm in trying it.

On rescues vs puppies - I would completely disagree with peppy264. You will that every single puppy on the face of the planet has behavior issues. They have no bite inhibition. They jump on people. They are not house trained. They have little or no control of their bladder. They chew on everything. They jump on everything. They play extremely rough with completely unfamiliar dogs. They have no leash manners. They have horrible manners with people. They have horrible manners with other dogs. They have no recall. They have the attention span of a gnat. You have no idea how big they'll get. You don't know how much they'll shed. They're cute, but they're a complete pain in the ass. Shelter dogs have bite inhibition (if they didn't, the shelter would've screened this). They may or may not be housetrained, but if they're not, they do have full control of their bladders. Many do know how to sit. Many do have leash manners. Most know what to chew on and what not to chew on. If they jump on people or other dogs, it's already known. Many do not jump on people. Many have manners with other dogs. You know exactly what size they're going to be. Many know enough to know that if you call them they will at least look at you. Might not come, but they will generally look at you. Their attention span is longer than that of a puppies so they can be easier to train.


----------



## peppy264

My dear Hulk, I wasn't trying to argue puppies vs shelter; that would be OT here. My related points were:

i) if shelters give sugar coated descriptions of problematic dogs (e.g. JohBee) it hurts the credibility of all shelters and thus improves the arguement in favor of puppies over shelter dogs.

ii) Whereas any responsible person willing to commit the time can be successful with a pup (or for that matter MOST shelter dogs), I would not send a JonBee (large dog, extensive history of serious aggression or fear problems) home with anyone who was not experienced with dogs. Too much risk for the person and the dog.

Do you seriously disagree with those 2 statements?

re: puppies vs shelters - I do believe first time dog buyers are better off with puppies than a shelter dog, for a number of reasons, but that is a different debate, lots of other threads on that where I have been (wrongly and unfairly) criticized. LOL


----------



## Westhighlander

peppy264 said:


> ii) Whereas any responsible person willing to commit the time can be successful with a pup (or for that matter MOST shelter dogs), I would not send a JonBee (large dog, extensive history of serious aggression or fear problems) home with anyone who was not experienced with dogs. Too much risk for the person and the dog.
> 
> Do you seriously disagree with those 2 statements?


Depends where you get the puppy from. I don't agree with this statement if it is just some random puppy.


----------



## peppy264

Westhighlander said:


> Depends where you get the puppy from. I don't agree with this statement if it is just some random puppy.


OK then so Why can't any responsible person willing to commit the time be successful with a random puppy ?


----------



## hulkamaniac

peppy264 said:


> OK then so Why can't any responsible person willing to commit the time be successful with a random puppy ?


Because a poorly bred puppy can be even more of a pain than a poorly bred adult.


----------



## jiml

So, if someone who does think it would work might actually pull it off.>>>>

I still think its well - dumb. But if it helps the owners lack of confidence - I honestly never thaught of that.


----------

