Take Some, Leave Some: Thoughts on Cesar

[mum24dog]

Excellent post Kristine.

 

Pam

[Root Beer]

Speaking of the "tsst" or "shhht" noises, I've actively started teaching my dogs that those noises mean "get all revved up and act silly".

 

There's one person that I sometimes work with that subscribes whole hog to the CM techniques and since I don't want her correcting my dogs without my permission, I'm deliberately working to make sure that if she does try the noise thing with them, neither of them give two hoots. I can avoid a confrontation with this person and my dogs avoid any potential negative side effects from having a virtual stranger "correcting" them. (not to mention that it'll be sort of funny in my mind when her techniques result in the exact opposite behavior of that she was seeking!)

 

I've had to do something similar wiith "AAAAAAAAAAHT! NO!" with Speedy! So many students in the class that he is in are constantly reprimanding their dogs with "AAAAAAAAAAAHT! NO!" that I had to condition him to think it means he's a very good dog! Nowadays when he hears "AAAAAAAAAHT! NO!", he knows it means he is getting a treat - even if someone else says it to their dog. He has actually never heard that from me since I use directives with him instead of corrections.

 

Thankfully I haven't heard much "Zzzzzt!" around here. If I start to, I'll do the same thing. It would make a fine sound effect to make when whizzing a ball across the room. I have a few of those and my dogs love them. That would actually be very easy to condition.

 

In addition to desensitizing Speedy to "AAAAHT! NO!" and teaching him that it's a good thing, I taught Dean that having water sprayed in his face is the most fun in the world. He LOVES it! I don't expect that anyone would spray water in his face without my permission (and if they tried it, they would not do so again!), but I trained him to love it, just in case. Also, it is good for when he sees other dogs getting sprayed. It's also handy on hot days when I don't feel like filling his pool!

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Does he really deal with truly dangerous dogs or do you believe him because he wants to exaggerate the situation?

 

You misread me. I said dangerous behaviors. Like the dog that would get so excited in the hall by the front door that she'd trip her owner, bite at her face (leaping up), spin around her legs if she tried to use the stairs to the second floor that were also in that alcove. It was a very sweet dog, looked like a Border Collie mix, but really out of control.

 

Watching that particular clip convinced me that they edit out huge chunks. He settled that dog, apparently by touching her and hissing at her, in less than a second. Not. I'm sure they left out the part where he settled her ten feet away, then repeated five feet away, then two feet away, then with one paw on the linoleum patch, then two, then all four, etc.

 

What's the failure rate of working trainers who treat their dogs like that? How many do they manage to break before they find one that can withstand such treatment? Sure, when they find the one it will probably be a good dog, but what of the ones screwed up along the way?

 

"Treat their dogs like that?" You mean offer them a choice between right and wrong, clearly communicate what is wrong, and allow the dog to do what it wants most the rest of the time? I wish someone would make my life that clear, even if it involved a shout or heaven help me a pinch or fssst every so often.

 

I once was "treated" like that by Jack Knox - he put me in the round pen and had me "be the dog." He did nothing but use verbal corrections and leave the right way wide open. I was nervous as heck when I started, but in about thirty seconds when I saw the result of trusting him (quiet sheep that were moving where we wanted them), it was like some part of my brain clicked in and I could think just about what I was doing, confident that if I took a step wrong there would be a signal to alert me, well before anything got scary.

 

It was the most relaxing experience I've ever had in ten years of working sheep. I felt one with the sheep, and I won't go into the warm fuzzy feelings I was having towards my "trainer".

 

I won't say every working trainer is like that, but there's very few trainers that are such as you describe - at least not over here. Dogs move around from trainer to trainer, but trainers who "break" multitudes of dogs to get their results get just as bad a reputation as an agility trainer that did that, would. Possibly even worse, for imagine how difficult it is to turn off instincts, versus the drive to do something artificial like agility.

 

By the way, I deal with rescue dogs with serious problems. I wish some trainers would come see some of these dogs that are truly in a state of learned helplessness, before throwing that term around wantonly. It grates on my nerves like a social worker who hears the term "rape" thrown around frivolously.

 

A dog that was five minutes before hurling itself around like a fish out of water, barking, looking everywhere and nowhere, that is corrected a few times and decides to plop itself down, turn its brain on, and consider things - that is a dog that is thinking. He's probably still nervous because often such dogs haven't been allowed to think before - it's a new situation, so you'll see some lip licking, yawning, head shaking. This is not learned helplessness.

 

Some years back I opened a kennel at a friends farm and looked into the barrel where he said the new dog was. I looked at two yellow eyes but they didn't look back at me. It was like looking into the glass eyes of a mounted deer head, absolutely dead. I called to him and he came quietly and lay as still as possible at my feet, avoiding meeting my eyes.

 

My friend showed me the dog working. He took every command without incident, but my friend said, "Watch." And he shut up and let the sheep drift away. The dog looked wistfully after the sheep for a second, then lay down and turned his head. My friend ran at the sheep, pushed them around, tried to get the dog's instincts riled up enough to get him working on his own - the dog merely lay in exactly the same way, even let the sheep walk around and past him. He would not be tempted into experimenting one iota.

 

That is learned helplessness. My friend, by the way, didn't work that dog again until he had taken leash walks with him every day for two weeks, and the dog actually met his eye. But the dog never was right and ended up having to do something that allowed him more freedom.

 

My point is that one really shouldn't dismiss any method as intrinsically bad without good reason. And I don't see those good reasons for rejecting corrections out of hand.

[SalemsMom]

I think that he has some things to offer, but for the most part I think he offers more bad then good to the average joe idiot. For instance on a walk this weekend there was a guy with a really reactive dog. When he walked by us his dog started barking and lunging toward us. He told me that he just adopted the dog, and "he didn't know who the pack leader was yet", he proceeded to pop him on the leash, finger bite him in the neck, and then make a loud "ssshhhttt" at the dog. The dog rolled on his back and peed all over himself, he was so scared. Because of watching CM the guy thought this was a good reaction from the dog. he was lucky the dog didn't bite him. Unfortunately, not many people take the warning at the beginning seriously.

 

On the plus side of that experience I happened to be walking with my brothers really reactive dog (I'm not a trainer, my brother just never walks him so I have been trying to get him some exercise). I have been working hard trying to get him to ignore other dogs that walk by. he is about 50/50 now with who he reacts to, wheras it was every dog we passed at first. I had my dogs in a sit-stay off the side of the path while this guy was walking past, and mine didn't bark once even with this other dog lunging and barking at us. Ralph got some tasty liver treats and lots of belly-rubs for being a good boy.

 

I do think he has some good to offer, but I think you can get the same things from more positive trainers.

[Lenajo]

In answer to the original question, yes, Milan does use some techniques that can be effective and are, in some contexts, benign. At the same time, those particular techniques - and much more - can be found in the writings of those whose philosophies are more in line with my own. People like Leslie McDevitt, Patricia McConnell, Melissa Alexander, Pam Dennison, Morgan Spector, Karen Pryor, etc. They are not all "behaviorst" type trainers, but for me training is about much more than that.

 

Have you ever seen these people, any of them, train a dog? I have. And results are mixed from excellent to good to bad to ugly. I am not going to say "who's who" either, because they are not here to defend themselves. Don't ask. The point, my point is, so many people follow "theories' and have no idea about how good a trainer the person actually is. They don't demand these trainers "walk the walk and talk the talk" and get out there on the field of competition. And even when they do compete, they get excused...because they have a "difficult" dog, and "special challanges"

 

If that trainers so good, why can't they fix their own problems? When does the theory become reality? When do they live that book they sell?

 

I'm not saying that the methods can't work, but they would certainly be more attractive to the masses if they could be shown regularily that they do.

 

I am saying that some of the "harsher" techniques (harsh being defined as not positively reinforcing behavior) are often quicker to be understood by the dog, and therefore in the end less stressful. My dogs *like* the guy that puts the most pressure on them, because he knows when to turn it off and is clear about what he wants. Just like the Jack Knox example...and countless other examples of quality herding and obedience training out there.

 

Trainers that regularily fail at changing behavior lose clients and eventually go out of business. The reason is simple: what they are doing isn't working.

 

I see a dog, first and foremost, as a very complex individual creature with a brain, likes, dislikes, abilities, talents, and flaws of his or her own. Some might try to throw the "anthropomorphic" label at me for that, but when it comes down to it, a dog is not a robotic automoton that simply needs to be "programmed" a certain way in order to be controlled.

 

Then you aren't really agreeing with a lot (not all!) of the speakers/writers you stated you follow. To the premier "postiive only, clicker trainer" a dog is _*_nothing_*_ but a behavioral organism that does what is rewarded. It doesn't have feelings...such as jealousy, or love, or anger...it just reacts.

 

I float somewhere in the middle of the road between anthropormorphism and dumb behavior with dogs myself. It's delightfully grey here. Sometimes dogs do things because they really are feeling happy/sad/angry/sulky/silly....and sometimes dogs do things because they are just dogs. It's my job to figure it out and address accordingly.

 

It's just a guess, but I think they dogs are in the middle of the road too. They just want to know what works. Just like we do.

[Root Beer]

My point is that one really shouldn't dismiss any method as intrinsically bad without good reason. And I don't see those good reasons for rejecting corrections out of hand.

 

And, conversely, I don't see any good reasons for rejecting all training that is not correction based out of hand.

 

ETA: This is not directed specifically at you, Rebecca, but is meant as food for thought for those who would not normally consider non-correction based training a valid option.

[SnickerKitten]

I use the "zhhht" noise at times, just like I use "ack", "oof", "eek" and many other noises. It's not necessarily the noise I make that I want my dog to understand as "no" (which I think is way overused with both dogs and kids so they start ignoring it- also since I say it often to my kids I don't want my dog thinking I'm reprimanding him when my kids as for something and I say "no" because no matter what I'm saying Stormy always thinks I'm talking to him) it's the tone of voice I'm using with him that tells him "something I'm doing isn't what she wants" and he'll either look to me for what I DO what him to do or if he knows what it is (chasing a cat) he will immediately stop. I also use *words* with him as frequently as I use noises. Maybe he thinks I'm nuts talking to him all the time but he definately understands my tone of voice.

 

As far as correcting other people's dogs.... if someone's dog jumps up on me you'd better believe I'm going to correct it. Also, if another dog is doing something dangerous to my dog or to my kids if I feel I have time I ask the person to intervene but if I don't have time (as in the time two huskies rolled my dog after they had viciously gone after another dog and been asked to leave by that owner) then I do step in immediately and the time with the two huskies I physically got between one of them and him and the one that had it's mouth on his throat I squirted with the watergun I use to stop Stormy from barking. At that time I felt Stormy was in enough danger that if I hadn't had the squirt gun I most likely would have done something alot more forceful.

 

At the same time, being a responsible dog owner, I feel it is always my responsibility to make sure my dog never puts any one else in the position where they would have to wonder if it was ok for them to reprimand him. I correct him *before* he jumps on someone, I call him away *before* I think he may be in a position with another dog that the other owner may be uncomfortable with, etc.

 

From my understanding, the "biting" that Cesar does is just a touch with his hand. I also do that with my dog and with my children. If I want their attention and their attention is elsewhere and I'm within reaching distance I will touch them to get them focused on me. I don't consider it biting when I do it, it's just a "Hey, over here!" that works better than repeating their name over and over again or getting louder and louder. Heck, oftentimes with my son I have to go a step further than touching him and get on my knees in front of him to hold his attention on what I'm saying- then make him repeat what I said. Unfortunately, I can 't ask my dog, "Now, what did I say? What does that mean?" to make sure my directive is understood.

 

There are several things that I've seen or heard from Cesar that make sense to me. When people are meeting my dog I much prefer that they ignore him until he's come to them. If someone doesn't approach him, they just enter the space we're in then Stormy is very quick to check them out and then be comfortable with them petting him. If someone walks up to him, talking and reacing out to him, he gets very nervous and even afterwards tends not to want them touching him.

 

I also like what says about the energy that we project. If I want my dog to be calm then I can't be agitated. Heck, I can read an email that upsets me and even if he's not looking at me he'll know something just upset me and he'll come right over looking for reassurance that I'm ok.

 

As far as the thing about not giving affection to a dog that is scared, etc... well, I can kind of see his point. I don't however see an issue with using a "You're being ridiculous, this is safe" kind of comment and tone to reassure them while staying calm yourself and letting them see that you're not concerned.

 

 

As far as the walking thing... as long as a leash is not taut and pulling on the dog I don't see why it needs to be any particular length or shortness. Most of the time that I walk my dog I do it without a leash and most of the time he stays pressed right up against my left leg so that I actually have to ask him for more space. I've found that the dog I found last month (seriously, she needs a new home!) will walk like that also when I am in a situation where I feel safe walking her without a leash however on a leash she has HORRID manners and will pull and jump (go figure).

 

Oops, time to get my son!

 

Lori

[Lenajo]

is the example below any different from when I have to fight my way past the "clicker crowd" at agility trials who's dogs lunge,snap, and snarl, and then get "redirected" with food and click? Sounds great, must be great, because they do it all.day.long. at every trial they go too. Have been for years.

 

Inneffetive training yields poor results. Nothing wrong with the method choice, just the application. Does blame really need to be put on the originator of the method in any of these cases?

 

I think that he has some things to offer, but for the most part I think he offers more bad then good to the average joe idiot. For instance on a walk this weekend there was a guy with a really reactive dog. When he walked by us his dog started barking and lunging toward us. He told me that he just adopted the dog, and "he didn't know who the pack leader was yet", he proceeded to pop him on the leash, finger bite him in the neck, and then make a loud "ssshhhttt" at the dog. The dog rolled on his back and peed all over himself, he was so scared. Because of watching CM the guy thought this was a good reaction from the dog. he was lucky the dog didn't bite him. Unfortunately, not many people take the warning at the beginning seriously.

 

On the plus side of that experience I happened to be walking with my brothers really reactive dog (I'm not a trainer, my brother just never walks him so I have been trying to get him some exercise). I have been working hard trying to get him to ignore other dogs that walk by. he is about 50/50 now with who he reacts to, wheras it was every dog we passed at first. I had my dogs in a sit-stay off the side of the path while this guy was walking past, and mine didn't bark once even with this other dog lunging and barking at us. Ralph got some tasty liver treats and lots of belly-rubs for being a good boy.

 

I do think he has some good to offer, but I think you can get the same things from more positive trainers.

[Root Beer]

Have you ever seen these people, any of them, train a dog? I have. And results are mixed from excellent to good to bad to ugly. I am not going to say "who's who" either, because they are not here to defend themselves. Don't ask. The point, my point is, so many people follow "theories' and have no idea about how good a trainer the person actually is. They don't demand these trainers "walk the walk and talk the talk" and get out there on the field of competition. And even when they do compete, they get excused...because they have a "difficult" dog, and "special challanges"

 

If that trainers so good, why can't they fix their own problems? When does the theory become reality? When do they live that book they sell?

 

I'm not saying that the methods can't work, but they would certainly be more attractive to the masses if they could be shown regularily that they do.

 

I have not yet had the privilege of seeing them work with their own dogs. I certainly hope to someday.

 

Since the methods that I have employed from these sources have worked with my own "difficult dog with special challenges," I really haven't been in a position where I feel it necessary to demand "proof" from them that their methods are effective. I have also found them to work with my normal dogs.

 

I am saying that some of the "harsher" techniques (harsh being defined as not positively reinforcing behavior) are often quicker to be understood by the dog, and therefore in the end less stressful. My dogs *like* the guy that puts the most pressure on them, because he knows when to turn it off and is clear about what he wants. Just like the Jack Knox example...and countless other examples of quality herding and obedience training out there.

 

And my dogs *like* the gal that makes what I want clear to them through careful training before expecting it as an automatic response. It's not always "quick", although it can be, but it works for me and for my dogs.

 

None of my dogs are unhappy because I don't use "harsher" techniques on them.

 

Trainers that regularily fail at changing behavior lose clients and eventually go out of business. The reason is simple: what they are doing isn't working.

 

And there are many reasons for that. Just as there are dogs trained Cesar Milan style who shut down, get injured from too much vigorous exercise (I actually know a dog that this happened to), and develop new behavior problems when the original ones are sqashed instead of worked through, there are dogs who are trained with positive methods that don't show forth the intended results.

 

This can happen for many reasons, but it is not always the fault of the trainer. There are some people who want a quick fix. They quit when they can't get it. There are times when several different things must be tried and sometimes people lost patience. Sometimes the trainer-handler chemistry is poor and the client seeks elsewhere.

 

Then you aren't really agreeing with a lot (not all!) of the speakers/writers you stated you follow. To the premier "postiive only, clicker trainer" a dog is _*_nothing_*_ but a behavioral organism that does what is rewarded. It doesn't have feelings...such as jealousy, or love, or anger...it just reacts.

 

I don't know which of the authors I listed that you are referring to, but I have not come away with that viewpoint from any of them.

 

It was from reading many of those that I came to a deeper understanding of the need to seriously consider my dog's emotional makeup both in training, and in performance.

 

No, you don't get a specific consideration of the dog's emotional makeup in every one of those author's books. For instance, Karen Pryor's "Don't Shoot the Dog" is not intended to be a dog-training book per se, but a discussion of behavior theory. Taken in isolation, you might say she doesn't consider the dog an emotional being, but I don't see it as intending to make that exclusion. The emotional makeup of the dog - which is treated phenomenally in Patricia McConnell's "For the Love of a Dog" - is not the topic of that book. I no more expect to find a discussion of the emotional reaction of a dog in a book that is purely about behavior theory than I would expect to find a section on the human heart in a book about the human skeletal system. And nobody would say that those who write books about the skeletal system alone deny the reality of the heart.

 

Nor, would I say that I expect to find a specific section on a dog's emotional reactions in a book on Obedience Training (Morgan Spector) or Rally Obedience (Pam Dennison). That doesn't mean that the authors deny such emotions in dogs.

 

I'd be interested in specific references from the authors that I listed above (book title and pages, please) where the author states that "a dog is nothing but a behavioral organism that does what it is rewarded". "Nothing but" being key there.

 

I float somewhere in the middle of the road between anthropormorphism and dumb behavior with dogs myself. It's delightfully grey here. Sometimes dogs do things because they really are feeling happy/sad/angry/sulky/silly....and sometimes dogs do things because they are just dogs. It's my job to figure it out and address accordingly.

 

It's just a guess, but I think they dogs are in the middle of the road too. They just want to know what works. Just like we do.

 

On this we agree. Perhaps our decisions of what the appropriate way to address our dog's behavior is will differ to some extent, but if you got the impression from my post that I don't consider my dog's motivations, I wasn't clear.

 

I think that the heart of the debate between those who like Milan and those who dislike him is the definition of "what works" to get our dogs to behave the way we want them to.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

And, conversely, I don't see any good reasons for rejecting all training that is not correction based out of hand.

 

Hm. When you find where I've rejected "all training not correction based out of hand" I'll buy you a pizza at the establishment of your choice. And my friends will tell you I don't fling money around lightly these days so that's a serious risk for me.

 

Remember though, you've implied that I rejected the set of all non-correction-based training. And out of hand no less.

 

In all seriousness, like Lenajo, I freely use what is appropriate at the time in my training. I have an Aussie mix here right now I'm doing Click to Calm with.

 

I have a dog here who was biting people and attacking other dogs, on whom I've been using a hybrid "talking" method to shape thinking rather than reacting, focusing on me and the job, not worrying about anything else in life. Two weeks ago he couldn't be within thirty feet of a dog without reacting. I allow him off leash with all my dogs now, even the one he tried to kill two weeks ago.

 

Two weeks ago he was nervous and tense all the time - and this was with his old owner, too - constantly jumping and clingy and biting at your hands and face (he's going on eight years old), very pushy and demanding. Now he just acts like a dog, relaxed and ready for anything, enjoying a swim with the others, playing with the ones that he's hit it off with. I still don't really trust him out in the Real World yet, if ever, he was allowed to maintain bad habits for so long - but he's getting further from the edge all the time.

 

I do this with two to three dogs a year. You can't tell me they are all shut down and unhappy. On the contrary, they work all over the country and people are very pleased with how much fun these dogs are in their down time (I always try to teach them something fun so when they retire they will still have something to do). My own dogs are the last thing from shut down - quite the contrary as anyone will tell you - the expression about the shoemaker's children going barefoot comes to mind.

[Root Beer]

Hm. When you find where I've rejected "all training not correction based out of hand" I'll buy you a pizza at the establishment of your choice. And my friends will tell you I don't fling money around lightly these days so that's a serious risk for me.

 

Remember though, you've implied that I rejected the set of all non-correction-based training. And out of hand no less.

 

 

Dagnapit - I meant to include a postscript in that post to say that I wasn't saying that you were rejecting all non-correction based training out of hand. It was a general statement that I was making - meant really only for those who do reject non-correction based training out of hand.

 

I apologize for leaving that off, because in doing so, it did seem like I meant it directy to you, and I didn't. That was my bad.

 

ETA: I added the originally intended postscript above!

[Lenajo]

I haven't read anyone in this thread who was throwing out positive reinforcment or methods based on that. Did you?

 

I use all 4 parts of operant conditioning myself. Which method will predominate depends on the dog at that moment in time.

[mbc1963]

Oh, yes. I also strongly agree with the "no touch, no talk, no eye contact" rule for introducing strangers to a fearful or shy dog. Buddy will approach people from behind, cautiously, but will flee if they approach him, bending over and reaching out their hands over his head. Best "meeter" I ever saw with my early reactive Buddy was a 22-ish young woman. She sensed his fear, turned her face away from him, squatted, and offered him her hand to sniff behind her back. Buddy immediately went to her, with no fear or skittishness.

 

I strongly disagree with doing the "walk" on such a short leash that the dog can't explore. A huge part of the reason I walk Buddy so much is to give him mental stimulation. Traveling around the woods or my neighborhood with his nose to the ground is like, I suppose, reading a really good novel is to me. I let Buddy leave pee-mails at the houses where the other dogs live, too - I don't subscribe to the notion that he's somehow dominating the others that way. He loves sniffing other dogs' pee as much as he likes adding to the pee pile.

 

Oh... and to defend the "South Park" episode with Cartman... I kind of think the point was that the mother herself was incapable of carrying out any sort of discipline with her child, which was why the kid regressed after the "experts" left. I think that's true of any good dog trainer: that if the trainees dont' heed the trainer's advice and follow through on what's done in class, the dog will go back to his old ways.

 

Mary

[Ms.DaisyDuke]

Wow, intense topic. Good Conversation.

This couldn't have come up at a better time for me! I am what most people would call a bit of a nerd. I make my choices of what to buy, where to eat and how to train my dog by reading any given information and making an educated decision on what will be best for me or in this case my dog. I have done TONS of research on how to effectively train my dog and I never really got it until I started reading "The other end of the Leash." I helped me really understand my dog and my self for that matter. I'm not really into "Hollywood" and all that jazz so CM never really entered into my radar. I've done some research on him today and yes some of his ways of teaching are kind of similar to what others would use, and some are way off topic. I hardly use corrections on Daisy because she's soft, so there is no point, verbal ones and a good girl work just as well I find. I've even tought a Great Pyrenese to have good leash manners in 2 days without any physical corrections. Which, if anyone else has tried to walk a dog that weighs more than they do and they have no manners, you will figure something out quick! I swear I almost lost my arm! But I just don't buy physical anything whether it's toward man or animal. ANYWAY, the point to my post is this; My aunt just got a puppy and she is really serious about getting CM books. I have given her just about everything I have, but she just kind of sets them asside, she's gotta get these books apparently. I would hate for this puppy to go through hell and back. I would rather they learn how to teach their dog as opposed to learning how to dominate their dog. Should I just let her figure it out on her own?

[SnickerKitten]

Ms Daisyduke- I *believe* that in the back of Cesar's first book he recommends "The Other end of the Leash" among others. Perhaps if you point that out to your aunt she'll broaden her search and get a wider assortment of input to think about.

 

Lori

[Lenajo]

If CM's books are the only way you can get her to think about dog training, then let her get them. She has to start somewhere, and your positive response to her attempts to educate herself will only add more fuel to a good fire. Jan Fennell's book might be a next step...same thought process, but adds some too it.

 

After all how many of us started training with the old jerk/pop Barbara Woodhouse method? She makes CM look like a angel!

 

CM's current book...haven't read it in a while...didn't have anything in it that I remember being harmful to a puppy. It stressed exercise first....structure...hmmmm, I'll have to go back and look at the book now. And before you quote about it worrying the pup "will go to hell and back" because of it, I suggest you do too. Sometimes a pointed word or two to help with someone's interpretation of a method is all it takes to turn negative into positively useful.

 

And don't forget that the dog will teach her as well. If his response is positive and good to whatever method is applied, that's all that counts. If it isn't, then you offer some non-judgemental help and it goes from there.

[SnickerKitten]

Hee hee hee.. thinking about things that make Cesar look like an angel...

 

I grew up in a house where dogs were hit with rolled up newspaper, their noses stuck in messes while they were screamed at and hit, etc etc etc. Good thing I learned my own way instead of perpetuating all that!!!

 

Lori

[OffTopic]

We've read his books and there is a lot of good information in them. It's what the reader chooses to take from the books that can be a problem.

For example (I'm looking through "Be The Pack Leader" here) he has a section on E-Collars. His stance is that it can be a useful tool if used correctly, but that in the wrong hands or used indiscriminately, it can traumatize the dog. "[it]can be an effective training method. It can also be the most destructive method if used incorrectly or haphazardly." He also says he prefers to try other methods first, but will use the E-Collar if the dog's behavior is life threatening to the dog and time is critical.

 

As for other training tools (citronella collar, rattle cans, spray bottles, etc.) he encourages people to do their research, contact a pro if they're uncertain how to use the tool, use it for it's intended purpose only, quit using it as soon as you can, don't use it in anger or think of it as punishment and don't rely on the tool (especially E-Collars) as a permanent solution.

 

What is a careless reader going to get out of that section?

Cesar says he uses E-Collars, so they must be ok. I'm gonna go get one to stop Spot from barking at the neighbors.

[mbc1963]

I grew up in a house where dogs were hit with rolled up newspaper, their noses stuck in messes while they were screamed at and hit, etc etc etc. Good thing I learned my own way instead of perpetuating all that!!!

 

Yes, me, too Lori! Although I must admit that in my house, no one really followed through with any of that tough discipline, though I think we all "believed" it the right way to do things. That's what the experts used to advocate!

 

It's really amazing how these theories go in cycles, isn't it? When I was a kid, everyone (and I mean everyone!) got spanked at least a couple times. If you ran out in the street, or swore at your mother... things that were over the top. Recently, Massachusetts tried to make it a law that parents can't spank children. I wanted to ask the legislators how many of them would prosecute their own parents, if we took away the statute of limitations.

 

Not that I'm all in support of spanking - and spankings were rare in my house. I just think we get so caught up in the current cycle of thought that we can't see our way out of it. I remember when Barbara Woodhouse was the GODDESS of dog training. In fact, I hadn't really noticed that she'd gone out of style!

 

Mary

[Ms.DaisyDuke]

I guess that worrying about a puppy going to hell and back was a bit harsh on my part. I would just hate for them to be that careless reader. I've seen to many dogs only given half a chance and I've seen my own dog almost ruined by a careless person. You are all right though, all I can offer is non-judgemental advice and encouragement. I mean, the more information she has the better regardless. And I might even read the book after she's done with it.

[Root Beer]

Oh yeah - what the reader takes away from a book can be a problem! Believe it or not, my first training book was the original Monks of New Skete.

 

I didn't put a lot of stock in it since it seemed to be about German Shepherds, but I definitely came away from it with the "dominance" "alpha" lingo.

 

I decided that Sammie (our only dog at the time) thought he was dominant, so I decided to try some alpha rolls. Mind you, in retrospect, Sammie has always been perfectly respectful to his humans, but because he got on the bed first, went through doors first, and basically made his desires and dislikes known to us, he must be dominant!! Even though the book clearly said that alpha rolls were for extreme cases and you had to be very careful, I thought it was surely what Sammie needed and I'd better go ahead and do them now to save trouble later.

 

But I didn't want to be rough with him, so I put him on the bed. Then he was so cute when I rolled him belly-up that I thought it wouldn't hurt to add a belly scratch to my show of "dominance". I thought that would definitely show him who was boss.

 

Good old Sam-bones was very compliant and I was pleased to see that he knew who the human was really the "alpha". (In retrospect, I'm sure that to him it was some strange, but enjoyable game). It didn't really do anything as far as his attitude was concerned, other than that he learned that sometimes I was going to turn him over to scratch his belly, and he didn't really mind that.

 

And that's what I took away from the Monks of New Skete!!

 

I also tried putting a leash on him and dragged him in a few circles around a room to try to make him "heel" because that seemed very important. I didn't really understand the concept, so I quit that, too. I also didn't really "get" the idea of the collar pop, so I skipped that, too. I had no chain to put around his neck, and even if I had, I didn't really know how to make it "pop" without choking him.

 

I am very grateful to the trainers at the school that I took Speedy to as a 7 month old puppy, who introduced me to the concept of reward based training.

 

Speedy did miss out on all those belly rubs, though . . .

[Root Beer]

I haven't read anyone in this thread who was throwing out positive reinforcment or methods based on that. Did you?

 

The statement was a general one - food for thought for anyone who might be reading who may not have considered reward based training seriously before this. Even those who may not have posted in this particular thread.

[Wendy V]

What is a careless reader going to get out of that section?

 

Oh yeah - what the reader takes away from a book can be a problem!

 

Is it the general consensus that most people are too stupid to figure out what is best for their dog? Excepting, of course, the esteemed board members?

[Root Beer]

Is it the general consensus that most people are too stupid to figure out what is best for their dog? Excepting, of course, the esteemed board members?

 

Of course not.

 

In my case, I needed the help of knowledgeable instructors in dog training classes to get a foundation in the theory behind positive training methods, and to really start to understand how the techniques worked before I was ready to start implementing them in new ways on my own. For instance, I really needed to see someone else train their dog with a clicker before I really "got" the concept. I simply couldn't understand it just from a book without seeing it in action with a clicker savvy handler and dog. But that was me.

 

Everyone isn't the same. Just because I couldn't figure it all out just from books doesn't mean that I'm implying that nobody can.

 

The story I shared was of me getting it wrong from books before I took classes. And I know others personally (off the board) who have done better through classes with instructors than they did with just books.

 

Just because I was too stupid to do it without help doesn't mean that I think everyone else is stupid. Of course, I think that all of us - board members or not - have a wealth of excellent training information available to us (through writings and/or training classes and seminars) to enhance what we can figure out on our own.

 

I hardly consider it stupidity to learn as much about that as we can - whether on our own or with assistance.

 

In fact, in April I'm going to take a private session with a trainer that I highly respect because I love what her book has to say, but I feel that I need her to see my dog and help me with some of the techniques one on one so that I can implement them better. And it's not because I feel that I'm too stupid to figure it out on my own. It's because I know that I can learn to do better.

[Maralynn]

We've read his books and there is a lot of good information in them. It's what the reader chooses to take from the books that can be a problem.

For example (I'm looking through "Be The Pack Leader" here) he has a section on E-Collars. His stance is that it can be a useful tool if used correctly, but that in the wrong hands or used indiscriminately, it can traumatize the dog. "[it]can be an effective training method. It can also be the most destructive method if used incorrectly or haphazardly." He also says he prefers to try other methods first, but will use the E-Collar if the dog's behavior is life threatening to the dog and time is critical.

 

As for other training tools (citronella collar, rattle cans, spray bottles, etc.) he encourages people to do their research, contact a pro if they're uncertain how to use the tool, use it for it's intended purpose only, quit using it as soon as you can, don't use it in anger or think of it as punishment and don't rely on the tool (especially E-Collars) as a permanent solution.

 

What is a careless reader going to get out of that section?

Cesar says he uses E-Collars, so they must be ok. I'm gonna go get one to stop Spot from barking at the neighbors.

 

a) You've got an awful lot of assumptions going on there. Most careless readers don't pick up a book like that to read.

 

E-collars are not inherently evil and some dogs do need them

 

I have two different dog with two different personalities that I've used different methods training. With Missy I never used a clicker or a prong collar - with Kipp I've used both. And, low and behold, both clicker and prong collar have served their intended purpose for him. And I can take my dog for a walk with a prong on and he is still his bouncy, happy self. I even use the clicker while my dog is wearing a prong sometimes...

 

I wouldn't go around recommending CM to folks, but he does raise a few very valid points that people need to know. And while I agree he goes a bit over-board with being alpha, etc, alot of the dogs on his program have problems to begin with because their owners have not provided the balance and leadership a dog needs.