# So what do the Members think of this kind of Training?



## apoirier594 (Aug 30, 2009)

This is a video that Zak George off, of SuperFetch TV Show just posted and I totally agree with him! What are your thoughts? Remember these are opinions. I'm very interested to see what everyone else thinks. 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5A7-kYe5jY&feature=feedu


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

He's got a TV show. He must know what he's talking about.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

I don't understand what the point of the video is. If he trains dogs using reward based methods, then sure, I probably agree with most of what he does.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

This has been a discussion on a private trainer's group I'm on. He seems pretty stuck on himself (and I find that he makes me a little uncomfortable - seems so arrogant, and a little bit . . . off - just my personal radar. He gives me the creeps.) I'd rather have people get his message than Cesar Millan's message as I think it is less destructive to the human/dog relationship. I don't like the way he dismisses clicker training. But then it appears he really doesn't understand it. It's just one more useful form of communication. I will never speak perfect dog, and my dogs will never understand perfect English. Clicker is a really nice form of communication that imparts a lot of information in both directions.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> I don't understand what the point of the video is. If he trains dogs using reward based methods, then sure, I probably agree with most of what he does.


He seems to making a broader claim for having achieved a higher level of communication with his dogs, and saying the clicker gets in the way of that. Whatevs. Like some other celebrity TV trainers, his CV is on the thin side to be telling other trainers their way of training is "WRONG!". Let him take a dog through an OTCH title, and then get back to me with how his canine "mind meld" worked out for him.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

The guy denounces Cesar and his methods ??? 

How groundbreaking. *rolls eyes*



... somebody should stick a pin in this guy's head, let all that hot air out. Then, perhaps, it can be replaced with something of substance.


----------



## Mizuno (Jun 9, 2010)

The video makes him seem like a big-headed d*uche. BUT, I have seen the show and he didn't seem like that on there. The man loves dogs, can't go wrong there, but I think he should watch what he says... don't want to step on too many toes at once.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

Pawzk9 said:


> This has been a discussion on a private trainer's group I'm on. He seems pretty stuck on himself (and I find that he makes me a little uncomfortable - seems so arrogant, and a little bit . . . off - just my personal radar. He gives me the creeps.) I'd rather have people get his message than Cesar Millan's message as I think it is less destructive to the human/dog relationship. I don't like the way he dismisses clicker training. But then it appears he really doesn't understand it. It's just one more useful form of communication. I will never speak perfect dog, and my dogs will never understand perfect English. Clicker is a really nice form of communication that imparts a lot of information in both directions.


That's a good way of putting it. Full of himself and creepy. I couldn't quite put my finger on it before.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well I wasted 45 minutes between downloading youtube and then watching it and I did not see a bunch wrong with it. It's not my cup of tea, but if Cesar Milan is yesterday's trainer I am one of the century's past trainers and that's fine with me. 

I did see something when the little episode with Cesar putting the electric collar on the aggressive dog and the owner got bit. Please, I'm not knocking Cesar as I am Cesar neutral but that part of the video should be copied and maybe kept on a DF sticky so that when people ask about e-collars it can be viewed again and again. I don't have a clue what the outcome was, really don't care but I have stated many times the dangers of unexpected events occurring with e-collars and ignorance.

Zak George is younger than Cesar and 20 yrs from now a new superhero will appear and blow Zak George out of the water (if he's still there) as usual My opinion only. I also would like to see an OTCH on Zak's resume. I suppose he's making a comfortable living without it so it's not a necessary thing.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I have no axiological problem with e-collars, but that stunt was one of the dumber I've seen. In fact, my main gripe with Cesar is his general approach to problem behavior. He swoops in and, bob's your uncle, problem solved. A holistic (I do hate the new-age implications of that word) approach to problem solving is far more effective IMO.

Victoria Stillwell teaches manners to naughty housepets, and Zak George has demonstrated an ability to play really well with dogs. That's all cool, but I'd like to know how these people got elevated to "expert" status.

I should have my own cable show. There's an open niche for the Morton Downey Jr. of dog trainers.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

I watched the whole video waiting to see his method of training and all he did was talk. As others have said, I would like to see him competing with his "trained" dog, trained his way whatever that is.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I have no axiological problem with e-collars, but that stunt was one of the dumber I've seen. In fact, my main gripe with Cesar is his general approach to problem behavior. He swoops in and, bob's your uncle, problem solved. A holistic (I do hate the new-age implications of that word) approach to problem solving is far more effective IMO.
> 
> Victoria Stillwell teaches manners to naughty housepets, and Zak George has demonstrated an ability to play really well with dogs. That's all cool, but I'd like to know how these people got elevated to "expert" status.
> 
> I should have my own cable show. There's an open niche for the Morton Downey Jr. of dog trainers.


Yes, I see in the future a dog trainer reality show with 100 kennel runs with 100 medium to large people aggressive dogs (one to a kennel) The kennel run size is 12 ft long by 3 ft wide. 

The trainers have all tools necessary in a backpack e-collars, prong collars, choke collars, clickers, assorted treats and assorted leads. No Guns, Tasers, Cattle Prods allowed. 

A 2 hr premiere and then 8 hour long weekly episodes. The trainer at the end with the least bite injuries and most kennels passed through wins a trophy the other 99 trainers also win a trophy but those trophies are an inch shorter than the winner's trophy we do want to keep self esteem up. Obviously the golden rule is only during the 10 recorded TV hours are trainers allowed to travel/touch dogs as they go through the kennels.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

I like him, sort of. I watched Superfetch for a while, and I really liked it. It showed people that you could have fun with your dog! Training them is a good thing, it's not something that's just for problem dogs. There is more to dog training than not biting people and peeing in the house. It was cute. They taught an ACD to ride a bike and a Bernese Mountain Dog to flush the toilet.

I've seen some of his videos on Youtube, I'm surprised he's down on the clicker since I'm pretty sure he was using one when I was following him. He's a pretty successful disc trainer/competitor I think. The arrogance got to me though, and I'm someone who can tolerate a pretty high amount of arrogance.


----------



## apoirier594 (Aug 30, 2009)

Kyllobernese said:


> I watched the whole video waiting to see his method of training and all he did was talk. As others have said, I would like to see him competing with his "trained" dog, trained his way whatever that is.


IF you look at the other videos on his channel you can find those videos. He DOES clicker train, he almost always starts the trick off with that. I think what he was trying to say, since he has said something like this a lot, is to not depend on the clicker. Like you don't always want to have to carry a clicker and treats with you. You want the dog to just want to do the trick, and not because he is afraid that your going to hit him...

I don't think that Cesar is totally wrong. I think that helps those dogs he trains. But where I see the problem is when people with totally calm normal dogs think thats the way to train. So their new dog doesn't behave right still in training and they use Negative reinforcement. So now the dog is more scared of the master, or not growing as much with him and obeying him because the dog is afraid of being yelled or shocked, etc. 

Thats just my take


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Everybody has to have a schtick. There are books and DVD that gotta be humped.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Im surprised at Zak. In the past he was much more diplomatic about CM. He obv disagrees w the style but Used to disclaim that Aggressive dogs were not his thing.

His ultimate forte is getting super high drive dogs to get their fix through tricks. 

I dont love everything CM does and do like ZAk, but I lost a little respect even if I agree w most of what he says.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

apoirier594 said:


> IF you look at the other videos on his channel you can find those videos. He DOES clicker train, he almost always starts the trick off with that. I think what he was trying to say, since he has said something like this a lot, is to not depend on the clicker. Like you don't always want to have to carry a clicker and treats with you. You want the dog to just want to do the trick, and not because he is afraid that your going to hit him...
> 
> I don't think that Cesar is totally wrong. I think that helps those dogs he trains. But where I see the problem is when people with totally calm normal dogs think thats the way to train. So their new dog doesn't behave right still in training and they use Negative reinforcement. So now the dog is more scared of the master, or not growing as much with him and obeying him because the dog is afraid of being yelled or shocked, etc.
> 
> Thats just my take


But the "dependent on clicker" argument is a strawman. Like every other tool, you'd like your dog to be able to perform the behavior on cue, without extra help. And, while marine mammal trainers and zoo trainers may keep the animal on a continuous schedule of reinforcement, I've never met a successful dog trainer who does. As to Cesar Millan, well, as a trainer I have to say that the majority of REALLY troubled dogs I see have owners who started using Cesar's techniques on their dogs, and that's where their troubles started or escalated.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

As for Cesars techniques. I don't think the problem is people using his techniques, its people using techniques they don't understand and don't really 'know'. We cant possibly know what he does behind the scenes, as we only see him for 30 ish minutes on tv per dog (when I see them, there are normally two cases he is working on.) I think that its sad that people use tv dog trainers to determine how or how not to train their dog. 

There was an episode of its me or the dog where the trainer came back on and said she would not have used the toy if she knew more about the dog. (it was a case of aggression and i think it was toy or something aggression, it was a long time ago, but what she did stuck in my mind.) That was a perfect example of how people even using positive methods (like the trainer does) can still get people bitten. 

I guess my point is dog training TV shows are good for entertainment value, and thats all.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Geeezzzzeeee!!!!

I thought by now my reality dog trainer show (Link 12) would have picked up a sponsor or two.


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree, I mold my program after NO TV trainer, I mold them after the DOG, their personality & the like. If they need more traditional methods then so be it (tho I'm mainly positive... As is my nature). Im pretty lax about what they do I mean they're dogs, sometimes they have to do doggy things like rolling in smelly stuff, digging, chasing squirrels etc... but there are a few things that they must know & I make sure they know they are not supposed to do them:

Chasing horses 
Eating unknown or not-good for them stuff
No/leave it/drop it MEANS no/leave it/drop it NO QUESTIONS ASKED
Always come when called or you will be left behind (practiced in a safe area first always after the dog knows the command)
DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD THE FIRST TIME!

Now I don't beat or abuse my dogs to get them to obey, but they will lose privileges if they don't comply, time outs, umbilical session (leash attached to me) or an appropriate consequence will ensue


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

dogdragoness said:


> I agree, I mold my program after NO TV trainer, I mold them after the DOG, their personality & the like. If they need more traditional methods then so be it (tho I'm mainly positive... As is my nature). Im pretty lax about what they do I mean they're dogs, sometimes they have to do doggy things like rolling in smelly stuff, digging, chasing squirrels etc... but there are a few things that they must know & I make sure they know they are not supposed to do them:
> 
> Chasing horses
> Eating unknown or not-good for them stuff
> ...


Can I like this whole post? **LIKE**


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

wvasko said:


> Geeezzzzeeee!!!!
> 
> I thought by now my reality dog trainer show (Link 12) would have picked up a sponsor or two.


That's certainly going to be a superior programming option as compared to _Surgically Enhanced Housewives of Loserville_, or _Cupcake Warriors_ or whatever.

I will, however, sheepishly admit to being a big fan of the aligator huntin' ZZ Top brothers on _Swamp People_.


----------



## Binkalette (Dec 16, 2008)

He seems pretty cocky and.. well.. he would make a good politician! Ha! As for his training methods.. I only watched the first part of it and I didn't really get it. It's my experience that not every training method works for everyone or every dog. My dogs respond well to verbal reprimand and rewards that are either verbal, physical or delicious. Maggie in particular is very sensitive to our verbal tone. I have to watch myself all the time. If I am even slightly irritated and it carries over into my voice, Maggie will immediately stop what she's doing and crawl behind the coffee table. :s I can't even sneeze or cough with out her hiding.. Zoey on the other hand, gets as close as she can and then licks my nose if she notices I'm upset. She is more sensitive to sadness and less sensitive to anger and frustration.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> That's certainly going to be a superior programming option as compared to _Surgically Enhanced Housewives of Loserville_, or _Cupcake Warrors_ or whatever.
> 
> I will, however, sheepishly admit to being a big fan of the aligator huntin' ZZ Top brothers on _Swamp People_.


You are not alone. Don't wanta be JB but I sure don't mind watchin.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I like him, sort of. I watched Superfetch for a while, and I really liked it. It showed people that you could have fun with your dog! Training them is a good thing, it's not something that's just for problem dogs. There is more to dog training than not biting people and peeing in the house. It was cute. They taught an ACD to ride a bike and a Bernese Mountain Dog to flush the toilet.


I've seen the show a couple times and some of the tricks are really cool. Heck, I want to teach Wally how to bowl now just from watching that video.

As far as his training method *shrug* I don't really buy into super-elevated communication skills or whatever. Just read the dog and know what you're looking at - there's nothing "elevated". I don't care about him being arrogant (more likely just trying to hype himself/his stuff than true arrogant personality) - I just look for the meaning underneath, or better yet, what he actual does during training sessions and pretty much ignore the words and try to break it down (shaping mind, sorry).

I'm tired of CM - I never understood why he's considered like he has some super secret (of course I believe there are no super secrets, just o.c., c.c, and understanding the dog's signals and motivations). I'm tired of the snippets of clips that just make a point. Make your view without slamming someone else's, especially when you're cherry picking one session out of the person's career.

I can explain how I teach without slamming what Elana or Wvasko or whoever else does. Why can't these "expert" trainers with the "super secrets" do it if some guy relatively new to dog training can?

I don't really see anything 'wrong' with his methods - but his attraction seems more the more unusual tasks/tricks he helps people teach their dogs. Otherwise, I just see it as communicating with the dog and use rewards to increase a dog's excitement and encourage behaviors.


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

If you abstract what he is saying and don't focus on a specific sentence or even a specific video, he is saying that in order to be an effective trainer, you have to establish a proper relationship with your dog. He is absolutely correct. 

To follow on from what he says:

*Good* trainers *teach* their dog(s). As a teacher, you are a natural leader - you don't have to worry about *behaving* in any specific way to be leader - the leadership follows from your role as a teacher.

Can any good trainer really object to _any_ of this? 

As far as some of the specifics he uses, let me say something about "trick training". What is the difference between teaching a dog to catch three frisbees in the air as their handler throws them and give each of them an extra toss- or teaching a dog to jump over a 2-foot-high bar, put a dumbell-shaped object in their mouth, jump back over the bar with it, and give it to their handler? The answer - there's no difference. Except one is called a "trick" and the other is a formal obedience exercise. But if you take a step back and look at them, they are *both* "tricks."

Finally, let me say I've never actually seen his TV show - I don't watch much TV - so everything I know about him as a trainer comes from his videos. And he doesn't come across as a bad guy at all - believe me, I've encountered much worse in the 'dog world'.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Poly said:


> ...he is saying that in order to be an effective trainer, you have to establish a proper relationship with your dog. He is absolutely correct.


I completely agree...except for the part where he sets himself up as the arbiter of what constitutes a proper relationship. Screw him. I have logged more training hours than him--only counting weekends.




Poly said:


> ...What is the difference between teaching a dog to catch three frisbees in the air as their handler throws them and give each of them an extra toss- or teaching a dog to jump over a 2-foot-high bar, put a dumbell-shaped object in their mouth, jump back over the bar with it, and give it to their handler? The answer - there's no difference. Except one is called a "trick" and the other is a formal obedience exercise.


Ah, but there is a difference. Guiding an active dog, in active pursuits, is a completely different thing than commanding an active dog in active and static evolutions, at significant distances. Which I notice he doesn't do.

Don't get me wrong, I do not say super frisbee dogs and agility training is nothing. Each form has its own techniques and skill sets. For dogs and trainers. I'm the one, between me and him, that says you can learn something useful from any good trainer...regardless of discipline.

I don't take him too seriously, though. His career is not exactly soaring, while Cesar Milan is an industry (even if there may be some injustice in that). Because of that, I'm sure his agent advised him to be edgier and more controversial.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Poly said:


> *Good* trainers *teach* their dog(s). As a teacher, you are a natural leader - you don't have to worry about *behaving* in any specific way to be leader - the leadership follows from your role as a teacher.
> 
> Can any good trainer really object to _any_ of this?


Why does leadership always have to come into it?

What's wrong with just reading the dog's signals and behaviors and adapting what you're doing accordingly? Who cares who's leading whom. As long as the desired behaviors are being acquired, does it matter? I like to think I'm doing a good job with Wally - and I don't even think about who's leading whom. As long as Wally picks up behaviors that are useful, either now or have a possible application later, he can come up with it, do it on his own, and I don't even care.

Also, what's the difference between training a dog and teaching a dog? To train, you have to teach. By teaching, you are training - what's the difference?


----------



## Poly (Sep 19, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Why does leadership always have to come into it?


Because it always does. You can't teach without leading. At the same time, you can't really lead without teaching.





KBLover said:


> Also, what's the difference between training a dog and teaching a dog? To train, you have to teach. By teaching, you are training - what's the difference?


You teach - and learn - a skill. You train to develop and enhance that skill. Teaching comes first - then training. That's true for dogs as much as it is true for humans. Just that the techniques and the communication methods may be different.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> Why does leadership always have to come into it?
> 
> What's wrong with just reading the dog's signals and behaviors and adapting what you're doing accordingly? Who cares who's leading whom. As long as the desired behaviors are being acquired, does it matter? I like to think I'm doing a good job with Wally - and I don't even think about who's leading whom. As long as Wally picks up behaviors that are useful, either now or have a possible application later, he can come up with it, do it on his own, and I don't even care.


Nothing wrong with it. Also nothing wrong with taking a benevolent position as "leader". Honestly, I have certain rules and expectations I need/want followed - wait politely at the door (door dashing is dangerous), ask to go outside as I don't like it when the carpet smells like poo, come when I call, sit for greetings so you don't knock down Great Aunt Ethel with the expensive new hip. I assume if I am the one who knows what is permissable in the household that puts me in a default leadership position. When I am doing dog sports, I am the one who read the rules and generally knows what we will need to do to score well or qualify. That puts me in a default leadership position. If I am the one planning a training session and deciding what I will or will not reinforce, that puts me in a default leadership position. Of course there are times . . . when I don't know enough about livestock to know which way the sheep is thinking about going, when my sense of smell is not good enough to follow a track, when my dog has more clever ideas about choreography, when I will happily follow my dog's lead. I think leadership is an admirable quality. And I'm happy when I can accomplish it well, without violence and without an excess of ego. I also think good leaders know when it's smart to follow.


----------



## lil_fuzzy (Aug 16, 2010)

KBLover said:


> Why does leadership always have to come into it?
> 
> What's wrong with just reading the dog's signals and behaviors and adapting what you're doing accordingly? Who cares who's leading whom. As long as the desired behaviors are being acquired, does it matter? I like to think I'm doing a good job with Wally - and I don't even think about who's leading whom. As long as Wally picks up behaviors that are useful, either now or have a possible application later, he can come up with it, do it on his own, and I don't even care.
> 
> Also, what's the difference between training a dog and teaching a dog? To train, you have to teach. By teaching, you are training - what's the difference?


Technically there are 3 phases to training; teaching phase, training phase and proofing phase. Teaching is when the dog is just starting to learn a new behaviour. Once it's on cue, you're in the training phase, and when the dog is reasonably reliably and you start adding distractions and duration, you're in the proofing phase.

For most people teaching and training is roughly the same thing, but dog trainers differentiate between them.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

lil_fuzzy said:


> Technically there are 3 phases to training; teaching phase, training phase and proofing phase. Teaching is when the dog is just starting to learn a new behaviour. Once it's on cue, you're in the training phase, and when the dog is reasonably reliably and you start adding distractions and duration, you're in the proofing phase.
> 
> For most people teaching and training is roughly the same thing, but dog trainers differentiate between them.



I guess, but to me "proofing" is teaching the dog to perform the behavior in a new context - so it's still training/teaching.

All of those thing are adding new knowledge to the dog - it's teaching and he's learning. But I'm probably wrong *shrug*



Poly said:


> Because it always does. You can't teach without leading. At the same time, you can't really lead without teaching.


When I'm shaping, what am I leading? 

He's interacting with the object, thinking of stuff on his own, doing it on his own. I'm not cueing or signalling anything.

Yet he's learned behaviors. Learning doesn't require leadership, it requires getting feedback on behaviors (consequences of behavior) - and the environment will do that as well. 




Poly said:


> You teach - and learn - a skill. You train to develop and enhance that skill. Teaching comes first - then training. That's true for dogs as much as it is true for humans. Just that the techniques and the communication methods may be different.


It still make his comment about "teaching instead of training" make no sense. So, what, he just gives skills to dogs but never refines it? How do the dogs get better at it? 

Developing/refining a skill is also learning how to do it more efficiently/better/fewer mistakes. It's still learning, which means you're being taught by something (a book, a video, a teacher, etc).


----------



## apoirier594 (Aug 30, 2009)

Poly said:


> If you abstract what he is saying and don't focus on a specific sentence or even a specific video, he is saying that in order to be an effective trainer, you have to establish a proper relationship with your dog. He is absolutely correct.
> 
> To follow on from what he says:
> 
> ...


+1

I totally agree with you! 

At leaste some people understand


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KBLover said:


> When I'm shaping, what am I leading?
> 
> He's interacting with the object, thinking of stuff on his own, doing it on his own. I'm not cueing or signalling anything.
> 
> Yet he's learned behaviors. Learning doesn't require leadership, it requires getting feedback on behaviors (consequences of behavior) - and the environment will do that as well.


Depends on if it is free shaping, or shaping with a purpose. If it is shaping with a purpose, then I am "leading" him into making certain choices by my choice of what I will reinforce (and sometimes by how I present the game). I'm not sure the environment reinforces with purpose, but I could be quite wrong about that, in fact it's likely that I am. I'm not getting into the whole argument on what is teaching/training/proofing as I think it is a continuum, and I'm likely to switch from one to the other quite often. Because learning is not linear.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Why does leadership always have to come into it?


'Cause they're dogs, fer cryin' outloud! Why are so many people uncomfortable with the notion that dogs are not up to the minimum requirements of living in the human world, without the guidance and leadership of humans? Is speciesism the new colonialism or something? 

My dog can figure out how to open the refrigerator, but he can't understand how the groceries get there...much less how to pay for them.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

I would like to jump on with something constructive to say but I'm so dumb I got lost 15 links ago. I do know if I were to try to explain any of this to an owner picking up their dog I would have been out of business 45 years ago. Of course life then was much simpler.


----------



## guy2932 (Jul 12, 2011)

Poly said:


> If you abstract what he is saying and don't focus on a specific sentence or even a specific video, he is saying that in order to be an effective trainer, you have to establish a proper relationship with your dog. He is absolutely correct.
> 
> To follow on from what he says:
> 
> ...


Very nicely put. 

In response to those questioning why leadership even comes in to it i would simply state that because we as humans understand the house rules, it becomes our responsibility to take the lead and teach them to the dog. To not do so leads to no rules and therefore an unruly dog. This surely can't be what anybody is advocating. 

I have taught my dog that in some situations he is required to take the lead, but I still took the lead in teaching him that. I control every aspect of his his life (food, water,walks etc) and this has to give me some form of 'power' over him. I try very hard to be kind, fair, understanding, and empathic. I take my responsibilities very seriously. Is this not what we would call leadership?

As for the TV dog trainers - they are there for entertainment not education. They are selling a product (themselves) with a view to selling books, getting ratings,seminars etc. They want you to keep coming back and so imo will only ever give you 90% of what you need to know. They don't want you to become self sufficient as that makes them redundant.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

wvasko said:


> I would like to jump on with something constructive to say but I'm so dumb I got lost 15 links ago. I do know if I were to try to explain any of this to an owner picking up their dog I would have been out of business 45 years ago. Of course life then was much simpler.



LOL, that is prob the *smartest* post in the thread


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree you can't teach without leading, doesn't matter if you are leading people or dogs. You have to be a leader to teach. 

But that doesn't mean you have to be mean, bullying & such, the best leaders are always the loved ones


----------



## apoirier594 (Aug 30, 2009)

I feel like everyone is taking the wrong information out of this video, and complaining he is confidant.
I basically got that he is trying to say don't let you or your dog depend on the treats or clicker. He even replied in comments saying he believe in the clicker. 
You would have had to see the other videos to know him


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Poly said:


> Because it always does. You can't teach without leading.


extreme disagree. you can teach by learning.


----------



## apoirier594 (Aug 30, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GSN7EzOoBM&feature=feedu


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> extreme disagree. you can teach by learning.


If your teaching, your not learning, at least not 100% of the time ( I know that there is an exception to every rule)... Its kind of like you cant walk and stand still at the same time. You can walk then stop, like you can teach, then learn from your teaching, but you cant walk and stop/teach and learn at the same time.

Or at least that's how I see it.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Poly said:


> You can't teach without leading. At the same time, you can't really lead without teaching.


Sure you can. If I kick you in the head, I'm pretty sure I'm not much of a leader but you sure do learn that I'm a jerk. As for leading without teaching, ask Jim Jones about that. He lead a whole bunch of people into a mass suicide. Not a whole lot of teaching going on there. In fact, just the opposite.

I think all the talk of leadership is just a lot of words people use to feel puffed up, which is why I can't subscribe to it. Take the words out and I think we're all in the business of showing our dogs how to be successful in living with us. Whether you call that "showing" teaching or leading or training doesn't really matter. Are you getting what you want? Is the dog? That's all that matters.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> My dog can figure out how to open the refrigerator, but he can't understand how the groceries get there...much less how to pay for them.



I bought the groceries. Okay. So how does that help me train Wally to learn object discrimination?

Fine, I'm in charge, dominating, lead, own, dictate, whatever. 

Wally doesn't care - he just wants to know what the heck a "pelota" is so he can get a treat. None of that "I'm in charge" stuff helps me explain to him what I want.

So how does it make me a better trainer and explain what I want to Wally?

If leading is a given to training, then simplify the whole thing and get to the training part. I don't need to know how to "be boss" to Wally, I need to figure out how to train him to learn these things better and explain it to him so he can understand.

Heck, right now he's doing what he wants - If I'm "leading" him, I must be the most lax leader ever that doesn't even give his follower a bunch of orders and commands. I fail to see how "I pay the bills, therefore I'm the boss" gets him to where I want him to go.


----------



## zeronightfarm (Jun 15, 2011)

He irritates me, but I'm not a fan of any "TV" trainer. I watch the shows and I use some of the methods but I'm not going to bow down and kiss there holy dog training feet. 

I work with horses as well as dogs. I also she many "TV" trainers in the horse world. Pat Parrelli is one that I despise. He is not a nice person and people fallow him like he is God.


----------



## KodiBarracuda (Jul 4, 2011)

zeronightfarm said:


> He irritates me, but I'm not a fan of any "TV" trainer. I watch the shows and I use some of the methods but I'm not going to bow down and kiss there holy dog training feet.
> 
> I work with horses as well as dogs. I also she many "TV" trainers in the horse world. Pat Parrelli is one that I despise. He is not a nice person and people fallow him like he is God.


I know about the horse trainers. My father always said "Ever trainer has his trick horse" meaning that they all have a horse that they can do anything with (like the riding without a halter and just the two sticks or whatever they are) and I think that applies to dog trainers too.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Clearly, many people misunderstand the concept. Being in charge doesn't imply acting the martinet. 

I set the limits on Rusty's exhuberance because I'm the human and he's got no sense. I expect nothing less than immediate obedience to commands because I'm the human and he's got no sense. I make no apologies for any of that.

None of that should suggest, however, that his life is one of enduring constant, overbearing, arbitrary discipline. He's got his signal that it's time for me to lie down on his giant pillow with him and scritch his pits. And I do what I'm told. When I sit on the couch, wearing my slippers, he steals them off my feet. Every_Single_Time. I walk him to his favorite swimming hole in the most horrid weather imaginable (why a dog needs to go swimming when it's raining 3 inches per hour is beyond my ken), and all I require is that he lay off hectoring the federally protected wildlife when I whistle him back.

If Rusty got to make the rules things would get pretty weird.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

KodiBarracuda said:


> If your teaching, your not learning, at least not 100% of the time ( I know that there is an exception to every rule)... Its kind of like you cant walk and stand still at the same time. You can walk then stop, like you can teach, then learn from your teaching, but you cant walk and stop/teach and learn at the same time.
> 
> Or at least that's how I see it.


The thing I like best about teaching is how much I learn! Then again, I am a big believer in "conversation".


----------



## apoirier594 (Aug 30, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I bought the groceries. Okay. So how does that help me train Wally to learn object discrimination?
> 
> Fine, I'm in charge, dominating, lead, own, dictate, whatever.
> 
> ...


+1




KBLover said:


> I fail to see how "I pay the bills, therefore I'm the boss" gets him to where I want him to go.


+1000

Seems like someone actually gets the concept.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

winniec777 said:


> Sure you can. If I kick you in the head, I'm pretty sure I'm not much of a leader but you sure do learn that I'm a jerk. As for leading without teaching, ask Jim Jones about that. He lead a whole bunch of people into a mass suicide. Not a whole lot of teaching going on there. In fact, just the opposite.
> 
> I think all the talk of leadership is just a lot of words people use to feel puffed up, which is why I can't subscribe to it. Take the words out and I think we're all in the business of showing our dogs how to be successful in living with us. Whether you call that "showing" teaching or leading or training doesn't really matter. Are you getting what you want? Is the dog? That's all that matters.


I don't care for all the "me Tarzan" nonsense. But I have a lot less issue with talking about "leadership." To me at least, leader doesn't indicate chest thumping or dictatorship. In order to live in my word (the human world) my dogs NEED my direction. They need for me to lead. But in some areas, I may need them to lead. It's a fluid and ever-changing thing. Just like the concept of dominance/social status would be if there wasn't so much nonsense intertwined with it. If I've decided to teach my dog to wait at doors (for their safety) or not poop on the carpet (for my sanity) I am the one who is leading. It's my decision and my plan to teach that. I have found that in general dogs who understand rules and boundaries (set by a human leader) are more secure and confident than those who don't. Because even if we are afraid to think about those things, dogs do. As with most things in life, there's a rational middle-ground that is somewhere between the extremes that insist that everything a dog does is based on "who's the boss" or that it has absolutely no relevance.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Well despite his confidence that he's leading some sort of dog training revolution, I'm not sure he's really saying anything THAT new or different. I don't think he's saying anything harmful, either. I will say, though, that all the ranting and pacing, pacing, pacing back and forth across the football field kinda creeped me out, like it was going to end with him up in a bell tower or something.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

sassafras said:


> Well despite his confidence that he's leading some sort of dog training revolution, I'm not sure he's really saying anything THAT new or different. I don't think he's saying anything harmful, either. I will say, though, that all the ranting and pacing, pacing, pacing back and forth across the football field kinda creeped me out, like it was going to end with him up in a bell tower or something.


Good description. He's especially fun to watch with the sound turned off.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

He's annoying to me, one of those totally full of himself characters. 

What TV needs is a behaviorist doing what Cesar Millan does, making dogs do an apparent 180, except using reward methods. Nobody believes it can be done until they see it. Victoria Stilwell is okay, but I don't think she is a terribly great trainer/behaviorist.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Need to bring rerun old episodes of Barbara Woodhouse. Walkies! That's training.


----------

