Oh GOD, a Ceasar wanna be

[mbc1963]

I'm no expert in dog psychology, but I have watched dogs all my life, and though I'm not the best on this forum, I'm better at reading expression in dog body language than dogless folks and most of my dog-owning friends. (I do think dog body language is like any foreign language, and that the earlier you start speaking it, the more fluent you become. I'm sometimes astounded that adults who own dogs can't see when the dog is clearly asking them for something.)

 

In 46 years, I've had lots of uncertain dogs act this way when I go to meet them. Appeasement is a good word for what I think they're showing. When they realize that I'm all about loving on dogs, they lose the appeasement behavior and just start happy-wiggling when they see me.

 

From one dog to another, I think this behavior is clearly designed to say, "I don't want to take you on. Don't snarl at me." Submission? Maybe. But it seems as though I see this behavior a lot more in dogs who are meeting for the first time than in dogs who have an established relationship. (Could simply be because I always only own one dog.) Humans can act this way, too - super-sweet and smily on first meeting, until they get their bearings and figure out the dynamics.

 

I don't think the appeasement behavior (rolling and sidling) is a sign that a dog's been abused in any way. It seems as though some unconfident dogs choose this behavior as a way of approaching what could possibly be a scary human or other dog, knowing that in dog language, this suck-up behavior is unlikely to start a fight. My dog, meanwhile, is fear-reactive: his reaction to this man would have been an attempt to run away, followed by growling and even possibly snapping if he felt cornered. Two very normal (if opposite) reactions to the potential for a conflict.

 

I didn't think this video was horrible to watch. The dog seemed appeasing, and then content and playful, and did indeed seem to be trying to figure out what this guy wanted. She seemed pretty resilient and happy-go-lucky. But... could the guy have gotten the dog to stay down without poking at her? I have no doubt; I watched my trainer do this over and over with different dogs over the course of a few rounds of "Basic Obedience." So, I'm not sure why the need for the poking time, especially with a dog who so obviously wants to curry favor.

 

Mary

[kelpiegirl]

Lordy! I didn't have time to elaborate, and maybe my thread title was a bit slanted. What I did not like was the arrogance of the person working with the dog, and the parroting of C.M. buzz words. The dog is described as hyper, so are many dogs. I have one. One thing that I have taken from CM, when my hyper/nervous dog gets amped up, is to stand up straight and move toward her calmly. She responds by instantly calming down, and has progressed to laying down without being nervous- all without me touching her. As CM says, it's all about the energy. I would rather have seen that (a non-invasive, so to speak) technique on the dog, than forcing it to lay down with "poking" as others have characterized it.

 

I think to my working my dogs on sheep with good trainers. There is no poking, there is no in your face- there may be stepping on the line, but not what was shown in the video. I just want to reiterate, that my issue was of this person trying to "be" Cesar but failing in Cesar's most important point- energy- this guy was not calm. He also got tweaked because this now "submissive" dog wouldn't come to him.

[Root Beer]

That's true, you didn't. You said that Lucy's state of mind was plain to you because you had exceptional experience in reading dogs' expressions and body language, and it had never occurred to you before that others (specifically Julie) would be so inferior in that regard.

 

"Exceptional" experience? Again, words are being attributed to me that I never said. Words which change the meaning of what I actually said quite a bit.

 

What I did say was, "a very unusual amount of practice in reading dog's expressions and body language". "Unusual amount" is different from "exceptional". I'm not going to pretend that I have no experience with this and that I know nothing and that I don't trust my own judgment when it comes to seeing what I see, but that does not mean that I consider my experience "exceptional". I hope that clarifies the matter.

 

As far as thinking that Julie is inferior, now that's an assumption! And an incorrect one.

 

Julie herself said that.

 

Y'all are way better at interpreting a short video than I am, apparently.

 

I realize that her remark was sarcastic/sardonic, but please note that I never said any such thing, even in jest.

 

By stating my own opinion based on what I saw, I am not making a judgment on anyone else's observations, or lack thereof. I'm kind of surprised that I have to spell that out, but I am happy to do so.

 

It was other posters to the thread who said the dog was shutting down and that terrible things were done to her. I can see that my reaction blended the two in a way that could have caused you to think I was talking only about you.

 

Thanks for the clarification. When someone quotes me, I do usually consider the comments either directed to me, or at least tied to what was quoted. I guess that's an assumption on my part, but kind of a logical one.

 

But you are assuming that Lucy is rolling to appease, whereas I think that assumption is inconsistent with her observable demeanor.

 

Just as you are assuming that Lucy is actually relaxed and/or "offering" behaviors for reinforcement, and I would say that that assumption is inconsistent with her observable demeanor.

 

So, we disagree. (I know the above quote was not one of mine, but since I had made the exact same comment about appeasement, I wanted to respond to it directly)

[mum24dog]

I didn't think this video was horrible to watch. The dog seemed appeasing, and then content and playful, and did indeed seem to be trying to figure out what this guy wanted. She seemed pretty resilient and happy-go-lucky. But... could the guy have gotten the dog to stay down without poking at her? I have no doubt; I watched my trainer do this over and over with different dogs over the course of a few rounds of "Basic Obedience." So, I'm not sure why the need for the poking time, especially with a dog who so obviously wants to curry favor.

 

I'm usually one to come down hard on CM and his like but I have to say that in this instance I agree with you.

Yes the guy was intimidating the dog to start with and it was both pointless and unfair, but this particular dog soon learned how to handle him. I guess she'd just put it down to yet another of those weird things humans do.

Since I'm always on the lookout for signs that an unacceptable level of stress is being caused by way of the dog's body language, I would say so if that's what I saw, but I can't in this case.

TBH I got bored and only watched the first half though.

I make it a rule always to watch these things without sound - that way I can concentrate on what is really happening rather than what someone says is going on.

As for the dog being "high strung" - she looked pretty normal to me.

 

Pam

[jdarling]

From dictionary.com

 

ex⋅cep⋅tion⋅al  /ɪkˈsɛpʃənl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ik-sep-shuh-nl] Show IPA

Use exceptional in a Sentence

See images of exceptional

Search exceptional on the Web

–adjective 1. forming an exception or rare instance; unusual; extraordinary: The warm weather was exceptional for January.

2. unusually excellent; superior: an exceptional violinist.

3. Education. (of a child) a. being intellectually gifted.

b. being physically or esp. mentally handicapped to an extent that special schooling is required.

 

un⋅u⋅su⋅al  /ʌnˈyuʒuəl, -ˈyuʒwəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhn-yoo-zhoo-uhl, -yoozh-wuhl] Show IPA

Use unusual in a Sentence

See images of unusual

Search unusual on the Web

–adjective not usual, common, or ordinary; uncommon in amount or degree; exceptional: an unusual sound; an unusual hobby; an unusual response.

 

(The bolding is, of course, mine.)

 

I'm all about using the method that is clear to the dog. If getting in the dog's space is "disrespectful", and if intimidating the dog, at times, is bad bad bad ... I'm okay with it. I don't have the time, interest, or energy to attempt training the all-positive thing. And by the time the dog figures out what I want, I might not have any sheep left.

[PSmitty]

I'm usually one to come down hard on CM and his like but I have to say that in this instance I agree with you.

Yes the guy was intimidating the dog to start with and it was both pointless and unfair, but this particular dog soon learned how to handle him. I guess she'd just put it down to yet another of those weird things humans do.

Since I'm always on the lookout for signs that an unacceptable level of stress is being caused by way of the dog's body language, I would say so if that's what I saw, but I can't in this case.

TBH I got bored and only watched the first half though.

I make it a rule always to watch these things without sound - that way I can concentrate on what is really happening rather than what someone says is going on.

As for the dog being "high strung" - she looked pretty normal to me.

 

Pam

 

I didn't think this video was horrible to watch. The dog seemed appeasing, and then content and playful, and did indeed seem to be trying to figure out what this guy wanted. She seemed pretty resilient and happy-go-lucky. But... could the guy have gotten the dog to stay down without poking at her? I have no doubt; I watched my trainer do this over and over with different dogs over the course of a few rounds of "Basic Obedience." So, I'm not sure why the need for the poking time, especially with a dog who so obviously wants to curry favor.

 

Mary

 

 

Ditto all this. I'm not a CM fan, and it's obvious that this guy, with his "sssht" noises and poking is a CM wannabe. But I didn't see anything awful with the video, even though I would not have handled her the same way. I couldn't tell if the dog really relaxed, or just gave in and laid there because she figured out that's what he wanted. But, in this particular case, I don't think it really mattered. She was just an excited, happy girl and he wanted her to stop jumping and calm down. Which she did. If this was an aggressive or fearful dog with other issues, this approach would likely backfire, and I'd disagree with the same approach.

 

And they call that high strung? Not from what I saw.

 

ETA: another quote I agreed with, since I finally read the whole thread.

[juliepoudrier]

I'm all about using the method that is clear to the dog. If getting in the dog's space is "disrespectful", and if intimidating the dog, at times, is bad bad bad ... I'm okay with it. I don't have the time, interest, or energy to attempt training the all-positive thing. And by the time the dog figures out what I want, I might not have any sheep left.

I agree. Once again, I think the different perspectives here have to do with the way we perceive, raise, and train (and for what purpose) our own dogs. When Ranger was repeatedly hanging onto my sheep in the round pen the other day I didn't stop to think if I was being disrespectful, arrogant, hurting his feelings, or terrorizing him--he was being unfair, unkind, and terrorizing my sheep and so he got rapped across the nose (once) with a stick. I will note that he had already shown me he knew how to work properly (i.e., NOT grabbing the sheep), so it wasn't a case of a confused pup trying to figure things out, but rather a pup testing his limits, and he soon found out what that limit was. I'm sure the sheep were grateful for my intervention. And before there are gasps of abuse and the like, consider the *livestock* as well. Abuse becomes a bit more fluid then, and a well-timed correction can save the dog a lot of angst and stock a lot of fear and pain.

 

Julie W,

I consider stepping toward the dog, using my body pressure, even using voice corrections as something akin to being "in a dog's face," especially if a dog is being a real jerk toward the stock. I've seen a number of well-known stockdog training clinicians get in a dog's face, with no lasting harm to the dog. In fact, more often than not the dog seemed relieved to know there were clear boundaries and what they were. I gather from some of the comments here that such training methods would be considered overly harsh and disrespectful. Then again, most of the folks making those comments aren't dealing with a third species that also needs/deserves protection and respect.

 

As I've said on this forum before, the only time I consider it acceptable to be truly physical with a dog is when another life is at stake, especially if it's an animal that could easily be hurt by the dog. Getting physical doesn't necessarily equate with hurting or abusing the dog either. More often than not, the dog simply gets a scruff shake (or the equivalent with the "cheek hairs") and some in-your-face voice corrections. I have no doubt that would horrify some of the folks on this forum, but I'm not about to risk lives while I try to train the dog that such behavior is unacceptable over the course of hours or days/weeks.

 

Kristine,

I was not trying for sarcasm with my remark about positive trainers (though you're correct that I was using sarcasm when I noted that folks were reading a whole lot of human and dog intent into the video). I truly wonder if the first part of that video had not been there and all we had seen was everything after the lying down part if anyone who has responded to this thread would have been quite so offended. My understanding of your training methods is that in part you encourage offered behaviors you want and discourage (by ignoring or not encouraging) offered behaviors you don't want. In the case of this trainer, when the dog rolled he igored it and instead encouraged the dog to come to him and sit. He rewarded the dog with treats for doing what he wanted. So my point was that aside from the very beginning of the video, his training methods weren't completely off the wall and in fact seem to be advocated by members of this forum.

 

I have a dog who will bite with little provocation if one of his bite triggers is "breached." He came to me that way and I've had him for nearly 10 years now. I've been bitten three times, only once was there broken skin. This is a dog with a screw loose. I read him well, but obviously have not been careful on at least three occasions. But I find it hard to believe that anyone looking at a video that's not even that clear (although perhaps the difference here is that I'm viewing the video on the small screen of a laptop and maybe those of you who are seeing such detail are viewing it in HD on large screens) can read a dog's eyes/face and make fair assumptions about what the dog is thinking and feeling. I can certainly do it with the dog in front of me, but just don't trust the clarity of what I see on my computer screen to make the same determination while watching such a video(s).

 

J.

[mum24dog]

read a dog's eyes/face and make fair assumptions about what the dog is thinking and feeling.

 

Just to say that reading a dog's body language means looking at what every part of the body is doing, not just the face.

 

Pam

[Eileen Stein]

"Exceptional" experience? Again, words are being attributed to me that I never said. Words which change the meaning of what I actually said quite a bit.

 

What I did say was, "a very unusual amount of practice in reading dog's expressions and body language". "Unusual amount" is different from "exceptional". I'm not going to pretend that I have no experience with this and that I know nothing and that I don't trust my own judgment when it comes to seeing what I see, but that does not mean that I consider my experience "exceptional". I hope that clarifies the matter.

 

As far as thinking that Julie is inferior, now that's an assumption! And an incorrect one.

 

What you wrote was: "I guess I've had a very unusual amount of practice in reading dog's expressions and body language. It never occurred to me before that is not typical."

 

I can see no difference between "a very unusual amount" and "exceptional." And what made it suddenly occur to you that such a very unusual level of experience is not typical -- not shared by others -- if not Julie's comment to which you were responding? To me the implication was pretty clear. I'm glad to hear it was not intended.

 

Thanks for the clarification. When someone quotes me, I do usually consider the comments either directed to me, or at least tied to what was quoted. I guess that's an assumption on my part, but kind of a logical one.

 

Well, the clue that it wasn't directed exclusively at you was that it was not you, but others, who had said the things I referred to. But I have already acknowledged that my blending of the two was confusing.

 

Just as you are assuming that Lucy is actually relaxed and/or "offering" behaviors for reinforcement, and I would say that that assumption is inconsistent with her observable demeanor.

 

No, I am not assuming that. I said only that it looked to me as if she was offering behaviors. Rave OTOH assumed appeasement as a fact in order to ridicule my "offering behaviors" terminology. ("LOL the dog rolling to appease when he reached down for her is offering a behavior? laugh.gif") There IS a difference. But maybe to be able to appreciate the difference you have to have a very unusual amount of practice in . . . . No, I would never want to say something so offensive.

 

I guess the conclusion I draw from a lot of the posts on this thread is that if one firmly believes that X invariably results in Y, then when one sees X one will be very much inclined to see Y.

[Smokjbc]

It's amazing to me that people who have trained their dogs to perform advanced work, with another species in play, with no treats, from distances of 600 yards and far more, have to defend their ability to read a dog's body language.

[kelpiegirl]

I guess I should have been more clear. When I have corrected my dog on sheep, and basically in doing so, mirroring what I have been taught, is to stop the action, and get into the space, clearly- a line helps. Yes, sometimes, you have to make a more emphatic dictum, but I don't go up to the dog, and poke him and lean into him for protracted periods, I make it clear that they are my sheep, by my stance, and being where I need to be at the right time. Yes, sometimes you need to be more emphatic, but I find timing, and release of pressure has much more bang for the buck, then the severity of the correction. THAT I know from experience By the way, I think you and I agree on training methods....

 

 

 

Julie W,

I consider stepping toward the dog, using my body pressure, even using voice corrections as something akin to being "in a dog's face," especially if a dog is being a real jerk toward the stock. I've seen a number of well-known stockdog training clinicians get in a dog's face, with no lasting harm to the dog. In fact, more often than not the dog seemed relieved to know there were clear boundaries and what they were. I gather from some of the comments here that such training methods would be considered overly harsh and disrespectful. Then again, most of the folks making those comments aren't dealing with a third species that also needs/deserves protection and respect.

 

As I've said on this forum before, the only time I consider it acceptable to be truly physical with a dog is when another life is at stake, especially if it's an animal that could easily be hurt by the dog. Getting physical doesn't necessarily equate with hurting or abusing the dog either. More often than not, the dog simply gets a scruff shake (or the equivalent with the "cheek hairs") and some in-your-face voice corrections. I have no doubt that would horrify some of the folks on this forum, but I'm not about to risk lives while I try to train the dog that such behavior is unacceptable over the course of hours or days/weeks.

 

 

[/quote

[juliepoudrier]

Just to say that reading a dog's body language means looking at what every part of the body is doing, not just the face.

 

Pam

Thank you Pam, I know that. I was responding to comments about reading the dog's facial expression, when frankly I didn't find the video clear enough (as I've already stated) to actually read any facial expressions. I certainly didn't see a dog whose body language said it was overly stressed or even much intimidated.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

It's amazing to me that people who have trained their dogs to perform advanced work, with another species in play, with no treats, from distances of 600 yards and far more, have to defend their ability to read a dog's body language.

Thank you. At least my ability to read the sheep's body language isn't being called into question, lol!

 

J.

[Root Beer]

I agree. Once again, I think the different perspectives here have to do with the way we perceive, raise, and train (and for what purpose) our own dogs.

 

True. I guess that if you look closely into any discipline into which one is going to invest a great deal of time and work, this will be true. There will be differing perspectives that determine the way we perceive things and make choices about those things. Bring a living being into the picture and it becomes all the more complex and varied.

 

One thing that is even more interesting to me than training itself (which I do find exceptionally interesting. ) is the level of emotion that is brought forth within those discussions. And I'd say that goes for everybody, myself included.

 

The fact that some see presentation of another viewpoint as an expression of being offended really illustrates this.

 

It is my opinion that our perspectives have a lot to do with that, as well.

 

I know, for instance, that many here would not understand why it makes me cringe to watch a dog be trained with corrections (I am specifically talking off stock here) And I also know that many here would be offended by that and take it personally, in spite of the fact that my personal response to seeing that take place has absolutely nothing to do with them personally. I've experienced this online and "in real life" too many times to count!

 

And I know that the opposite is true. I know that there are those who cringe to watch a dog be trained with reinforcement. I'm not offended by that, but I will admit that I really don't understand what is so horrifying about it. See the parallel? Trainers who use corrections don't see why I am bothered by what they do any more than I don't see why they are bothered by what I do.

 

I hope that makes sense. That statement is not based on anything except my own musing and personal point of view.

 

And I've found that it really goes both ways. More than "both" ways, actually, since there are many points of view that one can come from on this. Of course, that may be an exceptional assumption that attributes emotions that aren't there to both people and dogs. But that's still what I think! (Humor intended, not snark!)

[Root Beer]

What you wrote was: "I guess I've had a very unusual amount of practice in reading dog's expressions and body language. It never occurred to me before that is not typical."

 

I can see no difference between "a very unusual amount" and "exceptional." And what made it suddenly occur to you that such a very unusual level of experience is not typical -- not shared by others -- if not Julie's comment to which you were responding?

 

I hope I can clarify this without confusing anyone further.

 

Julie plainly said that she did not see enough in that video clip to make a judgment on the dog's state of mind.

 

Frankly, that surprised me. I know that she has a lot of experience with dogs and nothing that I ever said or thought indicated different. However, I clearly saw a plethora of information about that dog (from her body language and expressions ) in just that tiny little clip. And that fact has absolutely nothing to do with Julie personally. That does not mean that I know everything there is to know about the dog - far from it. But I am not going to deny what I see because her perspective is different from mine. At the same time, having my observations dismissed as "making assumptions" is exactly what led me to think that my experience must be unusual.

 

Now, lest anyone think I am calling Julie's ability to read a dog's body language into question, let me be perfectly clear that I am not. (The idea that I was is definitely an assumption. I can attest to that fact!)

 

I hope that clarifies that. As far as unusual = exceptional. I was not using the word in that sense. I was using it in the sense of "not universal or not the norm".

[topnotchdog]

Once again, I think the different perspectives here have to do with the way we perceive, raise, and train (and for what purpose) our own dogs. When Ranger was repeatedly hanging onto my sheep in the round pen the other day I didn't stop to think if I was being disrespectful, arrogant, hurting his feelings, or terrorizing him--he was being unfair, unkind, and terrorizing my sheep and so he got rapped across the nose (once) with a stick. I will note that he had already shown me he knew how to work properly (i.e., NOT grabbing the sheep), so it wasn't a case of a confused pup trying to figure things out, but rather a pup testing his limits, and he soon found out what that limit was. I'm sure the sheep were grateful for my intervention. And before there are gasps of abuse and the like, consider the *livestock* as well. Abuse becomes a bit more fluid then, and a well-timed correction can save the dog a lot of angst and stock a lot of fear and pain.

 

Until I started learning about using a dog to work stock, I would have been aghast at the notion of rapping a dog across the nose with a stick. But as Julie's post shows, the purpose for the dog, the need to prevent stress and injury for all involved, and the *thought and care* (not to mention experience) which can go into (relatively mild) physical punishment, have shown me how appropriate and even necessary such a response can be in the context of working stock. (I remember one lesson last spring I watched, and was *amazed* to see the dog truly relaxed, using her mind again, eager to work, and safer for the sheep after such a correction. The dog reveals all, is my motto.) From what I have seen, a truly skilled stock person uses a lot of well-timed rewards and fewer (but also very well-timed) punishments to guide the dog in his work, and is always reading both the dog and the sheep to see how they are doing and what they need. It is very different from any other training I have done or watched.

 

As for work off stock, leash manners, agility, tricks, and coming when called (which I imagine sets the tone for the stock work in some ways), I am much more inclined to train like Kristine, teaching what I want through reward-based methods (positive reinforcement and some negative punishment) and only gradually adding the challenge of distractions as the dog's understanding grows. Ask me again in a year, lol!

 

Barbara

[Root Beer]

But I find it hard to believe that anyone looking at a video that's not even that clear (although perhaps the difference here is that I'm viewing the video on the small screen of a laptop and maybe those of you who are seeing such detail are viewing it in HD on large screens) can read a dog's eyes/face and make fair assumptions about what the dog is thinking and feeling. I can certainly do it with the dog in front of me, but just don't trust the clarity of what I see on my computer screen to make the same determination while watching such a video(s).

 

J.

 

Maybe picture quality is the key to our differing perspective.

 

I'm not viewing it on a large screen, but I can clearly see the dog's face and full body and I observed a great deal of body language and expression just in that small clip.

 

I realize that you consider my observations to be "assumptions". I disagree with that assessment. I am not claiming to know everything there is to know about the dog - far from it. But to me some things are clear.

 

My intention is not to offend anyone by saying that (I know you aren't offended), but simply to clarify where I'm coming from.

[mum24dog]

Thank you Pam, I know that.

 

I don't doubt it, but not everyone reading this thread will.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

I'm not viewing it on a large screen, but I can clearly see the dog's face and full body and I observed a great deal of body language and expression just in that small clip.

 

Perhaps you could itemise so we can discuss how each of us interprets each behaviour.

 

Pam

[Debbie Meier]

I have a question for Kristine, this came up this past weekend when I was working JJ through an exciting situation at a demonstration. Another group was doing protection work and JJ was getting all excited and amped up, barking and whining wanting to jump into the mix.

 

How would you go about teaching him to control himself and not engage the situation? I want him to behaive like my other dogs, quietly minding their own business in their crate or where ever I put them. I want it so that I do not have to be there to babysit him so that he understands that his job is to not go and find work until I send him.

[juliepoudrier]

^^Yes, please (re: Pam'srequest). I went back and watched the video again to see what I had apparently missed the first time, and while Lucy appeared rather stiff while she was lying on her side (although my own Lark lies just like that when she wants a belly rub, half over, front legs up and curled, head and neck sometimes up, sometimes down), I didn't see any obvious signs of distress or discomfort in the rest of the video. Yes, she tried rolling a couple of times, got nothing for it and so stopped it. I'm just not seeing the body language you (Kristine) are that says the dog is stressed. Maybe if you pointed out exactly what you're seeing, we could all learn from it.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Perhaps you could itemise so we can discuss how each of us interprets each behaviour.

 

Pam

 

Itemise? What do you mean? I haven't done that with a video before and I'm not sure what you would want to see.

[Root Beer]

I have a question for Kristine, this came up this past weekend when I was working JJ through an exciting situation at a demonstration. Another group was doing protection work and JJ was getting all excited and amped up, barking and whining wanting to jump into the mix.

 

How would you go about teaching him to control himself and not engage the situation? I want him to behaive like my other dogs, quietly minding their own business in their crate or where ever I put them. I want it so that I do not have to be there to babysit him so that he understands that his job is to not go and find work until I send him.

 

I would start working with him in a situation with no exciting distractions, like my living room at home or an empty training building.

 

I would teach the Look at That game from Control Unleashed in that setting. I would also use food reinforcement to teach the dog to relax in the crate in that setting, starting with me in the room and gradually building to me leaving the room and returning. At this stage, I would work at whatever pace the dog needed to be successful.

 

Once the dog had a duration of relaxation in the crate for several minutes whether I am in the room or not, I would get a friend or family member to start bringing in one of my other dogs to serve as a low level distraction. At first that person and dog would just walk through, but I would build to tug play, etc., as the dog is ready for more.

 

I would alternate between having the dog play Look at That outside of the crate and relaxing inside the crate. I would not care if the dog were watching the other dog and person from the crate, but I'd be looking for relaxed interest.

 

Once the dog got to the point where the other person could tug, run, etc. with the other dog, I would take the whole process on the road. I'd probably start working with my dog on the sidelines at an outdoor Agility class, if possible, but I realize that is probably not an option for you. A park where people are playing games with dogs would suffice as an increase in distraction level that is not yet the "real thing".

 

Same thing - Look at That outside the crate and relaxation in the crate. By now I would expect that the dog would really be getting the gist of the process and I would be able to gauge the dog's ability to see stuff going on around him and be nonchalant about it without food rewards. I've found that when the dog really "gets" it, the need for reinforcement decreases very quickly.

 

From there I would go into real settings and see what I see.

 

Of course, that's just an initial game plan. There are always adjustments to make when I get to working with a dog and individual needs crop up. Sometimes whole steps can be skipped and sometimes certain steps need to take place for a longer time or tweaked.

 

In general, though, that would be my approach - Look at That from Control Unleashed, teaching relaxation in the crate, and going at the dog's learning pace.

 

If I needed the dog at a demonstration in the meantime, I would crate the dog and cover the crate when it's not his turn. Management is not a solution, but it's a tool that is often under appreciated. (I'm not saying by you, but what I've seen in general when working with people).

 

Incidentally, this is similar to the process through which Dean transformed from a barking, lunging, bug eyed nut when dogs were doing Agility or a car was passing by into a dog who can see those things, take them in, and mind his own business. So, I am not presenting theory here, but a process that I took a dog through and it definitely worked. And yes, now that he has learned this, I do not have to have treats on me all the time. He knows it now - he's not just doing this for food.

 

I know this would not be everyone's approach and there are some on here who will find some problem with it, but you did ask what I would do - and that is exactly what I would do. Please realize that I love taking a dog through these steps of training.

[Guest echoica]

I think what it comes down to is whether or not THIS METHOD portrayed in the video (which IMO looks like an attempt to instill fear - faux calm - via positive punishment to create a behaviour of lying down) was the MOST APPROPRIATE for THIS DOG in THIS SITUATION according to what WE CAN SEE IN THE VIDEO ALONE?

 

I think not. Why?

 

1. The dog was excited...not aggressive. Fearful? Not likely. I think that much is pretty clear by the willingness of the dog to take instruction without incident.

2. It was not a life or death situation involving stock, other animals or humans.

3. Are there are other methods to achieve this end other than (unnecessarily) poking and proding the dog? YES. They might not be easier but...

4. Will the desired behaviour (calm) generalize to other people and situations? I doubt it. Another method would probably provide for better long term results.

5. Can this create fear over time? YES, with the wrong dog. Even an apparently happy-go-lucky dog.

 

Does this guy remind me of CM like the OP suggested? Ha! Yes indeed. What a rip-off. The Dog Whisperer show is wayyyy more entertaining And I like CM - for the record - because he has a lot to teach people in many ways. This guy? Not so much

[mum24dog]

Itemise? What do you mean? I haven't done that with a video before and I'm not sure what you would want to see.

 

I mean list each aspect of the dog's behaviour and give your own interpretation of it.

 

Pam