"The Dog Whisperer"

[sandra s.]

For those who don't get him on TV and wonder what it's all about: They have little "Dog Whisperer Video Podcasts" on YouTube, on the national Geographic channel and elsewhere. They're easy to find by using the search option. That's where I "know" him from.

 

I agree with Julie about people getting it wrong. I'm worried that there might be a lot of ordinary, non-dominant dogs being jerked around just for the crime of showing behaviour of any sort, or dragged along behind their human without any chance to explore their environment. Because if it's on the telly then it must be good, right? A lot of people I know don't seem to pick up what he calls "energy" from animals. They'd miss the point of what he's doing.

He works with extreme cases (mostly people who are scared of their own dogs and the like) but from what I've seen - which isn't much - he doesn't point that out. I think that's wrong.

The "walk" is the worst part. A dog who only gets walked that way doesn't have a life IMO, unless there are a lot of dog sports involved, and even then there's a big chunk of "dogness" missing. They were born to explore and to be curious. Let them sniff the bleeping ground at least.

Maybe it helps during the process of re-structuring the "packs" he works with. But I worry that people watch his show and think they have to do that to their own dog every day of the week.

 

Apart from that and his fixation on hierarchy matters, I don't mind him too much. But the self-praise of these dog training shows - not just his - is sickening. I always thought they selected their "clients" by their arse kissing capacity. Apparently it's ignorance they're after instead - I stand corrected.

 

Miracle Trainer: "You see? Did you think that was possible at all?"

Wide-eyed client: "Never in my life! Everybody said it was a lost cause! And now you did it in ten seconds! Oh my god!"

 

Please. Could you not leave that bit out!

[juliepoudrier]

Yes Julie you were clear and I thought I was clear that I didn't even realize that you had posted the statement about hanging a dog. My comment went to further your statement about CM being taken out of context. Your post shows that, by what you thought happened to a dog from other posters here. It was not meant as a dig at you or your thoughts just a point I was making. I don't think you shouldn't comment.

Okay, I'm sorry to beat this to death, but I think it's an important distinction, so I'm going to make it. You seem to believe that I somehow was taking CM out of context, with my comments re: "hanging the dog" as evidence of that. I understand fully well from the description given in this thread what CM did with the dog (see Lizs--Shetlader's--post on the first page of this thread). I used the term "hanging the dog" because that's what Liz called it, but that doesn't mean I think he actually hanged the dog (aka lynching-type hanging) as you seem to be assuming when you say I'm taking CM's actions out of context (since Liz clearly noted that the dog's back feet were on the ground). You're making that assumption based on your own world view and because it suits your argument to do so. Since my comments were in the context of the discussion in which the particular method had already been labeled and thoroughly described (by Liz), I thought other readers could reasonably be expected to understand that I was referring to the method, called "hanging," already described and not take some leap of imagination to assume that I somehow thought he was actually hanging (aka lynching) the dog. I don't appreciate being used as an example to illustrate your point about people taking things out of context when in fact I was not taking things out of context. That's all.

 

The fact is, it doesn't really matter what the action is that a trainer takes (heck, s/he could have been using leash pops and a choke chain or just presence and properly-timed corrections, as in my JK example), it's the fact that most people won't be able to replicate what they see on TV on their own at home with their own problem (or not) dog. I think that's a discussion worth having, rather than focusing on one particular trainer or another. FWIW, the few shows I saw of CM gave me no cause for alarm, but since I don't watch him or any other trainer regularly, or really at all, I can't comment on specific training techniques. I can, however, comment on the harm I think such shows can do. And that's what I've been doing here.

 

J.

[bcnewe2]

Ok so lets beat it a bit more....

In my mind, haning a dog takes a dog being lifted off the ground for an extended period of time, not to kill it but to punish it. In this instance the dog was lifted up by his collar and leash with his his back feet still on the ground. There was a short second where CM twisted the dog around so his back feet came off the ground as he was turning around, not for more than a second and only to get better positioning for the dog to not be able to bite him. Not as part of a punishment. MY take on it was CM did this to keep himself safe not to punish the dog.

 

In my mind what I've seen hanging a dog means, to use hanging as a form of punishment. Hanging a dog up in the air off it's back feet on a leash for more than repositioning. Punishment is what I've seen this used for. I've seen a dog pass out from it. As punishment. Not lynching. Lynching would in my mind be killing a dog. Not punishment, death.

 

So that's my opinion. Hey, no problems...I won't use your posts as an example.

As I stated earlier, I didn't know who posted the actual words, but as you said it was used even earlier by someone else, that's where you stated you got the information from. I was suprised when you posted that it was you that said that and had to go back and look. So in my mind, originally, maybe I wasn't referring to your post. I even said "I guess so" like I was suprised that it was you.

How can you say you were not taking it out of context, or that is what CM was doing? Does hanging a dog in your mind mean having a dog in the air with his back feet on the gound? Or moving a dog by the collar and his back feet come off the ground for a second? I don't even remember seeing the dogs back feet. And I certainly don't think CM would be "hanging" a dog on TV. IMO Lynching or hanging, would not be shown on TV .

 

So it's now beat to death.

[juliepoudrier]

Apparently you didn't go back and read the original post that I was referring to, even after I referred you to it again, so I'm quoting it here, so everyone will be clear about the context in which the term was originally used in this thread--and you'll also note that Liz didn't see anything wrong with what CM did here, she just chose to use a term that makes others think of some other motivation and action, even when she was careful to describe exactly what she meant by the term:

Last night's show would have made many here insane because he really was hanging a dog (back feet on the ground, but a slip collar tight high on the neck). Cesar commented on why he was doing what he was doing and how it could have been done in a way that would have harmed the dog. It wasn't easy to watch but neither was that dog. He was a scary creature, one I would not have had a moment's hesitation about putting down, quite frankly.

 

I think Liz gave a very clear description of what CM did. She called it hanging. Maybe you can take issue with her terminology, but the fact is that's the word she used and the word I repeated. One thing I have found over my years on this board is that people tend to skim, or not read at all, and then latch on to one thing a person says and take issue with it, without bothering to read an entire thread to get the context , and I think that's what you've done here. Personally I find it a bit annoying when people do that because it ends up in places like where we are now--with me defending myself because you chose to interpret my words how you wanted to rather than in the context of this thread.

 

In my mind, my reference back to Liz' post makes it very clear what I meant by the term hanging. I even included the caveat that the action was taken by a trainer who knew what he was doing and wasn't going to damage the dog (another direct reference to Liz' description above). I can see how someone who maybe didn't closely read this thread might make another conclusion about my comments. However I don't think it was incumbent upon me to spoonfeed the definition to anyone who either didn't read the whole thread or read it and forgot what was said and just wanted to latch on to a word. If I had used the term hanging in some other thread where it hadn't already been described, then sure, I'd expect people to invision an animal hanging by its neck with all feet off the ground. But the term hanging had already been defined in the context of this discussion and I saw no need to redefine it. I think in this case, you were the one taking a term out of context and using it to further your argument. That's your right, of course, but it's my right to object, especially since I was the one who was actually keeping the discussion in context.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

This is getting a little painful.

 

Julie, I understand your point -- it is possible for TV training shows to result in harm because people see experts doing things which they then try to duplicate at home, but are unable to do safely and effectively. Your point applies to all TV trainers, not just CM.

 

Kristen, I understand your point -- some of the negative attitude toward CM comes from a sort of grapevine effect, where someone who sees a show describes something that is distorted as it passes through discussion by people who didn't see the show. "[H]e really was hanging a dog (back feet on the ground, but a slip collar tight high on the neck)" becomes "he basically hung a dog" and the casual reader gets the impression that he hung the dog, a description you see as inaccurate (both because the dog wasn't hanging, and because it was being done in self-defense and not--as might have been inferred by someone who didn't see the show or the context--as a punishment), and you therefore want to correct. You did not intend to criticize Julie or Julie's entirely different point. In fact you see your point as fully consistent with Julie's point.

 

Can we agree on all that, maybe?

[bcnewe2]

I had a big long post typed out. It's not worth arguing. I do want to mention that I read each thread before I post. I didn't this morning or late last night I thought we were responding to each other. My bad.

Thanks for clarifying for or spoonfeeding me. I'll try to do better next time.

 

ETA

Yes I can agree Eileen, thanks for helping me to get my point across along with Julies. Painful is a good word for where this was going or how I was feeling.

[Shetlander]

Really? It looks very little like any positive reinforcement approach I've ever seen.

 

I said it was a "typical" positive reinforcement approach -- not necessarily skillful or effective or one you would approve. I stand by my opinion that it is fairly typical of what I see many trainers do, with a head halter thrown in to control where the dog can look.

[Ooky]

I also thought it was "typical" in that it involved treat-treat-treat to get attention, and plenty of watch me's. Treat at face level to help set the heel, which for a dog this size is roughly crotch-level. We used a lot of similar techniques (minus all the head equipment) in our CGC prep class, but Odin and I blew past the initial treat-treat-treat steps pretty quickly. Some dogs never did and looked just like that video when doing the "meet another dog" step. Since the test won't let you use treats, and I don't like having them on me at all moments, Odin and I do most reinforcing of "being a regular, non-psychotic dog-about-town" behaviors sans treats.

 

Again, similar methods have given me a great foundation on some things, but have also provided me with a crotch-dog when he wants affection or attention. Sigh.

 

I watched some CM podcasts. It reminds me of Supernanny, which I've seen a few episodes of. He reads the dogs very well, but the owners don't/can't, so its hard to see how he could help them much without extended consultation.

 

As far as the dog thinking for himself thing, I want a dog who thinks for himself. But I was thinking about it, he CAN"T think for himself as much on a city street where we live as he could on a farm. There are too many more *wrong* decisions for him to make with regards to cars, other dogs, scrappy possibly rabid raccoons and skunks, children, disgusting/alluring road trash, fertilizer-laden lawn runoff. So, sadly I do make a lot of these decisions for him. He DOES get to sniff and "read the doggie daily times" to his delight, though. And he is allowed to peek into every business we walk past as long as his feet stay on the sidewalk, to which people often say hi. I'm hoping that at least I'm teaching him to make his own good decisions (hmmmm - is that considered brainwashing?). He already is starting to avoid creepy-crawly people and really wants to meet others with friendly demeanors on his own accord, so we're getting somewhere.

 

ETA: The crotch-dog attacketh...

[Root Beer]

I said it was a "typical" positive reinforcement approach -- not necessarily skillful or effective or one you would approve. I stand by my opinion that it is fairly typical of what I see many trainers do, with a head halter thrown in to control where the dog can look.

 

To put my quote back in context:

 

Really? It looks very little like any positive reinforcement approach I've ever seen.

 

Maybe styles of positive reinforcement vary from region to region, but personally I would not do what I saw in that video to any dog.

 

I did not say that people were not doing what was being done in that video in the name of "positive training", just that I never had seen it. Therefore, it is not universally typical, even if it is a typical representation in some areas.

 

Moreover, the method that used the head halter as a corrective device in the way it was being used in that video is a correction based method - even though the corrections were followed by treats.

[Ms.DaisyDuke]

I don't know if I really care for CM, but I know that I do not like Brad Pattison at all, so if a co-worker or someone I knew needed help with their dog and they were too lazy to take a class, I would much rather them watching CM on TV than the other end of the leash.

 

He does understand dogs and seems to read them pretty well, unlike a lot of the people watching his show. Too me it's sad if you realize your dog has a problem and your way of solving it is to watch tv instead of finding a good trainer to show you how to work through the problems.

 

I don't really know if I believe the situation 100% with Podee either. I have a dog reactive dog and I have tried the head halter. Now, I mostly used this device to help her pulling issues, but I know how to use one and the theory behind the video. In my experience, if a dog reactive dog really wants to go after another dog, they will and a head halter will do nothing to stop the attempt except to maybe give said dog whiplash. I have since stopped using the head halter and have started teaching my dog self control around other dogs.

[stockdogranch]

As far as the dog thinking for himself thing, I want a dog who thinks for himself. But I was thinking about it, he CAN"T think for himself as much on a city street where we live as he could on a farm. There are too many more *wrong* decisions for him to make with regards to cars, other dogs, scrappy possibly rabid raccoons and skunks, children, disgusting/alluring road trash, fertilizer-laden lawn runoff.

 

I'm not so sure...I mean, yes, in the city there are lots of other things a dog might try to get into, I suppose. But it's really all the same command--a "leave it!" or "that'll do!" when the dog seems to be showing an interest in chasing something it shouldn't or sticking its nose into something potentially toxic. There are certainly lots of critters out here that I don't allow mine to chase, or things that they might want to stick their noses in, or horse crap they really want to consume in large quantities, which doesn't mean when they first see the critters or nasty things or horse crap, they might not make an initial move that lets me know they want to chase it or investigate it or eat it, but a "that'll do" stops them in their tracks, and on they go, about their own business.

 

A

 

ETA And then, of course, there's always the stock in sight when we're in the pasture, and they must learn to not go work on their own, no matter how long we're out there doing other stuff.

[ErinKate]

I like CM. I think the show finds the dumbest people sometimes though. Stuff really just seems like common sense, which let's face it, most people do not seem to have.

I am not going to comment on the "hanging" because I haven't read all the threads. I am guessing it is from the chow mix (?) owned by the guy that looked like Lyle Lovitt! lol If that is the case, I would have strung it up too to keep from getting bit. When it comes to a possible bite, I say every creature for itself.

 

Truely I give him kudos. I watched the other night with a pit bull named BamBam that the owners never taught any manners to. It was jumping and snapping at the torso. (small child in house). CM knew when to push and when to back off. But really what it boiled down to was plain old manners.

You also have to give him some praise for having all those dogs living together with minimal problems. There is something to him. Who else could walk a problem dog into a pack like that and not have a huge issue? It would probably be a fur fest at most houses. Love him or hate him, the guy makes a lot of great points and has seemingly helped a lot of dead end cases.

[Ooky]

I'm not so sure...I mean, yes, in the city there are lots of other things a dog might try to get into, I suppose. But it's really all the same command--a "leave it!" or "that'll do!" when the dog seems to be showing an interest in chasing something it shouldn't or sticking its nose into something potentially toxic. There are certainly lots of critters out here that I don't allow mine to chase, or things that they might want to stick their noses in, or horse crap they really want to consume in large quantities, which doesn't mean when they first see the critters or nasty things or horse crap, they might not make an initial move that lets me know they want to chase it or investigate it or eat it, but a "that'll do" stops them in their tracks, and on they go, about their own business.

 

A

 

ETA And then, of course, there's always the stock in sight when we're in the pasture, and they must learn to not go work on their own, no matter how long we're out there doing other stuff.

 

A, again you are right. I guess that's where I'm saying I hope that rather than controlling his every move, I'm teaching him the right decisions in these instances. Odin has a very solid leave-it. My goal is not to have to tell him leave-it all the time, but eventually he'll come to know himself what should be left or not.

 

I guess I just meant in the city, there are more things that dogs have way less evolutionary instinct to fall back on, because it's a people's world here. He had to be trained to stay on the sidewalk, for instance. But your dogs had to be trained to stay out of the stock when not working. However, one is an arbitrary (for a dog) boundary - curb vs. street, whereas the other (no stock vs stock) probably makes much more sense to them on some level beyond your tutelage. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, teaching Odin to stay off stock when he's not working them is VERY interesting to me, since I would like to take him with me to job sites, which are usually rangelands.

 

Also, every day I walk him within 1-2 ft of several people we've never met before, including: nice people, small children, dog-haters, dog-fawners-who-undo-all-your-training, other dog walkers, small dog walkers with delicate dogs, nicely dressed people who don't want any dog prints on them, homeless people, slightly scary thugs, drunks. He wants to meet most of them although has recently been avoiding the true creeps, which I appreciate. But I still can't let him make the decision on who is ok and who is not. A "watch-me" re-focuses him (originally trained with treats but no treats for this anymore) and leads to non-cued but preferred default behaviors like the down if he is having trouble controlling his urge to jump. But I am not all positive, BTW: I have corrected him for jumping more than once, but usually try to "reboot" after the correction with a positively-rewarded focus-on-me.

 

Like I said before, this may come back to really haunt me on stock. His focus on me is pretty intense. In any case, you are talking to someone who can't WAIT to move to the country like mudpups is doing - DH and I were looking at farmlettes today.

[Shetlander]

QUOTE(Shetlander @ Oct 26 2008, 03:29 PM) *

I said it was a "typical" positive reinforcement approach -- not necessarily skillful or effective or one you would approve. I stand by my opinion that it is fairly typical of what I see many trainers do, with a head halter thrown in to control where the dog can look.

 

To put my quote back in context:

 

QUOTE

Really? It looks very little like any positive reinforcement approach I've ever seen.

 

Maybe styles of positive reinforcement vary from region to region, but personally I would not do what I saw in that video to any dog.

 

How did my response put your quote out of context?

 

I did not say that people were not doing what was being done in that video in the name of "positive training", just that I never had seen it. Therefore, it is not universally typical, even if it is a typical representation in some areas.

 

It must be nice to be surrounded only by talented, skilled trainers. I can't make that claim.

 

Moreover, the method that used the head halter as a corrective device in the way it was being used in that video is a correction based method - even though the corrections were followed by treats.

 

I see Melissa (who posted the link to the video) hasn't been back to this thread since yesterday afternoon. She sounded as though she sees this as positive reinforcement, not correction based and I've heard similar arguments for this type of use of head halters. I guess I don't care if it helped the dog behave better in the long run and didn't injure him. Not because I don't care about my dogs' well being or if they suffer fall out or learn to fear me, but because I do think dogs can recover quite nicely from some corrections. Life is full of corrections --- natural consequences, self-corrections (hitting the end of the leash after charging at another dog), and for many dogs (who lead perfectly lovely lives) corrections by their owners.

 

If my dog was aggressive, my main concern would be getting the aggression under control. For inappropriate behaviors (not true aggression), I've had good success with positive reinforcements combined with corrections. I've seen people make no progress at all on aggression issues with a "positive" approach and those who have failed using only corrections. I don't envy anyone trying to deal with heavy duty aggression to the best of their abilities and understanding.

[Shetlander]

I like CM. I think the show finds the dumbest people sometimes though. Stuff really just seems like common sense, which let's face it, most people do not seem to have.

 

I think that Victoria on It's Me or the Dog chooses dumber and more mentally ill people than Cesar, by and large. The lady on last night's show made me nuts. I really dislike histrionic, self-absorbed behavior and she had it in spades.

 

I am not going to comment on the "hanging" because I haven't read all the threads. I am guessing it is from the chow mix (?) owned by the guy that looked like Lyle Lovitt! lol If that is the case, I would have strung it up too to keep from getting bit. When it comes to a possible bite, I say every creature for itself.

 

No, it was a large Lab-American Bulldog mix that I found freaking scary. The hard, cold look in his eye as he stared at people -- yikes. I'm not a professional trainer of course, but I wouldn't gone near that dog, much less tried to work with him. I do think Cesar takes on more dangerous dogs than Victoria. She has done a number of nasty, biting little dogs but some of Cesar's dogs are just as nasty while weighing 60 - 100 pounds.

[Root Beer]

How did my response put your quote out of context?

 

This line:

 

"Maybe styles of positive reinforcement vary from region to region"

 

Accounted for the differences in what we see people calling "positive training" in our areas.

 

It must be nice to be surrounded only by talented, skilled trainers. I can't make that claim.

 

I can't say that I'm surrounded by only talented, skilled trainers, although I am very lucky to know my fair share of them.

 

Neither am I surrounded by all positive trainers. I've seen corrections like that used on dogs, but nobody is trying to pass that off as positive training.

 

The fact that Melissa sees it as positive reinforcement training does not make it that by default. The fact is that a correction is administered to the dog.

 

I do think dogs can recover quite nicely from some corrections. Life is full of corrections --- natural consequences, self-corrections (hitting the end of the leash after charging at another dog), and for many dogs (who lead perfectly lovely lives) corrections by their owners.

 

You and I both know that our personal opinions of the use of corrections on our dogs, and of our client's dogs, differ. We could probably argue this topic endlesslly, but in the end, I am not going to change what I judge as best for my dogs, and what I feel is most fair to provide to the people who pay me to teach them, because other people choose to do things differently and they are happy with their own decisions.

 

My point here was not to debate the use of corrections, but to point out that positive training does not include use of corrections to train the dog.

 

If you choose to use a mix of positive techniques and corrections, then call it that - a mixture of methods and techniques.

 

The fact that the trainer was stuffing food in the dog's mouth does not, by default, make this positive training.

 

If my dog was aggressive, my main concern would be getting the aggression under control. For inappropriate behaviors (not true aggression), I've had good success with positive reinforcements combined with corrections. I've seen people make no progress at all on aggression issues with a "positive" approach and those who have failed using only corrections. I don't envy anyone trying to deal with heavy duty aggression to the best of their abilities and understanding.

 

If my dog were aggressive, my main concern would also be getting the aggression under control - we certainly concur there.

 

But for inappropriate behaviors (not true aggression), I've had good success with positive reinforcements only. I've seen people make the problem worse with corrections and I've helped a few make progress when they can finally let go of "Cesar's Way" and the "alpha" mindset.

[Shetlander]

I've seen people make the problem worse with corrections and I've helped a few make progress when they can finally let go of "Cesar's Way" and the "alpha" mindset.

 

I've seen inappropriate behaviors/aggression get worse with positive only as well with as corrections based approaches. Poorly applied training is poorly applied training, from what I can see, in my region at least.

[bcnewe2]

I guess I just meant in the city, there are more things that dogs have way less evolutionary instinct to fall back on, because it's a people's world here. He had to be trained to stay on the sidewalk, for instance. But your dogs had to be trained to stay out of the stock when not working. However, one is an arbitrary (for a dog) boundary - curb vs. street, whereas the other (no stock vs stock) probably makes much more sense to them on some level beyond your tutelage. Maybe I'm wrong. In any case, teaching Odin to stay off stock when he's not working them is VERY interesting to me, since I would like to take him with me to job sites, which are usually rangelands.

 

I don't know about that either. There are a ton of things out here that the dogs can and do get into. I don't think the way I teach or train makes them able to make correct choices just because. It just gives them a choice. They can still choose the bad one, but with another correction (an AHHHT or NO) they know they've made a bad choice again.

It's more a way of not being so dependent on the handler or owner. My dogs don't look at me when I say no, they just quit what they were doing.

I was thinking, that I don't really have a leave it command. Only a that'll do or a no. I do remember training Mick and Jazz with "leave it" when they were young and we were in doggy classes but haven't used it in a long time. I'll have to test them to see if they remember it. If for example Mick picks up a nasty thing and I don't want him to have it, I'd say NO and probably have to go over and take it away or out of his mouth if it was a high value edible kind of thing. But he'd stop eating it or rolling in it cause I said NO, next step would be a mystery to us both. I take things as they come, If I were in the city we'd probably have way more conservations about such things. They wouldn't go up to say a table and grab some food off it. That's manners and they do have them cause I trained them, not cause of my training techniques. Jazz would never do anything that might be displeasing, she's just that kind of dog. If I have to correct her, I have to be careful to not over do my NO or she gets all worried. Her nickname is Eore.

I will say Raven hasn't understood that I NEVER want her to roll in cow poo. Lately she has to get hosed at least once a week if not more. I do think she's been itchy lately and she is thinking or feeling that the poo makes her itch less, or she just really likes poo smell and is finding more of it since the cows are here. It's not as easy to roll in sheep poo, but cow poo is big and must be really inviting. She is not understanding that poo rolling means hose. To bad, It'd save us all the hassle! She comes back from a good roll smiling like she's proud and wanting to share. I chastise her (really just tease her so it's not a correction in anyway) and we go to the hose. I suppose if I followed her around I could train her to stop it if I caught her doing it, but it hasn't been that important to me. It might become that way if she keeps rolling. After the fact is to late. It's the timing that's so important.

 

Teaching the dogs to stay out of the stock would probably compare to teaching them to stay on the sidewalk or by me when walking, it's what they are exposed to everyday, so it's not that hard of a lesson.

I've had some people tell me it's not good to let my dogs loose outside with stock so close, I have no fences so it's strictly conditioning and their choice to avoid the consequences that keep them from working without me. Some say it could lessen their desire to work. I'm so glad that they don't hear what's been said, as soon as I hit the porch Mick and Dew are ready and waiting to see if we're going to stock. If it's made them less turned on, I sure can't see it.

 

As for Blue Sky's video example of positive training, I really don't get a chance down here in AR to see PP in action, but from all I've learned from Kristine, and the few others I've seen actually doing it, that didn't look like positive training at all to me. Only the treat part could be lumped in with positive training. The head jerking is not a form of positive training in my understanding. Maybe with her suggestion, some were not looking closely. The video just creeped me out cause the dog had no choice in anything that I could tell. It certainly looked worse than anything I might do or have done to my dogs in the name of life's lessons. Plus it went on to say the end result took weeks. That's a long time to hassle with one issue when 1 or 2 corrections timed well would end the nonsence to a point of being at least able to walk my dog in public. Not that I could make an issue like dog on dog agression disappear instantly, but undercontrol quicker than a few weeks. If I kept Mick on a leash all the time, I'd never have to worry about his issue. I'd always be there to step in and stop him. That's not the way we live. I don't let him run amuck with a bunch of dogs out of control but we do have to get around when we're out and he's not always on a leash. I'd say I trust him with other dogs under their owners control but can't if a dog that isn't under control comes into the picture. I know what will happen and I deal with it accordingly. If I lived in the city things might have to change. Way more out of control dogs there, I assume.

[MrSnappy]

I guess I just meant in the city, there are more things that dogs have way less evolutionary instinct to fall back on, because it's a people's world here. He had to be trained to stay on the sidewalk, for instance. But your dogs had to be trained to stay out of the stock when not working. However, one is an arbitrary (for a dog) boundary - curb vs. street, whereas the other (no stock vs stock) probably makes much more sense to them on some level beyond your tutelage. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Regarding the curb thing ... I have to disagree. Sidewalks are clearly marked definitions and dogs can easily be trained to respect clear VISIBLE boundaries. To a dog, a sidewalk can be as imposing a visual barrier as a fence, if you train it like one. My dogs, for example, do not step off a sidewalk without a command to do because I taught them that it was a barrier. It's a different height from the street and there is a clear difference between a curb and the street, and if you are consistent, your dog will respect the curb very easily. Most people don't train this, because as humans sidewalks are just something we walk on and off all the time and it's second nature for us to be subconsciously aware of them, so we don't communicate to our dogs that they should respect them consciously.

 

Fences are clear visible barriers as well, and humans SEE them as clear visual barriers. Sometimes we don't train our dogs to respect them either, we just *expect* that the fence will be a barrier to the dog, but many dogs will jump a fence as easily as they will step off a curb unless they are taught not to. To a dog, neither a fence nor a sidewalk has meaning until we give it one.

 

For many years, my dogs stayed in one room during the day while I was at work, and in order to keep them in there, I taught them to respect a 2 foot babygate. The gate is lower than my dogs' jump heights in agility, and they could have easily hopped over it, but they didn't because I taught them not to.

 

Dogs on acreage have to be taught to respect the fence, just as dogs in the city should be taught to respect a sidewalk. If anything, what's on the other side of a barrier (fence) to a dog on acreage (ie, stock) is probably a lot more enticing to a dog than what's on the other side of a sidewalk curb (ie the street, and then another sidewalk) so it could potentially be a lot more challenging to teach them to respect it than a sidewalk curb. My dogs don't not step off the curb onto the street because they know it's dangerous; they respect the curb because I taught them to view a curb as a visual barrier that requires permission to step off of.

 

Border collies are very smart, but they are very smart DOGS. And dogs see most things the same way.

 

RDM

[bcnewe2]

My dogs don't not step off the curb onto the street because they know it's dangerous; they respect the curb because I taught them to view a curb as a visual barrier that requires permission to step off of.

 

Very nice way of what I was trying to say in my last post. Also explains why my dogs don't work stock without permission and that it hasn't gotten in the way of our stockwork with permission.

[Ooky]

Then I stand corrected! It feels to me I'm (necessarily) always making decisions for my dog, is what I mean, and not because I don't trust him. I rely on "Watch-me" and "leave-it" to get through a lot of these decision points, and these coping methods were originally trained in a class using methods not unlike Blue sky's video, is all I mean (minus the head-jerking). And I'm not making all these decisions for him because I don't respect his ability to make decisions, I just feel like he doesn't even have the tools yet.

 

It does seem to me that the handler focus-based methods are more geared towards an urban lifestyle, but others may disagree.

 

Sez RDM:

My dogs, for example, do not step off a sidewalk without a command to do because I taught them that it was a barrier. It's a different height from the street and there is a clear difference between a curb and the street, and if you are consistent, your dog will respect the curb very easily.

 

This is exactly how Odin is trained. He even gets the boundary between ADA ramo with no curb and the street. I'm not saying teaching this is harder - I expect overall it's WAY less hard than teaching him to stay off stock unless I ask. My point is that this rule is completely arbitrary, people-defined. A smell boundary might be less so.

 

When I walk him into a crowd of 5000 people, which he's done very successfully more than once, I appreciate our handler-focus foundation, is all I mean. I feel like I can really appreciate the reason for it in this situation. I have a harder time imagining how it (these extreme-focus methods) would be helpful in a country-based life.

[bcnewe2]

When I walk him into a crowd of 5000 people

 

Don't know if we could do that one. It'd make me awful nervous so that'd probably be the way the dogs would feel.

[LazyGRanch]

I caught a show on National Geographic Channel called the Dog Whisperer. Am I the only one that thinks this guy is an idiot?? Sorry to be so blunt but seems to me he's WAY behind the times on how to train using gentle reinforcement...he practices a lot of jerking on leads and physical corrective behaviours and even used one of those really nasty pronged choke collars on a Standard poodle! I want to write him and ask if I can try one on him! Think he'd go for that? I mean I am by no means a trainer but even I can see that his techniques are archaic. What do you guys think?

 

I am no means a trainer, either, but I don't love him or hate him. I think his older shows are way outdated and downright dangerous, some of his newer episodes seem to be better. As far as handling dogs, I think he is a natural, but that's about as much thought as I've put into it. I learn more through books than I do television.

I do support his "anti furbaby" attitude though

[PSmitty]

I do support his "anti furbaby" attitude though

 

Two thumbs up for that!

[njnovice]

I caught a show on National Geographic Channel called the Dog Whisperer. Am I the only one that thinks this guy is an idiot?? Sorry to be so blunt but seems to me he's WAY behind the times on how to train using gentle reinforcement...he practices a lot of jerking on leads and physical corrective behaviours and even used one of those really nasty pronged choke collars on a Standard poodle! I want to write him and ask if I can try one on him! Think he'd go for that? I mean I am by no means a trainer but even I can see that his techniques are archaic. What do you guys think?

 

 

HIs heart is in the right place, and I applaud his insistence on exercise, but his methods suck. LOVE Victoria Stilwell, though.