'Dog Whisperer' being sued for injury of dog!

[mojozen]

'Dog Whisperer' sued by TV Producer (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/05/tv.us.dogwhisperer.ap/index.html)

A television producer is suing dog trainer Cesar Millan, star of TV's "The Dog Whisperer," claiming that his Labrador retriever was injured at Millan's training facility after being suffocated by a choke collar and forced to run on a treadmill.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Superior Court, "8 Simple Rules" producer Flody Suarez says he took 5-year-old Gator to the Dog Psychology Center on February 27 to deal with fears of other dogs and strangers.

Hours after dropping the dog off at the facility, Suarez claimed a worker called to inform him the animal had been rushed to a veterinarian. He later found the dog "bleeding from his mouth and nose, in an oxygen tent gasping for breath and with severe bruising to his back inner thighs," the lawsuit claims.

The facility's workers allegedly placed a choke collar on the dog, pulled him onto a treadmill and forced him to "overwork." Suarez says he spent at least $25,000 on medical bills and the dog must undergo more surgeries for damage to his esophagus.

A call to the Dog Psychology Center, also named as a defendant, was not immediately returned. A spokesman for National Geographic Channel, which airs Millan's show, declined comment.

"As of this time, the National Geographic Channel has not been served with either lawsuit, and we do not comment on pending litigation," said Russell Howard, the channel's vice president of communications.

The complaint claims breach of contract, fraud, animal cruelty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other allegations. It seeks more than $25,000 in damages.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[whatszmatter]

25 Grand in vet bills!?!?!?!?!, What did they do, build a new dog from scratch?

[AusCatDogs_4Ever]

WOW. That's horrible... I hope the dog gets through the serguries ok. :(

[mojozen]

25 Grand in vet bills!?!?!?!?!, What did they do, build a new dog from scratch?

Surgeries cost money. It could very well cost $25,000 to do surgeries on a dog. I met a dog owner in the Vet hospital when I took my hedgehog in that had already spent $15000 on surgeries and physical therapy for her dog who had a back deformity.

[PoodleMommy]

Yes, Vets sure do make a lot of money.

Surgery Costs can really add up...

I feel really bad for this person and his dog OF COURSE.

I do not watch the show, I have seen the guy on a few shows (Oprah, etc) and thought he seemed a little rough.

For anyone who has watched the show, does this surprise you?
Does Cesar seem like a good dog trainer or not?

Just Wondering

Elissa

[JennSLK]

I hope the dog owner wins. I really dont like the dog "whisperer"

[SalemWitchChild]

Cesar is a dog psychologist not a dog trainer. And no it doesn't seem like he would do something like this.

[pup-man]

I hope the dog owner wins. I really dont like the dog "whisperer"

Why not? Is it because he helps a lot of people with problems? OR do you just not like his method?

[PoodleMommy]

if he is a psychologist why was he using a choke chain and treadmill?

[dr2little]

Cesar is a dog psychologist not a dog trainer. And no it doesn't seem like he would do something like this.

Cesar is neither a dog psychologist or a dog trainer. He has no credentials unless you think that being a dog walker and dog groomer (no education for either) warrent the title "dog psychologist". I knew it was just a matter of time before he was "found out", I'm just so sorry for the poor dog and family who had to suffer for Cesar to be seen for the cruel, irresponsible, nutcase that he is. :mad: THE WORLD OF TRUE EDUCATED DOG PROFESSIONALS WILL REJOICE OVER HIS DOWNFALL!!

[dr2little]

Why not? Is it because he helps a lot of people with problems? OR do you just not like his method?

If you have watched the show, the question would be almost silly. This guy uses physical force to "train" or "rehabilitate" dogs. If the dogs tongue isn't blue or the dog isn't showing severe signs of stress, he can't seem to make any progress. As for his track record...did deeper, you'll find this isn't the first case of cruelty or even death at his facility. I hope this puts and end to his abuse and provides an answer to all those on this site who are card carrying "Cesar fans".

[SalemWitchChild]

if he is a psychologist why was he using a choke chain and treadmill?

Good question. I've never saw him recommend something like that on one of his shows.

Cesar is neither a dog psychologist or a dog trainer. He has no credentials unless you think that being a dog walker and dog groomer (no education for either) warrent the title "dog psychologist". I knew it was just a matter of time before he was "found out", I'm just so sorry for the poor dog and family who had to suffer for Cesar to be seen for the cruel, irresponsible, nutcase that he is. THE WORLD OF TRUE EDUCATED DOG PROFESSIONALS WILL REJOICE OVER HIS DOWNFALL!!

Do you have references to prove that he is not? I'm not arguing with your statement but references would be nice. :)

If he has no degree then isn't that fraud?:confused:

[pup-man]

If you have watched the show, the question would be almost silly. This guy uses physical force to "train" or "rehabilitate" dogs. If the dogs tongue isn't blue or the dog isn't showing severe signs of stress, he can't seem to make any progress. As for his track record...did deeper, you'll find this isn't the first case of cruelty or even death at his facility. I hope this puts and end to his abuse and provides an answer to all those on this site who are card carrying "Cesar fans".

So you don't like his method?

I don't think Ceaser has a direct contact to those who go to his facility.... If I'm not mistaken, he is there about 6 hours a week.

[JennSLK]

Why not? Is it because he helps a lot of people with problems? OR do you just not like his method?

Because he helps alot of people, thats why I dont like him. :rolleyes: That was a stupid comment you made. Why would I not like someone because they help alot of people.

I dont like him because he is cruel. He uses force.

[SalemWitchChild]

If you have watched the show, the question would be almost silly. This guy uses physical force to "train" or "rehabilitate" dogs. If the dogs tongue isn't blue or the dog isn't showing severe signs of stress, he can't seem to make any progress. As for his track record...did deeper, you'll find this isn't the first case of cruelty or even death at his facility. I hope this puts and end to his abuse and provides an answer to all those on this site who are card carrying "Cesar fans".

I am digging deeper, and nothing is coming up but dogs he has helped rehabilitate after cruelty.. Since I am having no luck finding it please give a link to another case where he has done cruelty?

[Doberluv]

For anyone who has watched the show, does this surprise you?
Does Cesar seem like a good dog trainer or not?

No, it doesn't suprise me one bit. He regularily uses force, intimidation, dominance to get dogs to do what he wants them to do. Just the other night I watched an episode where he forced a Golden down on his side, bragging how he was pressing hard with one finger into the dogs carotid artery area and forced this terrified dog to have his nails clipped. It took all of 2 or 3 minutes to accomplish, Ceasar got bitten in a few locations on his hand and arm and his nose was bleeding enough that he needed a kleenex stuck in his nostril the rest of the show.

I took my son's dog, a Pitbull mix who was 10 times more vicious about getting her nails clipped than that dog..no vet would touch her without anesthesia, a muzzle wouldn't do so that couldn't be afforded by my son, nor would it be healthy for the dog......and so over a period of about 4 days I conditioned her gradually, all associated with ice cream, happy voices, belly rubs....for letting me tap her nails with the clippers to scraping off a smiggen of one or two and then slowly day by day to being relaxed about getting all her nails clipped. This was over a year ago and she is still perfectly happy to get her nails clipped.

You do not need to force a dog. A dog can be taught things without stressing the poor animal and ruining trust. His idea is that the dog will trust once he find out that it's not so bad. Well, that doesn't happen. The stress level gets so high, the dog's adreneline is so high, fight or flight drive is so high that his autonomic nervous system is taking over. His thinking part of his brain is not even in gear. He can learn nothing by what is being attempted. That's a medical fact.

On another episode I watched him drag a Labrador Retriever across a wood floor that she was terrified of. I'm not talking apprehensive of (in which case I wouldn't have a problem hurrying up and proving to the dog that it's OK) No....this dog was more than mildly worried about it. He tightened up that choke chain while the dog attempted to plant her feet and he dragged her by her neck. I cringed. He's all the while saying all this bs about calm submissive. She was submissive all right, not calm. She never came to look comfortable with it.

Most of these episodes I've seen where you're suppose to be brainwashed into thinking the dog is just fine with being forced and flooded with highly stressful stimuli, I have never seen evidence of the dog being comfortable or showing body language which shows the dog is happy. The dogs are simply submitting to domination and intimidation. And he says that's what is natural. That is not what's natural.

All this talk about pack animals and heirarchy is way, way, way over done. Newer research shows that dogs are not descended directly from wolves, but from feral, solitary dogs who were descended from wolves. Our domestic dogs are not wolves and to use that romantisizing concept with them is ignorant and harmful.

Cesar is a dog psychologist not a dog trainer.

Correction: He has no education, no degree in canine psychology. He is merely a self proclaimed dog psychologist who grew up with a lot of dogs and set out to quickly "fix" problem dogs not by teaching them anything, but by covering up their problems forcefully so that they appear to be fine because the behaviors are stopped.....for the time being. He plays up this mimicking of a wolf's or dog's body language (the best he can being a human being) and uses some sort of 60's, hippy sounding terminology like calm submissive. He may indeed stop certain behaviors, but at what cost to the dog?

No, I'm not suprised at all that a dog got injured. I expect to see more dogs out there in TV land getting injured, more relationships between dogs and owners being ruined, more human bites than ever. It's a real shame that people are going to be imitating his alpha rolls, his forcing dogs into fearful situations, his yanking straight up on the choke collars against their tracheas, his practice of not praising or rewarding the dog until the dog is perfect.....in a "calm, submissive" posture.

[dr2little]

Good question. I've never saw him recommend something like that on one of his shows.



Do you have references to prove that he is not? I'm not arguing with your statement but references would be nice. :)

If he has no degree then isn't that fraud?:confused:

Even in reading his own book you'll see that he has no education in the Canine psychology field. He was a groomer, then move to LA to become a dog walker and just DECIDED that he would deem himself an expert. He has been a thorn in the side of all of us who do have credentials and experience and have done the work and research to be able to successfully help dogs without physical punishment.

As for the choke chain. He not only uses them or some form of them on every show but he tells people (on air) how to make them with 10 cent strips of twine:mad: There needs to be some regulation to stop people like this before they end up in the news.:confused:

[Zoom]

It says right in the article that a WORKER is the one who used the collar and put the dog on the treadmill, not Caesar himself. One could argue that since it's his place, he's still responsible for what his workers do, but at the same time, everyone on here has said how much they hate Caesar for doing that to the dog, when it was not The Dog Whisperer himself.

I have seen him use the treadmill on his show before, and he also said that a dog on a treadmill should always always always be supervised in case it trips or freaks out.

Not everyone has a 'degree' in dog training. It's a piece of paper that says you went through some crackerjack course. He's had enough real-world hands-on experience that I think he knows what he's talking about. Of course there are going to be those who disagree with him and his methods, it's the nature of the business. But at the same time, I think I have a fairly good handle on dog body-language just from the countless hours I've spent supervising doggie daycare. You pick this stuff up and it sounds like he's been working with dogs his whole life, and dog walking/grooming was something to bring in money and get more hands-on experience.

Jenn, if you disagree with use of *any* force, then you'd better rethink Schutzhund.

[mojozen]

I am not surprised. i've tried to watch his show and was horrified by his methods. I now refuse to watch it. I am not going to contibute to his ratings. He MAY not have done it, but he has recommded these same things in the past... and since he OWNS the place that this happened that DOES make HIM responsible for what happened. It's called liability.

[pup-man]

I'd rather have hands on experience than some paper telling me I'm educated.

[dr2little]

So you don't like his method?

I don't think Ceaser has a direct contact to those who go to his facility.... If I'm not mistaken, he is there about 6 hours a week.

Of course I don't like this method.....do you??:confused:
He is ultimately responsible for what goes on in his facility but I'm sure he'll use that flimsy excuse to try to wiggle his way of this lawsuit!:mad:

[dr2little]

I am digging deeper, and nothing is coming up but dogs he has helped rehabilitate after cruelty.. Since I am having no luck finding it please give a link to another case where he has done cruelty?

I will post later when I have the time to search, but really....have you watched the show? What does it take for people to realize that choking a dog is WRONG!! I am shocked by how many people can view his methods with their own eyes and still ask the question!:confused:

[pup-man]

I watch the show all the time... and as a last resort, YES I think his method is appropriate under the circumstances.... most of the people that are on his show have already said they have gone through numerous trainers with no results.

[SalemWitchChild]

Yes I have watched his show. But admittedly never read his book. I have never saw him choke the dog. I know he likes to have the lead high on the neck so you have more control over the head. But he isn't putting a lot of pressure on it.

I don't agree with everything he has done.. But I hardly think he is cruel to animals. Until I am proved wrong with reputable sources I cannot and will not change my opinion of him. He has done a lot of good for animals as far as I can tell.

[mojozen]

I watch the show all the time... and as a last resort, YES I think his method is appropriate under the circumstances.... most of the people that are on his show have already said they have gone through numerous trainers with no results.

You have to do training at home too. Just letting a trainer train your dog, but not practicing the same things will nto solve the problem. Dogs are NOT generalists. They don't take a lesson they learned in one place under one set of circumstances and apply it to something even slightly different. I can't train my dog to sit only in the safety of his home, and then except him to sit while sitting in front of a courtyard full of pigeons without training him there too.

Same way with these dogs. They may very well "learn" the lesson at the trainers, but they won't apply it to their home situation.

[Zoom]

Everything else aside, would you rather have a dog end up in a kill-shelter/pts or on Ceasar's show?

[Doberluv]

Education is substantially more than a little piece of paper. What an ignorant concept. Is that how we've gone from the 1500's to the present with medicine? Is that how we've gone from no knoweldge of outer space from hundreds of years ago to what we have now? Is that how anything came to change for the better? From no education? That's absolute nonsense. Canine behaviorists, psychologists, trainers go to school where they learn what others have learned before them by extensive research, observation, experimentation, proof of how animals learn. So, that bit of nonsense is woefully ignorant. No offense intended in a personal way, just that the idea is so ridiculous.

He most certainly is responsible because this is what he teaches people and what he promotes, even if he would have been more careful. He promotes force and domination. If you have to do something with a dog which needs disclaimers written all over the screen, what kind of training is that?

And what is this doing to the psyches of these dogs? To distrust people, that people cause pain and fear. I shudder to think of the future of our dogs if this guy continues. It is an optomistic hope that this is a passing fad and that real trainers who promote methods which have been proven to train with much less wear and tear on dogs will prevail.

[mojozen]

I'd rather have a dog pts than to go through Cesar's idea of training... especially if it was a dog of mine. My personal opinion however.

[dr2little]

Not everyone has a 'degree' in dog training. It's a piece of paper that says you went through some crackerjack course. He's had enough real-world hands-on experience that I think he knows what he's talking about. Of course there are going to be those who disagree with him and his methods, it's the nature of the business. But at the same time, I think I have a fairly good handle on dog body-language just from the countless hours I've spent supervising doggie daycare. You pick this stuff up and it sounds like he's been working with dogs his whole life, and dog walking/grooming was something to bring in money and get more hands-on experience.

Jenn, if you disagree with use of *any* force, then you'd better rethink Schutzhund.
First of all, I am a 45 year old woman who has worked with dogs all my life. As for crackerjack course, I am university educated as well and certified in canine behavior! What an insult! I do know what I'm talking about....do you?
It appears that the proponents for physical punishment are usually the people without the education to back it up! By the way, lots of people can have "experience" with dogs but it doesn't make them experts or even correct in their methods. If you gain your experience by watching cruel idiots, you will usually adopt those same methods...unless you get yourself a current education. GAWWD, I thought that most people would be FOR the dog not the ABUSER!!!:mad: As for Schutzhund, I've never been involved...you can make your own assumptions as to why!

[Doberluv]

You have to do training at home too. Just letting a trainer train your dog, but not practicing the same things will nto solve the problem. Dogs are NOT generalists. They don't take a lesson they learned in one place under one set of circumstances and apply it to something even slightly different. I can't train my dog to sit only in the safety of his home, and then except him to sit while sitting in front of a courtyard full of pigeons without training him there too.

Same way with these dogs. They may very well "learn" the lesson at the trainers, but they won't apply it to their home situation.

Exactly. People that say that they've tried other trainers or "positive reinforcement" most probably have not had proper training in those methods and like you said, not practiced correctly at other times or places.

In some cases, not all, I'd rather see the dog pts.

[Saje]

First of all, I am a 45 year old woman who has worked with dogs all my life. As for crackerjack course, I am university educated as well and certified in canine behavior! What an insult! I do know what I'm talking about....do you?
It appears that the proponents for physical punishment are usually the people without the education to back it up! By the way, lots of people can have "experience" with dogs but it doesn't make them experts or even correct in their methods. If you gain your experience by watching cruel idiots, you will usually adopt those same methods...unless you get yourself a current education. GAWWD, I thought that most people would be FOR the dog not the ABUSER!!!:mad: As for Schutzhund, I've never been involved...you can make your own assumptions as to why!

Zoom was talking to Jenn not you.

[Zoom]

No no no! I think you misunderstood me! That post was most certainly not aimed at you; I do think you know what you're talking about! What I had in mind was those people who subscribed a six week internet course for dog training, get emailed a piece of paper and then go off and call themselves dog trainers, when they've had little to no hands-on experience. That's the crackerjack course I was meaning.

The Schutzhund comment was aimed another member.

[JennSLK]

For starters were did I say I dissagree with ANY force? Did I not just say I use corrections on Emma? With hermy voice is enought, she is a soft dog. I HARDLY doupt my Sch dog will be soft. Force can be used but force and corrections are TOTALY different that chocking a dog untill it's toung is blue!

[PixieSticksandTricks]

Lets all keep in mind that it does not say he inflicted these inuries his workers did.

Just pointing that out.

[Doberluv]

If one understands how dogs learn and that they are amoral and they do not think in terms of right and wrong, then one would see why corrections, however mild are not only unnecessary, but irrelevant to training. Dogs do not do something out of willfulness or disobedience. When they don't something because they haven't received enough reinforcers for doing it right. Period. So, the point isn't whether a correction is harsh or mild. It's that corrections are incongruous and unneeded for training a dog.

[JennSLK]

Corrections are good because if the dog ALLREADY knows what's expected of him then he should do it. If you dont correct they will learn they dont really have to do it because they dont want to and can get away with it.

[Doberluv]

Corrections are good because if the dog ALLREADY knows what's expected of him then he should do it. If you dont correct they will learn they dont really have to do it because they dont want to and can get away with it.

Hello????? Why should he do it? Because he knows the difference between right and wrong like humans? You think he knows what's expected of him? What's expected of him? He sees a squirrel and hasn't been proofed on his stay in the presence of squirrels (the motivator wasn't as strong as the motivation to chase squirrels) chasing squirrels is fun and much better fun than staying.... in the case of under motivation..... and because he has never been given a reason to stay.... Sorry....doesn't work that way in a dog's psyche. They don't "know" better. Not when they're not trained better. And corrections and punishment are punishing a dog for something that the trainer has failed to teach the dog fully by making the reinforcing history strong enough.

Anyhow, back to CM....If a nurse in a hospital kills a patient, the hospital is sued. The hospital hired the staff and is ultimately responsible for what goes on. If a construction company hires an idiot who's foundation causes a building to collapse, the construction company owner would be responsible. In the case of this worker of CM's, who not only damaged the dog's trachea, caused fear and pain and bruises on the back and inner thighs, (How the hell did that happen?) it is Ceasar who is ultimately responsible for hiring such an idiot.

[JennSLK]

Hello????? Why should he do it? Because he knows the difference between right and wrong like humans? You think he knows what's expected of him? What's expected of him? He sees a squirrel and hasn't been proofed on his stay in the presence of squirrels (the motivator wasn't as strong as the motivation to chase squirrels) chasing squirrels is fun and much better fun than staying.... in the case of under motivation..... and because he has never been given a reason to stay.... Sorry....doesn't work that way in a dog's psyche. They don't "know" better. Not when they're not trained better. And corrections and punishment are punishing a dog for something that the trainer has failed to teach the dog fully by making the reinforcing history strong enough.

Fine whatever. You think what you think and I'll think what I think

[MomOf7]

If you all knew some of the training methods professional Hunt Test or Field Trial people use....You would flip! The strangest would be a marble and a sling shot!:eek: These dogs end up being the NFCS and FC's and MH and so forth. Awsome working dogs! I am not saying I agree or like some of the methods.

I personally dont care for the dog whisperer. Not because of any training method I have seen him use...I just get a bad vibe from him!

[whatszmatter]

If one understands how dogs learn and that they are amoral and they do not think in terms of right and wrong, then one would see why corrections, however mild are not only unnecessary, but irrelevant to training. Dogs do not do something out of willfulness or disobedience. When they don't something because they haven't received enough reinforcers for doing it right. Period. So, the point isn't whether a correction is harsh or mild. It's that corrections are incongruous and unneeded for training a dog.
That is a completely false statement. You can state is as your opinion but is most defineatly NOT a fact. Just because the trainers you chose to say its fact does not make it so, there's much evidence to the contrary and the fact that you say it doesn't exist repeatedly shows me how much you've delved into dog training research, theory, and phsychology.

[MomOf7]

Not everyone does things the same. Just because you dont agree with other techniques it doesnt necessarily make them "wrong" Just different.:D

[elegy]

i assume that the dog's injuries were an accident resulting from the dog either tripping or becoming so exhausted while being run on the treadmill that it fell, and because it was on a choke collar, was strangled. goodness knows if the dog was being supervised or not, but i expect serious damage to a dog's trachea could occur pretty quickly in that kind of a circumstance.

since cesar regularly puts dogs in choke collars on treadmills on his show, it does not surprise me, even while i doubt the dog's injuries resulted from any kind of "correction" or "training". i think it was pure stupidity, carelessness, and the policy of putting dogs in chokers on treadmills.

i have no problem with treadmills. i don't even have much of a problem with choker collars when used correctly. but putting the two together is like begging for a tragedy. and it's exactly what they got.

[tessa_s212]

'Dog Whisperer' sued by TV Producer (http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/05/05/tv.us.dogwhisperer.ap/index.html)

A television producer is suing dog trainer Cesar Millan, star of TV's "The Dog Whisperer," claiming that his Labrador retriever was injured at Millan's training facility after being suffocated by a choke collar and forced to run on a treadmill.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Superior Court, "8 Simple Rules" producer Flody Suarez says he took 5-year-old Gator to the Dog Psychology Center on February 27 to deal with fears of other dogs and strangers.

Hours after dropping the dog off at the facility, Suarez claimed a worker called to inform him the animal had been rushed to a veterinarian. He later found the dog "bleeding from his mouth and nose, in an oxygen tent gasping for breath and with severe bruising to his back inner thighs," the lawsuit claims.

The facility's workers allegedly placed a choke collar on the dog, pulled him onto a treadmill and forced him to "overwork." Suarez says he spent at least $25,000 on medical bills and the dog must undergo more surgeries for damage to his esophagus.

A call to the Dog Psychology Center, also named as a defendant, was not immediately returned. A spokesman for National Geographic Channel, which airs Millan's show, declined comment.

"As of this time, the National Geographic Channel has not been served with either lawsuit, and we do not comment on pending litigation," said Russell Howard, the channel's vice president of communications.

The complaint claims breach of contract, fraud, animal cruelty and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other allegations. It seeks more than $25,000 in damages.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

How horrible. All I can say is FINALLY! The poor dog, but I hope it proves a point to people.

[dr2little]

If you all knew some of the training methods professional Hunt Test or Field Trial people use....You would flip! The strangest would be a marble and a sling shot!:eek: These dogs end up being the NFCS and FC's and MH and so forth. Awsome working dogs! I am not saying I agree or like some of the methods.

I personally dont care for the dog whisperer. Not because of any training method I have seen him use...I just get a bad vibe from him!

Dogs tolerate so much crap from humans, it makes me want to wretch. What kind of arrogance allows someone to use such bargaric methods for sport. Disgusting! Just because it's done doesn't make it right. Awsome working dogs, how dare we!!!!

[Doberluv]

That is a completely false statement. You can state is as your opinion but is most defineatly NOT a fact. Just because the trainers you chose to say its fact does not make it so, there's much evidence to the contrary and the fact that you say it doesn't exist repeatedly shows me how much you've delved into dog training research, theory, and phsychology.

LOL. You have no idea how much I've delved into training research, learning theory and psychology or how long and how many dogs I've worked with in my 50 years...LOL.

This is not only my opinion, but the opinions of many PHDs/advanced degrees in canine behavioral science and many, many well respected dog trainers, marine mammal trainers, other animal trainers and authors. This is the philosophy of most successful and enlightened trainers of service and therapy dogs, S&R dogs, bomb sniffing, cancer sniffing, drug sniffing, movie actor dogs. Even police forces are beginning to use operant conditioning methods for training their dogs. This is the training philosophy of today, based on how dogs think and learn, not based on dominance, coercion, avoidance, fear, worry, pain or any other aversive.

The old scruff and yank and alpha, domination stuff is all based on old, unscientific and disproven wolf studies done on wolves in captivity a long time ago, which have no relevence to our domestic dogs. That kind of garbage is being replaced by something that has been shown to train dogs well, reliably with little to no wear and tear on them.

So, sure it's my opinion and I'm not afraid to state it. But it's most certainly not my opinion alone. ROFLOL.

[whatszmatter]

and yet my post had nothing to do with yank em crank em grab the scruff, alpha stuff did it??

Nor have I advocated that anywhere, and YES, when you say the statements like you did and there is a lot to the contrary, and you simply want to close your eyes to it. Fine. A lot of it comes from the same respected people you're quoting and talking about. I've even put it out there for you. I could take more time and put more out there, but we both know where that would get us.

It wouldn't prove you're right or wrong, but it is there, so just continue to ignore it. There is a time and place for both in training to deny it doesn't make you any more right.

and what's all the laughing for??

[Doberluv]

I was not referring to anything you posted. I don't even remember what you posted. I'm comparing this kind of training to Ceasar's way...the flooding, the force and roll stuff. I know about more compulsive training methods. I use to use them. I've trained both ways and I see a huge difference. It's not just book learned stuff. I've been around where dogs and horses are concerned. And I wouldn't be trying to promote something that was harmful or useless and that's why I say what I do. It is nothing personal toward you.

What's all the laughing for? Because I'm in a great mood today. My lawn mower finally started and my dogs are happy out on the grass. My smallest boy dog is content with a leg bone from a dead deer, hoof and all and it's a sunny day. I also laugh because how could you know how many years I've been researching dogs, how much time and experience I've had with them and what amount of education I've had in animal behavior. And yet, you make such a statement. So, it's mildly amusing, kind of humorous to me. :)

I'll bow out of the discussion now. I've said all I have to say. It will be interesting to see how this law suit plays out and if there will be a rippling effect. Hopefully, the dog will heal adequately and suffer no lasting fear of people.

[Dobiegurl]

If one understands how dogs learn and that they are amoral and they do not think in terms of right and wrong, then one would see why corrections, however mild are not only unnecessary, but irrelevant to training. Dogs do not do something out of willfulness or disobedience. When they don't something because they haven't received enough reinforcers for doing it right. Period. So, the point isn't whether a correction is harsh or mild. It's that corrections are incongruous and unneeded for training a dog.

Oh lord!!! All animals face corrections at one point in there life. Doesn't a puppy's mother correct him if he gets too rough? Doesn't the mother correct the puppy if he tries to eat her food first? Doesn't the mother correct the puppy when she wants to be left alone? While doing this the mother usually gives a warning first (growls) and then bites. Eventually the puppy will know that a growl means that the puppy is doing something wrong anf they WILL think twice about crossing the mother. They DO learn from correction or else the mother of ANY animal would not use correcting. If there was no correction by the mother the puppy would abuse the mother and constantly annoy her.

People get too focused on in depth things but fail to look around and realize that the answer is right in front of them.

[IliamnasQuest]

Coming in late in the discussion, as usual .. *L*

I can't say I'm surprised by this news. It was only a matter of time before something happened. When you train with force (which is what Cesar does and what his employees do) you are going to end up with problems. I feel bad for the poor dog that had to endure this, as I do with many of the dogs he works with.

I'm a cross-over trainer. I started with aversive methods paired with praise - but I was taught the basic "spare the rod, spoil the dog" type of training. I believed that force was the way to go and it was effective in many ways. I can see much of what I USED to do in Cesar's methods. He not only is NOT a "dog psychologist" but he is back in the old-style training methods that very few truly good trainers use anymore. The advantage to those methods is that it appears to make an immediate difference in the dog - but in the long run, those methods fail miserably. They make dogs that are fearful and unable to make good decisions for themselves. They result in dogs that later can flare out into aggression that has been kept internal through fear of consequences. These are methods that people used because they just didn't know any better. And it's been shown time and again that the methods are NOT good, but because the uneducated see an immediate change they think it's a miracle and it makes for good TV .. *RME*

People use force because they can, not because they should.

Now, I'm not against corrections as a whole. I do think that there is a place for a proper correction and I do use them on my chows on occasion. I rarely have to use any sort of correction with my shepherds - that's a breed that, trained properly using high levels of reinforcement, willingly works with you. A simple "eht eht" or "hey!" is enough to stop my shepherds from doing something they shouldn't. The chows take a bit more convincing at times.

But corrections should not be the basis of training, and for Cesar they are. Forcing a dog into submission is punishment. Using a choke chain is punishment. Dragging a dog is punishment. And these are all used as TRAINING techniques, not as proofing later on. Even as proofing these are pretty severe.

Unfortunately for the poor dogs that end up under Cesar's "care", these are only a few of the methods he uses. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone dubbed him a "whisperer"!! The whole concept of the horse whisperer was that he used understanding and kind communication. Cesar's methods are not kind.

I don't know who in Hollywood owed Cesar a favor, but he was put in a position of misguided power and unfortunately dogs are suffering because of it. There are SO many trainers out there who can get much better results by using kind methods, but because this guy is on TV we have people fawning at his feet. It just shows the level of ignorance still present in dog training overall.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

[JennSLK]

Now, Im not saying any names because there are a fair few that do this and a fair few that dont.

But why, the minute someone has "alot" of dog experiance be it courses or just life exerpaince does that make them right? Isnt dog training a LIFELONG learning curve? Are there not allways going to be better ways out there?

[Zoom]

For starters were did I say I dissagree with ANY force?

You said it right about here...

I dont like him because he is cruel. He uses force.

[JennSLK]

Oh, I am SO sorry. :rolleyes:

He uses TOO MUCH force. Is that better for you

[whatszmatter]

i assume that the dog's injuries were an accident resulting from the dog either tripping or becoming so exhausted while being run on the treadmill that it fell, and because it was on a choke collar, was strangled. goodness knows if the dog was being supervised or not, but i expect serious damage to a dog's trachea could occur pretty quickly in that kind of a circumstance.

since cesar regularly puts dogs in choke collars on treadmills on his show, it does not surprise me, even while i doubt the dog's injuries resulted from any kind of "correction" or "training". i think it was pure stupidity, carelessness, and the policy of putting dogs in chokers on treadmills.

i have no problem with treadmills. i don't even have much of a problem with choker collars when used correctly. but putting the two together is like begging for a tragedy. and it's exactly what they got.
I think Elegy hit it on the head.

[Dobiegurl]

Now, I'm not against corrections as a whole. I do think that there is a place for a proper correction and I do use them on my chows on occasion. I rarely have to use any sort of correction with my shepherds - that's a breed that, trained properly using high levels of reinforcement, willingly works with you. A simple "eht eht" or "hey!" is enough to stop my shepherds from doing something they shouldn't. The chows take a bit more convincing at times.

But corrections should not be the basis of training, and for Cesar they are. Forcing a dog into submission is punishment. Using a choke chain is punishment. Dragging a dog is punishment. And these are all used as TRAINING techniques, not as proofing later on. Even as proofing these are pretty severe.

Unfortunately for the poor dogs that end up under Cesar's "care", these are only a few of the methods he uses. I can't for the life of me understand how anyone dubbed him a "whisperer"!! The whole concept of the horse whisperer was that he used understanding and kind communication. Cesar's methods are not kind.


That is what I have been saying on all my posts regarding corrections. Corrections, IMO, are as simple as a "no" but people confuse the term correction with abuse, or maybe I am confusing it. Using corrections is NOT to TRAIN your dog, but to enforce your training. It would be wrong to correct a dog for not knowing or understanding the command. I am not familiar with Cesar Millan of his techiniques but from what I hear he IS abusive. But telling your dog "no" on occasion, IMO, is not harsh.

[elegy]

Oh lord!!! All animals face corrections at one point in there life. Doesn't a puppy's mother correct him if he gets too rough? Doesn't the mother correct the puppy if he tries to eat her food first? Doesn't the mother correct the puppy when she wants to be left alone? While doing this the mother usually gives a warning first (growls) and then bites. Eventually the puppy will know that a growl means that the puppy is doing something wrong anf they WILL think twice about crossing the mother. They DO learn from correction or else the mother of ANY animal would not use correcting. If there was no correction by the mother the puppy would abuse the mother and constantly annoy her.

People get too focused on in depth things but fail to look around and realize that the answer is right in front of them.

amen!!

i think we put too much emotional baggage on the world "correction". corrections are not inherently mean/abusive/harsh/forceful.

i love this article by suzanne clothier (http://www.flyingdogpress.com/pposa.html) on the subject.

[dr2little]

That is a completely false statement. You can state is as your opinion but is most defineatly NOT a fact. Just because the trainers you chose to say its fact does not make it so, there's much evidence to the contrary and the fact that you say it doesn't exist repeatedly shows me how much you've delved into dog training research, theory, and phsychology.
Coming from a background in canine behavior studies and being that I am current and do know the research, I agree 100% with Doberluv. The FACT is that this is exactly what has been concluded to date. I'd love to see any current studies to the contrary. There will always be old school trainers hanging on to antiquated methods like a baby with a soother instead of doing the real work to see that dog training evolves.

[Doberluv]

I tell my dogs "no" or "eh-eh-eh!" or "leave it!" I use a fairly sharp voice sometimes. I just don't use it when I'm teaching obedience skills or agility. If I didn't ever say "no" and stopped what I was doing each and every time my dog was maybe about to get into something or bug the other dog, I'd be jumping up out of my seat like a jack rabbit. I'd also have to have the patience of a saint. I don't think of those things as punishment, more like telling the dog something. I don't need to use yanks on the collar or punishment when I'm practicing something with the dogs but I do use a firm voice, not loud, but decisive. Physical punishment is not what a leader is about, so I steer clear of that. So, maybe it's a matter of definition of what a correction is exactly.

The trouble with Ceasar is that subdueing a dog, keeping it in this "calm submissive" state and reinforcing that by only giving attention when it is submissive conditions the dog to behave less. Not only does he stop the behavior in question for the time being, but he stops behavior in general when punishment and that amount of domination is used all the time. There are other behaviors or intentions happening besides the one he is trying to stop....or correct. So the dog may have to guess which behavior it is he should stop or should he stop something else also? So he stops that behavior as well as any other behavior happening at the time. Behavior just sort of fades out altogether in general and you get a toned down version of a dog, a shell of what was a dog. That is what I see on a lot of those dogs in those programs...these half dogs walking along "behaving" and looking very subdued.

That's the beauty of "positive" reinforcement. You reward a behavior or you don't. Nothing bad happens to the dog. If you mess up and reward the wrong behavior, you can go back and fix it later. If you punish a dog by accident, it's much harder to win back the trust. It takes a little chink out of the relationship.

About mother dogs and puppies. We aren't dogs and I think our dogs know it. We have a human-domestic dog relationship. I don't really see a big correlation there. If a mild correction or communication to stop something is used, I have no problem with that anyhow. I'm talking about this general, excessive use of "putting a dog in it's place" mentality and sharp leash corrections, frightening alpha rolls where if the dog doesn't feel frightened like he's about to be attacked, he feels over run by some other specie....a human being of all things.

[dr2little]

That is what I have been saying on all my posts regarding corrections. Corrections, IMO, are as simple as a "no" but people confuse the term correction with abuse, or maybe I am confusing it. Using corrections is NOT to TRAIN your dog, but to enforce your training. It would be wrong to correct a dog for not knowing or understanding the command. I am not familiar with Cesar Millan of his techiniques but from what I hear he IS abusive. But telling your dog "no" on occasion, IMO, is not harsh.

I am in total agreement that a dog needs to know when he's headed in the wrong direction, and yes corrections such as "eheh" or "try again" are IMO not only acceptable but necessary. It's the verbal abuse and physical corrections/punishment that are unnecessary and totally useless. I have never said that I was against negative markers and I don't believe that any trainer can be truly non-aversive understanding that a mere "eheh" is considered aversive.

[Dobiegurl]

I tell my dogs "no" or "eh-eh-eh!" or "leave it!" I use a fairly sharp voice sometimes. I just don't use it when I'm teaching obedience skills or agility. If I didn't ever say "no" and stopped what I was doing each and every time my dog was maybe about to get into something or bug the other dog, I'd be jumping up out of my seat like a jack rabbit. I'd also have to have the patience of a saint. I don't think of those things as punishment, more like telling the dog something. I don't need to use yanks on the collar or punishment when I'm practicing something with the dogs but I do use a firm voice, not loud, but decisive. Physical punishment is not what a leader is about, so I steer clear of that. So, maybe it's a matter of definition of what a correction is exactly.

OMG!!! That is what I have been saying and I think that is where the miscommunication comes in. I believe verbal "no" and "uh-uh" are corrections and that is what I usually refer to as correcting.

The trouble with Ceasar is that subdueing a dog, keeping it in this "calm submissive" state and reinforcing that by only giving attention when it is submissive conditions the dog to behave less. Not only does he stop the behavior in question for the time being, but he stops behavior in general when punishment and that amount of domination is used all the time. There are other behaviors or intentions happening besides the one he is trying to stop....or correct. So the dog may have to guess which behavior it is he should stop or should he stop something else also? So he stops that behavior as well as any other behavior happening at the time. Behavior just sort of fades out altogether in general and you get a toned down version of a dog, a shell of what was a dog. That is what I see on a lot of those dogs in those programs...these half dogs walking along "behaving" and looking very subdued.

That's the beauty of "positive" reinforcement. You reward a behavior or you don't. Nothing bad happens to the dog. If you mess up and reward the wrong behavior, you can go back and fix it later. If you punish a dog by accident, it's much harder to win back the trust. It takes a little chink out of the relationship.

I agree with you. You should never assert your dominance through physical means. It only makes things very rocky with you and your dog and THAT is what creates an agressive dog. A dominant dog is not always agressive, just their personality but there are ways to go about that to show your leadership WITHOUT using force. Doing everyday things for your dog such as feeding, walking, playing ect, are enough for the dog to consider the human alpha.

About mother dogs and puppies. We aren't dogs and I think our dogs know it. We have a human-domestic dog relationship. I don't really see a big correlation there. If a mild correction or communication to stop something is used, I have no problem with that anyhow. I'm talking about this general, excessive use of "putting a dog in it's place" mentality and sharp leash corrections, frightening alpha rolls where if the dog doesn't feel frightened like he's about to be attacked, he feels over run by some other specie....a human being of all things.

Actually, when you bring a puppy home and once they accept you as their new pack then they treat you like they would treat their littermates. Thats why they bite and nip us becuase that is how they communicated with their fellow dogs. It is the owner who teaches and makes the dog notice that we are not like dogs and make it unacceptable to bite humans. That is where the distinction between humans and dogs comes into play. Sure they know we look different but it isn't until we train them that a human is different than a dog and certain behaviors is uncceptable to the human race.

I was not reffering to correcting the same way a mother does to her puppy but just proving the point that animals do face corrections and if they weren't necessary then they would not be used in the wild or part of nature.

[whatszmatter]

Coming from a background in canine behavior studies and being that I am current and do know the research, I agree 100% with Doberluv. The FACT is that this is exactly what has been concluded to date. I'd love to see any current studies to the contrary. There will always be old school trainers hanging on to antiquated methods like a baby with a soother instead of doing the real work to see that dog training evolves.
sorry, but most of the "New" stuff that I read, is not new, its been around a long time. Maybe not as well understood a while back, but its not new. And again, most of the studies that "prove" physical corretions aren't effective and will destroy the bond between handler and dog, are OLDER yet. And things done since then have shown more than enough benefits and that the older studies on aversives that keep being quoted were not entirely reliable.

So you have new authors using even more anitquated studies to "prove" their point. Do we need to keep going round in cirlces?? and still I'd like to see, other than making dogs run fast, a group of people that are winning every year in major dog sports that have not used a leash correction at some point in their training.

We could go round and round on research, its there, you just have to look. I gave a few references to get you started in another thread I'm not going to dig it all up again. SInce research isn't the be all and end all, I like real world stuff too.

[dr2little]

[QUOTE=whatszmatter]sorry, but most of the "New" stuff that I read, is not new, its been around a long time. Maybe not as well understood a while back, but its not new. And again, most of the studies that "prove" physical corretions aren't effective and will destroy the bond between handler and dog, are OLDER yet. And things done since then have shown more than enough benefits and that the older studies on aversives that keep being quoted were not entirely reliable.

That couldn't be more ridiculous, of course their are current and ongoing studies. I could argue on the side of the dog over and over again and quote copious number of papers but those who think its OK to physically correct sadly have the power to do so and the misguided conviction to say its right.

I'm not sure I have the stomach for the kind of argument. We'll have to agree to disagree and I'll continue to use non-phyical methods to train thousands, many of which Cesar would call "red zone", and others can continue to argue that it doesn't work.:confused:
For the record, I've not used so much as a leash pop in many years:rolleyes:

[Dobiegurl]

I am in total agreement that a dog needs to know when he's headed in the wrong direction, and yes corrections such as "eheh" or "try again" are IMO not only acceptable but necessary. It's the verbal abuse and physical corrections/punishment that are unnecessary and totally useless. I have never said that I was against negative markers and I don't believe that any trainer can be truly non-aversive understanding that a mere "eheh" is considered aversive.

A verbal "no" is a correction and there is no such thing as a "positve" correction, because I'm sure the dog does not see it as positive. A collar correction is not abusive and if done properly should not hurt the dog but just get the dog's attention.

[BigDog2191]

Cesar is neither a dog psychologist or a dog trainer. He has no credentials unless you think that being a dog walker and dog groomer (no education for either) warrent the title "dog psychologist". I knew it was just a matter of time before he was "found out", I'm just so sorry for the poor dog and family who had to suffer for Cesar to be seen for the cruel, irresponsible, nutcase that he is. :mad: THE WORLD OF TRUE EDUCATED DOG PROFESSIONALS WILL REJOICE OVER HIS DOWNFALL!!

SO? If you know how to train dogs, you know how to train 'em. You don't need a certificate.

Found out?? How exactly is he a cruel, irresponsible nutcase?

Just because he doesn't do the positive reinforcement that everyone would like? Please... :rolleyes:

[caseyolee]

Corrections are good because if the dog ALLREADY knows what's expected of him then he should do it. If you dont correct they will learn they dont really have to do it because they dont want to and can get away with it.

I agree. I train horses like I train dogs. Make the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard. If there is no negative in the training, then how will they know when they have acomplished what you wanted? When they accomplish what you want, THEN comes the positive.

In no way do I beat my animals, but there is always some negative before we hit the positive.

As for Cesar, I have been waiting for a lawsuit or something to that effect to go down for a long time.

[dr2little]

[QUOTE=BigDog2191]SO? If you know how to train dogs, you know how to train 'em. You don't need a certificate.

Found out?? How exactly is he a cruel, irresponsible nutcase?

If you can watch the show and not see CRUEL......now that shocks me!!!
And yes, unfortunately you're right, you don't even need a certificate to train dogs for a living, but are you really saying that you're aginst education?

[dr2little]

A verbal "no" is a correction and there is no such thing as a "positve" correction, because I'm sure the dog does not see it as positive. A collar correction is not abusive and if done properly should not hurt the dog but just get the dog's attention.

Did I call a verbal "no" a positive correction. I swear..some people will argue black is white on this forum. I was referring to a marker to let the dog know he should try something else, I'm not sure what you're referencing?? You may have a need to use collar corrections, I certainly don't!

[Doberluv]

Applying these terms to the Four Possible Consequences, you get:

Something Good can start or be presented, so behavior increases = Positive Reinforcement (R+)

Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavior decreases = Negative Punishment (P-)

Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior decreases = Positive Punishment (P+)

Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior increases = Negative Reinforcement (R-)

Remember that these definitions are based on their actual effect on the behavior in question: they must reduce or strengthen the behavior to be considered a consequence and be defined as a punishment or reinforcement. Pleasures meant as rewards but that do not strengthen a behavior are indulgences, not reinforcement; aversives meant as a behavior weakener but which do not weaken a behavior are abuse, not punishment.

Trainers can not control all reinforcers and punishers, unfortunately. There are a number of environmental factors that are going to affect the animal's behavior that you have no control over, but which will still be a significant consequence for your dog.

Some of these come from the animal's internal environment - their own reactions. Relief from stress, pain, or boredom are common reinforcers and some "self-reinforcing" behaviors are actually maintained because of this. Examples are a dog barking because it relieves boredom, or a person chewing on her fingers or smoking a cigarette because it relieves stress. Drivers speed because it is fun. Guilt is an internal punisher that some people experience.

"No Reward Markers" and "Keep Going Signals"

There's actually a fifth possible consequence to any behavior: nothing. You push the button and nothing happens. You raise your hand and the teacher doesn't call on you. You get no response to your e-mail, your proposal, or your job application. The question you then have is, did no one notice your behavior? Or was it just not worthy of a reinforcement?

To differentiate between these two possibilities, a trainer can use a no reward marker (NRM). The NRM tells the animal that its behavior will not gain it a reinforcer. A lot of dog trainers use "Nope!" "Wrong!" "Uh-uh!" or "Try again" as NRMs. For example, if you're teaching your dog to sit in response to the cue "sit" (it's not as obvious to the dog as it is to you; after all, dogs don't have the experience of verbal words being labels for actions), and the dog lies down or barks, you can give a NRM. The purpose of the NRM is to get the animal to try something different. It is not a conditioned punisher and should not be used when the dog does something you don't want it to ever do. It's for when a behavior might be correct in a different circumstance but not in this one.

Some trainers also have developed a keep going signal (KGS). This signal tells the animal that it's on the right track, that its behavior is leading to something that will gain it a reinforcer. For example, if you're teaching a dog to roll over and it will lie on its side, you can use a KGS to tell it that it's close to a behavior that will get it a reward, but not there yet. Read more on the KGS

So, you see, these practices are used by many, many famed trainers successfully. It's too bad that these sensable, gentle and proven techniques aren't used by Ceasar. Instead, he relies on force, flooding, dominance and complicated, wolf pack mumbo jumbo. It's just beyond me.

Dogs aren't even directly desended from wolves. They're decended from solitary feral dogs first and wolves may be those dog's ancestors. Domestic dogs are far removed from wolves. Wolf pack theory might have some attractive mystique to it, but it's not accurate to compare domestic dogs to wolves. Domestic dogs should be compared to studies done on domestic dogs. And that is why Ceasar's "way" has potential for disaster. He's not even comparing his way to a wolf's way. Even there he's off base. Alpha wolves do not resort to physical force of any kind. Alpha wolves hardly pay any attention to what the other wolves are doing. Any squabbles or force are made by the other wolves between themselves, not the alpha. The alpha couldn't care less about much of anything other than hunting large game and breeding. Any alpha wolf who uses brute force is quickly disposed of. The other wolves will not tolerate it and often alpha wolves are scrawny, smaller animals. So, all these forceful, dominating behaviors of Ceasar's for all these different behaviors of dogs, are not wolf like and not dog like either.

[tessa_s212]

A verbal "no" is a correction and there is no such thing as a "positve" correction, because I'm sure the dog does not see it as positive. A collar correction is not abusive and if done properly should not hurt the dog but just get the dog's attention.

Perhaps go out and order some training books from your library. You need to learn the proper terminology if you are going to debate it. ;)

Positive punishment merely means that you are applying something bad to end a behavior. (positve = adding, punishment = something unpleasant) Simple as that. :D

[Dobiegurl]

Did I call a verbal "no" a positive correction. I swear..some people will argue black is white on this forum. I was referring to a marker to let the dog know he should try something else, I'm not sure what you're referencing?? You may have a need to use collar corrections, I certainly don't

Yippe for you, you want a gold star!!!

I was not reffering to you, but someone in a previous thread called a verbal correction a positive one. So I was just making it clear that a correction is a correction, there is no positive around a correction. It might be positive in the trainers eyes but the dog sees it as a negative.

[Dobiegurl]

Perhaps go out and order some training books from your library. You need to learn the proper terminology if you are going to debate it. ;)

Positive punishment merely means that you are applying something bad to end a behavior. (positve = adding, punishment = something unpleasant) Simple as that. :D

Perhaps you should.... never mind, don't feel like arguing today.

First of all I am referring to positive as in something good rather than a +
( you know the sign used in math, just incase you didn't know). I was just saying that no punishment (verbal or not) is positive as in good.

[tessa_s212]

Perhaps you should.... never mind, don't feel like arguing today.

First of all I am referring to positive as in something good rather than a +
( you know the sign used in math, just incase you didn't know). I was just saying that no punishment (verbal or not) is positive as in good.

Yes, I knew exactly what you meant. ;)

I just decided to let you on in the little secret of "positive punishment" and its true definition. Next time you here anyone refer to "positive punishment" that is what they mean, not the fact punishment is not positive as in good. :)

[Dobiegurl]

Yes, I knew exactly what you meant. ;)

I just decided to let you on in the little secret of "positive punishment" and its true definition. Next time you here anyone refer to "positive punishment" that is what they mean, not the fact punishment is not positive as in good. :)

And you will notice that I said positive CORRECTION as in verbal corrections are positive to a dog (in a good way), not punishment. I know what positive punishment means. Punishment,IMO, is a broad subject but when saying correction their is no positive CORRECTION.

[Dobiegurl]

Back to the topic of Cesar's training methods. I am not familiar with him but from what I hear he is very extreme. But when it comes to training I don't want to be my dog's "partner" (as someone mentioned in a previous thread), I want to be my dog's handler/leader. Mutual relationships, IMO, are not good when it comes to dog/human relationships. Let's just say I prefer Ed Frawley's methods over some "everything must be positive so that we don't ruin the relationship with our dog" crap. The relationship is not ruined, whatsoever, when using corrections, but many people think they are. But to each's own.

[tessa_s212]

And you will notice that I said positive CORRECTION as in verbal corrections are positive to a dog (in a good way), not punishment. I know what positive punishment means. Punishment,IMO, is a broad subject but when saying correction their is no positive CORRECTION.

No need to get so defensive. ;)

[Dobiegurl]

No need to get so defensive. ;)

I'm not getting defensive, I just don't like getting talked down to which I have stated MANY times.

[Saje]

Ok this is obviously personal. Why don't you two take it to PMs so people don't have to wade through all this.

[tessa_s212]

Ok this is obviously personal. Why don't you two take it to PMs so people don't have to wade through all this.

Lol. Thankyou, Saje, but that was already taken care of before I saw your post. I didn't want to further disrupt this thread. ;) :)

*edited because I cannot type today! :p

[Zoom]

Ed Frawly from Leerburg is so much more extreme than Ceasar Milan. Last time I checked, CM doesn't advocate beating the sh*t out of your dog for jumping and hanging it until passing out to teach it not to bite.

[tessa_s212]

Ed Frawly from Leerburg is so much more extreme than Ceasar Milan. Last time I checked, CM doesn't advocate beating the sh*t out of your dog for jumping and hanging it until passing out to teach it not to bite.


And... ??

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Are you trying to justify this man's treatment of animals? :confused:

[Zoom]

I forgot to put the quote on it, but to an extent yes. So far this thread has seen people come out of the woodwork to villify CM and are holding him up as an example of the worst way to train, when Ed Frawley is 10x worse. But my post was in reference to this:

Back to the topic of Cesar's training methods. I am not familiar with him but from what I hear he is very extreme. But when it comes to training I don't want to be my dog's "partner" (as someone mentioned in a previous thread), I want to be my dog's handler/leader. Mutual relationships, IMO, are not good when it comes to dog/human relationships. Let's just say I prefer Ed Frawley's methods over some "everything must be positive so that we don't ruin the relationship with our dog" crap. The relationship is not ruined, whatsoever, when using corrections, but many people think they are. But to each's own.

You can't call CM "extreme" and then hold up Ed as an example of who you take your training cues from, with the implication that he's somehow 'less extreme' of a trainer.

[tessa_s212]

I forgot to put the quote on it, but to an extent yes. So far this thread has seen people come out of the woodwork to villify CM and are holding him up as an example of the worst way to train, when Ed Frawley is 10x worse. But my post was in reference to this:



You can't call CM "extreme" and then hold up Ed as an example of who you take your training cues from, with the implication that he's somehow 'less extreme' of a trainer.

Okay, now I understand. Thankyou for explaining! Lol.. seems like the lack of sleep is really getting to me!

[Dobiegurl]

Ed Frawly from Leerburg is so much more extreme than Ceasar Milan. Last time I checked, CM doesn't advocate beating the sh*t out of your dog for jumping and hanging it until passing out to teach it not to bite.

Um, not really. He never said to beat your dogs and he only uses the hanging your dog for extreme cases. Well, if my dog attacked me, it would be worse, because I would kill him, its as simple as that. Its not working or desensitise the dog. I rather my dog not bite me in fear of me than not bite me because he might get a treat for good behavior. Ed Frawley is not as bad as people think. He uses LOTS of praise and treats, but everyone HATES him because he using negative reinforcements. A dog is a dog, not a human and that is why we have so many problems in this world concerning dogs. People treat them like humans, when in reality they are not. He is no where as extreme as William Koehler ( to me is a legend for introducing the world of dog training) but does have his moments that are not harsh but firm. No one has to agree with me, its my opinion.

[Doberluv]

A dog is a dog, not a human and that is why we have so many problems in this world concerning dogs. People treat them like humans, when in reality they are not.

So very true. People treat them like humans in thinking that they think like humans and know right from wrong, know what they "should" do, to understand and possess morals like we do. That's why they get punished. Punishment has no place in teaching an animal anything. If a dog doesn't know or do something, it's not his fault. He's not being stubborn. Those are all human thought processes. Dogs don't have the ability to be stubborn or have our value system or morals so punishment is ridiculous. They are simply undertrained and undermotivated by lousy trainers. That's one major place where dogs are being treated like people. When are people going to get it? Why on earth would a dog not do something that he would get rewarded for? Because he is out for revenge? Come on now! No...because of the fact that he has not received a strong enough history of reinforcers. That is a scientific fact of the laws of learning, just as gravity is a scientific fact of physics. The reason a dog doesn't do something because he hasn't had a sufficient volume of training.

The reason he is displaying unwanted behavior is because he has been receiving reinforers for that unwanted behavior or it wouldn't exist in the first place. Now he's getting punished for it. He has to ask himself, what is different this time? Why am I getting my neck yanked? A huge guessing has to be going on in the poor animal's head. Why can't people just show a dog what they mean and reinforce even baby steps in the right direction. Then the dog will learn. Why does punishment have anything to do with training. Good trainers do not resort to punishment and domination.

[Dobiegurl]

So very true. People treat them like humans in thinking that they think like humans and know right from wrong, know what they "should" do, to understand and possess morals like we do. That's why they get punished. Punishment has no place in teaching an animal anything. If a dog doesn't know something, it's not his fault. He's not being stubborn. Those are all human thought processes. Dogs don't have the ability to be stubborn or have our value system or morals so punishment is ridiculous. They are simply undertrained and undermotivated by lousy trainers. That's one major place where dogs are being treated like people.


As I said before, many times, ALL animals are corrected in one point of there life and DO learn from those experiences or else the natural process, in which the mother corrects their young, would not have been present. I trust nature and everything in nature happens for a reason. They so understand right from wrong, to a certain degree. If a mother was eating and the pup tried to get the food the mother would nip him, therefore teaching him that eating her food before she was fininshed is a no-no.

[tessa_s212]

As I said before, many times, ALL animals are corrected in one point of there life and DO learn from those experiences or else the natural process, in which the mother corrects their young, would not have been present. I trust nature and everything in nature happens for a reason. They so understand right from wrong, to a certain degree. If a mother was eating and the pup tried to get the food the mother would nip him, therefore teaching him that eating her food before she was fininshed is a no-no.

What you say the dog percieves as "right and wrong" is only safe from dangerous. They understand pack rules, but those pack rules have nothing to do with our human feelings and what he call morals(right and wrong).

And you said it. ;) Dogs are dogs. We are humans. You use the excuse that mothers correct their puppies. Dogs do face corrections from other dogs as puppies, but WE are not dogs. And I think dogs can realize that.

[Doberluv]

Mother dogs are not rough with their young. Have you ever observed what they do? They are very gentle and basically hold them still for a moment. We, as humans cannot emulate what a mother dog does. We do not know what subtle signals she gives first or what subtle language is going on between them. Mother dogs do not yank up on a choke collar and break tracheas, cause pain, dejection, fear, loss of spirt. Mother dogs do not hang their dogs by the throat for not doing a clean heel or a straight enough sit. We simply do not have the ability to know or read the subtlties in what is going on between dogs and to try and emulate that is futile.

Have you heard of trainers like Karen Pryor, Jean Donaldson, Ian Dunbar, Ken Ramirez? These people have been successfully training dogs as well as exotic animals, marine mammals, rehabiliting dogs using NO punishment, no intimidation and no domination. Some of these people have been training for 30 or more years. Some of these people have advanced degrees in canine psychology and applied animal behavior. They understand from extensive research how dogs think and learn. Punishment is NOT even a small part of their repertoire.

[elegy]

ok, this is making zero sense to me.

when i got luce, she was a bigtime play biter. when she'd bite me, play would stop cold. that's negative punishment. i took something positive away (play/attention) in order to decrease the behavior. it worked. pretty quickly in fact. it's recommended here all the time. it's not abusive. it's not beating your dog. it's still punishment.

[whatszmatter]

[QUOTE=whatszmatter]sorry, but most of the "New" stuff that I read, is not new, its been around a long time. Maybe not as well understood a while back, but its not new. And again, most of the studies that "prove" physical corretions aren't effective and will destroy the bond between handler and dog, are OLDER yet. And things done since then have shown more than enough benefits and that the older studies on aversives that keep being quoted were not entirely reliable.

That couldn't be more ridiculous, of course their are current and ongoing studies. I could argue on the side of the dog over and over again and quote copious number of papers but those who think its OK to physically correct sadly have the power to do so and the misguided conviction to say its right.

I'm not sure I have the stomach for the kind of argument. We'll have to agree to disagree and I'll continue to use non-phyical methods to train thousands, many of which Cesar would call "red zone", and others can continue to argue that it doesn't work.:confused:
For the record, I've not used so much as a leash pop in many years:rolleyes:
SO when i have and its available to everyone else to read, research that is the contrary to what you say, I'm somehow on a powertrip and misguided in my training, and you and those that believe like you are correct? I"m sure there are hundreds more papers on "positive" training today than other methods, its the "in" thing. Its the new buzzword and lots of people are attracted to it, same thing in medicine and everything else, what is popular gets studied. It doesn't make the pile of past research any less real, and the current ones still show the validity in the midst of all the "current" papers.

I think basing your training on "positive" methods is the way to go. (and I"m putting positive in quotes to denote what is positive in our mentallity, not the actual terms to denote positive punishment, positive reward etc.) But to turn around and totally discount a whole avenue of behavior modification that has been and still is proven to work very well for certain situations doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

2nd I hate being in the ceasar thread cause I don't train like him at all. I like that he preaches calmness in the handler, exercise, boundaries, and consistency. That's about where my agreement with Ceaser ends.

3rd, I never said what you do doesn't work. I do it everyday, it works wonderfully. I think it works fine for almost every dog out there for a lot of things. BUT there are situations where something else is needed for some dogs and instead turning my head to ways that are just as proven to work and can be done without all the bagage that people like to lump with it, I learn how and when to use it.

[Doberluv]

it's not abusive. it's not beating your dog. it's still punishment.

I'm talking about harsh collar jerks, hanging dogs, rough scruff shaking, causing fear, alpha rolls, force, pain, dejection. I'm not talking about removing a privilege or even giving a no reward marker or non-fear causing verbal correction as a communication. Sorry for the misunderstanding about punishment. Punishment is a part of operant conditioning. But administering punishment as the norm....as the mainstay in training dogs has some detremental side effects. Something should be used to fill in the gap when one is trying to stop a behavior. So, say if the dog is jumping up on the kids, he should be redirected to some wanted behavior as an outlet for that drive. Of course that jumping up should be stopped by removal of the payoff the dog is getting. But jerking, scruffing and scolding isn't necessary. I've trained my dogs without all that and they're just great.

[elegy]

maybe there's too much emotional baggage being placed on the word "punishment" here. maybe people need to be more careful with how they're wording things.

i don't know if These people have been successfully training dogs as well as exotic animals, marine mammals, rehabiliting dogs using NO punishment is true or not, but i suspect the word you want is "force" not "punishment".

[Gempress]

Never mind. My posts are being all screwed up.

[valerie]

he is getting sued i watch hi shows i never saw him heart a dog before

[doberkim]

i agree elegy - i think people use punishment every single day whether they mean to or not. especially negative punishment.

force is a different thing. i punish my dogs all the time - they get no reward markers, they get toys and treats put away when they act poorly, they get verbal corrections, and yes, i have used force when necessary (like when rah tries to play chase with a cat who doesnt want to play with them).

[Dobiegurl]

Again, abuse and correcting are two different things. If my dog bites me (intentionally) he will get a very good correction because that is unacceptable behavior. Morally they don't know right from wrong, meaning they don't think in their head "well, I know its wrong but I want to **** my owners off" its more like "every time I do that I get corrected, so I shouldn't do it anymore".
Yes, they get corrected by their mother and other member's of their pack but we ARE the dog's pack when we bring them home. The HUMAN members as well as the other dogs in the house are the pack, so therefore it would be natural to be corrected by a higher ranking member in the pack.

[Doberluv]

This is too weird. I keep trying to post a reply after yours Gaddy and it keeps going in before yours. So I delete it and try again and again it goes before yours. Weird, huh! I'll try again in a few minutes. I don't mean to be on a high horse, but I've been really researching obsessively and I'm not making this stuff up. LOL. (Elegy, when I say punishment, I mean what I said I mean, not a NRM or a voice communication such as "knock it off" or "quit" or anything like that. I mean punishment, not communication....as in sharp leash jerk when the dog is getting motivated somewhere else in his environment or isn't strong enough in a skill or behavior from a sufficient enough volume of training.)

[Doberluv]

Grrrr....why is my post not showing up last? Weird.

[Doberluv]

Oh, I think I see. I have to now click the button next to the quote button, quick reply to this message. That must be something new. Here goes nothin'.

Edit to add: Nope...didn't work. Well, this belong after Gaddy's reply. LOL. I'll have to see what is going on with the technical problem. Sorry that this wound up being so long. But I'm just trying to explain what I ferverently believe and have researched from several applied behavioral scientists, who have been researching the way dogs think and learn for a very long time. This is their information, not something I'm making up. Punishment has side effects and when used carefully, sure, we all tend to use it to some extent and that does not equal abuse. My point is that we need to make sure we're not projecting our cognitive processing of information and our sense of right and wrong onto dogs. They truly do not have that abstract or complex ability.

Quote:
They are only punished/corrected when they have done something wrong that they KNOW they're not supposed to do. I don't punish/correct them when they don't know what I want them to do. If they're just being bratty and CHOOSING not to obey me, I give a little tug on the leash (if they're wearing one), or a "hey!" to get their attention, or the evil eye. If they've done something they're not supposed to do (in this case, I haven't given them a command, they're just getting into trouble), I correct them and possibly give them a time out if it's something big.


But here we go again....anthromorphizing dogs....making them out to think like humans. What makes you think your dog knows what you want him to do but is choosing not to deliberately? Dogs don't disobey. They get motivated by something in their environment which is more interesting than what you have to motivate them. Dogs do what works. Dog's aren't bratty or stubborn. That's how people think. They don't disobey because they just don't feel like being nice that day. They don't think in terms of morally right or wrong. "Oh gee....she wants me to come. I know I should and I know better, but I don't want to." No. That's how humans think, not animals. This has been studied, researched, experimented on by scientists who do nothing for decades but study how canines think and learn.

The dog sees perhaps two options, ie: to come inside the boring house when called or chase that incredibly interesting and fast squirrel who's running past. They do what works according to their prey and other instincts and their way of processing information. If something else is getting their attention, then they'll go with that. They don't sit there and conive and weigh whether or not they should obey you. They do what's either safe or dangerous, not what's right or wrong.

If they get punished severely enough, it will tend to stop a behavior, but it will need to be severe to stop it for good. Chances are, the way you punish your dog, with a mild scolding or leash jerk, he learns that it is unsafe to do that behavior in your presence, but does not know why he "shouldn't" do it. He just knows bad things happen when....? But there are other things going on too. You're there, for one. So he may very well think that bad things happen when you're around or holding him on a leash. You can't always single out one individual behavior. There are other things happening at the same time and those can be affected too. What if a man with a beard is standing there while you give your leash pop. How is he to know that you're popping the leash on account of his not walking nicely (as you think he knows better) and instead he thinks, "when a man with a beard is standing around, my neck gets yanked." Maybe he hasn't had a strong enough history of reinforcements for walking nicely. So that behavior is not learned. It's either learned or not, reliable or not (respectively) depending on how many reinforcements he's gotten.

If he's doing the "naughty" behavior, it means he's been reinforced for it all along or it wouldn't exist in the first place. So, all of a sudden you decide to punish or correct the dog for it. He doesn't have a clue why. What's different this time? He's got to guess. How should he know what you mean?

Why do you think your dog knows better? Is that because he's done it right a few times or even a lot of times? That doesn't mean anything but that he's been guessing and happening to get it right a few times. Until he has a very strong and consistant history of reward (reinforcers) for a behavior, which are better than what he's getting elsewhere in his enviroment, he'll still be unsure of what he is you want him to do and he may just happen to hit the right thing sometimes.

A dog doesn't choose to "disobey" if good things have always happened when he engaged in the behavior before....as long as there has been a very strong history of reinforcers. That wouldn't make sense. That goes against the laws of scientific learning theory, like saying gravity doesn't exist in the law of physics. The law is that any behavior is much more likely to be repeated when there is a payoff for the dog and any behavior is likely to be extinguished if there is not any payoff. A handful of successes or even several is not enough to get the dog to the point where he's not still guessing anymore what you mean. The probability of a behavior becoming reliable depends on many, many reinforcers for that behavior. If your dog doesn't do it, he's undertrained, not being stubborn or bratty.

Imagine you are taken to a planet with some aliens. They go off to work all day and leave you at their home. They're quite nice to you most of the time. When they're gone, you eat some pizza and watch TV. They have some things which are just like toilets with flushers and everything and you use them, of course. Pizza, TV and toilets are great things to you.

When they come home, they scold you and yank you a little bit, maybe even give you a slap. Of course, there is no spoken language that you can both understand so that's out of the equation. They don't show you what they're having the problem with. They just give you a yank by your shirt collar and make some loud, scary noise. Then you reach for some more pizza and turn on the TV again. And one comes over to you and jerks you by your neck and shakes you.

You see....to them, eating pizza, watching TV and using toilets is NOT ACCEPTABLE behavior at all. They don't do that. That's not their way of life at all. So, you figure out that it is not safe to eat pizza, use the toilet or watch TV when they're home. You don't know what's wrong with those things. TV is fun, harmless, pizza is good. The toilets flush fine. Nothing bad happens when they're gone and you engage in those things. So, it is safe to do them while they're gone, just not when they're home. It would take a long time to figure out that they don't want you doing those things at all. But we're humans with bigger brains to work all that out. Dogs don't do math.

Humans and dogs do not share the same ways either. What is normal and OK to them is not normal and OK with us. Dogs do not understand our language other than making associations between objects, behaviors and words.

So, I wish people would stop projecting our morals and way of thinking, our dishonesty, our brattiness onto dogs. They're innocently selfish and do what works. That's how they are.

[Dobiegurl]

This is too weird. I keep trying to post a reply after yours Gaddy and it keeps going in before yours. So I delete it and try again and again it goes before yours. Weird, huh! I'll try again in a few minutes. I don't mean to be on a high horse, but I've been really researching obsessively and I'm not making this stuff up. LOL. (Elegy, when I say punishment, I mean what I said I mean, not a NRM or a voice communication such as "knock it off" or "quit" or anything like that. I mean punishment, not communication....as in sharp leash jerk when the dog is getting motivated somewhere else in his environment or isn't strong enough in a skill or behavior from a sufficient enough volume of training.)

Punishment means something done to make a behavior less likely in the future. So a verbal no IS a punishment.

[Doberluv]

Back on topic.....the point is that Ceasar, although not an incredible brute most of the time, he doesn't use anger or violence, he does rely on putting a dog in a submissive state by domination, cloaked in calmness and causes the dog to "behave" on account of avoidance. This constant state of submissiveness and avoiding an unpleasant response from the human is NOT natural. It is not the way a group of wolves or dogs handle things. The physical pushing down on the dog's side or back, the yanking upward on the trachea, the force, the dragging the dog by the collar into highly stressful, fearful situations with no acclimation is not necessary. There are other ways to train or rehabilitate a dog with far less stress and wear and tear on the dog. It's done all the time.

Now, National Geographic is going to have Ken Ramirez, an animal trainer take this spot on their programming next year when Millan's contract is up. They can't have the one with the other at the same time, according to contract. Ramirez trains many animals, exotic animals, sea mammals as well as dogs using operant conditioning methods and has been training for 30 some years. He will be comparing dogs to these other animals. It should be a fantastic show. I can't wait.

[Dobiegurl]

Back on topic.....the point is that Ceasar, although not an incredible brute most of the time, he doesn't use anger or violence, he does rely on putting a dog in a submissive state by domination, cloaked in calmness and causes the dog to "behave" on account of avoidance. This constant state of submissiveness and avoiding an unpleasant response from the human is NOT natural. It is not the way a group of wolves or dogs handle things. The physical pushing down on the dog's side or back, the yanking upward on the trachea, the force, the dragging the dog by the collar into highly stressful, fearful situations with no acclimation is not necessary. There are other ways to train or rehabilitate a dog with far less stress and wear and tear on the dog. It's done all the time.

Now, National Geographic is going to have Ken Ramirez, an animal trainer take this spot on their programming next year when Millan's contract is up. They can't have the one with the other at the same time, according to contract. Ramirez trains many animals, exotic animals, sea mammals as well as dogs using operant conditioning methods and has been training for 30 some years. He will be comparing dogs to these other animals. It should be a fantastic show. I can't wait.

I agree with you on that point. The alpha of the pack does not use force or "bully" the lower ranking members. The alpah asserts its dominance through behavior and confidence. People often misunderstand how dominance really works. Its not using force its more about the behavior and attitude of the alpha (owner). If you act all crazy and beat the dog, the dog will lose respect for the owner, thus creating agression issues. The alpha is always calm and collected and does not have random outburst of emotion.

Operant conditioning involves BOTH negative and positive reinforcements. Positive meaning that studies show that dogs work for motivation and negative meaning they get corrected or guided in the right direction.

[Amstaffer]

THE WORLD OF TRUE EDUCATED DOG PROFESSIONALS WILL REJOICE OVER HIS DOWNFALL!!

Wow....This is true when anyone who is successful and changes the established method. The Haters ball comes out in force.

From what I read it was at Milan's property but not while Milan was watching it or instructing. It sound's like one of his employees messed up. I fully believe Milan should pay the bills, his property(Business)=his responsibility. I don't think this event discredits Milan IMHO. A lot of his ideas work and make sense.

[tessa_s212]

Now, National Geographic is going to have Ken Ramirez, an animal trainer take this spot on their programming next year when Millan's contract is up. They can't have the one with the other at the same time, according to contract. Ramirez trains many animals, exotic animals, sea mammals as well as dogs using operant conditioning methods and has been training for 30 some years. He will be comparing dogs to these other animals. It should be a fantastic show. I can't wait.

YAY!!! I am SUPER excited! :D :D :D But now I am bummed that I don't get the National Geopgraphic channel. :(

[Doberluv]

But that's only if you believe that we're a true dog pack with our dogs and that if you belive that dogs are pack or den animals. Recent research indicates that dogs are descended from feral, solitary dogs, not directly decended from wolves. Anyhow, wolves have very loose packs, not the rigid heirarchy that was once thought, which based on disproven studies of captive wolves (inaccurate way to study wolf behavior). They consist of a mom, dad and kids and an occassional stray or two.

The alpha does not go around regulating and orchestrating all the behaviors of the other wolves all day long. He is ONLY concerned with hunting LARGE game and breeding, bringing food for the mom and cubs and himself etc.

So, this idea that we have to boss our dogs around all the time is not accurate, that we need to go out of doors first is ridiculous. Wolves, not to mention dogs.... don't even live in enclosed dens. They mainly stay out in the open for good vantage points or near some trees or rock outcropping in implement weather.

We need them to follow our rules and boundaries in order to live with these animals, but we can get them to do that without domination or wolf like behavior.... but by training and training nicely. That makes us leaders as parents lead their children and show them the rules and boundaries. We do not need to try and act like a wolf. It is so inaccurate to compare domestic dogs to wolves in the wild. Domestic dogs should be compared to domestic dogs when studying them. It's like comparing apples to oranges. They're not the same.

When the baby wolves grow up, around 18 months of age, they go off and breed and make their own families. A pack is a family for the most part unless a stray is taken in. Very serene, very unregimented, very gentle and an occasional spat with the younger wolves. And an occasional warning body language from the Dad or mom. (or alpha if you want to use that terminology) just like any good parent does. Why make it into this complex and ornate heirarchy thing? Big deal. So there's a Dad who looks after his family.

We are a specie who relies on violence and are quick to try and be superior and control and rule others. Dogs are fairly defenseless, have been our loyal friends for thousands of years. How fair is it to push them around when there are ways to teach them using scientific learning theory, which is effective, gentle and understanding? There are better ways.

Why fight it and keep insisting that collars which inflict pain or discomfort, jerks on the necks, frightening noises, throwing things, scoldings which are frightening, forcing a dog down into submission is better? Why? Sure, there's nothing wrong with telling the dog not to do something as long as it's carried out in a way that the dog can learn and be given an alternative. Often a dog is scolded but he's not given a reason to comply with the request or a preferrable alternative. So the behavior doesn't stop and he again gets yanked or scolded. Fair is fair. You know what I mean. You probably have all seen someone somewhere doing what you considered harsh or unfair. It's all over the place. It's our duty to change that and promote more effective and gentle, fair ways to interact with these gifts, our dogs.

What Ceasar does is not violent, of course, but it's not right morally and most trainers are expecting some serious problems with regression of the behaviors which he stops abruptly without training properly, but instead creating avoidance, submission (calm) and worry in the animals. When those ingredients are present, there's usually a time bomb in there waiting to go off. Experience tells us that. When soemthing is bottled up and not truly dealt with from a gradual counter conditioning, something very well may hit the fan down the road.

So, no...I don't think Ceasar Millan is some vicious guy. He's calm and I understand what he's getting at. But he's on the wrong track about comparing dogs so closely to wolves and even further off the track comparing us to wolves. We cannot emulate them closely enough to be like a wolf. His body language antics, try as he might are doing nothing more than causing submission and avoidance, fear when he uses force etc.

What does he think he's telling these dogs? Does he really see the miniscule nuances that go on between wolves? His body isn't even shaped like a wolf. A dog isn't a wolf. Wouldn't we, the human race like to think that about ourselves? How romantic a notion is that? That we have such ability. Geeees!

[gaddylovesdogs]

Yeah, something funky is going on with the board...

I think I've confused you a little Doberluv, I should've explained my methods a little more. My dogs, when teaching a new command, are first taught with no distractions. It's just me, the dog, and some good treats. Once they are WONDERFUL on that command with no distractions, I add the distractions. I reteach the command with the distractions. This way I know that my dog is perfect in all situations, so there's no room for trouble.

My dogs really do enjoy obeying me. Occasionally they will disobey, but they're dogs, they're going to mess up occasionally. Just like even the most well-behaved little kid will sometimes disobey their parents. The majority of the time, however, they obey with joyful looks on their faces because they know that when they obey I'm going to through a fit, hugging and kissing, and, sometimes giving them treats.

By "being a brat," I mean, I give the dog a command, the dog KNOWS 100% what it means, and what to do, but decides not to do it. My corrections aren't bad, they're something really small to let the dog know, "Don't look over there, don't do that. Do THIS." Once they do obey the command, I throw my fit.

Many of my corrections are no more of a "hey!" or a "no!" in a "What do you think you're doing? Don't do that." voice. For example...say the dog is sticking it's head on the table looking for food. I say a quick "no!" and then once I have the dog's attention, say, "Don't do that. Go lay down."

My dogs are all very well-behaved happy dogs. They love to train and I love to train them. They're such smart boogers.

[gaddylovesdogs]

Okay. I have not read the whole thread.

I have been able to see clips of Cesar's shows. Some things he does I do not agree with, some things he does I do agree with. Never have I seen him abuse a dog. But, I haven't seen regular episodes of his shows. I do not like how he uses choke collars so often, without trying other methods.

My dogs do get punished/corrected occasionally. They are only punished/corrected when they have done something wrong that they KNOW they're not supposed to do. I don't punish/correct them when they don't know what I want them to do. If they're just being bratty and CHOOSING not to obey me, I give a little tug on the leash (if they're wearing one), or a "hey!" to get their attention, or the evil eye. If they've done something they're not supposed to do (in this case, I haven't given them a command, they're just getting into trouble), I correct them and possibly give them a time out if it's something big.

My dogs have never gone to a professional trainer. The only people who have ever trained them are me and my family. They are all well-trained, happy animals. I don't think you HAVE to be a professional trainer to train a dog. I'm not saying professional trainers are a bad thing, (this is not meant as an insult, it's simply my opinion) but I am saying that just because you are a professional does not give you the right to hop on your high horse and prance around.

So that's my $0.02.

[Doberluv]

Gaddy, I know you're nice to your dogs. That's not what I mean at all. I just can't seem to make myself understood about dogs and how we may think they know darn well and now they don't do what we say so they're being defiant. I can't seem to make myself understood about how dogs don't process information in that way. This isn't something I'm just dreaming up. It's been researched extensively. If they don't do it here and there, then the only reason is that there is a competing motivator and they're still not solid enough with a background of reinforcers. They're not knowing and realizing what we want and then choosing to defy us. I just can't seem to explain any better. Weah, weah, weah....

[Snark]

Gaddy, I know you're nice to your dogs. That's not what I mean at all. I just can't seem to make myself understood about dogs and how we may think they know darn well and now they don't do what we say so they're being defiant. I can't seem to make myself understood about how dogs don't process information in that way. This isn't something I'm just dreaming up. It's been researched extensively. If they don't do it here and there, then the only reason is that there is a competing motivator and they're still not solid enough with a background of reinforcers. They're not knowing and realizing what we want and then choosing to defy us. I just can't seem to explain any better. Weah, weah, weah....

If it makes you feel any better - I get what you're saying. :) I've had Murphy, who knows how to do an automatic sit while heeling at home or with low distractions, 'forget' when confronted with 'high' distractions. Is he being stubborn? No. Defiant? No. Do I yank up on the leash for a 'good, strong correction' like the instructor wants? No. I get his attention back on me, heel forward a step and voilá! he does the automatic sit. What a good boy!!

[elegy]

(Elegy, when I say punishment, I mean what I said I mean, not a NRM or a voice communication such as "knock it off" or "quit" or anything like that. I mean punishment, not communication....as in sharp leash jerk when the dog is getting motivated somewhere else in his environment or isn't strong enough in a skill or behavior from a sufficient enough volume of training.)

not sure why we have to redefine "punishment" here. punishment as defined in training is something which decreases the likelihood of a behavior reoccurring, right? it has nothing to do with whether it's "harsh" or "mean" or whether someone thinks it's "cruel" or "dominating".

i think we do ourselves and the dogs we're training a disservice by loading all that emotional baggage.

ignoring a dog can be punishment. "going neutral" on a dog can be punishment. you don't have to beat a dog or scruff shake a dog or jerk a dog's leash to punish a dog. and punishment is not inherently bad. there are behaviors we *want* to decrease, right?

if a dog is jumping up at you and you turn your back and ignore the dog, that's punishment. if a dog is barking at you and you look away and ignore the barking, that's punishment.

and yet, that's what you'd tell somebody to do, right?

[Zoom]

Um, not really. He never said to beat your dogs and he only uses the hanging your dog for extreme cases. Well, if my dog attacked me, it would be worse, because I would kill him, its as simple as that. Its not working or desensitise the dog. I rather my dog not bite me in fear of me than not bite me because he might get a treat for good behavior. Ed Frawley is not as bad as people think. He uses LOTS of praise and treats, but everyone HATES him because he using negative reinforcements. A dog is a dog, not a human and that is why we have so many problems in this world concerning dogs. People treat them like humans, when in reality they are not. He is no where as extreme as William Koehler ( to me is a legend for introducing the world of dog training) but does have his moments that are not harsh but firm. No one has to agree with me, its my opinion.

I spent a lot of time reading his Q&A section when I first found that site, and one person asked "How do I get my dog to quit jumping on me?" His reply was to knee the dog in the chest hard enough to knock it over onto it's back and then kick it in the rump while yelling NO at it. That seems pretty effing harsh to me.

[Doberluv]

and yet, that's what you'd tell somebody to do, right?

Right.

Somehow, I think my point went over