# Cesar Milan



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

I've watched Cesar Milan's show in the past and was pretty ambivalent about it. Some things great, some things not so great.

Yesterday I was flipping channels and caught him so stopped for a second. He grabbed a small, maybe 15, 20 pound dog by the scruff and almost THREW him on the floor then held him on is back. I was horrified!!!! and changed the channel. 

Yes, I didn't see what came before and yes, I didn't see what came after but that was enough. 

Do those of you who look up to him think this is okay??????


----------



## fuzzypuppies (Dec 22, 2008)

I'd have to see that actual clip to make a call. I've watched his show quite a bit recently and not once have I seen him go overboard.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Well, I saw it and I wouldn't ever want him to grab my dog like that, swing him through the air onto the concrete floor and hold him there menacingly. I thought he was quite reasonable. Not any more.


----------



## Snoppykins (Dec 19, 2008)

I am sure I would have felt the same way you do minpins, because we are more into the gentle calm stuff. However as long as his temper was in control and he didnt hurt the little guy it more than likely was just something that looked rough but was ok.

I trust him with his dogs as I do Victoria, and honestly I have yet to find a person close to me that I would let correct my dogs. 

I called one women that was recommanded to me and asked her how she trains, she uses force and choke chains and she went over how I should dominate my puppy. She said I had to hold him on the floor till he gave in, no matter how long it took.

Sai was 9 weeks then, and I asked if it was ok to do with a puppy and she was all yes. I did what she said till I cried. Sai never submitted to me in fact he got worse during the holding him down episode and the whole situation got loud and he and I were both upset. I have never seen him attack my hand or react so horrifyied that way before.

I learned that she was wrong to have me try that on my PUPPY, adult dogs are different. And Sai does not dominate me and I never tried that horrible way on him. I might when he is older and needs it but not as a puppy.

It was like spanking a one year old baby with a belt....Too much extreme for the wrong age ya know!

Some people are too rough and dumb and I do not agree with their methods...like that women on the phone gerrrr

But Ceaser, well he seems to have a way with dogs like no one I have ever seen. But if he does that too rough again we will write him a letter wont we


----------



## Locke (Nov 3, 2008)

theres a lot of conflicting views on ceasar milan on this forum. search some past threads about him and you'll see what people think about his methods.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Thanks, Snoppykins. I admit, I don't know much about the man and have watched only a couple of his shows but it really bothered me as the dog was so small and he almost threw it to the floor (I'm sure he didn't hurt the dog but still).


----------



## Melissa_Chloe (Dec 31, 2008)

Sure it was Cesar Milan and not that Brad guy from off of "End of my leash" ?? Now THAT guy goes overboard!!!!!


----------



## Locke (Nov 3, 2008)

Melissa_Chloe said:


> Sure it was Cesar Milan and not that Brad guy from off of "End of my leash" ?? Now THAT guy goes overboard!!!!!


 HONESTLY! I really can't stand him. He's so condescending to the owners and tries to be a therapist or some sort of relationship guru. He really needs to calm down and revise his training methods.


----------



## Snoppykins (Dec 19, 2008)

myminpins said:


> Thanks, Snoppykins. I admit, I don't know much about the man and have watched only a couple of his shows but it really bothered me as the dog was so small and he almost threw it to the floor (I'm sure he didn't hurt the dog but still).



The biggest thing I think I have learned with dogs...and kids, take what I see works and that I am comfortable with and use it. Also I keep an open mind and will try new methods as long as they are not abusive.

I like Victoria because she has the best methods I have ever seen. And I like Ceaser because he helps me understand the behavior of the dog and why they act and feel a certain way.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

As far as tv trainers go.....I take what I like and leave the rest. I find it hard to believe that he scruffed the dog and slammed it onto concrete. Do you have a link so I can watch?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

I'm not a Cesar fan in the least, but for the dogs that he deals with, sometimes the methods he uses are the best way for him to get through. He generally (it's gotten less and less as the seasons have progressed, from what I've seen) is dealing with MUCH more red-line dogs than people like Victoria Stillwell. Sometimes the methods he uses are as much for his own safety as they are for the purpose of training.

I don't really agree with it, but I can't condemn him for it either. Different cases require different methods. None of us have dogs that would be one of his red-line cases, so no we wouldn't ever want those methods used. If I owned a dog that fell into the type that he would treat using those methods? I might just let him, because I'm nowhere near the skill level it would take to rehabilitate these dogs, while he does it every day.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Usually when Cesar does this, it is because the dog did something of the extreme, attacked his owner, attacked someone else, or attacked another dog, all behaviors that need to be nipped in the bud.

I do enjoy treat training for parlor tricks, but very much enjoy Cesar's veiw on actual dog psychology.


----------



## fuzzypuppies (Dec 22, 2008)

What was the name of the dog and what kind of dog was it? I'll see if I can find a clip. The worse I've seen him do was grab a chow mix by the scruff of the neck and hold him down and that was right after the dog bit him and drew blood. He definitely didn't throw him


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

K9companions said:


> I do enjoy treat training for parlor tricks, but very much enjoy Cesar's veiw on actual dog psychology.


That's an interesting way to state an ignorance.

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

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


----------



## Purplex15 (May 28, 2007)

trumpetjock said:


> I'm not a Cesar fan in the least, but for the dogs that he deals with, sometimes the methods he uses are the best way for him to get through. He generally (it's gotten less and less as the seasons have progressed, from what I've seen) is dealing with MUCH more red-line dogs than people like Victoria Stillwell. Sometimes the methods he uses are as much for his own safety as they are for the purpose of training.
> 
> I don't really agree with it, but I can't condemn him for it either. Different cases require different methods. None of us have dogs that would be one of his red-line cases, so no we wouldn't ever want those methods used. If I owned a dog that fell into the type that he would treat using those methods? I might just let him, because I'm nowhere near the skill level it would take to rehabilitate these dogs, while he does it every day.


i love that you said this, and are not a cesar fan. i have tried many times to explain this to people who dont like him. yes for a dog that is of normal temperment and behavior, his methods CAN be extreme. but that is generaly not what he works with. Cesar has always claimed to be an expert on REHABILITATING dogs, not training them. his methods are aimed at fixing the dog who is about to be euthanized for attacking a baby (just an example). i wouldnt call cesar milan to come out and do obediance with my 3 month old puppy. but if my 3 year old lab mix started attacking other dogs and acting aggressive in general, then he might be the way to go. there are many different trainers for different things, and cesar works with certain types of dogs. I have said many time that i do not believe that Victora Stillwell could help some of the dogs cesar has worked with. Cesar has said himselfthat many dogshe works withwere deemed "dangerous" by other trainers and they all recommended putting them down. If cesar can save dogs like this and truly fix them, why are we judging him so harshly?

i also know what you are describing sounds awful, but i have seen other threads on many forums that say things like "i cant believe cesar did this to this dog", then i watch that episode and cant even find an instant where cesar is being abusive. i think a lot of it has to do with how you interpret his behavior. i work with dogs, and understand that sometimes you have to be hard on a dog. it is not all hugs and kisses. i find that a lot of people who are "animal lovers" (those who dont tend to understand that training aspect of dog ownership), just interpret his actions in a completely different way than they were intended to be. yes it may look like he is trying to hurt the dog, but i highly doubt that if i watch it, i will interpret it the same way.

EDIT: Curbside Prophet posted somelinks and i looked at them. to further prove my point of how people interpret cesar differently, i saw thee episode with Jonbee, and did not think that ANYTHING Cesar did was abusive.


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

I am very cautious/skeptical of EVERY trainer/technique. It's a very personal thing to judge, and the debate will go on for many many years to come. 

I've never been in a parlor or bar. ¿Is that why things like "shake" and "roll over" mean nothing to me?


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

The alpha roll is the most controversial part of Cesars method. Personally, I have only seen him do it on extreme cases...usually the dog bit someone or another dog and drew blood. He explains in his show and in great detail in his writing, that he only uses this in red zone cases and should NOT be used by novices. I have seen nearly every episode and its not like he does this every time, and each time he's done it for his own safety. 

Did you see enough of the stroy to see what the dog did to deserve the consequence? Also, remember that you said later "I'm sure he didn't hurt the dog". If the dog wasn't hurt, and he kept the dog from hurting another person or another dog, would that set your mind at ease?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> I'm not a Cesar fan in the least, but for the dogs that he deals with, sometimes the methods he uses are the best way for him to get through. He generally (it's gotten less and less as the seasons have progressed, from what I've seen) *is dealing with MUCH more red-line dogs than people like Victoria Stillwell*. Sometimes the methods he uses are as much for his own safety as they are for the purpose of training.
> 
> I don't really agree with it, but I can't condemn him for it either. Different cases require different methods. None of us have dogs that would be one of his red-line cases, so no we wouldn't ever want those methods used. If I owned a dog that fell into the type that he would treat using those methods? I might just let him, because I'm nowhere near the skill level it would take to rehabilitate these dogs, while he does it every day.


There you go. I like Victoria Stillwell's show but the problems she tackles are usually just extreme versions of "usual dog" stuff.. chewing up the house, pooping everywhere, honestly the most aggressive dog I've seen her with was a Chi/Pom mix that resource guarded paper, and a fear aggressive Toy Poodle that was afraid of men. Would she be able to help Patti Labelle's 150 pound fear aggressive Boerboel like Cesar did? I'm not really sure.

If I had the chance to choose between the two to meet and have them work with my dog, it would be a very hard decision. Access to Ceasar's pack and center would probably be heaven for me and I believe it would help my dog. However, I would not want him at my house cornering my fearful dog and saying that she's dominant and I'm not the pack leader blah blah blah because it seems like EVERY dog on that show is dominant no matter where the fear and or aggression stems. I would not want him to flood her with things because I believe I'd wind up with a dog that just gives up.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

The other thing to realize is that yes, you CAN help aggressive dogs with strictly positive methods. McConnell, among others, does this every day. The problem is that it takes a lot of time and (here's the real key to it) it doesn't make for good television. When Cesar gets bit, and holds the dog down for a moment while things get under control, it's really exciting. When McConnell clicker trains a dog to have self control in the presence of stimuli, honestly that's quite boring. 

I'm grossly simplifying it all, but that's really it in a nutshell.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

harrise said:


> I am very cautious/skeptical of EVERY trainer/technique. It's a very personal thing to judge, and the debate will go on for many many years to come.
> 
> I've never been in a parlor or bar. ¿Is that why things like "shake" and "roll over" mean nothing to me?


While parlor tricks are mostly meaningless, for many dogs it is a huge boost. For instance, when I work with Priscilla in a new area, before I start teaching the "hard" stuff like heeling, long duration stays, etc.. I do a succession of easy tricks like sit, down, shake, wave, bow, stand, and so on. It gets her into the training, she gets high rate of reward, is focused on me completely, and is confident that she's doing the right thing.

That's why I teach parlor tricks, anyway.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

RBark said:


> While parlor tricks are mostly meaningless, for many dogs it is a huge boost. For instance, when I work with Priscilla in a new area, before I start teaching the "hard" stuff like heeling, long duration stays, etc.. I do a succession of easy tricks like sit, down, shake, wave, bow, stand, and so on. It gets her into the training, she gets high rate of reward, is focused on me completely, and is confident that she's doing the right thing.
> 
> That's why I teach parlor tricks, anyway.


100% agree.

When/if Rocky starts having a hard time on anything we're working on, we'll fall back and do some stuff I know he can do anywhere. Things like shake, sit, spin, stand up, down. I can definitely tell that it has a positive effect on his mental state.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

MissMutt said:


> Would she be able to help Patti Labelle's 150 pound fear aggressive Boerboel like Cesar did? I'm not really sure.


One of the first episodes I saw from the British series was of an aggressing American Bulldog (or something like that). A big dog in his own right. So can you modify "red-zone" dogs using learning theory?...Trainers have been doing it for 30+ years, why question it after watching a 30 min DW episode? (rhetorical question)


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

RBark said:


> While parlor tricks are mostly meaningless, for many dogs it is a huge boost. For instance, when I work with Priscilla in a new area, before I start teaching the "hard" stuff like heeling, long duration stays, etc.. I do a succession of easy tricks like sit, down, shake, wave, bow, stand, and so on. It gets her into the training, she gets high rate of reward, is focused on me completely, and is confident that she's doing the right thing.
> 
> That's why I teach parlor tricks, anyway.



I second that. Sort of gets her warmed up? Sometimes the silly tricks we get our dogs to do are mental challenges, and that to me is just as important as physical challenges. Besides, any dog that knows the basics (sit, stay, etc) can easily be taught manners...in the house, in the car, and out in public. I walk 4 dogs at the same time on a loose leash attached to a belt (hands free for me!), and those 'parlor tricks' sure do come in handy, especially when it's time to hook them up.


----------



## chul3l3ies1126 (Aug 13, 2007)

I agree with what another poster said, but I actually do like Cesar Milan. I agree that some of his techniques are a bit harsh... but for the most part, the dogs he is needing to rehabilitate NEED that kind of training and treatment to snap out of it. Just assuming... That little dog was probably one of those little psycho barkers, snappers, and biters that freak when someone picks it up... so I would say there is nothing wrong with what he did.

But of course, I dont know if that is what happened... I would need to see the clip.

I admire both him and Victoria, both of them have techniques that work. But I use my own techniques and positive reinforcement when I train... why? because that is what I have learned best and what has worked for me. Sometimes it does not work for everyone.
Nessa


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

rzrbaxfan said:


> The alpha roll is the most controversial part of Cesars method. Personally, I have only seen him do it on extreme cases...usually the dog bit someone or another dog and drew blood. He explains in his show and in great detail in his writing, that he only uses this in red zone cases and should NOT be used by novices. I have seen nearly every episode and its not like he does this every time, and each time he's done it for his own safety.
> 
> Did you see enough of the stroy to see what the dog did to deserve the consequence? Also, remember that you said later "I'm sure he didn't hurt the dog". If the dog wasn't hurt, and he kept the dog from hurting another person or another dog, would that set your mind at ease?


No, I didn't see the entire episode and I really am not worried about the dog. I just worry that people watching people like him will do things like that to their dogs when their dogs don't deserve it.

I probably didn't word things right. I'm terrible like that.

I'd honestly forgotten he only deals with hard cases so he probably was justified. I just have a new puppy and am probably a bit oversensitive to things I see. 

I have watched his show a time or two and didn't really disagree STRONGLY with anything he did. 

I'm glad some of you reminded me of what he does and why. I do hope, though, that people watching his show don't think it's okay to train your dogs and puppies like that. That's all.

I've never seen Victoria Stillwell's show. When is it on? What network? I've never heard of her actually.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

I've watched most of Cesar's episodes and have never seen him do anything that would physically hurt a dog. Not even close.

The dogs he flips over are usually mature dogs with serious aggression problems. Maybe some people think they can cure that by offering tidbits or clicks, but I think Cesar's approach is more primal, more dog-like, more direct, more effective. Cannot compare to normal 'dog-training'.

We live in an incredibly soft world when so many people panic at the thought of someone being physical with a dog. Dogs (aside maybe from some foo foo breeds I have no experience with) are tough; they can handle it physically and psychologically. 

I'm all for Cesar 100%.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

You've got one thing right, at least. Dogs ARE tough, and it's amazing they have put up with us this long.

I've trained what I'd guess Cesar would call a red-zone dog using positive reinforcement. The difference between my methods and his would be that he would have you believe his methods take 2 weeks. Mine took 6 months.

I recall a episode where he took in a pit bull, made it part of his "pack" and in his rehab facility for 2 weeks, and said the dog made a turnaround. He said it still needed some work, but in that same episode it got in a serious fight after those two weeks. The reality is, even using his methods, you're not going to turn a "red-zone" dog around in any less time than someone using positive reinforcement.

I remember another member here disagreeing with me, having used punishment to make his dog get along with cats. I felt it was harsh and unneccessary, but evidently it took him only about two to four weeks to stop his dog from going after the cat. I thought it took me about 6 months with positive reinforcement.

The caveat however, was it took many more months after that for the dog to get along with the cat, and actually enjoy the cat's company. So it didn't take just a month, it took just as long to get to where my dog was with the cat using positive reinforcement.

So yeah, I'm a pretty firm believer in positive reinforcement. It takes a long time, and doesn't make for good TV. It's easier to punish the dog so that it's afraid to attack another dog when you are around. But that's not curing the problem.


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

myminpins said:


> No, I didn't see the entire episode and I really am not worried about the dog. I just worry that people watching people like him will do things like that to their dogs when their dogs don't deserve it.
> 
> I probably didn't word things right. I'm terrible like that.
> 
> ...



I agree with your concern that people will try to roll a dog for the wrong reasons or do it the wrong way and get hurt. I think the show is pretty good with discaimers, but there are some not-so-smart people out there! I think his explaination in the book nails it.

Victoria is on a show called "Its me or the dog" on animal planet. Half hour re-runs come on at 8 AM weekdays (central time), and new episodes are generally on Saturday nights.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> One of the first episodes I saw from the British series was of an aggressing American Bulldog (or something like that). A big dog in his own right. So can you modify "red-zone" dogs using learning theory?...Trainers have been doing it for 30+ years, why question it after watching a 30 min DW episode? (rhetorical question)


I do remember that episode.. I believe the dog had a thyroid condition and it amped up the aggression. Still and all, that is NOT a commonality on her show the way it is on CM's. I'm not questioning learning theory as a whole, I'm questioning VS's ability alone. 

Either the "It's Me or The Dog" show thinks that aggression episodes will not make for good entertainment, or maybe that simply isn't her specialty. Like it or not (not aiming this at you Curb, just in general) with CM it seems the more aggressive the dog, the better.. whether you agree with the techniques or feel they are useful, the program is made to show them as successful. Whereas, with VS, as I said, she usually tackles the most extreme cases of problems that many people have with their dogs.


----------



## smileypits (Dec 25, 2008)

I enjoy watching him because 1) there are lots of pit bulls and 2) he doesnt sidestep ignorant owners and 3) Overall, he's teaching people the right things.

Dogs are dogs. They aren't people, they dont' have people emotions and they actually LIKE to be 2nd in command or 3rd, 4th..... I like that he doesn't sidestep around this.

His training methods are for advanced knowledgable people only. For a regular person to watch his show and see him do an alpha roll - it's absolutley HORRIBLE but to someone who understands why/why not and how to do it safely and calmly - it's a great tool when things get REALLy out of control. I do think that although there is a warning in the beginning of the show about trained professionals, it should be stated more often that ONLY trained professionals should do it. People can put themselves in VERY serious positions with an true Alpha dog in their house trying to roll them over. I once heard of a lady with 2 german shepherds, they got into a fight and she alpha rolled one of them. The 2nd one jumped her in an attack. She ended up pleading for help from her 2nd floor bathroom because they were outside the door. If you start an alpha roll, you better KNOW how to do it and KNOW how to do it correctly...... so no I don't agree with him doing it on national tv so that everyone can see just "how easy" it is. Also - if this technique is used inappropriately, it can harm your dog and harm your relationship. Only a trained professional would KNOW the correct times and the correct level needed to do such a thing. 

Victoria still uses dominance in her training methods. Her firm posture and hands on the hips is -usually- enough for most dogs that she has on her show. She also uses a slightly more positive method of making the dog submit (lay down) which is close to the same thing that Ceaser does, just not hands on and also the dog isn't near "red zone".

I could go on and on - talking about trainers is a common thing that my friends and I have talked about at length...... lol


----------



## harrise (Jan 9, 2008)

Well, I'm totally comfortable with the relationship I have with my "pack". My guess would be they are comfortable with me as well (and the cats). I'm not out trying to judge parlor tricks for anyone else's dog, but I only train the things I will use. Now i will politely bow out of this discussion as the forum is *super serial* as of late. Lighten up folks...

I have as much a problem with Cesar as I do Victoria. Meh. Once you've met one trainer discussing another, you've met them all.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> I do remember that episode.. I believe the dog had a thyroid condition and it amped up the aggression. Still and all, that is NOT a commonality on her show the way it is on CM's. I'm not questioning learning theory as a whole, I'm questioning VS's ability alone.
> 
> Either the "It's Me or The Dog" show thinks that aggression episodes will not make for good entertainment, or maybe that simply isn't her specialty. Like it or not (not aiming this at you Curb, just in general) with CM it seems the more aggressive the dog, the better.. whether you agree with the techniques or feel they are useful, the program is made to show them as successful. Whereas, with VS, as I said, she usually tackles the most extreme cases of problems that many people have with their dogs.





smileypits said:


> I enjoy watching him because 1) there are lots of pit bulls and 2) he doesnt sidestep ignorant owners and 3) Overall, he's teaching people the right things.
> 
> Dogs are dogs. They aren't people, they dont' have people emotions and they actually LIKE to be 2nd in command or 3rd, 4th..... I like that he doesn't sidestep around this.
> 
> ...


It sounds to me like there's confusion in regards to what Victoria Stillwell does.Victoria can't spend 6 months training one dog to get over their aggression for her show.

There's nothing magical about what Cesar does. Make the dog believe that you could kill it if you were so inclined, instant results! That has nothing to do with dominance or their position in the pack. It has to do with being scared helpless.

So yeah, it seems Cesar works with more red zone cases. And of course he does, he's been essentially allowed to manhandle the dogs to the point they are afraid of him under the guise of "dominance". That's not dominance, even if you're a believer of the dominance hypothesis.

EDIT: For the record, I have watched all three seasons.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> It sounds to me like there's confusion in regards to what Victoria Stillwell does.*Victoria can't spend 6 months training one dog to get over their aggression for her show.*
> 
> There's nothing magical about what Cesar does. Make the dog believe that you could kill it if you were so inclined, instant results! That has nothing to do with dominance or their position in the pack. It has to do with being scared helpless.
> 
> *So yeah, it seems Cesar works with more red zone cases. And of course he does, he's been essentially allowed to manhandle the dogs to the point they are afraid of him under the guise of "dominance*". That's not dominance, even if you're a believer of the dominance hypothesis.





MissMutt said:


> I do remember that episode.. I believe the dog had a thyroid condition and it amped up the aggression. Still and all, that is NOT a commonality on her show the way it is on CM's. I'm not questioning learning theory as a whole, I'm questioning VS's ability alone.
> 
> *Either the "It's Me or The Dog" show thinks that aggression episodes will not make for good entertainment, *or maybe that simply isn't her specialty. Like it or not (not aiming this at you Curb, just in general) *with CM it seems the more aggressive the dog, the better.. whether you agree with the techniques or feel they are useful, the program is made to show them as successful.* Whereas, with VS, as I said, she usually tackles the most extreme cases of problems that many people have with their dogs.


I covered both those things in my post. For some reason people like to think that I put down R+ and learning theory.. but in many ways (maybe notsomuch the clicker), I use it on my own dog! There are many of Cesar's theories that I don't subscribe to at all and I would never go about training an aggressive dog using alpha rolling and cornering him and all that stuff. 

But, for a person just watching VS's show, it is a reasonable conclusion that her specialty is NOT with aggressive dogs. It may not be the right conclusion or the best one, but there hasn't been much on the show to suggest otherwise.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Why do you watch it if you don't like his methods? Just so you can see what others are talking about?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

smileypits said:


> They aren't people, they dont' have people emotions and they actually LIKE to be 2nd in command or 3rd, 4th..... I like that he doesn't sidestep around this.


Yes, dogs aren't people, but I don't think we can say they are absent of emotion. In fact, you'd be overlooking one of the crucial models of learning if you did. 

As far as my dog is concerned, she likes to be #1. She's first to sit at the door when it's time for a walk. She's first to wait patiently before exiting the door, and she's first to engage in eye contact to elicit my cue. What I'm saying is, hierarchy's are great for telling stories, but they have no practicality when you're actually seeking to train appropriate behavior.



> Victoria still uses dominance in her training methods. Her firm posture and hands on the hips is -usually- enough for most dogs that she has on her show. She also uses a slightly more positive method of making the dog submit (lay down) which is close to the same thing that Ceaser does, just not hands on and also the dog isn't near "red zone".


Dominance is not posturing. Dominance is not getting a dog to follow a cue. Dominance is the winning of a resource in a given context. We both want the last slice of pizza, I take it, you want it but let me eat it, I'm dominant. I love pizza, you hate it, I take the last piece and eat it, am I dominant? No. Nothing was contested. The best dog trainers train for no contests...both parties should win. Dominance is only a label for the winner in a contest, it is not a description of actual behavior.

The reason "authoritative" posturing is so useful is that it freezes all other body language which may elicit the behavior you're trying to change. By being "calm" and "assertive" you're effectively eliminating problematic antecedents of the behavior.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

myminpins said:


> Why do you watch it if you don't like his methods? Just so you can see what others are talking about?


I don't have cable, so I can't watch it often, but I would imagine that from a logical standpoint, it makes you a better trainer to be as well versed in the methods of as many trainers as possible. Every time you see someone working on a dog, whether you enjoy their methods or not, you can learn something. 

The biggest thing that I enjoy about Cesar? His timing. He has absolutely phenomenal timing and response to dogs. He can be talking to the owners, full eye contact, seemingly ignoring the dog and the instant it acts out, he is on top of it. Many times I've sat watching the dog and just the dog, and missed out on the cues he picks up.

What he does after those cues, I will leave to him, but I learn from his timing every time I get to watch his show.


----------



## mindyintx (Jan 7, 2009)

RBark said:


> The difference between my methods and his would be that he would have you believe his methods take 2 weeks. Mine took 6 months.


Cesar *repeatedly *states that the owners have to take the responsiblity to continue with what he has taught them in how to deal with their dogs. At the end of his sessions with the dogs & owners, he says that his job is done, now it is up to the owners to be consistent with what he's taught them. He tells them that the dog will regress if the owner does not continue with teaching the dog. It's not Cesar's fault if the owners get lazy or slack off thinking their dog is "cured".



> smileypits: I do think that although there is a warning in the beginning of the show about trained professionals, it should be stated more often that ONLY trained professionals should do it.


Actually, when he is dealing with a "red-zone" case the warning is repeatedly flashed on the screen. 



RBark said:


> So yeah, I'm a pretty firm believer in positive reinforcement. It's easier to *punish *the dog so that it's afraid to attack another dog when you are around. But that's not curing the problem.


IMO, it sounds like you have "punishment" confused with "correction". Cesar does not use punishment and his intention is not to instill fear. Cesar's methods teach the dog to understand his place and role in the family/pack, who is the leader, and the rules of the home. I have never seen anything he's done to be anything I would call "punishment". He's teaching the dog through correcting the negative behavior that *it is wrong to attack another dog.* And to get the dog's attention when it's fixating on the dog it wants to attack, he taps it on the butt with his foot, or tugs to the side with the leash. I believe positive reinforcement is very important and highly useful, especially with puppies, but it will not apply in every situation with adult dogs.



> Yes, dogs aren't people, but I don't think we can say they are absent of emotion. In fact, you'd be overlooking one of the crucial models of learning if you did.


I don't think smileypits said they were "absent" of emotion. I believe smileypits said dogs don't have "people" emotions, which is the truth.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

RE: Trumpetjack: Makes sense to me


----------



## smileypits (Dec 25, 2008)

I disagree. Her posture is purposily telling that dog "You better behave Mister or Else!" just like Ceaser. Shoot - she even says those words^^ as she stands that way in front of the dog. The dogs are lower key and so her level of "dominance" is lower key as well. 

I almost missed the sarcasm of the last quote. So essentially you are saying that you allow your dog to be #1 in order to see her true personality? I just want to be clear.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> I covered both those things in my post. For some reason people like to think that I put down R+ and learning theory.. but in many ways (maybe notsomuch the clicker), I use it on my own dog! There are many of Cesar's theories that I don't subscribe to at all and I would never go about training an aggressive dog using alpha rolling and cornering him and all that stuff.
> 
> But, for a person just watching VS's show, it is a reasonable conclusion that her specialty is NOT with aggressive dogs. It may not be the right conclusion or the best one, but there hasn't been much on the show to suggest otherwise.


My apologies, I assumed you were trying to say that Milan's techniques work better with more aggressive dogs, rather than making an observation.



myminpins said:


> Why do you watch it if you don't like his methods? Just so you can see what others are talking about?


For a variety of reasons. A lot of it is as an learning experience for me. I'm very interested in dog behavior and reading body language. Milan, unfortunate as it is, provides many opportunities for me to see a variety of negative dog behavior. I read the dog's body language and try to understand what he is saying.

I also watch it to see what Milan does, and how it affects the dog's state of mind. I watch his methods, and figure out for myself what I could change to improve the methods.

A recurring theme in his show is flooding, and that's generally my biggest criticism. Many times I watch him deal with dog issues and wonder why the heck he practically throws a dog off the cliff without even trying to guide it down gently first. He tackles many minor problems with extreme solutions. A dog that's afraid of walking on wood floors, he just walks in and manhandles it around. Why not just work at it slowly and desensitize the dog to it? It would have achieved the same result in about the same time without terrifying the dog.

But all that said, I watch so I can learn from the dogs, not so I can learn from Milan. If I knew where I could get Stillwell's DVD's (I need subtitles), then I would be watching that for much the same reason.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

mindyintx said:


> IMO, it sounds like you have "punishment" confused with "correction". Cesar does not use punishment and his intention is not to instill fear. Cesar's methods teach the dog to understand his place and role in the family/pack, who is the leader, and the rules of the home. I have never seen anything he's done to be anything I would call "punishment". He's teaching the dog through correcting the negative behavior that *it is wrong to attack another dog.* And to get the dog's attention when it's fixating on the dog it wants to attack, he taps it on the butt with his foot, or tugs to the side with the leash. I believe positive reinforcement is very important and highly useful, especially with puppies, but it will not apply in every situation with adult dogs.


I always find it funny when people try to differentiate "correction" from punishment. Please define punishment and tell me exactly how that's different from how you've described "correction". 

A simple understanding of learning theory tells you that you can not get behavior from punishment or "correction". You can only get behavior from reinforcement. 

Why people want to justify their punishments by changing the word is befuddling.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

mindyintx said:


> Cesar *repeatedly *states that the owners have to take the responsiblity to continue with what he has taught them in how to deal with their dogs. At the end of his sessions with the dogs & owners, he says that his job is done, now it is up to the owners to be consistent with what he's taught them. He tells them that the dog will regress if the owner does not continue with teaching the dog. It's not Cesar's fault if the owners get lazy or slack off thinking their dog is "cured".


I do know that. That's the basis of my argument. A lot of people seem to think that he works dogs so well compared to R+ trainers, but most people seem to miss that it takes much longer, even using his methods.





> IMO, it sounds like you have "punishment" confused with "correction". Cesar does not use punishment and his intention is not to instill fear. Cesar's methods teach the dog to understand his place and role in the family/pack, who is the leader, and the rules of the home. I have never seen anything he's done to be anything I would call "punishment". He's teaching the dog through correcting the negative behavior that *it is wrong to attack another dog.* And to get the dog's attention when it's fixating on the dog it wants to attack, he taps it on the butt with his foot, or tugs to the side with the leash. I believe positive reinforcement is very important and highly useful, especially with puppies, but it will not apply in every situation with adult dogs.


I don't mean to be nitpicky, but I am using the actual definition of punishment in regards to the Learning Theory. Milan uses Positive Punishment.

In cases like those above, for the most part there's a fundamental issue going on. He intentionally set the dog up for failure so that he can correct the failures. I don't see why he does that instead of setting the dog up for success by rewarding desired behaviors.



smileypits said:


> I disagree. Her posture is purposily telling that dog "You better behave Mister or Else!" just like Ceaser. Shoot - she even says those words^^ as she stands that way in front of the dog. The dogs are lower key and so her level of "dominance" is lower key as well.
> 
> I almost missed the sarcasm of the last quote. So essentially you are saying that you allow your dog to be #1 in order to see her true personality? I just want to be clear.


Not to be nitpicky again, but you're debating a definition. The definition of dominance is what Curbside defined it as.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

smileypits said:


> I disagree. Her posture is purposily telling that dog "You better behave Mister or Else!" just like Ceaser. Shoot - she even says those words^^ as she stands that way in front of the dog. The dogs are lower key and so her level of "dominance" is lower key as well.


You do understand that VS studied in drama before becoming a dog trainer, right? You do understand that being dramatic sells, right? In fact, I believe the original title of the show was suppose to be "Doggy Dominatrix", but was changed for fear of the backlash. The show is meant to promote learning theory by luring in people to the whole dominance theme that follows DW's show. That's why she dresses the way she does, that's why the show is titled the way it is, but don't fall when the rug is pulled from under you.

Regardless, I've never heard her use the word dominance, and if to communicate to an owner how to eliminate problematic antecedents is to say such things, well, then that's what you do. This does not mean dominance exists of it being employed. 



> So essentially you are saying that you allow your dog to be #1 in order to see her true personality? I just want to be clear.


No, what I'm saying is that I've taught my dog which behaviors are preferential. If I take the time to see the world through her eyes, she's gaining all her preferences (they happen to be mine too), why should I care who's 1, 2, or omega? It's a silly construct is what I'm actually saying.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> That's an interesting way to state an ignorance.
> 
> http://www.4pawsu.com/cesarfans.htm
> 
> http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm


You constantly amaze me with your rudeness. 

A simple statement of someone's opinion (usually mine) sets you off to make these comments that are out of line.

Who are you to judge my ignorance? Give me math: I have tons of ignorance. Give me Hamsters: Yup, ignorance there. But I know dogs. And in no way (keep in mind that we are over over the interenet....) do you know my capacity of knowledge.

You can spew as many articles as you want, but anyone can equally find articles claiming Cesar's victory in dog psychology. Your article's are just one person's opinion, just like my opinion is one person's. Though you seem to think my opinions are always ignorant.

Of course I don't mind if you comment, and I am definately not trying to start a fight, but enough is enough. If you can't take someone else's opinion into mind without adding a sly comment about it, I don't care about others, but don't post back to me with it. 

Thankyou and I hope this doesn't put a notch in our relationship, if any. Am I up for you to posting back? YES! Post back all you want! But make it based off your own opinion and not just some half thrown out comment with articles to read. It seems very offish. 

EDIT - I wanted to add also, that I think you have a lot of knowledge and I value your advice as well. But it's not appreciated when comments like that are made.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> My apologies, I assumed you were trying to say that Milan's techniques work better with more aggressive dogs, rather than making an observation.


No problemo. That's exactly what I was doing - making an observation in comparison of the two shows and what they portray/represent/"accomplish" (<---I use that loosely).


----------



## chul3l3ies1126 (Aug 13, 2007)

Hmm yea... just saw that. Are you saying we're all ignorant Curb? 

I'm just asking... I'm giving ya the benefit of the doubt because I actually do really respect you and your opinions and advice . But I truly do not think I am ignorant for liking to see Milan use his techniques.
Nessa


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

K9companions said:


> You can spew as many articles as you want, but anyone can equally find articles claiming Cesar's victory in dog psychology. Your article's are just one person's opinion, just like my opinion is one person's. Though you seem to think my opinions are always ignorant.


I honestly would like to see these articules you claim refute the articles Curbside presented. This is because everything in those articles backs up what I've seen in the show. Having read a lot about dog body language, I see dogs that are terrified, stressed, and completely shut down on the show regularly that are defined as being submissive or calm. Dogs that are defined as submissive because their ears are back, but ignoring all other signals: the constant licking of lips, trying to avoid eye contact, sniffing the ground, tense movements, and so on.

So if there's a article that would change how I see that, I'd like to read it.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

RBark said:


> I honestly would like to see these articules you claim refute the articles Curbside presented. This is because everything in those articles backs up what I've seen in the show. Having read a lot about dog body language, I see dogs that are terrified, stressed, and completely shut down on the show regularly that are defined as being submissive or calm. Dogs that are defined as submissive because their ears are back, but ignoring all other signals: the constant licking of lips, trying to avoid eye contact, sniffing the ground, tense movements, and so on.
> 
> So if there's a article that would change how I see that, I'd like to read it.



I thought that would arise. Hold on and let me get some for yah.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

K9companions said:


> You constantly amaze me with your rudeness.


Anytime someone's opinion differs with their own, they are often labeled as rude. I can't worry about that. 



> A simple statement of someone's opinion (usually mine) sets you off to make these comments that are out of line.


Simple? What about your implications? If they are not ignorant, what are they? Seriously, do you take me to be that foolish? Perhaps you do, but I didn't miss it. 



> Who are you to judge my ignorance? Give me math: I have tons of ignorance. Give me Hamsters: Yup, ignorance there. But I know dogs. And in no way (keep in mind that we are over over the interenet....) do you know my capacity of knowledge.


I have not judged you, I don't know you precisely as you stated. But your previous statement was offensive, and you know it too. Be responsible for the things you write if you care not to elicit such responses. 



> If you can't take someone else's opinion into mind without adding a sly comment about it, I don't care about others, but don't post back to me with it.


If it means anything to you, I wasn't responding to just you. I was responding to all that read these boards. I find the information in the links logical and useful. I can not encourage you to employ the same logic...that's your choice and prerogative. 



> Post back all you want! But make it based off your own opinion and not just some half thrown out comment with articles to read. It seems very offish.


I've written at great length on this debate. To be honest though, I'm not really concerned if you find the links applicable or not to your comment. I thought they were, and nothing you've said changes my perspective. Sorry, I'm just being honest.


----------



## mindyintx (Jan 7, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I always find it funny when people try to differentiate "correction" from punishment. Please define punishment and tell me exactly how that's different from how you've described "correction".
> 
> A simple understanding of learning theory tells you that you can not get behavior from punishment or "correction". You can only get behavior from reinforcement.
> 
> Why people want to justify their punishments by changing the word is befuddling.



I'm not trying to "justify" anything. To me they are two different things. In my understanding, punishment is a strong consequence given for a negative behavior, like when I punish my teenager for breaking curfew by grounding her for a week. Or when I got a spanking as a kid for lying about sneaking off to my friend's house after school one day. 

Correction is also a consequence given for a negative behavior, but it's different in that it's "smaller", a reminder *in the moment * that the behavior was unacceptable. Like when my teenage son forgets himself and tries to give me "back talk" or argue with me if he doesn't feel like doing something he's supposed to. I "call" him on his behavior with a quick "Ah" type of sound and he quickly backs off and does it. These days, I get much less back talk from him, and if I do it only takes a direct stare with a raised eyebrow to correct him. But that particular behavior from my son doesn't warrant a "punishment"; correcting him often enough when he was younger has paid off in a _usually _respectful, well-behaved teenager now. 

Cesar corrects the dogs behavior "in the moment" with "sspst" sound, a tap on the butt, or a tug to the side with the leash to get the dogs attention. He doesn't punish them. 

This is how I see it.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

mindyintx said:


> I'm not trying to "justify" anything. To me they are two different things. In my understanding, punishment is a strong consequence given for a negative behavior, like when I punish my teenager for breaking curfew by grounding her for a week. Or when I got a spanking as a kid for lying about sneaking off to my friend's house after school one day.
> 
> Correction is also a consequence given for a negative behavior, but it's different in that it's "smaller", a reminder *in the moment * that the behavior was unacceptable. Like when my teenage son forgets himself and tries to give me "back talk" or argue with me if he doesn't feel like doing something he's supposed to. I "call" him on his behavior with a quick "Ah" type of sound and he quickly backs off and does it. These days, I get much less back talk from him, and if I do it only takes a direct stare with a raised eyebrow to correct him. But that particular behavior from my son doesn't warrant a "punishment"; correcting him often enough when he was younger has paid off in a _usually _respectful, well-behaved teenager now.
> 
> ...


It may be how you see it, but much to my dismay, just because I want to think things one way, the world does not distort itself to suit my wishes. 

That little joke said, we must be watching two entirely different shows if this is all you see. He does not tug- he chokes. It's a choke collar, it's purpose is choking. That's not just a little tug. 

To use your analogy through your dog's eyes let's put your son in your dog's situation, and your son is fearful of other teenagers. Your son is approached by another teenager, and he's looking to you saying "Mom! He's threatening me! He's going to hurt me! Please don't let him hurt me!" But you don't react.

So he decides to take matters into his own hands and get the other kid before the kid gets him. And you start choking him every time he tries to defend himself.

Will it work? Yes. He's lost and now shuts down. If he tries to defend himself, you choke him. If he doesn't defend himself, the other teenager will (to his perception) hurt him. What is your son to do, now?

Would you put your son in that situation just to teach him not to attack other teenagers? Or would you sit him down, and show him that other teenagers are not what he thinks they are by associating other kids with good things (like playing video games together, playing sports, etc?)


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

> Anytime someone's opinion differs with their own, they are often labeled as rude. I can't worry about that.


I don't think it was having a different opinion that was labeled as 'rude'...I think it was your use of the word 'ignorant'. Ironically, when I first read that, I felt (like others here) you called someone 'ignorant' because someone's opinion differed from yours.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

mindyintx said:


> I'm not trying to "justify" anything. To me they are two different things. In my understanding, punishment is a strong consequence given for a negative behavior, like when I punish my teenager for breaking curfew by grounding her for a week. Or when I got a spanking as a kid for lying about sneaking off to my friend's house after school one day.
> 
> Correction is also a consequence given for a negative behavior, but it's different in that it's "smaller", a reminder *in the moment * that the behavior was unacceptable. Like when my teenage son forgets himself and tries to give me "back talk" or argue with me if he doesn't feel like doing something he's supposed to. I "call" him on his behavior with a quick "Ah" type of sound and he quickly backs off and does it. These days, I get much less back talk from him, and if I do it only takes a direct stare with a raised eyebrow to correct him. But that particular behavior from my son doesn't warrant a "punishment"; correcting him often enough when he was younger has paid off in a _usually _respectful, well-behaved teenager now.
> 
> ...


Umm... yeah... rose tinted glasses.

The reality of it would be more like if your teenager back talked you and you gave him a slap across the face as an "in the moment reminder". Not hard enough to cause pain, of course, just hard enough to get his attention.

Unless your definition of correcting your dog is raising an eyebrow at him when he doesn't heel... but I doubt that's what you mean.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Anytime someone's opinion differs with their own, they are often labeled as rude. I can't worry about that.


Again, you are presuming. I actually don't label anyone with a different opinion as rude, you assumed that yourself. But did I find you comment rude? Yes, and not because it differed from mine. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> Simple? What about your implications? If they are not ignorant, what are they? Seriously, do you take me to be that foolish? Perhaps you do, but I didn't miss it.


You are thinking this over way too hard. My comment was a simple one, you made it into something more. Do I think you are foolish? No; but I demand you do not act like I am foolish in return. To this moment I am not sure what exactly is bothering you besides the fact that I believe in a different training method than you. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> I have not judged you, I don't know you precisely as you stated. But your previous statement was offensive, and you know it too. Be responsible for the things you write if you care not to elicit such responses.


Offensive, how? Obviously we are not on the same page. My comment was intentionally supposed to be on the total opposite side then offensive. So lets clear the air so I may better understand. Are you referring to the name parlor tricks? I find this kind of funny, because it sparked an argument when actually it's just what I call the 'cutesy tricks' that my dog does. Such as "up, rollover, be shy, drop dead, act wounded". These are all tricks that are shown for fun...are they not? These are tricks, not in the same category as a dogs behavior.... 




Curbside Prophet said:


> If it means anything to you, I wasn't responding to just you. I was responding to all that read these boards. I find the information in the links logical and useful. I can not encourage you to employ the same logic...that's your choice and prerogative.


It means very much to me, since obviously, I feel as though you have personally pointed me out. However, my mind isn't at ease that it is not just me, because I don't suppose anyone else you were referring to would appreciate the comment either. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> I've written at great length on this debate. To be honest though, I'm not really concerned if you find the links applicable or not to your comment. I thought they were, and nothing you've said changes my perspective. Sorry, I'm just being honest.


Honesty is much appreciated, but with a respectable reply. My intent was never to change your perspective, my comment was simply explaining what Cesar was doing with the dog and to repond to the board description. Do I find you links informative; sure if you have the same opinon, which I don't, so the links don't mean that much to me since, as you would with my links, I find fault in the writing. That doesn't make you links any less knowledgable and it doesn't make you wrong. We simply differ....


----------



## mindyintx (Jan 7, 2009)

RBark said:


> It may be how you see it, but much to my dismay, just because I want to think things one way, the world does not distort itself to suit my wishes.
> 
> That little joke said, we must be watching two entirely different shows if this is all you see. He does not tug- he chokes. It's a choke collar, it's purpose is choking. That's not just a little tug.
> 
> ...


I don't see any choking going on. That's my perspective. You have yours. 

Your ridiculous analogy between my rational teenage son (who I have taught over the years how to associate and be social with other kids/people) and a dog does not make sense.

And your condesending and sarcastic posts are unnecessary. One should be able to disagree with another with out resorting to the use of such tones. I was just reading this morning on the new members welcome forum about such tones and posts driving off new members. Nice, huh?



trumpetjock said:


> Umm... yeah... rose tinted glasses.
> 
> The reality of it would be more like if your teenager back talked you and you gave him a slap across the face as an "in the moment reminder". Not hard enough to cause pain, of course, just hard enough to get his attention.
> 
> Unless your definition of correcting your dog is raising an eyebrow at him when he doesn't heel... but I doubt that's what you mean.


Excuse me? I have never slapped my son or anyone across the face. You don't even know me. Do you think it's not possible to teach your kids manners or respect without slapping them? 

You obviously missed my point.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

mindyintx said:


> Excuse me? I have never slapped my son or anyone across the face. You don't even know me. Do you think it's not possible to teach your kids manners or respect without slapping them?
> 
> You obviously missed my point.


You obviously missed mine as well. I wasn't in any way trying to say that you slapped your kid in the face. What I was saying was that you were trying to say that the "correction" of a jerk on a choke chain was the same as your "correction" of raising an eyebrow at your kid. Those two scenarios aren't even close to the same. If you wanted to have a similar "correction" with your kid, you would need to slap him across the face, or grab his neck and chock him when he back talked.

Again, I'm not accusing you of doing this in any way, but it's a much more appropriate comparison to what people do to correct their dogs.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Rbark doesn't like to nitpick, but I do.  One of the problems among dog owners and trainers is that not everyone uses the same lexicon. So I understand where the questions come from.



mindyintx said:


> I'm not trying to "justify" anything. To me they are two different things. In my understanding, punishment is a strong consequence given for a negative behavior, like when I punish my teenager for breaking curfew by grounding her for a week. Or when I got a spanking as a kid for lying about sneaking off to my friend's house after school one day.


"Correction" is a euphemism for punishment. I'm not sure why traditional dog trainers wanted a word of their own to qualify a different kind of punishment, but whatever. 

Pick up any psychology book and look up the definition of punishment. I'll quote one from this link: http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/Wasserman/Glossary/punishment.html


> Punishment is defined as a consequence that follows an operant responsethat decreases (or attempts to decrease) the likelihood of that response occurring in the future.


Nothing in the definition states what the punishment is, how aversive it is, if it's physical or not, nothing. It simply states that it is a consequence that follows a physical behavior that attempts to decrease the behavior in the future. That's it.

A "correction" is exactly that too. Or do you still disagree? If so, why? 



> Cesar corrects the dogs behavior "in the moment" with "sspst" sound, a tap on the butt, or a tug to the side with the leash to get the dogs attention. He doesn't punish them.


What is he attempting to do with the "correction" and doesn't that follow the definition of punishment?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

On another note.. everybody...

I am interested in knowing people's opinions of Cesar's "pack"...

Is it helpful? Harmful? Is it a good way for dogs to learn to become social, or is it just another example of his flooding techniques?


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> On another note.. everybody...
> 
> I am interested in knowing people's opinions of Cesar's "pack"...
> 
> Is it helpful? Harmful? Is it a good way for dogs to learn to become social, or is it just another example of his flooding techniques?


I don't think your going to get a responce for this either without conflicting veiws....


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> On another note.. everybody...
> 
> I am interested in knowing people's opinions of Cesar's "pack"...
> 
> Is it helpful? Harmful? Is it a good way for dogs to learn to become social, or is it just another example of his flooding techniques?


I think it depends on the individual psychology of the dog. If he is extremely fearful or aggressive, I would call it flooding. If the dog just needs some remedial socialization, but isn't totally off the wall? I really like it. It's how we socialize our pups in the first place, letting them interact for periods of time with really well mannered dogs.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

K9companions said:


> I don't think your going to get a responce for this either without confronting veiws....


I don't know. I view the pack/center setting as significantly _different_ than Cesar's methods when he's at someone's house. We'll see how other people feel about that.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

K9companions said:


> I don't think your going to get a responce for this either without confronting veiws....


You can't get a response without confronting views on whether it's safe to use a 6 foot leash vs a 5 foot leash in the dog world. It sort of comes with the territory, so to speak.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

mindyintx said:


> I don't see any choking going on. That's my perspective. You have yours.


It's called a choke collar for a reason, I don't see how you can disagree that choking is going in when the device itself makes no presumption about what it does. It's a choke collar, what is there to argue? I'm asking honestly.



> Your ridiculous analogy between my rational teenage son (who I have taught over the years how to associate and be social with other kids/people) and a dog does not make sense.


It was an analogy, not a statement of fact. You used your explanation of your son's behavior to justify what Milan does, when Milan is not teaching his dogs the way you are teaching your son. My analogy was a explanation of what Milan would do to your son using his own methods.



> And your condesending and sarcastic posts are unnecessary. One should be able to disagree with another with out resorting to the use of such tones. I was just reading this morning on the new members welcome forum about such tones and posts driving off new members. Nice, huh?


If I come across as condesending or sarcastic, then my message is not coming across how I wish for it to. I am not trying to do either one.







MissMutt said:


> On another note.. everybody...
> 
> I am interested in knowing people's opinions of Cesar's "pack"...
> 
> Is it helpful? Harmful? Is it a good way for dogs to learn to become social, or is it just another example of his flooding techniques?


It's another example of his flooding techniques.


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> On another note.. everybody...
> 
> I am interested in knowing people's opinions of Cesar's "pack"...
> 
> Is it helpful? Harmful? Is it a good way for dogs to learn to become social, or is it just another example of his flooding techniques?


I like it! I think dogs can learn from each other much quicker than they can learn from us humans. Surrounding a dog with 'issues' with more balanced well behaved dogs does work. It's not for every dog or every situation, and it does require supervision, skill, and patience as well as some very balanced dogs as the 'pack'. I've done similar things on a much smaller scale and have seen the benefits.



trumpetjock said:


> You can't get a response without confronting views on whether it's safe to use a 6 foot leash vs a 5 foot leash in the dog world. It sort of comes with the territory, so to speak.


I see that Cesar is a hot topic, as well as pit bulls....but please tell me people don't get this fired up over the length of a leash!

I'm new to this site....can you tell me what other topics are this hot?


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> You can't get a response without confronting views on whether it's safe to use a 6 foot leash vs a 5 foot leash in the dog world. It sort of comes with the territory, so to speak.


Lol, very true. 



rzrbaxfan said:


> I see that Cesar is a hot topic, as well as pit bulls....but please tell me people don't get this fired up over the length of a leash!
> 
> I'm new to this site....can you tell me what other topics are this hot?


Hmmm...most hot topics are pitbulls, backyard breeders, getting a puppy vs. adopting, and training metods...and others that i can't remember. 

EDIT - and another hot topic is whether to spay/nueter or not...


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

rzrbaxfan said:


> I'm new to this site....can you tell me what other topics are this hot?


Uhm... everything


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

myminpins said:


> Uhm... everything


LOL...Can't we all just get along!

K9Companion...off topic I know, but the quote in your signature line is awesome.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

K9companions said:


> getting a puppy vs. adopting


I would agree with all of those with one caveat. I think that the argument of getting a puppy vs adopting is relegated to mills and BYB's. I don't think I've ever heard someone condemn a person for getting a puppy from a truly reputable breeder.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

rzrbaxfan said:


> I don't think it was having a different opinion that was labeled as 'rude'...I think it was your use of the word 'ignorant'. Ironically, when I first read that, I felt (like others here) you called someone 'ignorant' because someone's opinion differed from yours.


I didn't call anyone ignorant. The idea that learning theory is only useful to teach "parlor tricks" and does not use "actual" laws of 'dog' psychology, is ignorant. Had I called K9 an idiot (I don't believe this at all), then yes, I meant to be offensive. I did not/would not do that. 



K9companions said:


> To this moment I am not sure what exactly is bothering you besides the fact that I believe in a different training method than you.


See above. 



> Are you referring to the name parlor tricks? I find this kind of funny, because it sparked an argument when actually it's just what I call the 'cutesy tricks' that my dog does. Such as "up, rollover, be shy, drop dead, act wounded". These are all tricks that are shown for fun...are they not? These are tricks, not in the same category as a dogs behavior....


I took exception to your implication. But no, dogs have no concept of tricks. What we call tricks is actual dog behavior, no different than aggressive behavior, or fearful behavior, or other behavior owners find problematic and want to modify.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> I would agree with all of those with one caveat. I think that the argument of getting a puppy vs adopting is relegated to mills and BYB's. I don't think I've ever heard someone condemn a person for getting a puppy from a truly reputable breeder.



Yes, that true. Suppose they are in the same category.  I think I am too used to craigslist postings...I got the two mixed.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> I would agree with all of those with one caveat. I think that the argument of getting a puppy vs adopting is relegated to mills and BYB's. I don't think I've ever heard someone condemn a person for getting a puppy from a truly reputable breeder.


I have seen this on other dog boards. It's so frustrating. We have very few shelter dogs here and was condemned for getting a dog from a breeder instead of rescuing one. I didn't want a large dog like a GSD or lab or whatever which is all that is in the shelters here but I was a bad person for not doing that anyway.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> A recurring theme in his show is flooding, and that's generally my biggest criticism. Many times I watch him deal with dog issues and wonder why the heck he practically throws a dog off the cliff without even trying to guide it down gently first. He tackles many minor problems with extreme solutions. A dog that's afraid of walking on wood floors, he just walks in and manhandles it around. Why not just work at it slowly and desensitize the dog to it? It would have achieved the same result in about the same time without terrifying the dog.


So why is it inherently better to "work at it slowly and desensitize the dog to it?". Did the dog get hurt by being forced onto the floor? Did it not cure the problem? At what cost - 20 minutes of anxiety for the dog until it realized that the floor was not going to swallow him up after all?

I don't like to make analogies between people and dogs, but sometimes it is better just to jump into the deep end and confront problems. 

I don't think anyone can definitively say one way is better than the other, it probably depends on the dog and the particular situation, but it seems to me that a lot of the people who criticize Cesar are hopelessly soft hearted. Is a little physical touch or 'cornering a dog' or dragging him onto a floor really such a big thing ? Why? Maybe because of how it makes YOU feel ? 

Conflict (physical and psychological) is part of life, human and animal. A lot of people do not deal well with it and for their own reasons react very adversely to it. But all conflict is not inherently wrong or evil. The animal kingdom is certainly full of it - no counseling there. The basis for many criticism's of Cesar are based on a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything which is physical and confrontational, regardless of how much the benefits to the dog may outweigh any temporary distress.

If you start with the premise that physical touch and conflict is evil then of course you are not going to like Cesar's methods. The problem is that your premise is arbitrary and based on your own feelings, not the dogs.


----------



## mindyintx (Jan 7, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Nothing in the definition states what the punishment is, how aversive it is, if it's physical or not, nothing. It simply states that it is a consequence that follows a physical behavior that attempts to decrease the behavior in the future. That's it.
> 
> A "correction" is exactly that too. Or do you still disagree? If so, why?


I do agree that a correction is a consequence of a negative behavior, the same as a punishment is. So, yes, it would _technically _be the same thing. 

However, I believe there are differences between the two, as I tried to describe. Obviously, I didn't do it well. This says it better...

There is no such concept as punishment to the horse. In the herd, if a horse is yielded out of his space by another horse, he doesn't go away and stew on this for 10-15 minutes and come back mad and kick the other horse. If a horse is bitten by another horse he doesn't go get a group of his friends and come back to "teach the other horse a lesson". This is a human thing, we do this - horses don't! If there's going to be a confrontation, it's immediate and going to happen *at the moment *of conflict. 

Many people believe that they get respect out of fear from their horse. You know the type, they put the fear of god into the horse and they've got every training problem figured out. I can't throw a rock in my area without hitting at least one of these type of people. I've been on so many trail rides where you'll hear someone say that they're going to get a bigger bit to control their horse. This is one of the most severe forms of punishment that you can deal to your horse. You may have more control but it will be because of fear of the bit, not out of trust.

Anger Management

Your horse picks up on your attitude. If you are having a bad day you are probably sending a message to your horse through your posture, tone of voice, movement, etc. Your anger, whether inwardly or outwardly expressed - will be picked up by your horse. This is a form of punishment that you may not have even realized that you were subjecting your horse to. 

So what's a correction?

Many people will read this and think that a correction is the wrong term to use. When you are training the horse to do something, you are not trying to dominate the horse. *A correction is the act of modifying a behavior, movement, or posture through operant conditioning; either positive or negative reinforcement. A correction can be anything from an extra ounce of leg pressure to a severe (7 on a scale of 10) use of the rein or popper to keep a horse from biting or kicking another horse or human. Use the appropriate correction for the situation, but no more!*

I don't know how else to explain my way of thinking on this. As I probably won't be able to explain myself any better to suit the critics here, I'll just leave it at that. 

I would like to say, I regret voicing my opinion on a forum where a civil discussion is apparently not possible. Perhaps I'm too new here at DF to have my opinion respected. Perhaps I'm at fault for trying to point out (what I saw) as another's misconception. I forgot there are those out there who are always right and are never to be contradicted. I'll remember to stick to the friendlier, less judgemental forums from now on. Thanks.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I didn't call anyone ignorant. The idea that learning theory is only useful to teach "parlor tricks" and does not use "actual" laws of 'dog' psychology, is ignorant. Had I called K9 an idiot (I don't believe this at all), then yes, I meant to be offensive. I did not/would not do that.
> 
> 
> See above.
> ...


Ok, we are getting somewhere. Lol. So it was my use of the word Parlor Tricks. Well here it is: I am truly sorry if this offended anyone. It really is just an offish term we use around the house when my family wants to see the tricks my dog can do. I didn't believe it would sound offensive, and again, I am sorry that it did. I use treat training for these tricks. But dog behavior wise, I like Cesar's method. 

I suppose doing tricks is a dog behavior...in a way...if you mean that they have the need to please us for what we ask them to do? Please explain, because I actually really am interested in knowing. Thanks Crubside.


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

> I didn't call anyone ignorant. The idea that learning theory is only useful to teach "parlor tricks" and does not use "actual" laws of 'dog' psychology, is ignorant. Had I called K9 an idiot (I don't believe this at all), then yes, I meant to be offensive. I did not/would not do that.


So there is a difference between calling someone ignorant and calling someone's ideas ignorant? Personally, I think it would be hard to use the term ignorant without it coming across as rude, but that is just me. Perhaps in 10 years of being a teacher, it has been drilled into my brain that delivery is everything. There is a difference between "that idea is ignorant" and "I think that idea is incorrect and here is some evidence that shaped my opinion".


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

K9companions said:


> Lol, very true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



psst...raw diet


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> The problem is that your premise is arbitrary and based on your own feelings, not the dogs.


Have you read the several statements made in this very thread about how the dog's body language is showing absolute terror? The premise of saying that these methods are not necessary is not arbitrary in the least. It is based (again, said many times in this thread) from decades of scientific study on the psychology of learning, and body language. It doesn't take much study to be able to read a dog's BL enough to know when they are afraid vs calm/submissive. So, in reality, it is based 100% off of what the dog is feeling.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

*cough* And I would like to add to the hot topics on the thread: Raw feeding....*cough* Thanks Zim


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> psst...raw diet


Good call.

And, glad to see you're still around <3


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

> I would like to say, I regret voicing my opinion on a forum where a civil discussion is apparently not possible. Perhaps I'm too new here at DF to have my opinion respected. Perhaps I'm at fault for trying to point out (what I saw) as another's misconception. I forgot there are those out there who are always right and are never to be contradicted. I'll remember to stick to the friendlier, less judgemental forums from now on. Thanks.


Don't leave over this! Every message board, no matter the topic, is going to have people who have their opinions and will argue them to the end. This is a heated topic here, but don't let that take away from the other great things this site has to offer. Don't have regrets over expressing your opinion either. There are plenty of people that are on the same page as you, but don't want to pile on and divide the board. Relax, enjoy, and please, post more!


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> So why is it inherently better to "work at it slowly and desensitize the dog to it?". Did the dog get hurt by being forced onto the floor? Did it not cure the problem? At what cost - 20 minutes of anxiety for the dog until it realized that the floor was not going to swallow him up after all?


I guess I don't understand your question. You basically asked me why is it better to do things gently and fun instead of do things harshly and terrifying. It seems self-explanatory to me.



> I don't like to make analogies between people and dogs, but sometimes it is better just to jump into the deep end and confront problems.


Perhaps sometimes you have to. I can't answer that with any authority. Nobody can, for that matter. But why skip the positive methods altogether and go straight to the negative methods?



> I don't think anyone can definitively say one way is better than the other, it probably depends on the dog and the particular situation, but it seems to me that a lot of the people who criticize Cesar are hopelessly soft hearted. Is a little physical touch or 'cornering a dog' or dragging him onto a floor really such a big thing ? Why? Maybe because of how it makes YOU feel ?


It seems a big deal to me because why would you use the positive punishment before the positive reinforcement? It seems so backwards to me.




> Conflict (physical and psychological) is part of life, human and animal. A lot of people do not deal well with it and for their own reasons react very adversely to it. But all conflict is not inherently wrong or evil. The animal kingdom is certainly full of it - no counseling there. The basis for many criticism's of Cesar are based on a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything which is physical and confrontational, regardless of how much the benefits to the dog may outweigh any temporary distress.


Conflict is indeed part of life, but we are supposed to be intelligent creatures. You're setting a question up for a desired answer. The only way I can answer this is; yes, conflict exists. That's no reason to create conflict where there is none, however.



> If you start with the premise that physical touch and conflict is evil then of course you are not going to like Cesar's methods. The problem is that your premise is arbitrary and based on your own feelings, not the dogs.


Why would you start with the premise that physical touch and conflict is OK? Again, it just seems backwards to me.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Actually, this is most "civil" "fight" I've ever seen on a message board ROFL!!!!!!

Thanks for the reminder of raw diet!!! Nice to see you


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

mindyintx said:


> I do agree that a correction is a consequence of a negative behavior, the same as a punishment is. So, yes, it would _technically _be the same thing.
> 
> However, I believe there are differences between the two, as I tried to describe. Obviously, I didn't do it well. This says it better...
> 
> ...


I understand what you are trying to say here about how you define it, but if one is going to debate about training, you inevitably *have* to apply the learning theory to things. It is scientifically proven, and you'd be hard pressed to show me a training method that is not applied using Learning Theory. 

It is not a matter of preference, but of neccesity. If there is no common language, then nobody can find common ground. The Learning Theory has that language as a common ground, and it is up to us to take advantage of it to explain better our thoughts. Learning Theory does not make Milan wrong, it does not make you wrong. People seem to think that it's some Trojan horse that makes all trainers other than R+ trainers wrong, but that's not the case. All learning, good or bad, is based on this theory.

And for whatever it is worth, nobody is disrespecting your opinion. I can't speak for others, but if I truly disrespected your opinion, I would not be talking to you at all.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

i like his techniques. He looks into dog psychology which I prefer over trying to understand what humans must do to the dog. I do not like Victoria at all because she is very whiny about what the owners have to do. I understand that yes it's the owner's fault, but she nags and nags. She reminds me of Super Nanny. Didn't like her either. She's very very condescending on the owners, she treats them like little children where as Cesar is more calm. He doesn't want to intrude on it. As he always reminds people, it is to be firm but gentle at the same time.

I think that different techniques work on different dogs. Sarge responded well to the clicker method (although I didn't really think it worked that well, he just kept wanting to click the thing) but Maggie responds well with Cesar's method. She ate the clicker. She didn't get it and nothing that Victoria does would do anything. Victoria's methods just don't work for my dogs, maybe others are different.

Cesar understands what the dog's instincts are and looks into the breed's past and not the actual past of the dog. He's right when it comes to "they live in the now." Dogs do remember things of the past and may act a certain way because of it, but they don't hold onto it like humans like to believe. Because we remember (or know) we treat them differently, which could cause them to misbehave. But if you fix the problem now and keep up the correct training, the dog won't remember the past and revert back. We may like to think that dogs' minds are exactly like a child's but they're not.

What looks violent may not actually be the case. For example, little dogs have a scruff on their neck, like most dogs, but because they're little they do not have the sensitivity and instead, like a shark flipped over showing belly, they go into the trance. For bigger dogs it would obviously hurt.

Also, I forgot, the anxiety thing. Sarge was abused because he looked like a pitbull. He was terrified of water, bathrooms, loud noises, anything with wheels, open spaces where he could get trapped, etc. I helped him through all of these fears within 1 1/2 years. I didn't force him. He is still afraid but I'm helping him. Cesar, when it comes to anxious dogs, thinks about what kind of fear it is. Different fears require different actions. For a general fear of water you have to do it a bit slower. I had to get sarge and bathe him (in the summer) outside with water. Sarge tended to wait for a moment then explode and buck like a horse. I held him, like a groomer's way, when I slow used water on him. When he bucked, I just kept a hold and kept the water running. He liked to drink it as well, so I would give him a break and give him some water to relax again. I never told him "it's ok" because it feeds the whole thing.

When it is a fear of something you can't give to the dog or well, you know what i mean (you can't pick up a floor) you have to make a run into it so he cannot back away from it. The problem was getting him onto it not coming up to it."You have to face your fears." Getting a dog onto the floor is less time for the dog to freak out for the rest of its life. 

No matter how I put this someone is going to argue that it's mean, but today I think we're starting to baby dogs a bit too much. We also tend to think they're human and that we can cure them the human way.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

What is The Learning Theory?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

myminpins said:


> What is The Learning Theory?


People go to college and get PhD's attempting to answer just that!

For the rest of us, there's a good little book called Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them that I highly recommend.

You may also want to check out the wiki on it: Learning Theory


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

myminpins said:


> Actually, this is most "civil" "fight" I've ever seen on a message board ROFL!!!!!!
> 
> Thanks for the reminder of raw diet!!! Nice to see you


I have found an active message board for all of my hobbies...rv-ing, motorcycles, tv shows, and now with this site, one for my dogs! But by far, the one that gets the most heat, is the one that supports my favorite college sports team. There are debates over there that make the cesar debate seem like a tea party!

BTW, I looked at the pics in your signature line. Folks, go check out Titan! Does he alway have that look on his face like he's about to get into something?


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

trumpetjock said:


> Have you read the several statements made in this very thread about how the dog's body language is showing absolute terror? The premise of saying that these methods are not necessary is not arbitrary in the least. It is based (again, said many times in this thread) from decades of scientific study on the psychology of learning, and body language. It doesn't take much study to be able to read a dog's BL enough to know when they are afraid vs calm/submissive. So, in reality, it is based 100% off of what the dog is feeling.


The only thing that has been scientifically proven about learning is that the debates will go on forever, regardless of whether you are talking about kids or dogs. There are endless different conflicting "scientific" opinions and in reality no way of "proving" that sort of hypothesis anyways, regardless of prevailing trends. Its easy to find a paper to support your theory. Its better to use common sense.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

rzrbaxfan said:


> So there is a difference between calling someone ignorant and calling someone's ideas ignorant?


IMO, yes. 



> Personally, I think it would be hard to use the term ignorant without it coming across as rude, but that is just me.


Why? K9 said herself she was ignorant about math. We're all ignorant about something, what's the harm is stating an absence of knowledge exists? As a teacher I would think you'd see this as an opportunity to fill the void. I thought my links filled that void. 



> There is a difference between "that idea is ignorant" and "I think that idea is incorrect and here is some evidence that shaped my opinion".


Well, you're saying that the person is wrong. I find this slightly more offensive than saying an idea was stated without knowledge of what it actually is. But that's just me.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

rzrbaxfan said:


> I have found an active message board for all of my hobbies...rv-ing, motorcycles, tv shows, and now with this site, one for my dogs! But by far, the one that gets the most heat, is the one that supports my favorite college sports team. There are debates over there that make the cesar debate seem like a tea party!
> 
> BTW, I looked at the pics in your signature line. Folks, go check out Titan! Does he alway have that look on his face like he's about to get into something?


LOL Thanks! Yeah, he's a puppy!!! And he KNOWS he's Cute too!!


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> The only thing that has been scientifically proven about learning is that the debates will go on forever, regardless of whether you are talking about kids or dogs. There are endless different conflicting "scientific" opinions and in reality no way of "proving" that sort of hypothesis anyways, regardless of prevailing trends. Its easy to find a paper to support your theory. Its better to use common sense.


I have yet to see anyone ever respond to one of these threads with a scientific backing for training via punishment. Not once. I have, however, seen dozens of examples of published papers done by people that went to college for 8 years to study animal behavior or mammal psychology that back up positive training and learning theory.

Saying using common sense versus scientific research is foolish. There's a reason we listen to MDs for our medical problems. There's a reason we listen to psychologists for our mental ones. There is also a reason we listen to people with PhDs in animal behaviour when we try to create a training program.

Also, I never said ANYTHING was scientifically proven. I have a degree in biology, I've spent a lot of time working in science. Nothing is scientifically proven. However, things are scientifically supported or unsupported. Published work is the way you support a theory. Guess which side has more support from the scientific community?


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

RBark said:


> People go to college and get PhD's attempting to answer just that!
> 
> For the rest of us, there's a good little book called Excel-Erated Learning: Explaining in Plain English How Dogs Learn and How Best to Teach Them that I highly recommend.
> 
> You may also want to check out the wiki on it: Learning Theory


Thank you. This one really says it all:



> A learning theory is an attempt to describe how people and animals learn, thereby helping us understand the inherently complex process of learning


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

> Why? K9 said herself she was ignorant about math. We're all ignorant about something, what's the harm is stating an absence of knowledge exists? As a teacher I would think you'd see this as an opportunity to fill the void. I thought my links filled that void.


Pointing out your own ignorance, and pointing out someone elses ingorance are 2 different things to me. I'm not opposed to 'filling in the void', especially when the person with the voids is willing to admit there is a void and expose themselves to an idea that opposes theirs, even if in the end they don't accept it. 

I do believe that there are various ways (thru your choice of words) to get your point across. Some ways are more effective in getting someone to see a viewpoint that opposes theirs, while other ways will almost automatically make someone believe in their ideas that much stronger...all based on delivery.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> The only thing that has been scientifically proven about learning is that the debates will go on forever, regardless of whether you are talking about kids or dogs. There are endless different conflicting "scientific" opinions and in reality no way of "proving" that sort of hypothesis anyways, regardless of prevailing trends. Its easy to find a paper to support your theory. Its better to use common sense.


I disagree. There are hypothesises, and then there are theories. Dominance is in the usage that many people do, is a hypothesis. Theory is something that's been put to test over and over and over and over with many supporting results.

Clicker training is based on scientifically tested and proven methods.



rzrbaxfan said:


> Pointing out your own ignorance, and pointing out someone elses ingorance are 2 different things to me. I'm not opposed to 'filling in the void', especially when the person with the voids is willing to admit there is a void and expose themselves to an idea that opposes theirs, even if in the end they don't accept it.
> 
> I do believe that there are various ways (thru your choice of words) to get your point across. Some ways are more effective in getting someone to see a viewpoint that opposes theirs, while other ways will almost automatically make someone believe in their ideas that much stronger...all based on delivery.


I'm not sure why this is still being debated, considering the "offender" (Curb) and the "offended" (k9) have resolved that debate a long time ago and is of no consequence to the rest of us.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Farore said:


> I do not like Victoria at all because she is very whiny about what the owners have to do. I understand that yes it's the owner's fault, but she nags and nags.


And I think that's the precise reason for people going around as Milan's minions and tell people that they need to CHHHT their dogs and become pack leader - people who have no clue whatsoever about how to train a dog using ANY theory. People like to feel empowered.. Cesar's smooth talk "Okay, so you're not showing your dog who's boss, but you're a strong-at-heart woman who can conquer the world and you can do this, all I need to do is show you the way" reels in the unsuspecting public. 

This, of course, differs from Victoria's "Confrontation" sessions or whatever they're called on the new show in which she tells the people what they are doing is very wrong, could cost their dog their life, is irresponsible, disgusting, can't believe you've been living like this brute honesty. It'd take a brave person to tell a stranger those things about them and their dog.

I think that's probably my biggest pet peeve about the show. Dog Whisperer makes it too easy for a casual dog owner, who really knows nothing except teaching their dog to sit and give paw, try to lecture other people about dog behavior.

Just at the other day at the park I saw a woman CHHHTing her Sibe.. you think the dog had any idea what she was doing? Nah. Then she was talking about energy and living in the moment and all those nice catchphrases Cesar uses. The icing on the cake is when she felt the need to step in and break up a terrible dogfight, which was really no more than a couple of dogs wrestling.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

K9companions said:


> Ok, we are getting somewhere. Lol. So it was my use of the word Parlor Tricks. Well here it is: I am truly sorry if this offended anyone. It really is just an offish term we use around the house when my family wants to see the tricks my dog can do. I didn't believe it would sound offensive, and again, I am sorry that it did. I use treat training for these tricks. But dog behavior wise, I like Cesar's method.
> 
> I suppose doing tricks is a dog behavior...in a way...if you mean that they have the need to please us for what we ask them to do? Please explain, because I actually really am interested in knowing. Thanks Crubside.


Wow...took me a while to get through this whole thread..


My understanding (of what curb posted) is that saying that certain training methods were _*only good for training parlor tricks*_ was the problem...not the use of the phrase "parlor tricks"

that is my take on it anyway

My .02 on CM is that some of his methods are interesting...I love that he takes on "red zone" dogs....but he talks in circles sometimes and it gets very confusing...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

bah! I stuck mah durn toe in I might well dive in lol...


I hate Cesar's methods. His show make me want to vomit.

Alpha rolling and punishments turned my dog from simply dog aggressive into a psychotic nightmare. 

Clicker training and an extremely hand off approach saved the situation. 

That's enough said as far as im concerned. 


(and I did say I would be gone _indefinitely_ )


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

> I'm not sure why this is still being debated, considering the "offender" (Curb) and the "offended" (k9) have resolved that debate a long time ago and is of no consequence to the rest of us.


I'm not debating the resolved issue between Curb and K9. I'm not debating anything actually. I was just pointing out that a moderator calling someone's ideas 'ignorant' made a few people scratch their heads.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

rzrbaxfan said:


> I'm not debating the resolved issue between Curb and K9. I'm not debating anything actually. I was just pointing out that a moderator calling someone's ideas 'ignorant' made a few people scratch their heads.


To her credit, I've seen CP get into more people's faces than anyone else on this board, but never once have I seen an abuse of mod power because of personal opinion.

Effective mods are able to voice their opinion in whatever fashion they choose, while still being able to completely separate their duties from those discussions, and CP does that just fine imo.

We need a disclaimer that you have to click every time you sign on that says "The views of the mods do not necessarily represent the views of Dogforums, Inc."


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

pugmom said:


> Wow...took me a while to get through this whole thread..
> 
> 
> My understanding (of what curb posted) is that saying that certain training methods were _*only good for training parlor tricks*_ was the problem...not the use of the phrase "parlor tricks"
> ...


Well now that just confuses me, becuase I thought it was the actual word. Nowhere in my first post did I say that treat training was only good for parlor tricks. I said I use treat training FOR parlor tricks. I treat to train a trick...like most people do.

If this is so, I would like to hear from Curbside.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

> I treat to train a trick.


Say that five times FAST!! LOL  Just thought it was cute...


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

myminpins said:


> Say that five times FAST!! LOL  Just thought it was cute...


Hehe. I tried it and now both my mother and my dog are looking at me like I have eight eyeballs growing on my face.


----------



## iwantmypup (Jan 6, 2007)

Cesar Milan is the fo shizzle. I absolutely adore his fortified water.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

K9companions said:


> I suppose doing tricks is a dog behavior...in a way...if you mean that they have the need to please us for what we ask them to do? Please explain, because I actually really am interested in knowing.


Learning theory is very simple with one concept. It's called the ABC's of learning. "A" stands for antecedent. An antecedent is anything in the dog's behavior that is eliciting the dog's behavior. Me saying "sit" is an antecedent to sit. A cat running across a lawn is an antecedent to a chase. "B" stands for behavior. Sit, down, bark, shiver, pant, chasing, eating, these are all behaviors. "C" stands for consequence. A food reward for sit is a consequence, a leash pop for sniffing another dog's butt is a consequence. Consequences follow behavior and behavior follows antecedents (A > B > C). 

Learning theorists don't care and will never know what a dog is thinking, no more than I'll ever know what you're thinking in this moment. So, learning theorist, do not assign an internal motivation for behavior like a dominance theorists wants to...besides for self amusement or entertainment. Humans, however, are flawed (unlike dogs), and we often guess wrong at a dog's internal motivations. Dominance theory is just one example of our folly in describing dog behavior. 

Instead, we look at the antecedents and consequences to effectively change a dog's behavior. The dog's environment and consequences, really, is all that we have control over, never the dog. Some environments are more challenging than others, and this is precisely when the application of learning theory predictably fails. It's not dependent on the dog or his breed, only on the owners skill in controlling the dog's environment and consequences.

Yes, understanding when predation is not play is important to the learning theorist too, in that it helps guide what kind of antecedent changes and consequences may be necessary; it does not tell us what the dog is or can be.

So your question...does a dog want to please? I really don't know. I want to believe it is true, I imagine that it is true, but it does not/can not dictate what behaviors I want, when I want them, or how I want to get them. It's not even in the discussion. Learning theorists are often accused of being "soft" for not using as much physical punishment as a traditional trainer would, however, learning theorists often have the most strict criteria among trainers. That's been my experience. 

One "parlor trick" Elsa knows is play bow. We think it's cute, it has no utility to us other than our amusement, but to a dog, this behavior is real, it's necessary in diffusing conflict, as well as eliciting "play". All other behaviors we attempt to form with leash pops or food rewards is nothing more than taking what the dog can already do and packaging it for our needs. Cesar does this, you do this, I do this, and learning theorists do it too.

However, when I hear the words "my dog does (insert bad behavior here)" because he wants to be "a dominant dog", like Cesar often does, I don't know how to take him seriously. Because often the bad behavior has more to do with the approach (antecedent), which he modifies, than it does his explanation. He often employs simple management approaches that every dog owner should be responsible for anyway. 

I like Cesar too, believe it or not, but he drives me nuts when he tries to explain easily modifiable behavior with these visions of dog's ruling the world. He's calmed down a lot over the years, as he takes in the criticism...I still hope he changes more.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> I think that's probably my biggest pet peeve about the show. Dog Whisperer makes it too easy for a casual dog owner, who really knows nothing except teaching their dog to sit and give paw, try to lecture other people about dog behavior.
> 
> Just at the other day at the park I saw a woman CHHHTing her Sibe.. you think the dog had any idea what she was doing? Nah. Then she was talking about energy and living in the moment and all those nice catchphrases Cesar uses. The icing on the cake is when she felt the need to step in and break up a terrible dogfight, which was really no more than a couple of dogs wrestling.


What other people don't realize is that you need to look up training methods and make sure you don't just watch the show. I don't use his noise but i say a different noise and it works perfectly. It's because she just thinks the word will stop the dog. A lot of little breed dog owners are kind of like kids. They protect their dog from any talk that suggests their dog is a bit aggressive or too jumpy. Most say it's cute or it's ok because they're little. But the most cases of dog aggression (biting humans is with dachshunds and chihuahuas. 

Victoria does a similar training method that my past trainer did. She uses lots of items to buy to help the dog. She tries to connect the two together so the human will understand. She seems to always try and understand the human and not the dog. She almost pays no attention to the dog.

This is off topic and NOT an argument, but Victoria kinda is creep to me. She drives a red shiny expensive car and wears shiny leather with spiked boots and dark sunglasses and when her show starts she shows a whip. A whip?  It just seems she's giving off the wrong image to people. That's just me trying to be funny, it's just something random that popped into my head.

My sister has a basset that is 7 years old. The basset is skinny (is overfed, but she is skinny), eats everything (plastic, balls, toothbrush, paint, you name it), and tends to have potty troubles. My sister trained her completely, but she is at a loss as to why she acts this way. How the heck would Victoria treat that? I told my sister to try and walk the dog, but Libby pulls hard. Victoria would say everytime they pull, walk back. My sister did that and used the sit-pull leash thing and neither worked at all. She eats things when no one's around. She tries to find it so it's not anxiety. My sister does not feed her from the table either. My dog Maggie does it a little, but it's because she's still a puppy and I'm training her now.

My sister also has a bark collar. 

To end a future argument, I will say this:

I do not agree with Victoria's training methods. I will not change my views because I have my own beliefs. I am a stricter person and maybe others are soft. Both are ok (of course, not in extreme). I am not able to put my words into a language others will understand and that is why it seems like I have no pick.

Ooh! I just remembered something. One of the reasons I like Milan is what he stands for. He doesn't give up on super aggressive dogs. Victoria usually aims at the not-so-bad-but-sometimes-bad dogs, not the full-out deadly. Cesar is used mainly as a last resort, not everyday dog training. I like his message for pitbulls and other breeds like that. I guess that's why I also like him.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Learning theory is very simple with one concept. It's called the ABC's of learning. "A" stands for antecedent. An antecedent is anything in the dog's behavior that is eliciting the dog's behavior. Me saying "sit" is an antecedent to sit. A cat running across a lawn is an antecedent to a chase. "B" stands for behavior. Sit, down, bark, shiver, pant, chasing, eating, these are all behaviors. "C" stands for consequence. A food reward for sit is a consequence, a leash pop for sniffing another dog's butt is a consequence. Consequences follow behavior and behavior follows antecedents (A > B > C).
> 
> Learning theorists don't care and will never know what a dog is thinking, no more than I'll ever know what you're thinking in this moment. So, learning theorist, do not assign an internal motivation for behavior like a dominance theorists wants to...besides for self amusement or entertainment. Humans, however, are flawed (unlike dogs), and we often guess wrong at a dog's internal motivations. Dominance theory is just one example of our folly in describing dog behavior.
> 
> ...



I see. I like how you described the ABC theory. Interesting. 

I believe many animals use this theory, infact most of the animal kingdom. I also do not like that some people say that by not punishing (hitting, kicking, or otherwise other abusive behaviors), that you are weak. That is a rediculous statement and usually sounds pompous coming from the person.

I do believe Cesar's pack mentality is correct, but I agree with you in that not every action the dog does is soully to gain leadership or to be the top dog. Dogs do things out of many reasons.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

> why would you use the positive punishment before the positive reinforcement? It seems so backwards to me.


Because I don't feel adverse to some physical touch and conflict. I don't feel that 'positive reinforcement' is always inherently better, as you assume. At certain times I think physical corrections in appropriate amounts are perfectly natural, healthy and more effective for me and my dog for certain types of training. 

Different techniques will suit different people. If you want to just use positive reinforcement, great, but I don't see where you get off criticizing others who take a different approach. Everybody who takes the trouble to train and discipline their dog should be applauded. 

*I'm very tired of people who act like you have done something cruel because you use a choke chain or grab your dog by the scruff of the neck or give it a little poke to get its attention. The evil / cruel people are the ones who never train / discipline or exercise their dogs and have it wind up hurting another person or animal, getting hurt itself or getting sent to the pound.*


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Farore said:


> This is off topic and NOT an argument, but Victoria kinda is creepy. She drives a red shiny expensive car and wears shiny leather with spiked boots and dark sunglasses and when her show starts she shows a whip. A whip?  It just seems she's giving off the wrong image to people.



Haha, I'm sorry, but this comment cracked me up. I'm wiping tears from my eyes. Hehe.


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

trumpetjock said:


> To her credit, I've seen CP get into more people's faces than anyone else on this board, but never once have I seen an abuse of mod power because of personal opinion.
> 
> Effective mods are able to voice their opinion in whatever fashion they choose, while still being able to completely separate their duties from those discussions, and CP does that just fine imo.
> 
> We need a disclaimer that you have to click every time you sign on that says "The views of the mods do not necessarily represent the views of Dogforums, Inc."


I have posted on boards before where folks get banned or deleted for having a different opinion, or debating with a mod. THAT is abuse of mod power. I wasn't accusing CP or anyone of that. And that was not the point I was trying to get across.

I am not challenging the right to debate, or 'get in someone's face', or just throw down, if you choose to. Doing it in whatever fashion you chose is fine as well....I am just pointing out that your choice of words can be offensive to others, and can likely determine the direction of the debate. Say "you are ignorant! the sky is blue!!", and most people would argue with you just because you called them ignorant. Most people do not like their intelligence challenged, and there are several threads on this board that prove it!

CP called someone's ideas 'ignorant', and if the response back was similar, this thread would have likely gotten out of control. Personally, I feel the choice of words was out of line. I respect CPs viewpoint on her choice of words, and I respectfully disagree. It's not that big of a deal.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

I do have a question though, and THIS IS NOT TO SPARK AN ARGUMENT. I simply want to hear what the opinions of both sides are.

There is evidence, in my own life as well, that dogs do, infact, use physical correction with eachother. Now, I don't think this is used because a lack of hands, but if dogs do it to eachother; why is it so wrong for us to use appropriate correction in the exact way that dogs do it with eachother? Wouldn't this be more natural and in a way, connecting us more to our dogs, than man made corrections?

I'm not sure if this is correct or not, so I am interested in deciding if this fact is applicable or not.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

unclearthur said:


> *I'm very tired of people who act like you have done something cruel because you use a choke chain or grab your dog by the scruff of the neck or give it a little poke to get its attention. The evil / cruel people are the ones who never train / discipline or exercise their dogs and have it wind up hurting another person or animal, getting hurt itself or getting sent to the pound.*


I've scruffed cats before when necessary. I did it to a dog once and it yelped. I'm NOT a dog expert. Is it really painLESS to scruff a dog if you do it properly?

I say always try the positive first and, if that fails, sometimes you have to get a bit harsh. Some people think everyone who spanks their child should go to jail. They've never met my son. He could out stubborn the pope. He got a few whacks on the behind. Whatever works, long as you start with the "nice" first to give it a chance.

I don't believe in disciplining dogs or people with objects but if you care about your dogs and only do what is REQUIRED to ensure the dog behaves properly, then what's the problem? 

I was more alarmed by the swing through the air, frankly. It just scared me. I would never trust myself to do something like that properly. And it's on TV, where any idiot could do it wrong.... that's all.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Farore said:


> What other people don't realize is that you need to look up training methods and make sure you don't just watch the show. I don't use his noise but i say a different noise and it works perfectly. It's because she just thinks the word will stop the dog. A lot of little breed dog owners are kind of like kids. They protect their dog from any talk that suggests their dog is a bit aggressive or too jumpy. Most say it's cute or it's ok because they're little. But the most cases of dog aggression (biting humans is with dachshunds and chihuahuas.
> 
> Victoria does a similar training method that my past trainer did. She uses lots of items to buy to help the dog. She tries to connect the two together so the human will understand. She seems to always try and understand the human and not the dog. She almost pays no attention to the dog.
> 
> ...


I wasn't so much arguing your view as I was just stating how the public percieves these two, very different, individuals.

As for the CHHT sound, what I meant was people seem to act as though dogs are pre-programmed to understand what it means. That CHHT is some saving grace, and that sounds like "Ah Ah" and "No" are ancient and uneffective.

Many times I believe the dog should be trained to respond in the correct way.. ie., instead of CHHT for a dog who jumps up, teach him "off." For a dog who goes in the cat box, teach him "leave it," and do not allow him access to it when you are unable to watch him. CHHT may stop the behavior, but it doesn't give the dog something that he IS supposed to do. But really, my biggest problem is the arrogance people have about the whole thing.

No offense, but a dog that eats things when people aren't around probably needs to be confined if it always manages to find things. Victoria just had a show about a Chihuahua that ate paper.. she taught the dog "leave it" and brought crates for the people to use when they were out of the house. I am, quite honestly, totally unsure how Cesar would tackle that.. I saw one episode where he used a banana to redirect a dog from eating garbage, but 1) people can't constantly be walking around with bananas and b) the dog will still get into things if left alone..


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> Because I don't feel adverse to some physical touch and conflict. I don't feel that 'positive reinforcement' is always inherently better, as you assume. At certain times I think physical corrections in appropriate amounts are perfectly natural, healthy and more effective for me and my dog for certain types of training.
> 
> Different techniques will suit different people. If you want to just use positive reinforcement, great, but I don't see where you get off criticizing others who take a different approach. Everybody who takes the trouble to train and discipline their dog should be applauded.
> 
> *I'm very tired of people who act like you have done something cruel because you use a choke chain or grab your dog by the scruff of the neck or give it a little poke to get its attention. The evil / cruel people are the ones who never train / discipline or exercise their dogs and have it wind up hurting another person or animal, getting hurt itself or getting sent to the pound.*


I've never called you evil, nor have I judged anything about you. Fundamentally, I believe a trained dog is better than an untrained dog, for the dog's own safety and survival. But be that as it may, it's no reason to stop trying to find better and more humane ways to do things. At least, not to me. My only confusion was how one would believe that a choke collar does not choke a dog, that's all.

I understand you when you say you don't feel some physical touch is such a horrible thing. I don't encourage it, but I also won't call someone cruel just for that. But if presented with a positive way to do things, I don't understand why one would intentionally ignore that just to hang on to older methods. This is not to say one is wrong or the other is right, but positive training has presented people with a hundred ways to do one thing. Why not do that first? It certainly won't hurt your relationship with your dog.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> As for the CHHT sound, what I meant was people seem to act as though dogs are pre-programmed to understand what it means. That CHHT is some saving grace, and that sounds like "Ah Ah" and "No" are ancient and uneffective.
> 
> Many times I believe the dog should be trained to respond in the correct way.. ie., instead of CHHT for a dog who jumps up, teach him "off." For a dog who goes in the cat box, teach him "leave it," and do not allow him access to it when you are unable to watch him. CHHT may stop the behavior, but it doesn't give the dog something that he IS supposed to do. But really, my biggest problem is the arrogance people have about the whole thing.


You mean like "ta-ta"???? I remember the first time someone said that to my daughter. They wanted her to "ta-ta" - give them the object. She looked at me, like, WTF???? I had to explain to them that she had no clue what "ta-ta" meant as it's not a word I've ever used. She looked at me like I had two heads. Doesn't EVERYONE use that with babies? No!

Sigh....


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

unclearthur said:


> *I'm very tired of people who act like you have done something cruel because you use a choke chain or grab your dog by the scruff of the neck or give it a little poke to get its attention. The evil / cruel people are the ones who never train / discipline or exercise their dogs and have it wind up hurting another person or animal, getting hurt itself or getting sent to the pound.*


Not all people here have the view that a choke/prong is an outright abusive tool. Some do, but I'd say a good amount of people accept that they can be valuable.. I think we had a thread on it a while back, if you're interested.

Don't mean to get off topic but I use a choke most times to walk my dog. Could I use a martingale? Yes. But I don't. My dog loves me and I don't yank on her neck like a crazy person. She does not pull so there's no choking going on. No abuse here.


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

K9companions said:


> Haha, I'm sorry, but this comment cracked me up. I'm wiping tears from my eyes. Hehe.


Go to page 5, read the first sentence of the last paragraph of an entry by MissMutt. You might laugh even more.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I like Cesar too, believe it or not, but he drives me nuts when he tries to explain easily modifiable behavior with these visions of dog's ruling the world.


LOL dogs ruling the world.

I wonder how the world would be if it were ruled by dogs, or at least by humans that followed a canine style of communication.

I guess we'd be too busy sniffing each others rears and looking for places to pee and stuff to eat off the ground?  Then again, I wonder how many wars and conflicts would be stopped since we'd using calming signals instead of military invasions to solve things.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Farore said:


> Ooh! I just remembered something. One of the reasons I like Milan is what he stands for. He doesn't give up on super aggressive dogs. Victoria usually aims at the not-so-bad-but-sometimes-bad dogs, not the full-out deadly. Cesar is used mainly as a last resort, not everyday dog training. I like his message for pitbulls and other breeds like that. I guess that's why I also like him.


I work solely with BSL targeted breeds who have been deemed unadoptable. And I only use positive reinforcement. Out of all the dogs I have rescued...I have had only one real failure....due to a medical condition.

I am quite the pit bull person and I strongly disagree with the way he exposes the breed. I see him promote irresponsible handling at every turn. I have even had a dog come to me due to the previous owner's copying Cesar's nonchalant attitudes towards the breed. 

Just my own experiences of course.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

rzrbaxfan said:


> Go to page 5, read the first sentence of the last paragraph of an entry by MissMutt. You might laugh even more.


Huh? About the woman and her Siberian?


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> Huh? About the woman and her Siberian?


Yeah, I guess its my juvenille sense of humor rearing its ugly head.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

K9companions said:


> Haha, I'm sorry, but this comment cracked me up. I'm wiping tears from my eyes. Hehe.


whether it was a happy comment in a good or bad way, I'm glad I made you happy 

It's just kind of a contrast. Like, Cesar is mellow and seems to spend a lot on his dogs, whereas Victoria is loud and has a bunch of stuff for herself, though I'm sure she has dogs of her own.



unclearthur said:


> *I'm very tired of people who act like you have done something cruel because you use a choke chain or grab your dog by the scruff of the neck or give it a little poke to get its attention. The evil / cruel people are the ones who never train / discipline or exercise their dogs and have it wind up hurting another person or animal, getting hurt itself or getting sent to the pound.*


thank you! It's all about knowing how to use a choke chain and when. It's about knowing limits and setting boundaries. You have to know what you're doing, and not just buying a choke collar because you see other dogs wearing it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

K9companions said:


> I do enjoy treat training for parlor tricks, but very much enjoy Cesar's veiw on actual dog psychology.





K9companions said:


> Well now that just confuses me, becuase I thought it was the actual word. Nowhere in my first post did I say that treat training was only good for parlor tricks. I said I use treat training FOR parlor tricks. I treat to train a trick...like most people do.
> 
> If this is so, I would like to hear from Curbside.


I think if you left off the word "actual" from dog psychology, I would not have said anything. By including that word you are implying that everything else is not "actual". Which in itself is funny because Cesar does not practice psychology - further confusing the matter. He practices ethology as most dominance theorists do. 



rzrbaxfan said:


> I was just pointing out that a moderator calling someone's ideas 'ignorant' made a few people scratch their heads.


There are many things members say that make moderators scratch their heads, but a lot of it is never addressed publicly or privately. 

We're all assumed to be adults, and I should be afforded an explanation as much as any member should be afforded an explanation for what is written on these boards. If K9 doesn't accept my explanation, what exactly do you propose I do? Beg and plead for forgiveness? Why? It's not like I can talk our differences over a tasty beverage with K9...that's how I normally argue with friends. 

I know you're expecting a level of tact. You take exception to the use of the word ignorance and exclude that from your expectations, but I don't share the same opinion on how I used it. But I'll make you a deal, I promise not to call your ideas ignorant. I'll just say you're wrong.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

K9companions said:


> I do have a question though, and THIS IS NOT TO SPARK AN ARGUMENT. I simply want to hear what the opinions of both sides are.
> 
> There is evidence, in my own life as well, that dogs do, infact, use physical correction with eachother. Now, I don't think this is used because a lack of hands, but if dogs do it to eachother; why is it so wrong for us to use appropriate correction in the exact way that dogs do it with eachother? Wouldn't this be more natural and in a way, connecting us more to our dogs, than man made corrections?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is correct or not, so I am interested in deciding if this fact is applicable or not.


I think it's natural thing for dogs. They try to figure out who the leader is. My mom always thought that when two dogs meet one has to figure out who's dominant, even if the owners are dominant. It's just natural. It's only when humans are in control of the animal is when it becomes a problem. The Alpha never lets anyone do anything that he/she doesn't want, so when the human can't do something then it's the problem. Really, it's all about domestication.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

K9companions said:


> I do have a question though, and THIS IS NOT TO SPARK AN ARGUMENT. I simply want to hear what the opinions of both sides are.
> 
> There is evidence, in my own life as well, that dogs do, infact, use physical correction with eachother. Now, I don't think this is used because a lack of hands, but if dogs do it to eachother; why is it so wrong for us to use appropriate correction in the exact way that dogs do it with eachother? Wouldn't this be more natural and in a way, connecting us more to our dogs, than man made corrections?
> 
> I'm not sure if this is correct or not, so I am interested in deciding if this fact is applicable or not.



It works for Wally when need be. I won't snap at him of course (with my luck, I'd get a mouthful of his hair and it feel like it's still in there for a week lol), but I'll physically place him somewhere I want him to be if he doesn't go there (and yes, I make sure he knows the command before correcting him for anything), or if we're stay training and he moves to me. I'll place him in the spot again.

In fact, I've read that when using a verbal correction like "aaaat", it should be in a deepish voice, because it duplicates a dog correcting another 'verbally'. 

So I think using physical corrections and giving verbal ones more dog-like will help connect things for the dog.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

rzrbaxfan said:


> Yeah, I guess its my juvenille sense of humor rearing its ugly head.


It's not juvenile! I guess I've just heard it so much that I've become immune to it.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I think if you left off the word "actual" from dog psychology, I would not have said anything. By including that word you are implying that everything else is not "actual". Which in itself is funny because Cesar does not practice psychology - further confusing the matter. He practices ethology as most dominance theorists do.


Ah, I see. I should have worded it differently. As I said before, it's true meaning was to say: with teaching tricks, or "parlor tricks", I use the treat method, but when it comes to dog psychology, I believe in Cesar's methods. EDIT - I also wanted to say that when I said these words, in no way was I implying that other methods were wrong or didn't work, or weren't 'actual'. I was stating what I believe in.

Anyhow, all in all I guess we both just misunderstood eachother, but please, next time use a more gentle reaction. Lol. In no way did I mean to get you angry with my words and in return I would like not be hurt as well.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> No offense, but a dog that eats things when people aren't around probably needs to be confined if it always manages to find things. Victoria just had a show about a Chihuahua that ate paper.. she taught the dog "leave it" and brought crates for the people to use when they were out of the house. I am, quite honestly, totally unsure how Cesar would tackle that.. I saw one episode where he used a banana to redirect a dog from eating garbage, but 1) people can't constantly be walking around with bananas and b) the dog will still get into things if left alone..


My sister also has crate trained her and leaves her in the crate when they're not around. But even when people are in the house, she manages to get something really quick.

Oh I saw that. He also layed all the temptations out in front of the dog and told the dog to stay away from it by energy. Also, with the banana thing, that's actually part of Victoria's thing to. He was trying to find out why the dog was eating poop, because when a dog does that it usually means they're missing a mineral or whatever. So he thought that because she ate a banana then her body may need more potassium because when she had the potassium, she forgot about the poop.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> I wonder how the world would be if it were ruled by dogs.


I bet they would physically correct us everytime we did something wrong. There would be no confusion. Give me my food now or I'll bite your ass! Get off my couch or I'll bite your ass! Scratch me behind the ears or I'll bite your ass! 

Hopefully they would not be so cruel as to start systematically neutering all us males.

Breeding ....I don't want to go there.

LOL


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Farore said:


> My sister also has crate trained her and leaves her in the crate when they're not around. But even when people are in the house, she manages to get something really quick.
> 
> Oh I saw that. He also layed all the temptations out in front of the dog and told the dog to stay away from it by energy. Also, with the banana thing, that's actually part of Victoria's thing to. He was trying to find out why the dog was eating poop, because when a dog does that it usually means they're missing a mineral or whatever. So he thought that because she ate a banana then her body may need more potassium because when she had the potassium, she forgot about the poop.


You're right, that eating things can often be an indication of something missing in the diet.

But to that I say.. why not change the diet? Why not ask a vet? Get a supplement?

I'm not so sure that this "energy" thing works with everyone.. there are a lot of hush-hushed cases of people trying to be like Cesar and getting attacked in the process.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

unclearthur said:


> I bet they would physically correct us everytime we did something wrong. There would be no confusion. Give me my food now or I'll bite your ass! Get off my couch or I'll bite your ass! Scratch me behind the ears or I'll bite your ass!
> 
> Hopefully they would not be so cruel as to start systematically neutering all us males.
> 
> ...


LOL

Sounds like things would be rather efficient (otherwise, get ready to be bitten!) as well. 

And yeah, let's hope on the neutering thing


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Farore said:


> My sister also has crate trained her and leaves her in the crate when they're not around. But even when people are in the house, she manages to get something really quick.
> 
> Oh I saw that. He also layed all the temptations out in front of the dog and told the dog to stay away from it by energy. Also, with the banana thing, that's actually part of Victoria's thing to. He was trying to find out why the dog was eating poop, because when a dog does that it usually means they're missing a mineral or whatever. So he thought that because she ate a banana then her body may need more potassium because when she had the potassium, she forgot about the poop.


That only teaches the dog not to eat things while you are there, but doesn't teach it not to get into things while you are gone.

I taught my dogs not to get into things around me through the "leave it" training method. I imagine Victoria does the same thing.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I have in the past taken in dogs from some rather extreme situations. Many of those dogs were scheduled to be PTS in one way or another and some would have just died on their own if left. Not all of those dogs met me with happy anticipation. In the early stages of training there is some of each. Mostly positive where ever it will work. I have certainly pulled on the leash of my 100+ pound dogs on occasion and I have even raised my voice. I have even admittedly given them a poke to get their attention on occasion. (to change their attention from too much eye contact on another dog etc.) That said, My goal with any training either positive or negative is to get to a point that the dog understands what is expected of him/her. Then, I shouldn't need any negative responses as the dog will know what to expect from me, what is expected of him/her and will hopefully respond correctly. I have given some good pops on leash when my extremely dog aggressive 140 pound male Rottie was surprised by another assertive large dog. Once I had him backed away we began working on "watch me". If anyone here has successfully trained a dog without ever raising their voice, pulling the dogs leash etc... Good for them. I think that is wonderful and they are to be commended. (if the dog is well behaved listens to their owner) I am always looking for ways to use positive methods with my dogs and dogs I work with. Lets face it we work for pay checks not electric shocks or physical punishments. Why not try do make training as positive as you can?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Another semi cesar related question not meant to start an argument.


What are the ethics of advocating different training methods?


K9

I don't see my dogs using any kind of corrections with each other. they wrestle and play but I can honestly say I haven't seen any real life evidence of dominence or corrections with the dogs I have handled.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

KBLover said:


> LOL
> 
> Sounds like things would be rather efficient (otherwise, get ready to be bitten!) as well.
> 
> And yeah, let's hope on the neutering thing


It really would be less effective than people think 

What do you think happened to just about every regime that tried to rule humans through power?

Yeah, that's what I thought.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

K9companions said:


> Anyhow, all in all I guess we both just misunderstood eachother, but please, next time use a more gentle reaction. Lol. In no way did I mean to get you angry with my words and in return I would like not be hurt as well.


Problem 1 with the written word...it does not often convey the emotion of the writer. I was not angry, in fact I called it interesting...as much of this thread has been...interesting. I was not hurt, and if I caused you any pain, that I do apologize for. It was not my intention. I got exactly what I wanted and was looking for...discussion, so I'm content and happy and wish the same for you.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I work solely with BSL targeted breeds who have been deemed unadoptable. And I only use positive reinforcement. Out of all the dogs I have rescued...I have had only one real failure....due to a medical condition.
> 
> I am quite the pit bull person and I strongly disagree with the way he exposes the breed. I see him promote irresponsible handling at every turn. I have even had a dog come to me due to the previous owner's copying Cesar's nonchalant attitudes towards the breed.
> 
> Just my own experiences of course.


I think he's just showing how even though there are natural tendencies in a breed he's telling people that they are not killing machines. He also explains how proper training can prevent it. Most cases he deals with are about too much energy and no way to get rid of it. I have AS and I can completely relate to that.

Again, the thing that always shows before the show is "consult a professional before trying this". People always think they can copy him and it'll be all right, but you really have to find other methods too. He may have come up with his own method (which for some people just doesn't work) but he also uses other methods.

Sarge was beaten because you're not supposed to handle a bully breed roughly. I don't really think he's treating them roughly at all. 

I think what people are getting confused and argumentative over is this:
He says that you have to match the energy of the dog (during the attack) for the aggressive cases.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Problem 1 with the written word...it does not often convey the emotion of the writer. I was not angry, in fact I called it interesting...as much of this thread has been...interesting. I was not hurt, and if I caused you any pain, that I do apologize for. It was not my intention. I got exactly what I wanted and was looking for...discussion, so I'm content and happy and wish the same for you.


Same here.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

MissMutt said:


> You're right, that eating things can often be an indication of something missing in the diet.
> 
> But to that I say.. why not change the diet? Why not ask a vet? Get a supplement?
> 
> I'm not so sure that this "energy" thing works with everyone.. there are a lot of hush-hushed cases of people trying to be like Cesar and getting attacked in the process.


Yeah, I suppose everyone has the cases. Like the regular dog attacks compared to bully breed attacks which are really rare.

They did start giving her a supplement. He was on a road trip for shooting some shots and he had her for a couple months. Therefore, he had to wait to get back to tell them.

You're right the energy thing doesn't work for everyone. A person may have to change a lot in order to keep the dog under control (example: very vicious pit bull, the owners had to do yoga and flip their lifestyles because they wanted to keep their dog desperately, in the end the dog was calm).


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Another semi cesar related question not meant to start an argument.
> 
> 
> What are the ethics of advocating different training methods?
> ...



Thanks. And thank you to all those who responded back. The reason I asked is because we have dogs in our family and I see them, specially my own dog, physically correct eachother. I don't think it's all dominance related, but say, if my sister's dog keeps bother her other dog, it will slightly growl and nudge the 'botherers' neck. In another case, Hunter (who is still anti social) sat down and refused to allow my sister's dog to smell his behind. My sister's dog then persisted in nipping and nudging Hunter's behind until he got up and moved; then being sniffed. It made me very curious. 

I just wondered if that could be a comparison to what humans do with the 'correction'.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> He says that you have to match the energy of the dog (during the attack) for the aggressive cases.


See, this makes little sense to me. That sounds like you're fighting fire with fire.

A lot of people see positive reinforcement this way. Toss a DA dog in front of another dog, and try to treat it and cuddle it and love it while it's trying to kill the other dog. That's not how it works.

With Ollie's DA, I would see another dog. I walk towards it, and for as long as he's calm, I keep going. As soon as he reacts in SOME way, even something as small as starting to look in the general direction of the dog, I start training it at that point. The dog is still calm, but it is still aware the dog is there. I was maybe 200' from the dog.

I rewarded him for being calm and focused on me. I moved up closer little by little. Sometimes he'd regress and Id take a few steps back. 6 months later, He was playing at the dog park like he never had an issue.

Most people want results and coherence from the dog while it's overstimulated. You won't get a calm dog by punishing it in those situations, you will only get a dog that's shut down. If that's fine with you, then so be it. But confusing a dog that shut down for a calm dog is a folly.


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I know you're expecting a level of tact. You take exception to the use of the word ignorance and exclude that from your expectations, but I don't share the same opinion on how I used it. But I'll make you a deal, I promise not to call your ideas ignorant. I'll just say you're wrong.


And I'll say your ideas are incorrect! And people will say 'these two need to get a life!'

It's all good in the 'hood.


----------



## Farore (Apr 20, 2008)

that's exactly what I do, just do it right before anything occurs. I meant to say that during an attack he has to match the energy. He also says to try and catch it before it starts. I think I forgot to write something and you took it the wrong way.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

I have certainly had dogs physically correct each other at my house too. This is NOT to say a dog fight at all but a quick growl and nip (not blood drawing bite) if one dog is getting out of hand. I have seen posturing and growls to back other dogs off if they are in the first dogs space (food bowl) etc... I have certainly seen mama dogs and adult dog physically correct puppies too.

Edit: Oh nevermind.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Inga said:


> I have certainly had dogs physically correct each other at my house too. This is NOT to say a dog fight at all but a quick growl and nip (not blood drawing bite) if one dog is getting out of hand. I have seen posturing and growls to back other dogs off if they are in the first dogs space (food bowl) etc... I have certainly seen mama dogs and adult dog physically correct puppies too.


Well, if you want to start emulating your dog's behaviors then by all means do so 

Take a video while you're at it!


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Inga said:


> I have certainly had dogs physically correct each other at my house too. This is NOT to say a dog fight at all but a quick growl and nip (not blood drawing bite) if one dog is getting out of hand. I have seen posturing and growls to back other dogs off if they are in the first dogs space (food bowl) etc... I have certainly seen mama dogs and adult dog physically correct puppies too.



Yes this is what I am pertaining to. Specially in the case of Mother dogs with their puppies. I definately see physical correction, infact the Mother will correct the pup untill it yelps. 

From what I am reading, it can seem like the dogs correct eachother more harshly than us humans do sometimes.



RBark said:


> Well, if you want to start emulating your dog's behaviors then by all means do so
> 
> Take a video while you're at it!


Well, this is what some people are trying to do, but then they are accused of 'abusing' their animals or using a very horrible theory. <-- Not implying DF members, I am just saying; the reaction to this in most cases is that they are abusing. But as I asked before, I am wondering if the dogs do it to eachother, am I not allowed to correct him as another dog would?


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

K9companions said:


> Thanks. And thank you to all those who responded back. The reason I asked is because we have dogs in our family and I see them, specially my own dog, physically correct eachother. I don't think it's all dominance related, but say, if my sister's dog keeps bother her other dog, it will slightly growl and nudge the 'botherers' neck. In another case, Hunter (who is still anti social) sat down and refused to allow my sister's dog to smell his behind. My sister's dog then persisted in nipping and nudging Hunter's behind until he got up and moved; then being sniffed. It made me very curious.
> 
> I just wondered if that could be a comparison to what humans do with the 'correction'.


My dogs do similar things. I have a high energy pup who loves to play, but only one other dog plays with her. She has to be reminded of that frequently when she goes to another dog to initiate play, and the other dog has a sharp, quick, no-intention-to-hurt type of lunge/nudge with a growl or low bark. The pup goes about her business until she gets to my Aussie who NEVER turns down a chance to play.

There was another time when the Aussie was younger and she was running in the house. I tried to get her to stop, and she just ran faster. My little rat terrier saw what I was trying to do, and she got up off the couch, stood in front of Chloe with her chest out, and when she tried to run around, Lucy would block her with her body and a slight bark. Chloe laid in the floor and relaxed after that.

I have learned a lot from watching dogs communicate/correct each other.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> What are the ethics of advocating different training methods?


I think Dr. Dunbar nailed this one too. And it's very simple, but no one does it. You can remove the emotional argument by quantifying punishments with behavior. If the ratio of punishments (physical or not, assumed aversive or not) does not reduce over time with the behavior, your punishment is not effective. Ineffective punishment is at the very least annoying to the dog if not abusive.

The mantra of dog trainers today is to use the least aversive method first, and do no harm. IMO, it would be ethical to do just that using Dunbar's quantification approach. Too often people disregard yelping for a biting pup when they can prove for themselves that it is working. 

It's tough because no method should be excluded if it can save a dog's life. Weighing the quality of that life, however, can draw many more opinions on ethics.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Farore said:


> I think he's just showing how even though there are natural tendencies in a breed he's telling people that they are not killing machines. He also explains how proper training can prevent it. Most cases he deals with are about too much energy and no way to get rid of it. I have AS and I can completely relate to that.
> 
> Again, the thing that always shows before the show is "consult a professional before trying this". People always think they can copy him and it'll be all right, but you really have to find other methods too. He may have come up with his own method (which for some people just doesn't work) but he also uses other methods.
> 
> ...



I use redirection and replacing behaviors in conjunction with slow desensitizing to decrease aggression. 

I don't touch them at all. I don't allow them to be in a position where the are likely to become aggressive by identifying the triggers of the aggression and avoiding them until the problem has been addressed by offering the dog an opportunity to engage in a behavior they find more rewarding than aggressive displays. It works. and there is no physicality involved. 


and I never said he treats them roughly. I said he has a nonchalant attitude towards them. as in letting a pit walk down the street off leash. that is promoting extremely irresponsible behavior in a climate where all pit bulls suffer when one owner slacks off and makes a mistake. Because he is a celebrity he will be copied. He should take that celebrity status and become a model of responsible ownership IMO. Just putting a disclaimer on his show doesn't cut it. Only showing those methods that average owners could successfully duplicate without potential distrous results would cut it IMHO.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

rzrbaxfan said:


> And I'll say your ideas are incorrect! And people will say 'these two need to get a life!'
> 
> It's all good in the 'hood.


What is life without a dog, and I have proof that I have...a dog!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> See, this makes little sense to me. That sounds like you're fighting fire with fire.
> 
> A lot of people see positive reinforcement this way. Toss a DA dog in front of another dog, and try to treat it and cuddle it and love it while it's trying to kill the other dog. That's not how it works.
> 
> ...


excellent post.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Well, this is what some people are trying to do, but then they are accused of 'abusing' their animals or using a very horrible theory. <-- Not implying DF members, I am just saying; the reaction to this in most cases is that they are abusing. But as I asked before, I am wondering if the dogs do it to eachother, am I not allowed to correct him as another dog would?


I can't dictate what you can and can not do with your life, but my perspective is such that I am not a dog, and I cannot emulate it properly.

I don't believe a human can give a dog all the signals needed to properly correct a dog. Before your dog corrects another one, it may have given 10 warnings leading up to the visible correction. Things like showing white of the eyes, shaking, licking lips, there are a million calming signals that generally come before the visible correction that we see.

So if we skip all of those calming signals and go right to the correction, what does that mean to our dog? It would presumably mean that we are just suddenly assaulting the dog without warning. Whether this is what they see or not, how can you debate that? We can't say what our dogs think.
'
Observing my dogs have shown me that they are far more peaceful than we give them credit for. They go great lengths to have a language of subtely. Read a book on dog body language, there's just so much little things that as humans, we cannot see and keep up with them all like another dog would. So why should we presume that what works for them, works for us? that sounds like a logicial fallacy to me.

We know what we can do that works for them, and that is understanding how all living things learn. I propose that we follow what *we* know, and understand, rather than attempt to understand a language barrier we cannot possibly bridge as two different species. We have no fur to raise hackles with, we cannot show the whites of our eyes because it always shows, we cannot mobilize our ears like them, we cannot wag a tail, we cannot keep up with the speed of which they interpret the world around them. So why attempt that?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

K9companions said:


> . But as I asked before, I am wondering if the dogs do it to eachother, am I not allowed to correct him as another dog would?


the problem I see with this is that you aren't a dog lol..

The way you use your body differs from the ways a dogs uses theirs. You cannot emulate an appropriate canine response to a behavior with the body and mind that you have...you can only guess and try to hit close to the mark.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

K9companions said:


> Well, this is what some people are trying to do, but then they are accused of 'abusing' their animals or using a very horrible theory. <-- Not implying DF members, I am just saying; the reaction to this in most cases is that they are abusing. But as I asked before, I am wondering if the dogs do it to eachother, am I not allowed to correct him as another dog would?


I fully appreciate that there are many, many different schools of thought in dog training and I acknowledge all of them. This is just some food for thought. It's my opinion that dogs are much, much more sensitive to body language than we are. Because of this, canine body language is an extremely sensitive business which I don't think we can even try to comprehend, let alone emulate. Dogs don't ALWAYS react with a growl and a physical correction; sometimes they do, and sometimes they react in ways we can barely sense, and sometimes they don't react at all... and we as humans can't always discern how a dog would act. My concern with "treating my dog as a dog would treat him" is that humans really can't always accurately portray a dog.

Edit: Hrm. Okay. Zim and RBark just posted at the same time saying what I said in a much more eloquent and condensed manner.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I think Dr. Dunbar nailed this one too. And it's very simple, but no one does it. You can remove the emotional argument by quantifying punishments with behavior. If the ratio of punishments (physical or not, assumed aversive or not) does not reduce over time with the behavior, your punishment is not effective. Ineffective punishment is at the very least annoying to the dog if not abusive.
> 
> The mantra of dog trainers today is to use the least aversive method first, and do no harm. IMO, it would be ethical to do just that using Dunbar's quantification approach. Too often people disregard yelping for a biting pup when they can prove for themselves that it is working.
> 
> It's tough because no method should be excluded if it can save a dog's life. Weighing the quality of that life, however, can draw many more opinions on ethics.



Alright, I think that is what I was sort of trying to get at. Just don't put things into words well. Punishment that is used repeatedly to no end is useless.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

RBark said:


> I can't dictate what you can and can not do with your life, but my perspective is such that I am not a dog, and I cannot emulate it properly.
> 
> I don't believe a human can give a dog all the signals needed to properly correct a dog. Before your dog corrects another one, it may have given 10 warnings leading up to the visible correction. Things like showing white of the eyes, shaking, licking lips, there are a million calming signals that generally come before the visible correction that we see.
> 
> ...


I see. But this also brings up another question of mine that I am curious about. Dog's can pick up on emotions, and 'invisible barriers' in humans and dogs. Bascially dogs don't always need physical signals, they can tell when things are tense or not tense, feelings (in moderation) and such. So if a dog can pick up on this, as humans, do we have to give signs as a dog would before correcting as well. A dog can sense we are not pleased, and then a correction is given, wouldn't this be okay? 

Sorry if I keep going on about it, but I really want to find out if this works, what doesn't, what does, and so on.....atleast in other people's opinion.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the problem I see with this is that you aren't a dog lol..
> 
> The way you use your body differs from the ways a dogs uses theirs. You cannot emulate an appropriate canine response to a behavior with the body and mind that you have...you can only guess and try to hit close to the mark.


Well, of course. But that doesn't mean I can't find ways to meet my dog halfway. Dogs communicate with eachother through touch and body languages. Even training methods use this, telling one to show their displeasure through the body. I'm wondering if it is a better way to communicate with dogs, because out of all the languages, body language is something canines and humans can understand in eachother.



rosemaryninja said:


> I fully appreciate that there are many, many different schools of thought in dog training and I acknowledge all of them. This is just some food for thought. It's my opinion that dogs are much, much more sensitive to body language than we are. Because of this, canine body language is an extremely sensitive business which I don't think we can even try to comprehend, let alone emulate. Dogs don't ALWAYS react with a growl and a physical correction; sometimes they do, and sometimes they react in ways we can barely sense, and sometimes they don't react at all... and we as humans can't always discern how a dog would act. My concern with "treating my dog as a dog would treat him" is that humans really can't always accurately portray a dog.
> 
> Edit: Hrm. Okay. Zim and RBark just posted at the same time saying what I said in a much more eloquent and condensed manner.


As I said, I'm not talking about standing on all fours and using my mouth to bite. 

I'm simply stating that giving a dog a physical touch should not be so foreign to them, since for a dog, this is natural behavior.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

K9companions said:


> I see. But this also brings up another question of mine that I am curious about. Dog's can pick up on emotions, and 'invisible barriers' in humans and dogs. Bascially dogs don't always need physical signals, they can tell when things are tense or not tense, feelings (in moderation) and such. So if a dog can pick up on this, as humans, do we have to give signs as a dog would before correcting as well. A dog can sense we are not pleased, and then a correction is given, wouldn't this be okay?
> 
> Sorry if I keep going on about it, but I really want to find out if this works, what doesn't, what does, and so on.....atleast in other people's opinion.


Nobody can answer this for you, as much as many believers of dominance think they can. How can we even guess as to what a dog thinks of us? Does it sense our body language? Yes it does. To what extent? How comparable is it to a dog's body language? How similar is it? Can anyone possibly answer those questions? Nobody can until, I suppose, we invent a device to communicate with them in english to ask them what they think.

So why presume it's the same? Why hope we're close? And even then, let's put this in a milan-ite way. We are supposed to be calm and confident. So what does a dog think, when we are walking calmly and confidently along choking them for god knows what? That's basically advocating erasing all the "in between" signals before correction, then applying the correction. This must be such a bizarre thought process to a dog.

But now we're talking about so many assumptions, so many "what if's", so many anecdotes. How can we develop a training or rehabilation method on this basis?

And yet, there are a huge amount of training methods based on scientifically supported, tested a thousand times, and proven to work over and over and over. So we know one thing works, and we know it's been tested repeatedly, and it's stood the test of time. And we know there's another method, that's highly questionable about whether it works or not, with no scientific basis. 

The result seems clear to me.




> Well, of course. But that doesn't mean I can't find ways to meet my dog halfway. Dogs communicate with eachother through touch and body languages. Even training methods use this, telling one to show their displeasure through the body. I'm wondering if it is a better way to communicate with dogs, because out of all the languages, body language is something canines and humans can understand in eachother.


That's the basis of clicker training. Do you speak in clicks? Does your dog speak in clicks? Nope, so instead of intruding on your dog's language, or asking your dog to intrude on your own language, you meet halfway. Your dog learns what the clicker means, and you learn how to utilize it. The clicker allows you both to have a common ground that's clear, happy, and with little room for misunderstandings. It allows you to not presume what's going on in your dog's mind, and it allows the dog to not have to guess what's going in in yours.





> I'm simply stating that giving a dog a physical touch should not be so foreign to them, since for a dog, this is natural behavior.


A physical touch from another dog is a natural behavior for them. But let me throw something out from the left field. To a wild dog, is being touched by a rabbit a natural behavior? Nope, it's a threatening behavior. Likely if they are in the range to be touched by the rabbit, it's because the rabbit is about to be eaten by the dog. Why would it be any more natural for us to physically touch them relative to a rabbit? We're just as foreign a species as a rabbit is to them.

I'm admittedly putting aside domestication. But to say our touching them is as natural as another dog touching them would be another presumption of what they really think.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

RBark said:


> Nobody can answer this for you, as much as many believers of dominance think they can. How can we even guess as to what a dog thinks of us? Does it sense our body language? Yes it does. To what extent? How comparable is it to a dog's body language? How similar is it? Can anyone possibly answer those questions? Nobody can until, I suppose, we invent a device to communicate with them in english to ask them what they think.
> 
> So why presume it's the same? Why hope we're close? And even then, let's put this in a milan-ite way. We are supposed to be calm and confident. So what does a dog think, when we are walking calmly and confidently along choking them for god knows what? That's basically advocating erasing all the "in between" signals before correction, then applying the correction. This must be such a bizarre thought process to a dog.
> 
> ...



I see what you mean. I still believe in the pack method, but now that I have some of these questions answered I'm going to look real hard into the dog behavior. I still think the method holds posibilities, but I do also think their are some flaws.

Thanks for all your advice and now I have a good area to start from on my research.

Also, funny you should mention clicker training. I am about to start that with my own pooch because both the pack method and the treat method have had no results for him. I'll hopefully be getting a clicker tomorow.

That's an interesting point about the rabbit and the wild dog, the only thing I can argue is that the dog would see us, as humans, as part of it's pack, and hopefully as the leader, giving us the right to communicate with one another in touch. While a rabbit would indicate no pack orientation or a prey drive.

EDIT - By the way, kind of random, but I really like your signature. Lol. Been meaning to tell you.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

*I see. But this also brings up another question of mine that I am curious about. Dog's can pick up on emotions, and 'invisible barriers' in humans and dogs. Bascially dogs don't always need physical signals, they can tell when things are tense or not tense, feelings (in moderation) and such. So if a dog can pick up on this, as humans, do we have to give signs as a dog would before correcting as well. A dog can sense we are not pleased, and then a correction is given, wouldn't this be okay?*

The problem I see with this is the iffyness of the interpretation.

Is it that the dog senses that we are not pleased? or do they just see muscles tense and reason that we are about to spring? The most accurate interpretation IMO would be to say a dog senses an act is about to occur. What connotation they place on that act is for them to know and us to argue on internet forums about..


*Well, of course. But that doesn't mean I can't find ways to meet my dog halfway. Dogs communicate with eachother through touch and body languages. Even training methods use this, telling one to show their displeasure through the body. I'm wondering if it is a better way to communicate with dogs, because out of all the languages, body language is something canines and humans can understand in eachother.*

Im not so sure. Yes they communicate through touch...but also with urine and feces....posturing...etc.. Which combo of which aspect of their communication means what? Can anyone answer that question with any certainty?


*I'm simply stating that giving a dog a physical touch should not be so foreign to them, since for a dog, this is natural behavior.*

physical touch isn't foreign to them...but....again...how can you be sure your dog understands that touch to mean what you intend it to mean...

So what guarantees understanding?

pain starts

pain stops

aquire reward

remove reward 


it isn't the touch...its the consequence of the touch they understand when the touch comes from us...

that's just how I see it...im not saying you are wrong...


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> *I see. But this also brings up another question of mine that I am curious about. Dog's can pick up on emotions, and 'invisible barriers' in humans and dogs. Bascially dogs don't always need physical signals, they can tell when things are tense or not tense, feelings (in moderation) and such. So if a dog can pick up on this, as humans, do we have to give signs as a dog would before correcting as well. A dog can sense we are not pleased, and then a correction is given, wouldn't this be okay?*
> 
> The problem I see with this is the iffyness of the interpretation.
> 
> ...


No, I liked your points. So many good points! I'm all excited to do my research now, lol. Thank you for responding.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

K9companions said:


> I see what you mean. I still believe in the pack method, but now that I have some of these questions answered I'm going to look real hard into the dog behavior. I still think the method holds posibilities, but I do also think their are some flaws.
> 
> Thanks for all your advice and now I have a good area to start from on my research.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the compliment. 

I don't want to presume, but just in case. Clicker training is not something you can really pick up and go. I really would strongly recommend reading books on it beforehand. Good books would be "Don't Shoot the Dog!", and "Click for Joy!" But if it's dog behavior you want, I would look into reading "Excel-erated Learning".


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Actually I should have said punishment instead of pain...but you get the idea...though IMO...punishment has to be 'painful' in some way shape or form whether physical or otherwise to qualify as punishment...


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

RBark said:


> Thanks for the compliment.
> 
> I don't want to presume, but just in case. Clicker training is not something you can really pick up and go. I really would strongly recommend reading books on it beforehand. Good books would be "Don't Shoot the Dog!", and "Click for Joy!" But if it's dog behavior you want, I would look into reading "Excel-erated Learning".


Sounds good. Yeah, I wasn't really going to 'pick up and go' because I've never used the method before and don't really know how to begin. Lol. So research will also be needed there, as well, before I start. Thanks for the books, but would you happen to know any good online sources? Or would a good old google search do the trick?


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

K9companions said:


> Sounds good. Yeah, I wasn't really going to 'pick up and go' because I've never used the method before and don't really know how to begin. Lol. So research will also be needed there, as well, before I start. Thanks for the books, but would you happen to know any good online sources? Or would a good old google search do the trick?


I don't know of any, but I am sure Curbside will chime in sometime soon with a thousand links for you to read.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RBark said:


> I can't dictate what you can and can not do with your life, but my perspective is such that I am not a dog, and I cannot emulate it properly.
> 
> I don't believe a human can give a dog all the signals needed to properly correct a dog. Before your dog corrects another one, it may have given 10 warnings leading up to the visible correction. Things like showing white of the eyes, shaking, licking lips, there are a million calming signals that generally come before the visible correction that we see.
> 
> ...


Well, going by what you just said, that would probably be true - it would be borderline to just being jumped out of the blue, and it probably would really freak them out.

That said, I disagree with the fact that we can't "escalate" our corrections until the final big one - a pick up by the scruff, whatever. No, the dog won't know it as much as those signals you gave (though we are able to use many of those, I mean can't you lick your lips or stick out your tongue, or yawn, or sit with your back turned, etc?) I do a LOT of those with Wally in many situations and I see him giving me a signal in kind. I forgot which book I read (I've read so many since getting Wally, my brain still hasn't sorted them all out I don't think!) but it said "A signal is always returned with a signal." So if I gave one to Wally, and he understood it, he'll give me one back.

I've seen this at work, frequently, given how fearful and anxious he used to be, even around me.

In fact, a female boxer someone was walking for some reason took a big interest in me. She wanted to approach (she was straining on the leash to get to me ) and kept licking her nose. I turned my head away (returned her signal with one of my own) and immediately, she started pulling towards me (I was sitting next to Wally), started sniffing me like I was steak, and licked my lips. 

So it seems we can throw signals to "stranger" dogs and still be understood, why not to our own?

Anyway, we can escalate things. For me, the first one is an "aaaaat" in a sharp tone. 9x out of 10 this will get him to halt his action and wait for another direction. If that doesn't work say his name louder/deeper than usual and clap. If that doesn't work, I'll glare at him while walking towards him slowly (body blocking him back to the spot I want him to be in the case of stay/position training). Then finally, actually physically moving him. 

Sure, he had to learn those signals from me over time through consistent usage (though tone of voice probably helped him understand the basic point, so to speak, until he learned), but he understands each progression and the great majority of the time, it never gets to the "endgame". 






RBark said:


> Observing my dogs have shown me that they are far more peaceful than we give them credit for. They go great lengths to have a language of subtely. Read a book on dog body language, there's just so much little things that as humans, we cannot see and keep up with them all like another dog would. So why should we presume that what works for them, works for us? that sounds like a logicial fallacy to me.
> 
> We know what we can do that works for them, and that is understanding how all living things learn. I propose that we follow what *we* know, and understand, rather than attempt to understand a language barrier we cannot possibly bridge as two different species. We have no fur to raise hackles with, we cannot show the whites of our eyes because it always shows, we cannot mobilize our ears like them, we cannot wag a tail, we cannot keep up with the speed of which they interpret the world around them. So why attempt that?


Why not? If I'm being overly harsh with Wally and he yawns at me, why can't I get on my hands and knees and sniff the ground and/or turn away from him? Why can't I stretch and yawn while standing to the side? (Wally thinks I'm play bowing when I do that, he will get all tail wagging and give little "ruffs" and playbow in return). Why can't I watch and see the language between Wally and another dog and see if the interaction isn't going well (reading body language books can show what to look for after all) and stand between them, facing to the side (a calming signal to both dogs)? 

I mean, seriously, why _can't_ we humans do the signals we can do towards dogs? Sure we can't change the position of our tails (since we lack them) or slant our ears in about 20 different directions, but that doesn't mean we can't do _any_ signals that look close enough for them to understand. Watching Wally's reactions to my own attempts at calming signals, he gets it. He might be thinking "wow, that was such a bad playbow!" but considering he playbows and wants to play/approach me after doing it - he's getting enough of the gesture to throw a signal back at me and change his demeanor. 

I liken it to speaking a foreign language. I speak broken and slow German with an American accent, but if I'm close enough, I can still be understood. I think the same thing applies when "speaking" canine.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

KBLover;
Why not? If I'm being overly harsh with Wally and he yawns at me said:


> can't[/i] we humans do the signals we can do towards dogs? Sure we can't change the position of our tails (since we lack them) or slant our ears in about 20 different directions, but that doesn't mean we can't do _any_ signals that look close enough for them to understand. Watching Wally's reactions to my own attempts at calming signals, he gets it. He might be thinking "wow, that was such a bad playbow!" but considering he playbows and wants to play/approach me after doing it - he's getting enough of the gesture to throw a signal back at me and change his demeanor.
> 
> I liken it to speaking a foreign language. I speak broken and slow German with an American accent, but if I'm close enough, I can still be understood. I think the same thing applies when "speaking" canine.


I am saying this in the most respectful way I can. I do NOT judge you on what you are saying at all. I just tried to picture someone doing this stuff with my dogs. I can only imagine what my dogs would think of me if I tried it. I think if nothing else it would be good for a laugh and who knows what dogs really understand? They might get something from it. I used to go to the zoo as a child and mimic sounds the animals made. Often times the animals would come closer and continue the noises. My parents used to tease me and say I was talking to them, I best know what I was saying. Wouldn't want to insult an elephant. lol I think animals are smarter then we know. I wonder what they think of us?


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

KBLover said:


> Why not? If I'm being overly harsh with Wally and he yawns at me, why can't I get on my hands and knees and sniff the ground and/or turn away from him? Why can't I stretch and yawn while standing to the side? (Wally thinks I'm play bowing when I do that, he will get all tail wagging and give little "ruffs" and playbow in return). Why can't I watch and see the language between Wally and another dog and see if the interaction isn't going well (reading body language books can show what to look for after all) and stand between them, facing to the side (a calming signal to both dogs)?
> 
> I mean, seriously, why _can't_ we humans do the signals we can do towards dogs? Sure we can't change the position of our tails (since we lack them) or slant our ears in about 20 different directions, but that doesn't mean we can't do _any_ signals that look close enough for them to understand. Watching Wally's reactions to my own attempts at calming signals, he gets it. He might be thinking "wow, that was such a bad playbow!" but considering he playbows and wants to play/approach me after doing it - he's getting enough of the gesture to throw a signal back at me and change his demeanor.
> 
> I liken it to speaking a foreign language. I speak broken and slow German with an American accent, but if I'm close enough, I can still be understood. I think the same thing applies when "speaking" canine.


There are some signals you can give off. The effect of these is debatable, but you can do a close enough approximation that SEEMS to get through. The play bows, for sure. Dropping eye contact? Yup. Yawning for calming? Maybe. 

One thing you definitely cannot do is deliver any kind of physical correction with nearly the reaction speed or the correct inhibited pressure that a dog can. We can't mimic their vocal sounds enough to give them true warnings in "dogspeak". Tone of voice only goes so far.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

RBark said:


> With Ollie's DA, I would see another dog. I walk towards it, and for as long as he's calm, I keep going. As soon as he reacts in SOME way, even something as small as starting to look in the general direction of the dog, I start training it at that point. The dog is still calm, but it is still aware the dog is there. I was maybe 200' from the dog.
> 
> I rewarded him for being calm and focused on me. I moved up closer little by little. Sometimes he'd regress and Id take a few steps back. 6 months later, He was playing at the dog park like he never had an issue.
> 
> Most people want results and coherence from the dog while it's overstimulated. You won't get a calm dog by punishing it in those situations, you will only get a dog that's shut down. If that's fine with you, then so be it. But confusing a dog that shut down for a calm dog is a folly.


You're mis-characterizing CM. Using your example, CM would be giving a correction at the very moment that the dog begins to escalate, so as to get his attention and re-focus him away from the other dog.He says a million times on his show 'you have to stop him before he gets to level 10 etc etc'. The method he uses to refocus the dog is physical touch, which gets people's panties in a twist.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

It's a long post so I'm going to break it into many quotes, it's not to sound nitpicky, it's just to help me make sure I covered everything.



KBLover said:


> Well, going by what you just said, that would probably be true - it would be borderline to just being jumped out of the blue, and it probably would really freak them out.
> 
> That said, I disagree with the fact that we can't "escalate" our corrections until the final big one - a pick up by the scruff, whatever. No, the dog won't know it as much as those signals you gave (though we are able to use many of those, I mean can't you lick your lips or stick out your tongue, or yawn, or sit with your back turned, etc?) I do a LOT of those with Wally in many situations and I see him giving me a signal in kind. I forgot which book I read (I've read so many since getting Wally, my brain still hasn't sorted them all out I don't think!) but it said "A signal is always returned with a signal." So if I gave one to Wally, and he understood it, he'll give me one back.


We can escalate corrections, but our escalation starts on a significantly higher scale and is not nearly as precise. We can lick our lips, we can yawn, and we can turn our backs to them. But how effective is this relative to another dog doing it? Are they reading the same thing when we do it compared to another dog? How can we know these things?

Don't get me wrong, I am not refuting your observations. I've seen yawning to calm a dog down work personally. However, do we use them at the right situations? Do we use them in the right order? Do we use them with just the right effectiveness? When we correct, do we inhibit ourselves just right? Do we vary our reaction situation by situation just enough? There's a million variables. How can we measure the effectiveness this way? There's no way we can do it.



> I've seen this at work, frequently, given how fearful and anxious he used to be, even around me.


I've seen it work, but I've never seen it work remotely as well as another dog that was fluent in the language. And more importantly, I've never seen it work better than what we DO know works. Sure, adding in licking of lips, yawning, and such in your training or rehabiliation is not going to hurt. There's no compelling reason not to, if you're so confident in it.

However punishment? There IS a compelling reason not to- the fact that it CAN hurt if done incorrectly. When a dog corrects another dog, it's with the appropiate speed and reaction and power necessary. We are not nearly capable of such a thing.



> In fact, a female boxer someone was walking for some reason took a big interest in me. She wanted to approach (she was straining on the leash to get to me ) and kept licking her nose. I turned my head away (returned her signal with one of my own) and immediately, she started pulling towards me (I was sitting next to Wally), started sniffing me like I was steak, and licked my lips.
> 
> So it seems we can throw signals to "stranger" dogs and still be understood, why not to our own?


No disagreement, but you're discussing harmless signals here. We can say it may work in some way, but the most important thing is that it won't ever backfire on you. It's pratically fool-proof, unlike punishment.



> Anyway, we can escalate things. For me, the first one is an "aaaaat" in a sharp tone. 9x out of 10 this will get him to halt his action and wait for another direction. If that doesn't work say his name louder/deeper than usual and clap. If that doesn't work, I'll glare at him while walking towards him slowly (body blocking him back to the spot I want him to be in the case of stay/position training). Then finally, actually physically moving him.


These are behaviors you taught him, rather than his own langauge. Yeah, you are escalating, but you are not escalating like a dog would. You are escalating like a human would.




> Why not? If I'm being overly harsh with Wally and he yawns at me, why can't I get on my hands and knees and sniff the ground and/or turn away from him? Why can't I stretch and yawn while standing to the side? (Wally thinks I'm play bowing when I do that, he will get all tail wagging and give little "ruffs" and playbow in return). Why can't I watch and see the language between Wally and another dog and see if the interaction isn't going well (reading body language books can show what to look for after all) and stand between them, facing to the side (a calming signal to both dogs)?
> 
> I mean, seriously, why _can't_ we humans do the signals we can do towards dogs? Sure we can't change the position of our tails (since we lack them) or slant our ears in about 20 different directions, but that doesn't mean we can't do _any_ signals that look close enough for them to understand. Watching Wally's reactions to my own attempts at calming signals, he gets it. He might be thinking "wow, that was such a bad playbow!" but considering he playbows and wants to play/approach me after doing it - he's getting enough of the gesture to throw a signal back at me and change his demeanor.


Again I have to emphasize that when it comes to calming signals, it's foolproof. If you want to use play bows, if you want to yawn, sniff the ground, well, whatever works for you. This is all foolproof, even if you suck at it, you're not going to hurt your dog. But corrections? If you suck at it, and there's absolutely no way you could know whether you are good at it or suck at it, then you'll be doing more harm than good. So you're taking a risk here, instead of going with what we do know, you're taking a huge leap of faith that your dog does understand you.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

KBLover said:


> Well, going by what you just said, that would probably be true - it would be borderline to just being jumped out of the blue, and it probably would really freak them out.
> 
> That said, I disagree with the fact that we can't "escalate" our corrections until the final big one - a pick up by the scruff, whatever. No, the dog won't know it as much as those signals you gave (though we are able to use many of those, I mean can't you lick your lips or stick out your tongue, or yawn, or sit with your back turned, etc?) I do a LOT of those with Wally in many situations and I see him giving me a signal in kind. I forgot which book I read (I've read so many since getting Wally, my brain still hasn't sorted them all out I don't think!) but it said "A signal is always returned with a signal." So if I gave one to Wally, and he understood it, he'll give me one back.
> 
> ...


I would liken it more to trying to use sign language w/no fingers and facial paralysis......you could make some of the movements ..but In Sign Language, facial expression including the raising or lowering of the eyebrows while signing, and body language are integral parts of communicating as dose the position and usage of different fingers....


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> You're mis-characterizing CM. Using your example, CM would be giving a correction at the very moment that the dog begins to escalate, so as to get his attention and re-focus him away from the other dog.He says a million times on his show 'you have to stop him before he gets to level 10 etc etc'. The method he uses to refocus the dog is physical touch, which gets people's panties in a twist.


I'm not mis-characterizing him. Watch his shows. When he deals with a leash reactive dog, he puts a choke collar on them. Then he takes the dog out with him. When he sees another dog, and the dog reacts, he punishes it. And keeps punishing it until it shuts down. Then he moves closer and closer until it freaks out again, and punishes it some more until it shuts down. Repeating that over and over until he gets right next to the dog and the dog doesn't have it in him anymore to fight. All in the span of maybe 30 minutes.

That's not correcting it when it escalates. You're not teaching it to stay under the threshold. Let's say 10 is full all out danger escalation. 0 is Shut down. He corrects when the dog hits 6, and keeps correcting until it gets to 0. Moves closer, it hits 6 again, and keeps correcting until it gets to 0. When a dog is shut down, no learning can happen.


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

> I am wondering if the dogs do it [physical correction] to eachother, am I not allowed to correct him as another dog would?


You are allowed, it makes perfect sense and has been the predominant training method since dogs were domesticated, even if the trends now are towards positive only methods.



> I don't believe a human can give a dog all the signals needed to properly correct a dog. Before your dog corrects another one, it may have given 10 warnings leading up to the visible correction. Things like showing white of the eyes, shaking, licking lips, there are a million calming signals that generally come before the visible correction that we see.
> 
> So if we skip all of those calming signals and go right to the correction, what does that mean to our dog? It would presumably mean that we are just suddenly assaulting the dog without warning. Whether this is what they see or not, how can you debate that? We can't say what our dogs think./QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Funny how a split second pull on a choke chain or a tap on the side has escalated from a correction to a punishment and now an assault! Pretty soon Cesar will be accused of mass murder !


It is an analogy. And correction->punishment is not a escalation.



> In any case, the arguement that we cannot communicate 100 % like dogs so we should not try to communicate like them at all is completely and uterly illogical. By the identical train of thought you could just as easily conclude it is pointless to give a dog a reward as we would just be 'rewarding our dog without warning'. LOL.


I'm not sure where you think I said we should not communicate with our dogs. Our very coexistence with dogs relies on how we communicate.

And your non-sequitur statement on rewarding dogs without warning makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not going to justify it with an answer. It should be rather self-explanatory.



> Regardless of how you train your dog, you are trying your best to communicate with him. Thats a given. And its the biggest challenge. The fact is that dogs do use physical touch amongst to communicate, and until somebody invents the dog - human translation device, then I do not see how you can just totally discount physical touch (or staring or a deep growly voice) as methods of communicating with a dog.


It IS a method of communication. That's not being discounted. It's whether it's a viable or ethical method of communication that's in debate.



> Treats used repeatedly to no end is useless (and fattening).


It is neither. Dogs don't need to be fed out of a bowl. For the average adult, you have 2-6 cups of treats to work with _each day_. And if you are giving treats to no end, then you are doing it wrong.



> When in doubt claim science is on your side.
> People have been using physical corrections in training dogs since dogs were domesticated. Pick up any dog training book over 10 years old and give it a read. Many current trainers still advocate it. I'm not putting down the methods you advocate, but acting like physical corrections and CM are some sort of noveau untested dangerous methods is ridiculous. If you really want to say which methods have 'stood the test of time' and been 'tested a thousand times' then you are on the wrong side of the answer.


This is like saying.. horses have been used for transportation for thousands of years. Sure, science invented cars in the last 100 years, but horses are clearly a better method of transportation because It's been used for a thousand years and has stood the test of time.

I mean, why would you even debate the science here? Everything in the dominance theory is explained in the Learning Theory. Every single thing. There is nothing you do to your dog that is not applied by the principles of the learning theory. You can wrap it up and repackage it as dominance all you want, but it doesn't change the facts. The only thing you are doing is, you are doing positive punishment wrapped under the justification of dominance and completely ignoring positive reinforcement.

It makes very little sense to me. Every time you choke your dog, every time you touch your dog, every time you alpha roll your dog, it doesn't matter what you do to your dog. Shock it, hit it with a roll of newspaper, whatever. It's STILL just a hack job interpretation of the learning theory. So why would you dismiss it or ignore it?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

unclearthur said:


> People have been using physical corrections in training dogs since dogs were domesticated. Pick up any dog training book over 10 years old and give it a read. Many current trainers still advocate it. I'm not putting down the methods you advocate, but acting like physical corrections and CM are some sort of noveau untested dangerous methods is ridiculous. If you really want to say which methods have 'stood the test of time' and been 'tested a thousand times' then you are on the wrong side of the answer.


And wheels were once made of stone, that does not mean traveling on them is most efficient or best. Knowledge progresses with some...others like to practice the reverse.


----------



## rosemaryninja (Sep 28, 2007)

http://www.clickertraining.com
http://www.clickersolutions.com


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> When in doubt claim science is on your side.
> People have been using physical corrections in training dogs since dogs were domesticated. Pick up any dog training book over 10 years old and give it a read. Many current trainers still advocate it. I'm not putting down the methods you advocate, but acting like physical corrections and CM are some sort of noveau untested dangerous methods is ridiculous. If you really want to say which methods have 'stood the test of time' and been 'tested a thousand times' then you are on the wrong side of the answer.


The Spartans held the belief that all young soldiers should have sexual relations with other soldiers so that they would want to impress them, thereby increasing their worthiness on the battle field. Tried and true method. Worked for decades and produced some of the best warriors in history.

Read any book written before the last fifteen years and you'll find that smoking isn't hazardous to your health. Tried and true for hundreds of years. Smoking doesn't do any harm.

Read any psych book written before the last 20 years and you'll find the most effective way to treat everything from dementia to depression is electroshock therapy. Tried and true. It has withstood the test of time.

Read a text written before the 16th century and you'll find that the best cure for the bubonic plague was drinking an ounce of molten gold. Tried and true for decades, don't bother with those stupid antibiotics, they're just for people who are too pansy and afraid of a few tracheal burns.

Learning theory is advancing. Methods get left behind when new ones are proven to be better. Sure, shock therapy may have gotten rid of dementia but did people come out of it with higher brain function left over all the time? Even when it was proven to be a poor method for curing these ailments, did people hang on to it and criticize those who were trying to advance the science? Yup.

If you want to cling to a dying form of training that is slowly being picked apart by actual science, by all means: it's your dog. One day, though, you'll be the only person left on the block who's ok with their kids smoking because tobacco companies say it isn't harmful.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

trumpet, that's just too funny.



rosemaryninja said:


> http://www.clickertraining.com
> http://www.clickersolutions.com


And a free training course to keep people busy too.
http://www.dogforums.com/3-dog-training-forum/33841-free-clicker-training-course.html


----------



## unclearthur (Dec 8, 2008)

> I'm not sure where you think I said we should not communicate with our dogs. Our very coexistence with dogs relies on how we communicate.


"like" not "with". Read my post again.

The man had asked 'dogs communicate with physical touch, so why shouldn't we communicate with them with physical touch?'. A very good question. You basically said 'we can't communicate 100% like dogs, so we shouldn't use physical touch at all as we might get it wrong'. Well I fail to see any logic in that whatsoever. We have to communicate somehow, the fact that we can't communicate 100% like dogs does not exclude using physical touch any more than it excludes any other type of communication. A logical conclusion would be that types of communication similar to those used by dogs (e.g. staring, physical touch, lower growly voices) are more likely to be useful then types of communication totally foreign to them (e.g. lots of words).



> And your non-sequitur statement on rewarding dogs without warning makes absolutely no sense, so I'm not going to justify it with an answer. It should be rather self-explanatory


.
You concluded that since we cannot communicate 100% like dogs, any physical correction must arrive as an "assault" without warning. Well, by your own identical faulty logic any reward must also arrive equally without warning. It is nonsense in either case.



> f you are giving treats to no end, then you are doing it wrong.


If you are giving corrections to no end, you are doing it wrong.

As I have said before, positive only training may be best for some people and some dogs. Personally I believe a balanced approach using a lot of positive reinforcement but also negative corrections is best for me and many others. I think most people use some sort of mixed approach in reality. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to use exaggerated language (punishment, assault, hitting dog with newspaper, etc) and tortured logic to try to convince people never to use physical touch when correcting their dog.

Proper physical corrections do not cause pain or hurt the dog. In a strict physical sense, the intensity of the corrections are minor compared to what the dog gets during play or other activities. A little poke or grabbing the scruff of his neck? Physically its nothing. Nothing. Its purely psychological. Its communication. Maybe other methods work better for you. Great. But quit acting like any physical touch is cruel; that's highly insulting to a lot of well meaning dog owners.



> If you want to cling to a dying form of training that is slowly being picked apart by actual science, by all means: it's your dog. One day, though, you'll be the only person left on the block who's ok with their kids smoking because tobacco companies say it isn't harmful.


Very funny post Trumpetjock. 

However, you guys are exaggerating the "science".

Some types of hypothesis can be proven. Example: smoking causes cancer. 

Some types of hypothesis can never be proven due to the number of variables, etc involved. Whats the best way to train a dog? If you think "science" has made conclusions on this then you need to take a 1st year statistics course. You have theories and studies which are fine but which also fall in and out of fashion over time.

For every hour of research into how best to train dogs there has undoubtedly been 1,000 hours put into how best to educate children. Any conclusions? LOL. Every 10 years there are new theories which backpedal on the last decades theories. 

The important thing is that people train and discipline their dog. People should use what works for them and their dog. Maybe a positive only method works best for many, great. But for myself and millions of others who feel that a balanced approach (positive and negative including physical corrections) will work best for them and their dog, then please do not pretend that i) those methods do not work ii) that they are somehow cruel, or iii) that "science" has proven beyond any doubt that a balanced approach is inferior to a positive only approach.

Recommend and promote what you believe in. But do it without slagging the rest of us.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> "like" not "with". Read my post again.
> 
> The man had asked 'dogs communicate with physical touch, so why shouldn't we communicate with them with physical touch?'. A very good question. You basically said 'we can't communicate 100% like dogs, so we shouldn't use physical touch at all as we might get it wrong'. Well I fail to see any logic in that whatsoever. We have to communicate somehow, the fact that we can't communicate 100% like dogs does not exclude using physical touch any more than it excludes any other type of communication. A logical conclusion would be that types of communication similar to those used by dogs (e.g. staring, physical touch, lower growly voices) are more likely to be useful then types of communication totally foreign to them (e.g. lots of words).


What's not to understand? If you apply too harsh an aversive to a dog, you end up with a fearful dog. If you apply too good a reward, well, you've really strengthened a desired behavior.



> You concluded that since we cannot communicate 100% like dogs, any physical correction must arrive as an "assault" without warning. Well, by your own identical faulty logic any reward must also arrive equally without warning. It is nonsense in either case.


I really have no idea what you are saying. You are talking as though Positive Reinforcement and Positive Punishment are the same thing. That is completely illogical to me. You can't treat Positive Punishment like Positive Reinforcement.




> If you are giving corrections to no end, you are doing it wrong.


My argument is not whether Positive Punishment works or not. I know Positive Punishment works as a fact. Why you think I'd disagree with that, I have no idea.



> As I have said before, positive only training may be best for some people and some dogs. Personally I believe a balanced approach using a lot of positive reinforcement but also negative corrections is best for me and many others. I think most people use some sort of mixed approach in reality. I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to use exaggerated language (punishment, assault, hitting dog with newspaper, etc) and tortured logic to try to convince people never to use physical touch when correcting their dog.


What exaggerated language? I am using the actual definition of punishment, not your emotional definition of punishment. The actual definition of punishment is:



> Introduced by B.F. Skinner, punishment has a more restrictive and technical definition. Along with reinforcement it belongs under the Operant Conditioning category. Operant Conditioning refers learning with either punishment or reinforcement. It is also referred to as response-stimulus conditioning. In psychology, punishment is the reduction of a behavior via a stimulus which is applied ("positive punishment") or removed ("negative punishment"). Making an offending student lose recess or play privileges are examples of negative punishment, while extra chores or spanking are examples of positive punishment. The definition requires that punishment is only determined after the fact by the reduction in behavior; if the offending behavior of the subject does not decrease then it is not considered punishment. There is some conflation of punishment and aversives, though an aversive that does not increase behavior is not considered punishment.


So when you say you do negative corrections, I have no idea what you mean by that. You what? Take food away from it for misbehaving? If you use any aversive on the dog in order to reduce a behavior, I.E. a light jerk on the leash, poking it, etc.. is introducing an aversive to reduce the frequency of the behavior. That's Positive Punishment. It is not a judge of character, it's a definition.



> Proper physical corrections do not cause pain or hurt the dog. In a strict physical sense, the intensity of the corrections are minor compared to what the dog gets during play or other activities. A little poke or grabbing the scruff of his neck? Physically its nothing. Nothing. Its purely psychological. Its communication. Maybe other methods work better for you. Great. But quit acting like any physical touch is cruel; that's highly insulting to a lot of well meaning dog owners.


Whether it's cruel or not is for someone else to decide. I'm not even going to get into that. Every once in a whlie I will spar with my brother and roughhouse with him, but that does not mean I'd appreciate being roughed up for doing something wrong. But there I go, anthromorphizing. Play is play, punishment is punishment.

A choke collar has to be an aversive in some way in order to work. Why you would deny it's an aversive thing, I don't understand. It doesn't work by magic. The dog doesn't like it, so it reduces the frequency of the behavior. That's how it has always worked.



> Very funny post Trumpetjock.
> 
> However, you guys are exaggerating the "science".
> 
> ...


I don't understand how you came upon the conclusion. Science is not so simple that one could just call something a theory just because. It's called the Learning Theory because it has undergone scientific testing and has passed many times. Humans learn using the learning theory. We teach killer whales to do tricks using the learning theory. We teach dolphins, turtles, snakes, monkeys, dogs, cats, rats, and likely a hundred other animals using the learning theory.

When animals are out in the wild, they learn about the world around them and that's applied with the learning theory too.

It's not a "fad". It will change over time, but it won't fade away. It is a progressive theory, and over time we will see more and more new applications all grounded in this theory.




> For every hour of research into how best to train dogs there has undoubtedly been 1,000 hours put into how best to educate children. Any conclusions? LOL. Every 10 years there are new theories which backpedal on the last decades theories.
> 
> The important thing is that people train and discipline their dog. People should use what works for them and their dog. Maybe a positive only method works best for many, great. But for myself and millions of others who feel that a balanced approach (positive and negative including physical corrections) will work best for them and their dog, then please do not pretend that i) those methods do not work ii) that they are somehow cruel, or iii) that "science" has proven beyond any doubt that a balanced approach is inferior to a positive only approach.
> 
> Recommend and promote what you believe in. But do it without slagging the rest of us.


Science did not prove that a positive only approach si better than a balanced approach. I am not sure how you are interpreting this.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> Very funny post Trumpetjock.
> 
> However, you guys are exaggerating the "science".
> 
> ...


First of all I have taken college statistics and have a degree in biology, moving towards graduate work in animal behavior.... sooooo yeah, I know what things like "statistically significant" mean I would think. The studies that have been done with these training methods are done with TENS OF THOUSANDS of trials on a single behavior on a single subject. They go through the standard procedures to eliminate variables and outlying factors. They obviously do fairly well at it considering they actually get published. I have YET to see any scientific paper published anywhere that says that they have found punishment training to have a "statistically significant" advantage over positive reinforcement. But the reverse has a huge body of work to back it up, in many different journals from ones on human psychology, to general science journals, to animal behaviour.

As far as not slagging others, I feel like it's the kettle/pot debate. You've basically (admittedly in nicer words than I've used) been calling us +R trainers pansies because we're "afraid" to use physical contact.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

TJ....question for ya....and Curb too...

Are there any studies done on stress levels in dogs undergoing modification via punishment methods versus reinforcement methods?

I made this comparison in another thread...

When I was little my sis and I both got Rubix cubes for Christmas one year. I spent a long time obsessing over mine...taking notes on the patterns and how many twists which way etc etc...took me forever but I solved it.

My sis...she pulled off all the colored squares and rearranged them so it looked like she had spent time and solved the puzzle.


just a bit of food for thought...


----------



## poodleholic (Mar 15, 2007)

Cesar Milan fans are simply not aware of the damage being done to the dogs seen on his show. So many fans say they've never seen him physically harm a dog.


Check out: http://4pawsu.com/cesarfans.htm

What critics are primarily concerned with, however, is the psychological stress that dogs are placed under during the show. Many dogs that offer avoidance behaviors at the start of the show are often pushed to the point of aggression. 

One disturbing example is JonBee, a Jindo who is forced to lie on his side. After a significant and dangerous struggle (during which the dog appears to have urinated), the dog finally gives up and allows himself to be rolled over. However, the dog is not relaxed. Quite the opposite. The dog exhibits all of the signs of stress listed in the previous article, and is exhibiting a phenomenon known as learned helplessness, sometimes referred to by trainers as "shut down." 

Learned helplessness was originally observed by scientists who placed dogs in a box with no escape and shocked them through the floor. The dogs first tried to escape and then, exhausted and finding no exit, simply lay down on the floor, despite continued shocks. The dogs weren't enjoying the shocks more than they were in the beginning, they had simply given up. 

It does not take physical injury to traumatize a dog. While some dogs can recover from traumatic experiences, others will have lasting behavioral problems as a result. 

Just as in humans, chronic stress causes serious medical problems in dogs such as weakened immune systems, digestive diseases and heart disease. Acute stress can sensitize the dog to specific environments and people, creating a more negative association than before and escalating behavior problems in the long run. 

So repeatedly stressing a dog does, in fact, hurt the dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Are there any studies done on stress levels in dogs undergoing modification via punishment methods versus reinforcement methods?


You mean like measurements of cortisol levels using various forms of punishment and reinforcement, absolutely. And the results I've seen are consistent...more aversion, more cortisol production. Seems intuitive, but those employing dominance theory don't really care to know this information. They just want their dog to act a certain way. But we have to remember that reinforcement can be physical and aversive too. A repeated leash pop, until a police dog ceases biting a bite bag, would be one example of negative reinforcement, used to teach "out".


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

unclearthur said:


> When in doubt claim science is on your side.





Curbside Prophet said:


> You mean like measurements of cortisol levels using various forms of punishment and reinforcement, absolutely. And the results I've seen are consistent...more aversion, more cortisol production. Seems intuitive, but those employing dominance theory don't really care to know this information. They just want their dog to act a certain way. But we have to remember that reinforcement can be physical and aversive too. A repeated leash pop, until a police dog ceases biting a bite bag, would be one example of negative reinforcement, used to teach "out".


Funny how these things work out sometimes, isn't it?


----------



## mindyintx (Jan 7, 2009)

rzrbaxfan said:


> Don't leave over this! Every message board, no matter the topic, is going to have people who have their opinions and will argue them to the end. This is a heated topic here, but don't let that take away from the other great things this site has to offer. Don't have regrets over expressing your opinion either. There are plenty of people that are on the same page as you, but don't want to pile on and divide the board. Relax, enjoy, and please, post more!



Thanks, rzrbaxfan. I didn't want to add to the heat of the discussion or divide the board either, I just wanted to try and help clear up what I saw as some misconceptions about how CM does things. I didn't realize I was stepping into such a pit of stubborness!

I haven't left the site, and although I decided to take myself out of the discussion, I have continued to read the rest of the posts. And though I will probably get flamed again for it, I feel I have to clarify something.

In my eyes, there still seems to be a misunderstanding about people who appreciate some of CM's methods ("And I think that's the precise reason for people going around as *Milan's minions*...People like to feel empowered...Cesar's smooth talk "Okay, so you're not showing your dog who's boss, but you're a strong-at-heart woman who can conquer the world and you can do this, all I need to do is show you the way" reels in *the unsuspecting public*." Wow! Could you _be _any more insulting and condesending?!), choosing to see us as weak and malliable, and without the capability or common sense to take the good things from CM's show and leave the rest. 

Not everyone who watches CM's show feels it necessary for their own dog to use a choke collar or do the "alpha roll". We are not "minions" to follow blindly everything we see on tv. Personally, I never planned to use a choke collar or the alpha roll on my dog. If, I as the owner, have failed to train my puppy well and he starts behaving in an aggressive manner where I feel he is dangerous, I will take him to a professional. 

Referring to "Dog Whisperer" fans as minions or any other negative name is, again, insulting and condesending. rzrbaxfan is right, "delivery is everything" in communication, whether if be face to face, through email, or in an online forum. There are ways, if one cares, to present one's point of view with a less aggressive or more friendly tone when writing. You (to those this pertains to) might not think you're coming across that way, but if you're repeatedly being told by different people that what you write is "rude" or "condesending" then maybe there might be some truth to it. Or, maybe you don't care how you come across. I don't know you, just as you don't know me. All I have to go on is how you present yourself here through your words and how you use them.

I have a lot of respect for people who have a lot more experience with dogs than I do. I respect that experience and would like to be able to take from your experience that knowledge that will suit my situation. That _is _why I joined this site. But, your having more experience doesn't make you more intelligent than me, nor does it mean that given time you couldn't learn something from me. In the same way I respect you, I feel I deserve the same respect, even if our ways may differ. I am an intelligent person, with common sense, who deserves to be treated and "spoken to" as such.

So, that's all I have to say on this topic. I'm moving on to other topics which I feel will be more useful to me and my puppy. Thanks again, rzrbaxfan.


----------



## Die Fledermaus (Jan 8, 2009)

I am glad I was directed to this thread. I have great problems with Millan, and I am not alone. 

Although he does work primarily with larger dogs that need rehabilitation, especially those in groups, many people have adopted his techniques to training all dogs, even young ones of gentle behavior.

Warren Eckstein on his radio show regularly derides Cesar Millan's domination-alpha techniques. There are other veteran trainers with many books published who also seriously criticize Millan, such as Mark Derr and Ian Dunbar. (see below links that reference them).

Also, we have Dr. Nicholas Dodman, the director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine of Tufts University, has said "Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will be only transitory." 

Jean Donaldson, the San Francisco SPCA Director of The Academy for Dog Trainers has criticized Millan for physically confronting aggressive dogs and using choke collars for fearful dogs.

On September 6, 2006, the American Humane Association issued a press release criticizing Millan's tactics and called on the National Geographic Channel to cease airing the program immediately.

Please check out The Myth of Alpha Dog Training

Also, PACK OF LIES

Both articles severely criticize Millan.


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

I read both articles. Though the first had some good points, it also had information that at one moment in the article, was absent in dog behavior, but then later on, was present in dog behavior. The information varied.

The second article felt as though it was speaking from the outside. Meaning, instead of actually testing Cesar's theories or even providing an interveiw, it felt like they were just making accusations from what they could see and hear. Many of it could be contradicted.

Wow, we are on 9 pages....maybe I shouldn't say anything...lol.


----------



## trumpetjock (Dec 14, 2007)

K9companions said:


> I read both articles. Though the first had some good points, it also had information that at one moment in the article, was absent in dog behavior, but then later on, was present in dog behavior. The information varied.
> 
> The second article felt as though it was speaking from the outside. Meaning, instead of actually testing Cesar's theories or even providing an interveiw, it felt like they were just making accusations from what they could see and hear. Many of it could be contradicted.
> 
> Wow, we are on 9 pages....maybe I shouldn't say anything...lol.


LERN @ COUNTING ZOMG!!!

...we're at 10


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

Haha, yah got me! 10, sorry sorry! Hehe.


----------



## KcCrystal (Sep 12, 2008)

I watch his show. And this Season he's gotten into more postive soultions rather then force. I do feel that he does have a place in the dog world. Look at how many dogs he has taken in that would've died without him.


----------



## Emmiesdaddy (Dec 3, 2008)

I like the guy and think he does wonderful things with dogs that normally would be tossed into the garbage heap. I agree 99% of the time with CM. I had seen that show and that dog was out of control and dangerous. I changed my post so that I wouldn't get flamed but I'm still getting my point across.


----------



## myminpins (Dec 20, 2008)

Thank you for clarifying that. I did not see the whole show. Appreciate it.


----------



## KcCrystal (Sep 12, 2008)

I saw a recent show where he used postive renforcement to cure a little dog of eating poop. He used food to re-focus her. She also had issues with being groomed. He did use a small bit of restraint whille working on that because she tried to bite him multiple times.


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

WHEW! I need a beer......


----------



## K9companions (Nov 13, 2008)

winniec777 said:


> WHEW! I need a beer......



*grabs a coca-cola* Cheers!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

winniec777 said:


> WHEW! I need a beer......


*asks for ID*


----------



## winniec777 (Apr 20, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> *asks for ID*


I'm flattered! 'Lo it's been many a year since I was carded. You can tell 'cuz I say things like "Lo it's been many a..." -- only old people do that...



K9companions said:


> *grabs a coca-cola* Cheers!


At least make it a Pepsi! Tastes Great, Less Filling! Oh no another debate on DF!!!!! I can't stopppppppp.....


----------



## rzrbaxfan (Jan 6, 2009)

mindyintx said:


> Thanks, rzrbaxfan. I didn't want to add to the heat of the discussion or divide the board either, I just wanted to try and help clear up what I saw as some misconceptions about how CM does things. I didn't realize I was stepping into such a pit of stubborness!
> 
> I haven't left the site, and although I decided to take myself out of the discussion, I have continued to read the rest of the posts. And though I will probably get flamed again for it, I feel I have to clarify something.
> 
> ...


I, like you, have taken the high road on this topic. I consider myself an intelligent person and I take pride in the fact that I have a ton of hobbies and interests in my life that I have a passion for not just enjoying and sharing with others, but also for learning every possible thing there is to learn about it. Do it big, or don't bother. I like to expose myself to tons of different perspectives, then decide what is best for me...and I've done that with everything. 

When it comes to dogs, I have read everything I can lay my eyes on. I watch any show on TV that has to do with dogs. I talk with any dog person that I can. I soak it all in, take the best of everything, and I do what I feel works...and if it doesn't work, well there is always something else to try! I have used Cesars ideas to curb the aggression my first dog showed towards kids, and was able to take her on weekend long camping trips where sometimes I was the only adult around with 5 other kids! I used Cesars ideas to take the most nervous fearful dog I could find at a shelter, and not only get her to come out of her shell, but I've also started training her to become a therapy dog! I took in a foster dog that, according to the rescue group, "might not do well with you, she doesn't get along with other dogs"....and that dog is now alseep in the same bed with a dog that she just shared her dinner and playtime with. I ramble...my point is, I know what works for me. Could I learn more, YES!!! This is why I do this! However, the last thing I need is someone slamming my ideas because they conflict with their's. I am quickly finding out who those people are, and am chosing to avoid them. I would never offer advice that I have not seen work personally, and I carefully choose my words so that I don't offend somone.

My point to you is that there are way too many good folks here, and way too much good information to obtain to leave over this. I will avoid Cesar topics, and a few others that I have seen to be hot topics, but there are still many other great things about this site. Someday you may have a question that someone here can help you with, or perhaps someone may need help with a problem you have already solved, and they will value your opinion. For that, I am glad to see you are staying around. I will look for you in other threads!


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside Prophet said:


> You mean like measurements of cortisol levels using various forms of punishment and reinforcement, absolutely. And the results I've seen are consistent...more aversion, more cortisol production. Seems intuitive, but those employing dominance theory don't really care to know this information.


I would say that indicators such as cortisol levels support your contentions but don't really prove anything. There are situations which could logically be assumed (I haven't done the testing) to increase adrenaline, cortisol, etc., but which are not net-negative experiences. By itself, it doesn't tell us much. A dog maintaining a "sit" in the face of intense distraction would probably produce a similar effect, with no action by the handler.

In human terms (and I'm making the assumption that the process works similarly with dogs), extreme rock climbing produces radically higher levels of stress hormones than working in a demanding office environment. With the former, the subject (assuming he survives) is at least rewarded with an endorphin high the likes of which can not be duplicated at any price. The latter merely has the cumulative effect of grinding [me] down.

In dog terms, a high-drive retriever remaining steady, while guns are going off, and birds are falling out of the sky, probably has stress indicators that are off the charts. Ultimately, the rewards more than compensate for any unpleasantness. If not, the dog won't be any good at it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Marsh Muppet said:


> I would say that indicators such as cortisol levels support your contentions but don't really prove anything. There are situations which could logically be assumed (I haven't done the testing) to increase adrenaline, cortisol, etc., but which are not net-negative experiences. By itself, it doesn't tell us much. A dog maintaining a "sit" in the face of intense distraction would probably produce a similar effect, with no action by the handler.


Well, I'm not talking about proof of correlation. I'm talking about proof of causation. And I would argue that if a dog is conditioned to shutdown in a situation such as you described, that dog has been punished along the way. You can not reinforce a dog who is over threshold (over stressed, over the limit where cortisol levels tell the dog to fight, flight, or freeze). Reinforcement is the only way to get behavior, and you can reinforce a dog to face an intense distraction by changing his association to that distraction. This is done below over threshold cortisol levels. So yes, it does tell us something about an approach. 



> In dog terms, a high-drive retriever remaining steady, while guns are going off, and birds are falling out of the sky, probably has stress indicators that are off the charts. Ultimately, the rewards more than compensate for any unpleasantness.


I think you said it best in your last statement here. Rewards do not cause stress, they are not associated with fight, flight, and freeze responses. If the rewards (endorphins to a bird dog) compensate an aversion (Which most bird dogs are conditioned to during the critical period of socialization), this would fall in line with the cortisol studies I've seen.


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

I used to watch _Animal Planet_ faithfully. _Good Dog You_, _Cesar Milan's Dog Whisperer_, and many other shows... There are a _few_, and I say, a _select few_ suggestions those shows have offered that I've used and have worked. 

To me, those shows are giving ideas and suggestions to the dog community as a "whole"; But we have to use those ideas to our own discretion. Just like with children, not every punishment method is effective and correct; Time-out works for some parents, and other's still believe the good ole' fashion leather belt strap is best. (Heaven forbid!)



mindyintx said:


> I didn't realize I was stepping into such a pit of stubborness!
> 
> If, I as the owner, have failed to train my puppy well and he starts behaving in an aggressive manner where I feel he is dangerous, I will take him to a professional.
> 
> ...


mindyintx: I really agree with you there, and also feel the same way. I love discussions, serious debates, but I've noticed that the minute I open my mouth that coincides with someone else, they grow infuriated with _me_, upset with _me_, or want a mediator and so on and so forth... If we're going to get upset with every person who disagrees with us, then we're going to be a group of grouches for sure! lol!

That's why I'm doing _my best_ to say my peace and be respectful; Of course at times there will always be someone who ruffles our feathers. lol! : P


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Curbside: while there are things we disagree on, I believe we are more on the same page than not. I'll only add that functioning in the face of intense stressors--in engineering terms, we are talking about strain; stress being the cumulative effects of strain-inducing forces--is a learned response within the limits of an individual's native capacity. Shutting down is as well. An individual's capacity to handle stress can be increased or decreased through training (or mis-training).


----------

