# Victoria Stilwell



## Chikyuu (May 1, 2010)

Since today seems to be "Talk about dog trainers on TV" day in the forum (I heard Brad Pattison is on Canadian television?) I was wondering if any of you guys liked VS. I personally think she has the best methods, at least for a trainer that gets featured on the tube. I do watch episodes of her show for tips and tricks I might be able to apply with my puppy, and I also ordered her book, which for a 16 year old girl with her first puppy she's completely responsible for, has been a great help. I've had River 4 weeks and she knows how to sit, look in my eyes, lay down, stay, touch my hand, come to me, be comfortable in her crate to the point she goes in there for naps (We'll have to get her a new one though she's growing so fast.) and sit, wait, and look at me for things like treats, toys, and food. Potty training is starting to really catch on to the point I'M the one having to watch for her signals that she's sending me to take her out to potty, which I hit my head on the wall if I miss because it seems so OBVIOUS in the end.

But what do I know, I'm still new to owning dogs and the forum and I'm a stupid highschool girl. =P What do you guys think?


----------



## infiniti (Mar 19, 2010)

I absolutely LOVE Victoria Stilwell!!! And if you recall, honey, when you first came to the forums with River, I think I recommended her to you in one of my earlier posts. 

I think she has wonderful methods, I watch her show all the time for tips and even DVR it when I can't watch it, and I have her book. She has taught me so much about training, but most of all she's taught me about patience which I do not have a great deal of.

Of course, tv is edited to make it look as positive as possible and to make it fit into a 30 or 60 minute time slot, but the stuff in the book really works as well. 

I just really like her positive, non-aversive methods, her obvious love of dogs and her respect for them as well. She is not condescending in any way, to the humans or the animals. 

Really, I just can't say enough good about her.  I think you will do well with River to follow her methods and I think you will be happy with the results and how quickly they will be achieved.


----------



## Lonewolfblue (Oct 28, 2007)

Yup, another VS fan here. She's really good.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i hate the idea of Tv trainers.

but if i had to pick one...id pick her.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Can't stand her snotty, condescending personality but I like her methods for the most part.


----------



## Chikyuu (May 1, 2010)

infiniti said:


> I absolutely LOVE Victoria Stilwell!!! And if you recall, honey, when you first came to the forums with River, I think I recommended her to you in one of my earlier posts.
> 
> I think she has wonderful methods, I watch her show all the time for tips and even DVR it when I can't watch it, and I have her book. She has taught me so much about training, but most of all she's taught me about patience which I do not have a great deal of.
> 
> ...


Yes I do remember you saying that you liked her methods ^^ At first I looked to her because her methods seemed much more applicable and practical than Milan's. And after looking into positive training it seems her methods fit the bill most and her book is really helpful. It shows 1-2-3 training methods for obedience, crate training, paper training, diet, behavior, I think it's a good book for beginners like me, and anyone who has no idea how to train and doesn't have the time or patience to read multiple books on training a dog/pup. It's helped me a lot.


----------



## Chikyuu (May 1, 2010)

Inga said:


> Can't stand her snotty, condescending personality but I like her methods for the most part.


You mean like this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iaHeVynJW8

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. She does seem to think too highly of herself and her methods. But honestly I don't care too much about the personality flaws of a dog trainer.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

She comes off as a snot but her methods are very very similar to the trainer we have used for our dogs. She also isn't in to the ambiguous "that's it, that's what we want" that you hear out of Cesear yet there was nothing obvious happening. She is reward & possitive training based, I like that.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Inga said:


> Can't stand her snotty, condescending personality but I like her methods for the most part.


My entire exposure to Victoria Stilwell was watching that America's Greatest Dog show (or whatever it was called). And whether that show portrayed her well or not, I'm inclined to agree with you, Inga.


----------



## infiniti (Mar 19, 2010)

Inga said:


> Can't stand her snotty, condescending personality but I like her methods for the most part.


Really? I don't find her condescending at all. I really find her quite endearing, inviting, warm and welcoming. I know she gets frustrated with stupid people, but I do too. You don't think it's the fact that she's British? Sometimes British people are viewed as "uppity" by Americans for some reason. 

But, then ... I get accused of being condescending when that's not my intent at all, and I get accused of being harsh in my delivery (IRL) when that's not my intent either, so maybe I just relate to her delivery better, idk.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Chikyuu said:


> But honestly I don't care too much about the personality flaws of a dog trainer.


My thoughts exactly. As long as those flaws don't project into how they handle and train the dog, then I wouldn't have a problem.


----------



## Terrie (Sep 11, 2009)

I love her show. I love how she treats stupid owners. It's really funny to me.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I don't watch her show very often, but that's mainly because her voice sounds like a bad wheel bearing. Dog training doesn't require a lot of talking, and no screeching whatsoever...but that's just me.

Just about every episode of Victoria's show, that I've seen, has her doing or saying at least one utterly boneheaded thing. Of the more egregious boners VS has pulled was the use of a remotely activated air horn to discourage a dog from stealing food when nobody was around. One of the completely valid knocks against Cesar Milan is that the clueless masses may attempt to duplicate some of his techniques, to disastrous effect. So how is VS any better?

If a viewer were to pull that air horn trick on a 10 week old puppy, there is a high likelihood of creating a problem far knottier than stealing food--which is no big deal on the continuum of doggie misbehavior.

I think some of the problems with TV trainers are created by the exigencies of filming schedules, budgets, and the need to create drama in order to keep viewers tuning in.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I've only seen episodes on youtube and didn't get to see "Greatest American Dog" so can only comment on what little I did see:
Her UK version of the show is actually pretty good, though she is even MORE like "headmistress Stilwell" in them. It's part of the "persona" that is developed for the promotion of the show. I've seen her in interviews and she is not like that at all, much warmer than her persona in her show.



Marsh Muppet said:


> Just about every episode of Victoria's show, that I've seen, has her doing or saying at least one utterly boneheaded thing. Of the more egregious boners VS has pulled was the use of a remotely activated air horn to discourage a dog from stealing food when nobody was around. One of the completely valid knocks against Cesar Milan is that the clueless masses may attempt to duplicate some of his techniques, to disastrous effect. So how is VS any better?


I do agree that she does seem to use aversives such as air horns for some cases and yes, this would not be my choice either. But the fact that her show is MOSTLY non aversive and does not rely too much on the other end of the spectrum is likely the best we can ask for at this point in time.



> I think some of the problems with TV trainers are created by the exigencies of filming schedules, budgets, and the need to create drama in order to keep viewers tuning in.


Absolutely. Editing plays a large part, promotion of a "persona" is also key and yes, reality tv (which is what this would fall under) is all about conflict and drama.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't watch her show very often, but that's mainly because her voice sounds like a bad wheel bearing. Dog training doesn't require a lot of talking, and no screeching whatsoever...but that's just me.
> 
> Just about every episode of Victoria's show, that I've seen, has her doing or saying at least one utterly boneheaded thing. Of the more egregious boners VS has pulled was the use of a remotely activated air horn to discourage a dog from stealing food when nobody was around. One of the completely valid knocks against Cesar Milan is that the clueless masses may attempt to duplicate some of his techniques, to disastrous effect. So how is VS any better?
> 
> ...


^^^ Yup.

I generally like her more positive methods with the dogs. Really dislike her manner with owners - she needs to apply a little more positive attitude with them. People don't like to get yelled at any more than dogs do. Duh. Just shows a general lack of respect for people.

I usuallly fast forward through all the b.s. and drama and just watch the parts where she's actually working with the dog. Takes about 8 minutes to watch a show.

I agree that some of the things she does could be dicey when tried in the wrong situation and the show is not very good at explaining when to use/not use techniques. But for the most part, it's pretty harmless stuff. My gauge? I yell at the TV a whole lot less when she's on than when CM is on.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> Absolutely. Editing plays a large part, promotion of a "persona" is also key and yes, reality tv (which is what this would fall under) is all about conflict and drama.


Yeah, I was going to suggest this, too. Just like Cesar is portrayed as this zenned-out suave cool guy, Victoria is portrayed the doggy version of Nanny 911.. the show would be less interesting to some if she was all nice and sweet. 

Personally, I do kind of find entertainment in the way she reprimands people.. though it's true, most of them probably don't know any better (hence why they called her in for help)


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

KBLover said:


> My thoughts exactly. As long as those flaws don't project into how they handle and train the dog, then I wouldn't have a problem.


Myself, having the personality of a brick wall appreciate your answer KB. I prefer to keep patience and all necessary virtues needed just to train dogs properly. The only rights a customer has is to pay training bill when I am done. But I better have a very good product for them to take back home. Or I have not fulfilled my end of the contract. Through the years I have met other trainers that get paid for their dog training skills, not people skills.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I believe that people skills AND dog training skills are important. But then I don't do board and trains, I do "teaching the handler to teach the dog". This does not have to be forcing anyone to be a sparkling personality by any means, though I find making training fun for both handler and dog to be a good way to achieve success. What it means is basic communication skills, basic manners and an ability to relate to the person in enough of a way for the person to engage in the learning/teaching process. 

My head trainer has now gotten into the habit of having me deal with the "hardcases", the people (not the dogs) that just don't get if for whatever reason. I use toughlove, sarcasm, joking, pats on the back, I've given candy to some for good work and I've (jokingly) threatened detention and running of laps for one's who don't pay attention in class. Each person is different, though the puppies all get taught pretty much the same way. I am there to serve the client, yes, but I am mostly there to protect the pup from being ruined by their silly humans. At least that's how I see it.

Trainers who treat people like crap, are crap. But you don't have to be "nice" all the time. This is part of what I like about VS. She's nice when she can and strict as a school marm when she needs to be. These people are adults and should be able to handle it.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I don't feel sorry for the people VS humiliates. They should know what they are signing up for when they agree to have her come to help their dogs.

I don't see too many major problems (besides the type noted) with how she handles dogs, but she hasn't done enough to get me to open my wallet for her services.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I.
> 
> I don't see too many major problems (besides the type noted) with how she handles dogs, but she hasn't done enough to get me to open my wallet for her services.


Lord No! For me to even consider her as a trainer in my home she would have to prove she could get my dogs to walk on their hind legs, cook meals and mow the lawn, all using positive methods. Anything short of that wouldn't be worth listening to her snotty voice, IMO


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

VS uses positive punishment, intimidation, and flooding on people. If positive reinforcement methods are scientifcally proven to be more effective for teaching, why doesn't she apply the same science to humans? That's what I never understood. Do humans not deserve the same compassion and respect as dogs?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> I believe that people skills AND dog training skills are important. But then I don't do board and trains, I do "teaching the handler to teach the dog". This does not have to be forcing anyone to be a sparkling personality by any means, though I find making training fun for both handler and dog to be a good way to achieve success. What it means is basic communication skills, basic manners and an ability to relate to the person in enough of a way for the person to engage in the learning/teaching process.


I've said this before, when trying out the class routines actually for a couple years while also doing the board/training program. I got tired of telling people "your other left" I decided that I did not want to start a treat people like crap progam and dropped classes altogether and have never been sorry. 

Private tutoring also did not work because It always ended up with me training dog and customer watching me because they also did not know left from right. I always expect dogs not to know left from right at when started, I made the mistake of thinking people would at least have the intelligence of their dogs and be able to follow verbal instructions.

Not a big deal, just means that I was the weak link.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> VS uses positive punishment, intimidation, and flooding on people. If positive reinforcement methods are scientifcally proven to be more effective for all animals, why doesn't she apply the same science to humans? That's what I never understood. Do humans not deserve the same compassion and respect as dogs?


Nope. not in a certain sense imo. 

seriously in a training/learning sense...there's no comparison between dogs and humans because human thought is a lot more abstract and we have the use of speech. 

Im not above cracking my knuckles and in one or two cases cracking heads over how certain people treat their dogs. You can explain to an adult human why they are being punished. you can talk with them after and reason with them. you cant do that with a dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

The thing to remember is that the main objective is to garner ratings in order to sell advertising minutes. There's nothing really wrong with that, unless you are under the impression that the main objective is to inform.

It's the same as Dateline NBC using explosive charges to demonstrate how GM pickups would burst into flame in a T-bone collision. I'm sure those people convinced themselves they were telling an important truth...so it was okay to lie in service of the truth.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

qingcong said:


> Do humans not deserve the same compassion and respect as dogs?


Not if they agreed, ahead of time (which is always the case), that they would be subjected to such treatment for the sake of entertainment or self want. Dogs never have this choice.


----------



## Chikyuu (May 1, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Nope. not in a certain sense imo.
> 
> seriously in a training/learning sense...there's no comparison between dogs and humans because human thought is a lot more abstract and we have the use of speech.
> 
> Im not above cracking my knuckles and in one or two cases cracking heads over how certain people treat their dogs. You can explain to an adult human why they are being punished. you can talk with them after and reason with them. you cant do that with a dog.


I agree. Often times the owners train their dogs bad in the first place, and some are just plain... *ahem* naive. Such as the stereotypical blonde chick who trained her bulldog puppy with a shock collar and now it's dog aggressive. Or more recently the owners of an already known dog aggressive Jack Russel, and they decided to adopt a chocolate lab out of the blue and surprise, the two couldn't get along because the JR would try to attack the Lab at every turn. I mean, some owners make dumber decisions on the show than others by far, but so what if she doesn't sugar-coat what's wrong with the owner's current methods? I probably wouldn't either with people to be quiet honest. I can't even be that way with my own parents when they decide to try and neck-poke my puppy to stop her mouthing. =/


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't feel sorry for the people VS humiliates. They should know what they are signing up for when they agree to have her come to help their dogs.
> 
> I don't see too many major problems (besides the type noted) with how she handles dogs, but she hasn't done enough to get me to open my wallet for her services.



Same here, I don't care about snottiness of whatnot, but if the show is any indication, it doesn't seem like anything that's like "OMG Wow!"

Seems like stuff you can get on any half-well-knowledgeable site on the internet (I should know, a large part of what I know now is from the internet LOL), amazon (yay for used books!), and if I've talked to any pro trainers - I met them here, where it's free


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Chikyuu said:


> I agree. Often times the owners train their dogs bad in the first place, and some are just plain... *ahem* naive. Such as the stereotypical blonde chick who trained her bulldog puppy with a shock collar and now it's dog aggressive. Or more recently the owners of an already known dog aggressive Jack Russel, and they decided to adopt a chocolate lab out of the blue and surprise, the two couldn't get along because the JR would try to attack the Lab at every turn. I mean, some owners make dumber decisions on the show than others by far, but so what if she doesn't sugar-coat what's wrong with the owner's current methods? I probably wouldn't either with people to be quiet honest. *I can't even be that way with my own parents when they decide to try and neck-poke my puppy to stop her mouthing.* =/


Just for fun, I tried this on Auz once. It got him all wound up, and started him zooming around the yard. It just didn't work for him (and it didn't help that I started cracking up). I think if I neck poked the papillons (the "soft" dogs), they would stop what they were doing.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> The thing to remember is that the main objective is to garner ratings in order to sell advertising minutes. There's nothing really wrong with that, unless you are under the impression that the main objective is to inform.
> 
> It's the same as Dateline NBC using explosive charges to demonstrate how GM pickups would burst into flame in a T-bone collision. I'm sure those people convinced themselves they were telling an important truth...so it was okay to lie in service of the truth.


I wonder if VS decided to get louder and more "strict" with dog owners because CM's show is much more "dramatic", and got higher ratings? I think VS's shows lack the dangerous dogs that CM's show does; and the "edge of your seat" parts where CM "confronts" the dogs don't happen with VS. VS's show seems more scientific, where CM's show seems more like martial arts exercises with dogs. (Maybe the shows names should have been changed? )


----------



## dakotajo (Jan 29, 2009)

If you pay good money for a trainer you should expect a good trainer. If I don't "click" with a trainer and they talk down to me you can bet your [email protected]$ I won't be using them again. They should have good communication skills with the owners as well as the dog. I'm there to learn as well as the dog and they are the teacher. A good trainer should know about all the tools good side and negative side and shouldn't think their ONLY method is the best for that particular dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i work as a volunteer trainer. i dont have to be nice to people if i come across abusive or neglectful owners.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> VS uses positive punishment, intimidation, and flooding on people. If positive reinforcement methods are scientifcally proven to be more effective for teaching, why doesn't she apply the same science to humans? That's what I never understood. Do humans not deserve the same compassion and respect as dogs?



You know, I'd like to see a trainer do this.

Owner does something right. Trainer clicks and hands a dollar/doughnut/some other little "treat" to the owner.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Well as a trainer, if they force me to work with an owner I demand Hazardous duty pay.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

KBLover said:


> You know, I'd like to see a trainer do this.
> 
> Owner does something right. Trainer clicks and hands a dollar/doughnut/some other little "treat" to the owner.


I know of several that bring candy to "tag" the owners when they do things right. 
I sometimes use Jelly Belly jelly beans..but sometimes they are all gone before I even get to class...


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

wvasko said:


> I've said this before, when trying out the class routines actually for a couple years while also doing the board/training program. I got tired of telling people "your other left" I decided that I did not want to start a treat people like crap progam and dropped classes altogether and have never been sorry.
> 
> .


Oh Heaven's, and I thought it was just me that suffered through students like that. How hard is it to "keep puppy on your left" or "loose lead" or "continue around clockwise?" How many times do you have a class where 7 of the people are going in the right direction and 2 or 3 are going in the opposite direction every time they are supposed to reverse? Ugh! Yes, group classes are very frustrating. I too tend to want to just go grab the leash and I do tend to "model an action" several times so the slow learners can catch on. ha ha


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Im not above cracking my knuckles and in one or two cases cracking heads over how certain people treat their dogs. You can explain to an adult human why they are being punished. you can talk with them after and reason with them. you cant do that with a dog.


Well, by your own admission in previous posts, sometimes your dealings with people aren't as quality as you'd like. Perhaps the same science that you apply so beautifully to dogs can be applied to people as well? If you are interested in helping people, why not use what you know about positive reinforcement on people? Skinner's studies in OC has vast human as well as animal implications. The use of dominance methods over other people clearly isn't good science. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> Not if they agreed, ahead of time (which is always the case), that they would be subjected to such treatment for the sake of entertainment or self want. Dogs never have this choice.


But VS is a firm believer in positive reinforcement training, even her license plate is +Rnfcmt or something. That people on the show knowingly chose it isn't the point, the point is that she doesn't practice positive reinforcement methods on people. Well, she does, but she also uses dominance techniques as well.





KBLover said:


> You know, I'd like to see a trainer do this.
> 
> Owner does something right. Trainer clicks and hands a dollar/doughnut/some other little "treat" to the owner.


Eh, I probably wouldn't find that all too rewarding. In fact, I might find that kind of condescending. I'd be like, "what am I, a cop??" You'd need to find something better for me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Well, by your own admission in previous posts, sometimes your dealings with people aren't as quality as you'd like. Perhaps the same science that you apply so beautifully to dogs can be applied to people as well? If you are interested in helping people, why not use what you know about positive reinforcement on people? Skinner's studies in OC has vast human as well as animal implications. The use of dominance methods over other people clearly isn't good science.


when i walk up to a house and see a bunch of kids smacking a dog around with golf clubs while the parents sit there drinking beer, expecting me to 'fix' their dog...im NOT GOING TO BE NICE.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

qingcong said:


> That people on the show knowingly chose it isn't the point, the point is that she doesn't practice positive reinforcement methods on people. Well, she does, but she also uses dominance techniques as well.


Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of dominance. Being firm, strict, and direct, have nothing to do with dominance.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Well, I guess that would depend on your definition of dominance. Being firm, strict, and direct, have nothing to do with dominance.


I've said it several times and I'm going to say it again:
Positive is NOT permissive.
Being firm and direct and strict is NOT being dominating or domineering. No mamby pamby communication is going to be clear enough for some folks and sometimes plain speaking is what gets the job done.

I pride myself on being reasonable and fun, but if those things don't cut it or I'm seeing inattention, damage to a dog or person, damn right I'm going to be more forceful. Not cruel, not rude, but upfront for sure. 

We have a lady and her son in our Monday class right now. Hubby comes too but texts the whole time (sigh)...the mum is MEAN to the kid. He's 10. I immediately gave the kid some extra attention and spoke to the mum about giving the boy AND the pup the chance to learn here, that it was supposed to be fun for him and his dog. Firmly and politely I asked her to watch from the sidelines. She did so and is now singing the praises of the trainers in the class (not just me) and her boy is doing very well in his learning. Some people just NEED to be told.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I guess describing VS's human techniques as dominance is debatable. She uses positive punishment, fear tactics, intimidation, flooding, and psychological coercion. Generally the way she works is akin to a dictatorship, it's Stillwell's way or the highway. Add all of this up, and it's not too far fetched to describe her human methods as dominance based.

Millan's human skills in contrast are impeccable. He uses a reward based system on people and allows people to make choices and find their own way. However shoddy his dog training techniques may be, his human techniques continue to blow me away. He has a way to inspire people without the use of punishment or coercion. There's a reason why he's so successful, it's his human skills.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> There's a reason why he's so successful, it's his human skills.


Which is a bit of a shame.

Charm should not be greater than talent, imo.

Not saying he isn't necessarily talented - but if it's charm that got him to where he is, that's kind of sad.

I would rather the VS vs CM "fight" be settled by dog-training ability, not charisma levels. Then again, I tend to be a "what you say" vs a "how you say" type of person, and ability above all. A charming trainer doesn't equal a good one, nor does it make his/her methods more valid.

And of course it's her way or the highway - it's HER show. CM doesn't exactly let the people he works with dictate to him either. He is just more of a charming dictator instead of an iron-fist one - but BOTH dictate their shows and the methods of choice. CM tells the owners what to do and how to do it. That doesn't sound like 'giving choices' to me.

If dominance = control of resources and resources = show, then both are just as dominant, if only by default (otherwise, the owners would run the show).


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> There's a reason why he's so successful, it's his human skills


that's highly debatable. 



KBLover said:


> Which is a bit of a shame.
> 
> Charm should not be greater than talent, imo.
> 
> ...


good post

plus as a trainer you HAVE to kind of be in control. these people are looking to you for guidance. you have the knowledge they want.

i tend to let my approach be dictated by what i find.

like if i find someone who is frustrated, pulling their hair out and actually is really into fixing the problem..im going to come at them gently.

if i find someone being flippant and not really serious, they are wasting my time and im going to make that known.

if i find someone being horrendously idiotic or abusive...im going to be a straight up BITCH about it.


----------



## foxthegoldfish (Apr 15, 2008)

I don't like dog training shows 
90% of the show is just the people looking stupid

But if I look at her books I think she has some of the best methods out there 

I don't much care for judging peoples personalities from TV
They always edit it to make you look a certain way
They will take the 1 stupid thing you say out of 100 things and show that

I think that her methods are good, but she has to act as a character to get the TV show

If she acted like a nice normal person it would not be interesting enough for TV

Not all of her methods are amazing, but I think she is very good 
esp for someone who gets on TV
as TV dog trainers have much more influence over the average dog owner than anyone else, I would rather she is up there than CM


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Victoria is a hoot, and I enjoy that she can play her (entertaining) role so well while giving some good, sound training advicel. It IS a TV show after all. Although she does combine some aversives, they're not over the top like a couple of certain somebodies who shall remain nameless.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I would rather the VS vs CM "fight" be settled by dog-training ability, not charisma levels. Then again, I tend to be a "what you say" vs a "how you say" type of person, and ability above all. A charming trainer doesn't equal a good one, nor does it make his/her methods more valid.
> 
> And of course it's her way or the highway - it's HER show. CM doesn't exactly let the people he works with dictate to him either. He is just more of a charming dictator instead of an iron-fist one - but BOTH dictate their shows and the methods of choice. CM tells the owners what to do and how to do it. That doesn't sound like 'giving choices' to me.



It's not just a matter of charm, charisma, or personality, CM has legitimate skills at dealing with people. Where a lot of people would break down and chew somebody out, he can actually gain compliance without the use of punishment. He proves what we already know, that positive reinforcement works best - even on people.

Obviously, being the host of their shows puts them in an authority position. How you work with your students determines whether you're more of a democracy or a dictatorship. CM coaches his clients whereas VS dictates. It's the opposite of the way they treat dogs. VS coaches dogs and CM dictates dogs.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

poodleholic said:


> Although she does combine some aversives, they're not over the top like a couple of certain somebodies who shall remain nameless.


Both she and the "other guy" do things that I consider questionable, but they are only questionable because of (IME) the nature of TV reality drama. The use of aversives is perfectly fine in my book, but there should be some foundation laid before they are used. And if the situation calls for it, a mass communicator has a responsibility to describe why it's necessary and why it is appropriately the first resort. There may be a lot of footage left on the cutting room floor that may justify what they are doing, but I suspect the real justification is that they don't have 3 months to work with a dog...and nobody would want to watch them do it.

I'll admit that Victoria bugs me more. She spouts a ton of hyperbolic nonsense about e-collars and prong collars, but then goes right to the air horn without so much as a howdy-do. Scaring the crap out of dogs has never been high on my list of training techniques, and I fail to see how that's better than a moment of minor discomfort, where the dog fully understands the cause/effect, and how to avoid it in the first place.

More to the point, I don't see what these celebrity dog people have done that makes their opinion any more valuable than my own. VS and "the other guy" produce a lot of sound and fury, but don't really give specifics about their accomplishments. VS's bio has a lot of fluff about how "respected" she is as a trainer, but what has she done...really? There is probably a dozen regulars on this board who could train rings around her. I called a local trainer for some help, a while back, and the guy's CV included putting two dogs (a Golden and a BC) through NOC titles, and is training a deaf Husky for agility competition. I know a lot of people say Huskies act like they're deaf, but I'll bet it's different with one who's actually hearing impaired.

So Victoria and Cesar are not exactly Paris Hilton (i.e., famous for being celebrities), but they're not too far off. And even Paris Hilton has at least one talent that we know of.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Both she and the "other guy" do things that I consider questionable, but they are only questionable because of (IME) the nature of TV reality drama. The use of aversives is perfectly fine in my book, but there should be some foundation laid before they are used. And if the situation calls for it, a mass communicator has a responsibility to describe why it's necessary and why it is appropriately the first resort. There may be a lot of footage left on the cutting room floor that may justify what they are doing, but I suspect the real justification is that they don't have 3 months to work with a dog...and nobody would want to watch them do it.
> 
> I'll admit that Victoria bugs me more. She spouts a ton of hyperbolic nonsense about e-collars and prong collars, but then goes right to the air horn without so much as a howdy-do. Scaring the crap out of dogs has never been high on my list of training techniques, and I fail to see how that's better than a moment of minor discomfort, where the dog fully understands the cause/effect, and how to avoid it in the first place.
> 
> ...


It's funny I said I was neutral with Cesar and I am also neutral with Victoria. I never really thought about either one at all till I got on DF. MM's reply pretty much hits the nail on the head.

There is a trend now with Blu-Ray movie discs to have a lot of options, one being is to see how the movie you are gonna watch is made. I never got into that as it would ruin movie for me if I saw all the fakery etc going on.

I have an idea were people to see the grunt work before either of these TV performers show you the final dog product it would be disconcerting to say the least.


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

I like both and dislike things about both. I prefer Cesar because I personally feel he has a more natural way with dogs, and I like that we get to see him with his own dogs and how they have such a connection with each other, and how we get to see into his family life (cameras in his own home, his sons and wife, etc). I like that we get to see him be emotional (he typically always has tears in his eyes or cries when leaving working with a really hard or moving case) where as Victoria just seems so unpersonable. I've never once seen her with her own dog (does she even OWN a dog?) or in her home, or any of her family, and while that's certainly not relevant to dog training, it's just something I prefer to see. I like her methods for the MOST part, but I also like Cesar's methods for the most part. I think it all depends on the dog really and certain things work for others, etc.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Cesar to me is very condescending. He talks down to women a lot too. it totally bugs me. "women have a more difficult time being pack leader..blah blah blah blah"...which i find offensive. 

Vicki on the other hand i feel conducts herself in a more professional manner, reserved and yet still approachable.

Pattison...uh...bradburgers anyone?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Only if there's BBQ sauce on top to mask the sour taste that man leaves in my mouth when I hear about his bullsheit.

But yea, I don't know, I think saying that VS floods people is going a little too far.. the strict British lady with a whip and leather tights is part of the persona of the show..


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> "women have a more difficult time being pack leader..blah blah blah blah"...which i find offensive.


At the risk of being called a sexist creep (where have I heard that before?), I'd say the stereotype has some truth to it. As does its opposite, i.e., that men have a tendency to believe they have a right to a dog's obedience due to certain gender-specific anatomical features.

It's been my (admittedly limited) observation that men and women who have no real knowledge of dogs, tend to attempt communication with them is decidedly different ways. Women use more words, and men use more volume. 

There, I said it.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> It's been my (admittedly limited) observation that men and women who have no real knowledge of dogs, tend to attempt communication with them is decidedly different ways. Women use more words, and men use more volume.



Neither of which sound like quality leadership.

Nagging a dog to death doesn't work, neither does yelling at the dog. 

One creates a dog that you have do machine gun your cues "sit! sit! sit! sit-sit-sit-come-on-Fluffy-sit! sit-Fluffy-sit-sit-sit"

The other creates a dog that becomes scared of the random booming sounds, or otherwise just tones out anything that isn't like SIT! FLUFFY SIT!


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Cesar to me is very condescending. He talks down to women a lot too. it totally bugs me. "women have a more difficult time being pack leader..blah blah blah blah"...which i find offensive.
> 
> Vicki on the other hand i feel conducts herself in a more professional manner, reserved and yet still approachable.
> 
> Pattison...uh...bradburgers anyone?


I've never really noticed him talking down to women... and I've honestly probably seen 95% of the episodes, lol. I've actually heard him say quite a few times about how his wife definitely runs the household and he has to make her happy lol. But maybe I just can't think of any off the top of his head? I do think Mexican men in general tend to think men are more 'superior' than women tho, it seems to just be part of their culture. I do think Victoria is more professional, but again, I do like to get an inside look at the personal side of people as well, which is why I like his show better. I probably use a lot more of Victoria's training techniques though. I do love Cesar's calmness and patience and think that can help ANY dog. So many people get frustrated and angry when training a dog.

Brad Pattison makes me ill, btw.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> At the risk of being called a sexist creep (where have I heard that before?), I'd say the stereotype has some truth to it. As does its opposite, i.e., that men have a tendency to believe they have a right to a dog's obedience due to certain gender-specific anatomical features.
> 
> It's been my (admittedly limited) observation that men and women who have no real knowledge of dogs, tend to attempt communication with them is decidedly different ways. Women use more words, and men use more volume.
> 
> There, I said it.


its a generalization that is not really accurate imo. its been my experience in my training endevours that women ive dealt with are more open to learning then the men ive dealt with. the women tend to be more interested in a fair approach that allows for communication.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Jacksons Mom said:


> I've never really noticed him talking down to women... and I've honestly probably seen 95% of the episodes, lol. I've actually heard him say quite a few times about how his wife definitely runs the household and he has to make her happy lol. But maybe I just can't think of any off the top of his head? I do think Mexican men in general tend to think men are more 'superior' than women tho, it seems to just be part of their culture.


not exactly. its not a matter of superiority in hispanic cultures...its a lot of heavily traditional catholic influence. women are revered but their cultural niche is on a different level.



> Brad Pattison makes me ill, btw.


meee tooo..


----------



## Jacksons Mom (Mar 12, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> not exactly. its not a matter of superiority in hispanic cultures...its a lot of heavily traditional catholic influence. women are revered but their cultural niche is on a different level.
> 
> 
> .


This is very true!


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Neither of which sound like quality leadership.
> 
> Nagging a dog to death doesn't work, neither does yelling at the dog.
> 
> ...


Right as rain. Communicating with non-humans is not intuitive for most people. Men and women tend to screw it up in predictably different ways. In the absence of natural talent, I'd generally rather teach women how to train. Testosterone is a performance enhancing drug in activities that require physical strength, extreme risk-taking, and not much else.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

In CM's book he admits to being such a macho, self-centered male that his wife threatened to leave him. He changed his ways after reading books on women and salvaged his marriage. The impression I got was that he felt women were not important and only his career mattered. So there is truth to CM having an inherent macho type of attitude, which you can see whenever he gets into an altercation with a dog. He'll be like, "I cannnot let the dog win." 

I think that it is okay to recognize general differences between men and women. However, in dealing with someone, it's always wise to treat them as the individual that they are, just like in training dogs. 





> Cesar to me is very condescending. He talks down to women a lot too. it totally bugs me. "women have a more difficult time being pack leader..blah blah blah blah"...which i find offensive.
> 
> Vicki on the other hand i feel conducts herself in a more professional manner, reserved and yet still approachable.


I don't know where you get this from. VS is a consistent user of verbal punishment on people, quite often bringing people to tears. Is this type of treatment really necessary? If we can use positive reinforcement to produce gentle reform in dogs, how hard can it be to apply the same methods on our own species?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> In CM's book he admits to being such a macho, self-centered male that his wife threatened to leave him. He changed his ways after reading books on women and salvaged his marriage. The impression I got was that he felt women were not important and only his career mattered. So there is truth to CM having an inherent macho type of attitude, which you can see whenever he gets into an altercation with a dog. *He'll be like, "I cannnot let the dog win."*


 
i find that disgusting. training isnt a contest between you and the dog. training should be a learning experience. 




> I don't know where you get this from. VS is a consistent user of verbal punishment on people, quite often bringing people to tears. Is this type of treatment really necessary? If we can use positive reinforcement to produce gentle reform in dogs, how hard can it be to apply the same methods on our own species?


from watching her show.

and yes, sometimes its necessary. there is a difference between people and dogs...dogs dont do things to be malicious or to shore up their own egos. people do. people like that...they need a good talkin to sometimes. dogs are innocents. people are not.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

Marsh says:
At the risk of being called a sexist creep (where have I heard that before?), I'd say the stereotype has some truth to it. As does its opposite, i.e., that men have a tendency to believe they have a right to a dog's obedience due to certain gender-specific anatomical features.*

It's been my (admittedly limited) observation that men and women who have no real knowledge of dogs, tend to attempt communication with them is decidedly different ways. Women use more words, and men use more volume*.

There, I said it.


Then Zim says: its a generalization that is not really accurate imo. *its been my experience in my training endevours that women ive dealt with are more open to learning then the men ive dealt with.* the women tend to be more interested in a fair approach that allows for communication.


Don't quote me 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure Patricia McConnell noticed both of these trends in her book (The Other End of the Leash). I can't give chapters or page numbers, but I vaguely remember reading about how she had observed men use more volume than women, and women seemed more open to learning new ways. And from what I've seen, I agree with all 3 of you. (Am I sexist creep now, too? )


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Don't quote me 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure Patricia McConnell noticed both of these trends in her book (The Other End of the Leash). I can't give chapters or page numbers, but I vaguely remember reading about how she had observed men use more volume than women, and women seemed more open to learning new ways.


I'll take a look. I think I know where it might be - and I also remember reading something like that in there (but it might be mixed up with another book LOL)


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I have to agree with MM's "sexism" to a point.
The genders DO have differences, some individuals more than others, and this is very obvious when seeing how a couple deals with their dog and how the dog reacts to each of them.
I'm generalizing here, so please do recognize that there are always exceptions to the "stereotypes":

The women in our classes that have difficulties in training are:
TOO soft spoken
Tend to move around too much (arms especially)
Say their cues with an upward inflection (sit?)
Touch the pups at inappropriate times (reinforcing the wrong behaviours) or use too big of rewards.
_Lean over the puppies_
OR
are convinced that they are not respected because the pup responds to dad more immediately and therefore start STARING at the pups and barking commands. All while _LEANING OVER THE PUPPIES_

The men who have difficulties in class:
Speak loudly and sharply, like a drill sargeant
REPEAT the commands, getting louder with each repetition
Do not reward enough
Use too many leash corrections (on PUPPIES!)
_Lean over the puppies_

Both of these sets of people have puppies that are distracted, stressed and not having any fun. Of course, the puppies are all "being stubborn"...sigh. Their body language is the most telling thing as to whether the pups respond well or not. So people STOP LEANING OVER YOUR PUPPIES!!

(not hard to tell I just got back from a class of cringing puppies, eh? Damn humans!)

There, see? I'm sexist too..lol


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I've got more experience in the traditionally male activity of firearms safety/marksmanship. Women students tend not to assume they'll automatically be experts, and they PAY ATTENTION. Women also tend to be somewhat cautious, which is always a good thing in an inexperienced, newbie gun handler. Men are far more likely to be cocky about their undemonstrated abilities. If you're going to have someone in a class do something really dangerous with a rifle or pistol, odds are it's gonna be a guy. The guys always assume it'll be one of the ladies.

Vive la différence!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the problems ive faced with female owners(keep in mind i mostly work with serious behavior cases and not really with much basic training)

sharpness. i guess you could call it skittishness. they are a little afraid of messing up even further and are too critical of themselves as trainers. 

they tend to go a little overboard on the being positive..i often have to tell them to tone the squeaky voice down a little lol.

Men...i have HUGE issues with

bullying the dog

pushing it around

being resentful of the fact im a woman

loud voices.

unable to control their frustration. 

im not saying there arent gender differences. the generalization i have a problem with is saying that men make better "leaders" than women do. (dismiss my distaste with the term leader for a minute)


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im not saying there arent gender differences. the generalization i have a problem with is saying that men make better "leaders" than women do. (dismiss my distaste with the term leader for a minute)


I don't know too many people who say men are better leaders, but I don't think it's disputable that men generally accept the role more easily. Women are more likely than men to be somewhat apologetic about using words like "obedience", "command", and "train", even going so far as to replace them with less confrontational words. Call it what you like; training is leadership.

That's not all in one direction, though. Anyone who claims they haven't been trained by their dog hasn't been paying attention.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im not saying there arent gender differences. the generalization i have a problem with is saying that men make better "leaders" than women do. (dismiss my distaste with the term leader for a minute)


I agree - leadership isn't about gender.

It's a learned ability (or a composite of abilities) for the most part.

Assuming it applies to dogs, gender doesn't make one better leaders than the other. There's nothing inherent to being male that makes me automatically have "a leg up" on a female owner. 

The genders might have different weakness, in the aggregate, but I don't believe that leads one gender to have less potential as a leader. If a woman and a man have equal skill, personality, and knowledge - what would make the man better than the woman or vice versa? In other words all other things equal - what difference would gender make?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Call it what you like; training is leadership.


To me, training is more about teaching than leading. I can't lead a behavior the dog doesn't know. My role as a trainer is to help him acquire the desired behavior using a yes/no feedback system (operant conditioning) 

I have to teach the behavior first - that's training. Requiring him to perform what he learned - that's leading. 

For example, teaching Wally to sit in order for the door to open - that's training.

Requiring him to do it once the context and behavior are learned - that's leading.

At least that's how I see it. Maybe I just have a "female" mindset lol. It wouldn't be the first time I've been called a woman in a man's body LOL.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I don't know too many people who say men are better leaders, but I don't think it's disputable that men generally accept the role more easily. Women are more likely than men to be somewhat apologetic about using words like "obedience", "command", and "train", even going so far as to replace them with less confrontational words. Call it what you like; training is leadership.
> 
> That's not all in one direction, though. Anyone who claims they haven't been trained by their dog hasn't been paying attention.


that hasnt been my experience.

its been my experience that the women are more willing to step up and take responsibility for their dogs. 

no. training is not leadership. taking responsibility for your dog is accepting ownership and everything it entails...i might be inclined to concede leadership to that but not to training. training is learning...on the part of both the human and the dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Do you wait for the dog to take responsibility for its behavior? Do you wait for the dog to decide it's time to learn? No, you take the initiative. Or to put it another way, you lead. I'm missing how that became a dirty word.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Do you wait for the dog to decide it's time to learn? No, you take the initiative. Or to put it another way, you lead. I'm missing how that became a dirty word.


Deciding when to learn - sure, I'm leading him into training. Heck, I even have a cue for it. That I use (admittedly, not consistently, usually the cue is me grabbing the clicker first, which is consistent). I'm basically saying "class is in session". That's leading. However, if he just does something when "class is not in session", and I notice it and reward it - am I leading? By your words (taking initiative), I wouldn't say I am. He took initiative (performed some behavior) and I decided I liked it or thought it could be useful to build on and rewarded it. Any learning that took place is from his initiated behavior. (Capturing, basically). 

An example is when I first taught him to go downstairs on cue. I just opened the door. When he decided to go, I praised him. When he reliably offered it, I "named" it. The cue was eventually born. I didn't direct him down the stairs or anything. He just did it, and I said "Yeah, good idea! Here's a treat! Good boy!" (Capturing again)

When I taught him to open/close doors - He pawed the door, which got rewarded consistently, then the reward didn't come. I didn't cue another paw or anything, he just pawed harder, and then the door opened/closed - he got rewarded. Once that happened reliably, I "told him the name of what he did" (put a cue on it), and it was learned (shaping)

I wouldn't say I took initiative in either of those scenarios. Wally did by acting and trying to figure out the problem. I just told him if he was "getting warmer" or not.

No, I don't think leading is a dirty word. I just don't think it accurately describes the actual imparting of knowledge of a skill or behavior (what I consider training). To me, leading is done when cuing a known behavior (like cuing weave during an agility run), not teaching an unknown one (like what I'm trying to do with Wally - he doesn't know what "weave" is, so directing him to "weave" [leading] is practically impossible, or at least highly inefficient - he doesn't know what the heck I'm talking about)

I need him to acquire the behavior (teaching) and then I can direct it's use (leading).


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Marsh Muppet said:


> Do you wait for the dog to take responsibility for its behavior? Do you wait for the dog to decide it's time to learn? No, you take the initiative. Or to put it another way, you lead. I'm missing how that became a dirty word.


the dog doesnt take responsibility for its behavior. I do. because im the owner.

and no i dont really initiate much in the way of training anymore...i do sometimes but sometimes she pulls the clicker off the hook and brings it to me. 

she takes the initiative more than i do. she brings me the clicker, she'll bring me the leash, remind me to do things for her that she cant accomplish..

i LOVE having a fully operant dog lol..


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and no i dont really initiate much in the way of training anymore...i do sometimes but sometimes she pulls the clicker off the hook and brings it to me.


I need to teach this. 

He could do it too - he already knows how to get things and bring them to me.

Thanks for the unintended idea


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i didnt teach it. she just started doing it. who am i to object to her wanting to learn?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i didnt teach it. she just started doing it. who am i to object to her wanting to learn?




Wally will come look for me on his own if I've "been gone too long" - so he can come curl up next to me when he finds me (assuming I'm not eating anything LOL). Of course, he opens the doors on his own to get to me. If he could open the bathroom door from the outside (hasn't figured out how to pull doors open) I'd never get any privacy! 

One thing he does to is stand by the black chair (the one I sit in to watch tv/play video games). When he wants me to sit in it, so he can climb up on me and nap with some company I guess instead of over on his bed. I never taught that to be sure! LOL All I showed him was how to get up in the chair (actually I just told him, get here [in the chair] and he had to figure it out)


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

start putting the clicker somewhere where he can reach. i didnt think about it but i always put it on my computer table which is a japanese style table(read really low to the ground).


----------



## Chikyuu (May 1, 2010)

qingcong said:


> I don't know where you get this from. VS is a consistent user of verbal punishment on people, quite often bringing people to tears. Is this type of treatment really necessary? If we can use positive reinforcement to produce gentle reform in dogs, how hard can it be to apply the same methods on our own species?


I don't know where YOU get THIS from. VS, from the shows I've seen, is just very blunt and brutally honest with owners. Especially about how aggressive dogs can lead people to take them to court, take them to court enough times the dog is labeled dangerous, might be taken away or put down, and in some cases with two dogs living together that are aggressive towards each other, they might have to get rid of one of them. These are the only types of things she says that I see people cry over, and to be honest I think it's just a wake up call for them. It's like a psychiatrist telling a mother if they don't teach their children discipline they may end up in jail. Sure the Mom will cry at the prospect of it, but then she has the initiative to put in the work it takes to straighten everything out. 

And why should be use positive reinforcement for people like she does dogs? You have to communicate differently with dogs than people in the first place, don't you? You can tell a person honestly how you feel, brutally, and let them know you aren't meant to hurt their feelings or be rude but to let them feel the full scale of what's going wrong. You can't communicate to dogs the same way.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> I agree - leadership isn't about gender.
> 
> It's a learned ability (or a composite of abilities) for the most part.
> 
> ...


Depending on if you call it training or teaching, or dominance or leadership, I think the key point is the best trainers/teachers and the best leaders/"dominant ones" are the ones who can keep their wits about them no matter what. People who I consider good leaders are confident without being cocky, able to face problems without getting frustrated or angry, and are the least likely to need to use a booming voice or bark at people/dogs/whatever. The people I'm drawn to IRL are those who are "even" 24/7, don't have to raise their voices to get their point across, and keep their brains intact when something goes wrong. This goes for men AND women.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Depending on if you call it training or teaching, or dominance or leadership, I think the key point is the best trainers/teachers and the best leaders/"dominant ones" are the ones who can keep their wits about them no matter what. People who I consider good leaders are confident without being cocky, able to face problems without getting frustrated or angry, and are the least likely to need to use a booming voice or bark at people/dogs/whatever. The people I'm drawn to IRL are those who are "even" 24/7, don't have to raise their voices to get their point across, and keep their brains intact when something goes wrong. This goes for men AND women.


that's impossible lol. you'd have to be a freakin robot. nobody is even 24/7.

the people i consider the best trainers are the ones who can laugh about their goofs, be solution oriented despite frustration and who know where and when a little letting out is good and can do it in a way that benefits the dog.

like say i get pissy because Bolo's being snarky for whatever reason, i start calling her nasty names in my most affectionate and encouraging tones. the name calling satisfies the brat in me and doesnt hurt her cuz she's clueless as to the meaning of the words and gets her amped because my tone is one of happy excitement. 

i still havent hit on solutions for a lot of her problems. she's still a weenie about water and has a bad habit of trying to take flying leaps out of high windows(even when they are closed) to chase the foxes and ***** that come into the yard. the jokes about needing to invent dry water and moving into Fort Knox that run through my head diffuse the frustration and keep me focused on coming up with solutions

Im not the best trainer in the world by a long shot. i havent met every dog that's ever lived lol....but that's the example i try to follow. keep it lighthearted and easy and let the dog be your guide.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Depending on if you call it training or teaching, or dominance or leadership, I think the key point is the best trainers/teachers and the best leaders/"dominant ones" are the ones who can keep their wits about them no matter what. People who I consider good leaders are confident without being cocky, able to face problems without getting frustrated or angry, and are the least likely to need to use a booming voice or bark at people/dogs/whatever. The people I'm drawn to IRL are those who are "even" 24/7, don't have to raise their voices to get their point across, and keep their brains intact when something goes wrong. This goes for men AND women.



Yes, absolutely.
Now..where are all those people? LOL..I sure as heck don't see them whole lot.

On a slightly different topic, but still related to human issues in dogtraining:

We were discussing on another internet group people in training classes who use the leash too much (in a bad way) and the owner of the list mentioned a practice she used to do in martial arts called "sticky hands". It's a partner exercise about sharing energy and moving WITH the partner. We were wondering if something like this could be used in a dog training environment (similar to "silky leash training"). 

I suggested having warm up exercises in class for JUST The human, working on body awareness, breathing, voice modulation (like in a theatre class or sport related skill class) to prep the people for working with their dogs. Five minutes of calm, physical movement that can transfer to the training ring with the dogs.

It's kind of a zen movement thing and may be hard for people to "get" in the beginning but I think it could make a huge difference. I know that Paul Owens, the author of "The Dog Whisperer" and "The Puppy Whisperer" does this at the beginning of his classes.

Most people, male or female, don't have a good sense of their OWN physicality, especially if they've never played a high level sport or done dance/martial arts or other movement based training. Since dogs pay more attention to our physical movements and are excellent discriminators in this way, wouldn't it be more efficient of US for communication purposes to be more in control of our own bodies?

As for the P+ for people, as long as you are not calling someone names, physically assaulting them or shaming them for the SAKE of shaming them, it is perfectly appropriate WHEN NECESSARY to be blunt, clear spoken and occasionally harsh if that's what it takes for the person to snap out of whatever idiocy they are involved in. Positive reinforcement and support are very handy tools and work more often than not, but if you've got NOTHING to reinforce because the humans are stuck (usually in their OPINIONS) then P+ is not a bad thing.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

I think that the highest level (in terms of difficulty and stakes) of negotiations are the ones between conflicting countries. The most amazing recent example was when Clinton, Gore, and the current administration secured the release of the two US journalist from a North Korea detention center. There was no domination, intimidation, or punishment involved - just smart negotiation tactics and of course Bill Clinton's international respect.

If people are capable of such feats as this, it's not too crazy to think that lesser feats such as convincing idiots to treat dogs differently can be accomplished with minimal coercion or force. VS DOES use positive punishment and psychological coercion on people. Yes, it is blunt, it is also punishing. I would agree that some degree of P+ can be useful, if only to allow you to establish an alternate behavior. Just like in dog training, P+ on people is subject to the negative spiral. It's rewarding for the person dishing it out since it seemed to work the first time and it releases frustration. If it doesn't work the second time, they punish harder. Just because people can reason, it doesn't make us any less subject to animal learning, does it?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> I think that the highest level (in terms of difficulty and stakes) of negotiations are the ones between conflicting countries. The most amazing recent example was when Clinton, Gore, and the current administration secured the release of the two US journalist from a North Korea detention center. There was no domination, intimidation, or punishment involved - just smart negotiation tactics and of course Bill Clinton's international respect.
> 
> If people are capable of such feats as this, it's not too crazy to think that lesser feats such as convincing idiots to treat dogs differently can be accomplished with minimal coercion or force. VS DOES use positive punishment and psychological coercion on people. Yes, it is blunt, it is also punishing. I would agree that some degree of P+ can be useful, if only to allow you to establish an alternate behavior. Just like in dog training, P+ on people is subject to the negative spiral. It's rewarding for the person dishing it out since it seemed to work the first time and it releases frustration. If it doesn't work the second time, they punish harder. Just because people can reason, it doesn't make us any less subject to animal learning.



with the people i sometimes deal with...you CANT TALK to someone who has been drinking and kicking their dog around...to use one example. THAT is when i use force...just like in working with dogs and two dogs get in a brawl...then i use force. i meet violence with violence to end the violence. im talking bullies and abusers caught in the act. its a defensive action to protect the weaker party.

and sometimes these people need a good talkin to. by that i mean...they argue with me...so we debate. Usually lively, i stand on my own two feet intellectually and go for it that way. 

sometimes i call the cops on them. 

sometimes i give them a shoulder to cry on, laugh with them etc...

variables...lots and lots of variables..


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> with the people i sometimes deal with...you CANT TALK to someone who has been drinking and kicking their dog around...to use one example. THAT is when i use force...just like in working with dogs and two dogs get in a brawl...then i use force. i meet violence with violence to end the violence. im talking bullies and abusers caught in the act. its a defensive action to protect the weaker party.
> 
> and sometimes these people need a good talkin to. by that i mean...they argue with me...so we debate. Usually lively, i stand on my own two feet intellectually and go for it that way.
> 
> ...



What exactly do you do anyways? When you confront violence with violence, it doesn't sound like you care much for finding a solution, you're only trying to stop them from doing something. Does this sound accurate to you? If you were truly invested in solving the human problem, I doubt you would be calling the cops or using force. It's only when you feel the humans are beyond help that you use force.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Just because people can reason, it doesn't make us any less subject to animal learning, does it?


Maybe not "less subject" as you probably could teach people things even using as basic a technique as mark-and-reward. 

But it does add layers of complexity. For example, if I were to teach something using mark-and-reward, some people "wouldn't see the point" and thus wouldn't get as much out of it. Some people could be insulted, "Why are you teaching me like I'm an animal?!" 

People can do things for reasons that make no sense. People can also be closed-minded and refuse any new information. Dogs are probably always open-minded, even if you have to negotiation to get them to give you a chance. People can just outright say "screw you" and move on, or can string you along for ulterior motives, or get pleasure at "trying to get a rise" you, or are more seeking validation and if the trainer doesn't give it to them, then look out.

Then there's things like zim mentioned - people who get off on being sadistic and bullying. People how are deluded due to being drunk/high/both. If I was a trainer - I wouldn't deal with that crap either. I would be a dog trainer, not dog trainer/therapist/AA sponsor. 

Folks on the world stage, like the example you mentioned, probably got there because they are stable (in most cases - mad dictators and such aside) are aware of what's at stake, which tends to make them seek out some common sort of ground to work from because the stakes ARE high and the world is watching.

Dog training, lesser stakes, comparatively, but also more open to more kinds of instability/lack of desire for common ground, probably because of that. After all, the "it's just a dog, so if I screw this one up, I'll just get rid of it and get another and try again" mentality is alive and well. Doesn't work on the world stage, but happens constantly in regards to dogs.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's trainers that have to deal with people arguing them down about things - when THEY called the trainer to deal with the out of control dog that they somehow know so much about training. Or there's trainers that have to deal with people who reject every idea they present. Why should someone like that be coddled/addled with R+ constantly? What are you reinforcing? That's like c/t a dog that's growling at you and trying to snap your hands off. 

Learning itself probably isn't all that different, getting to the learning phase/getting people in the learning mindset is where the game begins - and sometimes ends if progress just can't be made.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> *I wouldn't be surprised if there's trainers that have to deal with people arguing them down about things -* when THEY called the trainer to deal with the out of control dog that they somehow know so much about training. Or there's trainers that have to deal with people who reject every idea they present. Why should someone like that be coddled/addled with R+ constantly? What are you reinforcing? That's like c/t a dog that's growling at you and trying to snap your hands off.


I understand the above, but and a big but, the trainer always has an out it's called "a refusing the dog out" Before any dog is accepted the ground rules must be laid out in advance. Before any contract is signed there is a long discussion with owners about training, what can be done, what can't be done. 

It's not rocket science. A customer calls and is told on phone about the training to save a trip to kennels if they are uncomfortable with the trainer used. As far as I'm concerned any trainer that let's a client dictate terms on training is not a trainer. He/She is a wanna-be and should be looking for a job that they can handle.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

that's impossible lol. you'd have to be a freakin robot. nobody is even 24/7.

*So true  But I guess a better way of explaining it is, get mad, then get over it. Some people get ballistic about something and hold onto it for months. It's human nature to get frustrated, but good bounce back (like in puppy testing!) goes a long way!*

the people i consider the best trainers are the ones who can laugh about their goofs, be solution oriented despite frustration and who know where and when a little letting out is good and can do it in a way that benefits the dog.

*Very true, and very good characteristics. I usually end up laughing myself silly at least once in agility. I tried a new move that I've never done before and wound up lost on the course, and just belted out CRAP! and kept running. We made up a course as we went  *

like say i get pissy because Bolo's being snarky for whatever reason, i start calling her nasty names in my most affectionate and encouraging tones. the name calling satisfies the brat in me and doesnt hurt her cuz she's clueless as to the meaning of the words and gets her amped because my tone is one of happy excitement. 

*Haha!! Auz thought his name for 2 solid years was "knock it off dammit"  *

i still havent hit on solutions for a lot of her problems. she's still a weenie about water and has a bad habit of trying to take flying leaps out of high windows(even when they are closed) to chase the foxes and ***** that come into the yard. the jokes about needing to invent dry water and moving into Fort Knox that run through my head diffuse the frustration and keep me focused on coming up with solutions

Im not the best trainer in the world by a long shot. i havent met every dog that's ever lived lol....but that's the example i try to follow. keep it lighthearted and easy and let the dog be your guide.

*Exactly, and I think we get the dogs we get for a reason. *


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> What exactly do you do anyways? When you confront violence with violence, it doesn't sound like you care much for finding a solution, you're only trying to stop them from doing something. Does this sound accurate to you? If you were truly invested in solving the human problem, I doubt you would be calling the cops or using force. It's only when you feel the humans are beyond help that you use force.


no, you're wrong,

i stop the dog from being in an immediate risk of serious injury/death. 

when someone is already in a fury and about to kill their dog, they have to be physically stopped. as ive said many many many many times, force is acceptable in a LIFE AND DEATH situation...where are you missing that point? or are you trying to lol?

once we get dog safe...i sometimes call the cops because sometimes its deliberate animal cruelty. which needs to go down on someone's record. there needs to be evidence of it to protect any future dogs they get. then i take dog, leave, heal it, train it and find it a new home. 

those cases are pretty rare though. 

most often its "*sob sob sob what do *sob* i do *sob sob sob?"

and then i show them. i lay out their options, let'm choose and we go from there

im not big on talk during dogwork except for keeping journals. i use a tape recorder like you might use in a college class to record everything that happens, as it happens.) im not a social butterfly IRL and im not there for the people's sake. Im usually there to keep a dog from being PTS or rehomed or more likely dumped. Im there for the dog.


----------



## qingcong (Oct 26, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no, you're wrong,
> 
> i stop the dog from being in an immediate risk of serious injury/death.
> 
> when someone is already in a fury and about to kill their dog, they have to be physically stopped. as ive said many many many many times, force is acceptable in a LIFE AND DEATH situation...where are you missing that point? or are you trying to lol?


Woah there. Certainly, if your goal is to save the dog's life, then you do whatever means necessary. I thought perhaps you were a dog trainer called in to help people with their problem dogs, but it sounds like you do something else and that's fine. That's why I asked "What do you do anyways?", because I wasn't sure what the purpose of your profession was. Now if you were a trainer who's job was to help people, I would certainly question your use of force on people.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I like he but occ I scratch my head. Ex. I have seen multiple episodes where the complaint was begging and a major part of her solution was to put up a baby gate or say feed the dog better food.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

qingcong said:


> Woah there. Certainly, if your goal is to save the dog's life, then you do whatever means necessary. I thought perhaps you were a dog trainer called in to help people with their problem dogs, but it sounds like you do something else and that's fine. That's why I asked "What do you do anyways?", because I wasn't sure what the purpose of your profession was. Now if you were a trainer who's job was to help people, I would certainly question your use of force on people.


its not a profession. and yes my aim is to help people but my aim is to help the dog first.

I am a VOLUNTEER trainer for rescue efforts. I get called in on serious cases...mostly aggression issues. The idea is that there are low income families who need trainers but cant afford them. My services are 100% free. i dont get paid. Im not here to coddle people. and i will bust someone up and remove the dog from the premises if its life is in danger. If they are not in danger..then i will help the family keep their dog out of the shelter/from being PTS


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

jiml said:


> I like he but occ I scratch my head. Ex. I have seen multiple episodes where the complaint was begging and a major part of her solution was to put up a baby gate or say feed the dog better food.


I was a little confused when a couple (I can't remember who) fed a home cooked diet and she thought it was ridiculous, and made them switch to kibble. (I too thought it was ridiculous the dogs got good food and the kids of the family got zilch, but I would have liked to have seen her tackle the REAL issue-- the problem of putting the dogs before the kids in that respect).


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

I was a little confused when a couple (I can't remember who) fed a home cooked diet and she thought it was ridiculous, and made them switch to kibble.>>>>

I have also seen the opposite. where she says look at this great food your eating and the poor dog has this dry unappetizing food - wouldent you beg? thats flat out humanizing the dog. If you are dealing with a highly food driven beggar it really doesent matter what you give them.


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

I was watching her episodes with mild interest for a while. I didn't care much for VS personality, but her training methods seemed okay... until one episode she was trying to train I think a spaniel that was food aggressive and always trying to steal food from the table. It was a family with small children, and one of the daughters had been bit by the dog when she got to near the food. Victoria tried her methods, I can't remember the exact details. I remember her keeping the dog in a different room initially, and then trying to have the dog stay on it's bed while everyone was eating. There was very little done to address the actual aggressive behavior. Anyways, she gave it her prescribed amount of time, and the spaniel went after the little girl another time over food, and drew blood. So Victoria told the family to put the dog down.. and they did! On freakin national TV, this guy is at the vet having his dog put down. They even showed the guy burying his dog in his yard. And now I can't stand to hear anything positive about that woman. 

I don't disagree that a dog that bites is bad news bears.. but how about this: Putting the dog into a home without children? This does not sound like a kid friendly dog, and to me a solution is not to kill the dog because it is a poor fit to the home. A good rehome can go a long ways. And, 6 weeks of training didn't fix the dog. Years of training haven't fixed my dogs dog aggression. But I didn't put her down for it. What sort of solution is that to a problem. To me, this dog was not that tough of a case. It was not overtly aggressive in any other situation. There are many dogs who don't do well with children, other dogs, etc. But that doesn't mean you kill them.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

grace said:


> So Victoria told the family to put the dog down.. and they did! On freakin national TV, this guy is at the vet having his dog put down. They even showed the guy burying his dog in his yard. And now I can't stand to hear anything positive about that woman.


Wow.

I'm kinda surprised he did it. I mean, if I wanted the dog bad enough, I'd try to find some way to help the dog (try another trainer, etc) and eliminate the problem, or, as you suggest, re-home him to a home with no kids and not likely to have any.

I agree - killing the dog is too much, especially without even having tried re-homing. (I assume this is the first home for the dog?)

And to show it - why? What's the point of showing a family burying their dog or going through the process of having him put down? What's that got to do with dog training? Trying to say "this is what happens if you don't train your dogs right?"

TV and it's love of drama.


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

It was seriously one of the most apalling things I have ever seen on TV (I'm a dog lover, what can I say?). Any ounce respect I may have had for her and her methods went totally out the door. Maybe that is wrong of me, but it just struck a cord I guess. I don't know if Lucy's issues will ever be totally fixed, but killing her will never be a solution.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

hence my original comment and firm position

TV DOG TRAINING SUCKS PERIOD. ALL OF IT>

Stillwell is just the most tolerable of them imo.


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

Really? She doesn't lose all credibility to you when she gets one decent hard case and kills the dog? I am genuinely interested in how anyone can still rationalize that this woman has any idea what she is doing, and has any love for dogs when her solution to a problem dog is to kill it. Or do you just chalk it up to TV sensationalism? Because that may have truly been why this happened to begin with... which is almost even more disgusting.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i like her better than this guy.


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

I don't think either is okay. But killing a dog with kindness and then actually killing the dog when that doesn't work seems counterproductive to me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

grace said:


> I don't think either is okay. But killing a dog with kindness and then actually killing the dog when that doesn't work seems counterproductive to me.


I didn't see the show. What issues was the dog having?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

grace said:


> I don't think either is okay. But killing a dog with kindness and then actually killing the dog when that doesn't work seems counterproductive to me.


i havent seen the episode in question but here's my take on euthanizing dogs

owner's call. if an owner doesnt want to continue they are free to euthanize. and in some aggression cases...legally speaking by adopting out a dog with a bite history...you could be legally held responsible should it bite again.

i will have to watch the particular episode before i comment further


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

The spaniel was food aggressive, and extremely food driven. It had bitten a small girl (under 5) over food. she tried to rehab it. It bit a small child again over food. It was euthanized. 

The behaviorists I have worked with are a lot more devoted to their "hard" cases. If they can't rehab the dog, they will take it in, work even more intensively, and then rehome the dog under the caveat that it has whatever issue. Many behaviorists I know have adopted out dogs that aren't perfect, they just have to be selective of the home it goes to. I have had 2 adopted dogs that both came with dog aggression. One of the I rehomed to a family that didn't care if she was dog aggressive because they didn't have a lifestyle that required her to be around other dogs... and my behaviorist continues to work with the dog to help the issue. 

I guess I'm a little more animal rights-ish. While it's true I am at my leisure to euthanize or not euthize my dogs at my discretion, I would never exercise that right unless I had absolutely no other options and a completely unmanageable dogs. I already had I dog I couldn't manage and that didn't fit my lifestyle. And she now lives in a lovely home much better suited to her needs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

grace said:


> The spaniel was food aggressive, and extremely food driven. It had bitten a small girl (under 5) over food. she tried to rehab it. It bit a small child again over food. It was euthanized.


resource guarding..which is really in the long run not exactly curable. there's a dilemma here...How does one know that this dog will never come across a child again?



> The behaviorists I have worked with are a lot more devoted to their "hard" cases. If they can't rehab the dog, they will take it in, work even more intensively, and then rehome the dog under the caveat that it has whatever issue. Many behaviorists I know have adopted out dogs that aren't perfect, they just have to be selective of the home it goes to. I have had 2 adopted dogs that both came with dog aggression. One of the I rehomed to a family that didn't care if she was dog aggressive because they didn't have a lifestyle that required her to be around other dogs... and my behaviorist continues to work with the dog to help the issue.


im the same way...but biting a child and attacking other dogs are two whole very very different behaviorial stories with very very different potential legal repercussions. its up to the owners to decide whether or not they want to take that risk. some will and some wont. its not like VS made the decision to PTS...the owners did. and here again comes the yucky thing about TV training...what you see is never the whole story...there's a room that the film goes to to get cut and put together into a cohesive show..and there's almost no chance that they never cut anything from what they've filmed.



> I guess I'm a little more animal rights-ish. While it's true I am at my leisure to euthanize or not euthize my dogs at my discretion, I would never exercise that right unless I had absolutely no other options and a completely unmanageable dogs. I already had I dog I couldn't manage and that didn't fit my lifestyle. And she now lives in a lovely home much better suited to her needs.


and if it had been a seriously HA dog and bit someone after you rehomed it..in some places they would be well within their rights to sue the crap out of you. that's something that's not very well known and should be.


Ive rehomed aggressive dogs before..but that's a lot of serious effort that most people are afraid of. kudos to you but your standards may differ from others...look at it this way..some would rather a dog be humanely euthanized than possibly end up in a bite quarantine, or warehoused for years until someone came along who was willing to overlook the biting issue.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

grace said:


> Really? She doesn't lose all credibility to you when she gets one decent hard case and kills the dog? I am genuinely interested in how anyone can still rationalize that this woman has any idea what she is doing, and has any love for dogs when her solution to a problem dog is to kill it. Or do you just chalk it up to TV sensationalism? Because that may have truly been why this happened to begin with... which is almost even more disgusting.



A little of both for me.

No, that doesn't show she has any skill/love for dogs - on the other hand, it may be sensationalism/other factors (it's TV after all - who knows what lawyery stuff or whatever might be a factor).

I'm inclined to lean to sensationalism, considering how prevalent the mentality seems to be in TV along with trying to make any situation possible "dramatic".


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

I haven't seen that episode either. There are dogs who just have a screw loose and can't be made trustworthy. There are also owners who can't be trusted to do what it takes to deal with such a serious problem. Re-homing a dog with a bad bite history is not a great option, either. Is it possible these things factored in? Sometimes there are no good solutions.


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

Maybe you are right. But from what I saw of the dog, it wasn't a particularly hard case. I have seen dogs much worse be put into better homes. I have seen dogs that you can't come within 10 feet of they are so aggressive work out. A spaniel that isn't great with kids and is food aggressive just doesn't seem like a kill worthy case to me. There have been cases where that may have been a solution I could have at least rationalized. 

Good luck finding the episode. I found a few links with a little info about it, but mostly it caused such an uproar in the UK against VS I would imagine they have kept the actual episode on the downlow. 

Here is some info: http://www.locatetv.com/tv/its-me-or-the-dog-uk/32684

It says it was on the rehome list, which never was attempted.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

grace said:


> Maybe you are right. But from what I saw of the dog, it wasn't a particularly hard case. I have seen dogs much worse be put into better homes. I have seen dogs that you can't come within 10 feet of they are so aggressive work out. A spaniel that isn't great with kids and is food aggressive just doesn't seem like a kill worthy case to me. There have been cases where that may have been a solution I could have at least rationalized.
> 
> Good luck finding the episode. I found a few links with a little info about it, but mostly it caused such an uproar in the UK against VS I would imagine they have kept the actual episode on the downlow.
> 
> ...


its the "not great with kids resource guarding" that would give me some pause. the breed is irrelevant in most cases though with a spaniel(depending on the type of spaniel)...it may have been health related. there are a few conditions in spaniels that can not only make them snap but cause them serious pain.

aggression cases involve a LOT of factors and you do the dog and yourself a serious disservice by not assessing all of them. we have no way of knowing whether all factors were assessed or not. if they were...i totally agree with putting the dog down...if they werent...i do not...since its TV and i have no way of knowing...i dunno..ya know?


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

Yeah. I would have at least have liked to see her get the dog totally dialed in on basic obedience. It was still a total hellion around the house. At least with Lucy we have her really under control through good solid obedience training. Just the manageability has made her a better dog to deal with when she has to meet other dogs. 

Plus, I think dogs are more receptive to all things you try to teach them/behaviors you try to modify when they already have a good report with you and with them having to do what you tell them.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

grace said:


> Yeah. I would have at least have liked to see her get the dog totally dialed in on basic obedience. It was still a total hellion around the house. At least with Lucy we have her really under control through good solid obedience training. Just the manageability has made her a better dog to deal with when she has to meet other dogs.
> 
> Plus, I think dogs are more receptive to all things you try to teach them/behaviors you try to modify when they already have a good report with you and with them having to do what you tell them.


the more you talk about the episode, the more it sounds like they cut something important. probably something the owners didnt want made public.


----------



## grace (Apr 15, 2010)

Something wasn't right about the episode. Maybe I'm just overreacting. I saw it a long time ago, but I was really upset and really angry afterward. And obviously that has stuck with me. I just remembering sitting there with my jaw dropped, watching this guy bury his dog.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Of the TV trainers, she's the only one that I think isn't a total moron who has no grasp of widely documented and obvious BF Skinner Behavior Modification. Anyone who doesn't GET basic learning theory and preaches about dominance is, IMO, in no way qualified to be a dog trainer.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

Say what you will about Cesar but If he didnt think the dog was trustworthy he would take it and find them a better suited dog. 

There is MUCH more to learning than Skinner's 4 quadrants, and
infinitely more to behavior than operant conditioning. Skinner
truely believed that the 4 quadrants explained all of behavior, Actually the 4
quadrants don't really explain anything, and 'learning theory' is not
a theory. The 4 quadrants just put operant phenomena into boxes,
which helps us to categorize them but doesn't explain anything. (how does operant conditioning explain coutship behaviors? or social learning?) True
explanations of behavior are in quantum theory, which explains the
chemistry of synaptic transmission, and evolutionary theory, which
explains why and how all of this came to be.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

jiml said:


> Say what you will about Cesar but If he didnt think the dog was trustworthy he would take it and find them a better suited dog.
> 
> There is MUCH more to learning than Skinner's 4 quadrants, and
> infinitely more to behavior than operant conditioning. Skinner
> ...



uhh...Cesar? first of all NOBODY tells me what to do with my dog.
second...no one can choose the right dog for you...except you. how utterly presumptuous. anyone who would let him do that is a fool. 
third. we're talking Stillwell here

learning theory explains ENVIRONMENTAL learning...which in dog training...is the only thing that really has any applicable truth.


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

first of all NOBODY tells me what to do with my dog.
second...no one can choose the right dog for you...except you. how utterly presumptuous. anyone who would let him do that is a fool. 
third. we're talking Stillwell here>>>>

Im sorry I offended you. I disagree, If he feels a dog is dangerous he OFFERS them a lower key dog. better than killing the offending dog I think. LOL

learning theory explains ENVIRONMENTAL learning...which in dog training...is the only thing that really has any applicable truth>>>

I dont disagree with the use of operant and classical conditioning in training but I stand by the fact it is just a categorization. 
Social learning can be and is used in dog training.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

jiml said:


> True explanations of behavior are in quantum theory, which explains the chemistry of synaptic transmission, and evolutionary theory, which explains why and how all of this came to be.


Tell me how to use this to train my dog to perform behaviors and I'll listen. 

Courtship? don't know. Wally's neutered and I'm not training him to flirt 

As far as social learning - tell me how to do that too without having another dog.

I'm not married to any theory, however, I can use OC and CC to achieve results. Regardless of the technical reasons why it works, whether it explains things or is just a handle to access what actually creates the change, it works and has worked for me and my dog.

If OC and CC give me the ability to manipulate what goes on in the dog's head (which might be the 'true' reasons why it works) then, that's good enough for me. If the click fires of synapses that commit what he did to memory, that's fine.

I don't know how the internet works on an intricate level, but as long as I can fire up my computer, hook up my network gear, make it work, load up my OS, open my brower, and surf to this site and post this post - that's good enough for me.

I view OC and CC the same way.


----------

