Another season of Cesar prompts another round of controversy
By Gina Spadafori
February 5, 2009
The VIN News Service takes up the issues surrounding the techniques of Cesar Millan, whose TV show and books have made him the hottest thing in dog-training in decades. Timothy Kirn writes:
Cesar Millan, television’s ‘Dog Whisperer,’ has legions of fans, including some dog trainers. But a group of veterinary behaviorists is not among them.
The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) issued a position paper aimed at countering some of the pervasive influence of his show, which airs on the National Geographic Channel, and of Millan’s training approach, which is based on what the position statement calls outdated dominance theory.
[...]
Though Millan has been criticized by a number of different groups and individuals, he has supporters. {…] “I have never seen Mr. Millan be abusive,” says Martin Deeley, executive director of the International Association of Canine Professionals.
Millan does not use coercive techniques exclusively, but also uses positive reinforcement, says Deeley, who has worked with Millan and knows him well.
Raised by Wolves blogger (and regular PetConnection commenter) Heather Houlahan was interviewed for and is quoted in the piece. On the whole, it’s a pretty good overview of a complex and contentious situation that leaves the dog-owning public wondering exactly which trainers have it right.
Which brings up that old joke in dog-training circles: The only thing two dog trainers will agree on is that a third dog trainer is wrong.
Judging from what I’ve seen on the show, I like him. Can’t say I would do every single thing he does in exactly the same way but then, there’s no one I follow THAT religiously. [insert politically incorrect joke here]
Comment by slt — February 5, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
I know this issue is polarizing, but here’s what I’ve found as a common sense approach:
1) I watch/read/research
2) I filter through my own common sense, gut instinct, experience, and knowledge of my own dog.
3) I decide how to apply or modify, or discard completely.
For the average dog owner, this argument is like watching a tennis match. Can’t tell who’s right, walk away without any training option at all.
Comment by Lori — February 5, 2009 @ 12:51 pm
I’m fascinated at how many people are so harsh on Cesar. About 1/2 of the cases on his show are cases of dogs that about 2/3 of the training population — and virtually every shelter or rescue group — would recommend putting down for aggression. The guy is pretty magical at dealing with these cases. He’s also not the first person I’d call to help me with agility training.
I just think it’s crazy how people think there is only one “right” way to train a dog, and that every dog needs the same type of only-positive-reinforcement training.
Comment by Brent — February 5, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
I’m surprised this is still a “debate’. AVSAB was very clear, and so is American Humane:
http://www.americanhumane.org/.....perer.html
“The training tactics featured on Cesar Millan’s “Dog Whisperer” program are inhumane, outdated and improper, according to a letter sent yesterday to the National Geographic Channel by American Humane, the oldest national organization protecting children and animals.”
“Several instances of cruel and dangerous treatment — promoted by Millan as acceptable training methods — were documented by American Humane, including one in which a dog was partially asphyxiated in an episode. In this instance, the fractious dog was pinned to the ground by its neck after first being “hung” by a collar incrementally tightened by Millan. Millan’s goal — of subduing a fractious animal — was accomplished by partially cutting off the blood supply to its brain. “
What’s to debate?
Comment by Becky — February 5, 2009 @ 1:16 pm
The only reason I have more training clients from the show is people try to do what they saw on TV and their dog either bites them or threatens them. I had three new clients just this weekend.
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — February 5, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Fantastic article, thanks for the link.
My own armchair assessment is that dominance theory is a load of bs when it comes to dog training. But I have no books, shows or clients to prove anything to just a bagful of opinions.
The owners on the Millan show drive me more crazy than anything he does…the dogs I’ve seen on his show seem to benefit from any training at all. I mean the owners are like, we’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas.
I do think its magnanimous of him to respond to the controversy he has inspired by running the disclaimer at the end of the show that there are many other ways to train your dog, that has made me soften on my general dislike of some of his methods.
Comment by Sheyna — February 5, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
It’s a reality TV show. REALITY…. TV….. SHOW….
I never had anyone come to our shelter asking to adopt a nice dog that will bite their kids in the face. Plenty who brought a dog in because it bit, or because it bit after they got it and they didn’t want a dog that bites. Most trainers will work with a dog in the home that is aggressive, but when it gets to the shelter, it becomes a liability for the shelter, for new adopters who do not know how to manage it, and, if it bites the new owner or their kids, it’s pretty hard on the brand-new human-animal bond. Dogs are best helped in the home, always, because they have someone who knows them, someone who loves them, and someone who is hopefully willing to manage it. When a dog gets to a shelter, he doesn’t have an owner who loves him, nobody who knows his triggers, and rarely an adopter who is willing to risk being bitten or sued. Keep them in your home and call an experienced trainer or behaviorist.
Comment by Becky — February 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Doh would love to edit my post to say that I have not written any books, I have on the other hand read plenty. Hard to be clear when wasting time at work!
Comment by Sheyna — February 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I think Cesar has a lot of charisma and a lot of natural/learned rapport with dogs (and people) and I think he truly loves dogs and wants to help them (and people). I think his message of “discipline, exercise and affection” is faultless. But most people don’t have his personal attributes, and that, I think, IS a problem.
I personally wouldn’t use many of his techniques and his “take them to the psychology center” thing is getting a little creepy since you never see what happens there other than dogs wandering around together. You rarely see Cesar attempt the physical domination he uses on Chihuahua’s and other small dogs with big tough dogs. The last time I saw him try that with a dog-aggressive pit bull, it redirected onto Daddy, Cesar’s wonderful old sausage-pit (an inexcusable management lapse on Cesar’s part)
But the thing is, dogs are smart, and they can learn using almost any method. Flooding works to overcome a dog’s fear, and so does “positive”; so does other methods.
It’s not that every dog “needs” the same kind of training, though every trainer believes that (every dog needs that trainer’s kind of training!). And it’s not just that no trainer ever agrees with any other trainer, or even that every trainer has a method/philosophy/gimmick that is the ONLY one that works and that it’s in every trainer’s interest to denigrate/deny the effectiveness of any other method.
It’s about the kind of trainer the owner wants to be (or is capable of being). Cesar has accurately identified soft-hearted/soft-headed owners as the source of dog problems. Personally, I doubt that these people really can maintain the kind of physical dominance he advocates (or do it without getting bitten, as Nancy F-S notes). There are so many other non-physical/non-dominance based techniques that would probably better suit the personalities of most dog owners today.
I don’t think Cesar’s method is a good “conversation about training” (to use Patricia McConnell’s formulation) to have with our dogs. Anyway, it’s not a conversation I want to have with my dogs.
I think the last word on Cesar is this:
http://www.southparkstudios.co.....sar+Millan
Comment by EmilyS — February 5, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
whoops, it’s Suzanne Clothier, not P. McConnell who talks about the “conversation of training”: http://www.dogstardaily.com/bl.....n-training
now, how could I have made THAT mistake?
;-)
Comment by EmilyS — February 5, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Gina, Could you please post the info from American Humane? They were on the set, documented what they saw, and issued a statement about their concerns. Being “open-minded” means considering the facts available, and I’m concerned that you censored my sharing of that information. Thanks for the interesting blog content! Becky
Comment by Becky — February 5, 2009 @ 2:11 pm
I have a real quick answer for the Cesar Milan lovers (just went through this last week, in fact).
“I am not a dog and I do not speak dog”.
Thus I try to figure out a way to make the dog do what I want as quickly and easily as possible.
When asked “How do you make your beagles stop barking when someone comes to the door?” resulted in a blank look from me. I don’t make them stop barking. I want them to bark at the door.
Here’s how people at doors work at a beagle household.
Door bell rings.
Dogs bark.
I answer door.
I invite person in.
Dogs are still barking but soon settle down as they are now sniffing the visitor.
Beagles get bored with sniffing and go off and do beagle stuff.
Takes about 3 minutes.
Thus proving I have very noisy dogs that go along with a very noisy alarm system, pick another house if you want to rob us.
Comment by Kathleen Weaver — February 5, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Becky, I didn’t censor your information. You obviously don’t read the blog to even think so. It takes a lot for us to even put someone on “moderate.”
If you posted with a link it may be in the spam filter … hang on, I’ll go look.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 5, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Yep. Spam filter. It’s up now.
As for why this is still open for debate … because intelligent, reasonable people are debating it.
Again, you apparently aren’t a regular reader here. Howling to dogma ain’t our thing. We ask questions, challenge orthodoxies … and hope our readers do the same.
I’m personally no fan of Millan’s show, but I do know a lot of experienced, humane and efficacious trainers who use a variety of methods in their work. And I believe they have a contribution to the discussion, and should have a voice.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 5, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Thanks for posting my earlier one, Gina. I thought you’d pulled it because a second post appeared first. Glad to know you don’t do that! DW episodes that that concerned me include: the Great Dane afraid of the floor (so he dragged it); the dog that was reactive to other dogs (so he kicked it in the rear from behind with his “off” foot when it popped off at the other dog); the Eng Bulldog and the golf cart in TX when it was 100+ degrees, and the dog was in respiratory distress; another reactive pit was collapsed on the ground sucking wind and heaving after he cut his air off….. Plenty to be concerned about. And yes, discipline, affection, exercise are great, but that doesn’t mean the rest is good, too. As a trainer, I consider it a failure when I elicit a bite. Provoking a bite and showing the dog then get strung up is done for purely entertainment value, because it is not best practices. Most owners cannot handle a dog confidently enough to do what he does without being bitten, and that concerns me as well. But, yeah, I still am all about exercise, discipline and affection!
Comment by Becky — February 5, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
I’m surprised this is still a “debate’. AVSAB was very clear, and so is American Humane […] What’s to debate?
AVSAB and American Humane were very clear. Let’s not confuse clarity with being factual. What both of these organizations say about dog training is driven by a rigid ideology rather than the extremely wide range of challenges that exist in the real world of dog training.
Comment by LauraS — February 5, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
Cesar is an attractive, charming man. His bio as an illegal immigrant with little formal education who made good plays well for the Media. He makes a perfect TV package where nothing much is real anyway.
Comment by Anne T — February 5, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
Laura
I’m a little unclear on the rigid ideology informing AVSAB’s motives. I would like to know how their stance against Millan and his dominance theory training is not factual.
Further, having worked with a veterinary behaviorist for my dog I’m a little puzzled as to how she could have managed to help me with my dog without being in the real world of dog training.
Comment by Sheyna — February 5, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Sheyna, I don’t know what your veterinary behaviorist did and how it relates to AVSAB’s official position statements.
After debating the subject of e-collars with one certified veterinary behaviorist, she came around to my way of thinking and now uses one on her own dog. So what any given veterinary behaviorist does in any given situation isn’t necessarily the AVSAB party line.
I do know that one size does not fit all, and the narrow dog training philosophy espoused by AVSAB does not work for all dogs in all situations. That’s the fundamental problem.
I am not prepared to condemn hundreds of thousands of dogs to euthanasia because some are squeamish about delivering the responsible, humane, life-saving corrections those dogs need in order to become well-behaved dogs.
I posted the following to my K9 SAR list:
The AVSAB’s position statements on Dominance and Punishment are poorly sourced, and jam-packed with misleading and demonstrably false statements. They are a thinly-veiled repackaging of the “purely positive” (PP) philosophy of dog training, falsely masquerading as behavioral science.
The AVSAB doesn’t completely eliminate corrections (“punishment” in Operant Conditioning – speak). But they would defer corrections until it is so late that problems that could have been easily nipped in the bud by most pet owners become entrenched, and thus much harder for any but experienced dog trainers to extinguish. Quite possibly not before the dog harms someone.
There are many ways to successfully train dogs. But the facts demonstrate that the methods advocated by the AVSAB are among the methods least likely to lead to success, and most likely to lead to serious problems.
The heart of science is data. Facts. Advocates of the methods espoused by the AVSAB have relatively little track record of success, and denigrate and grossly mis-characterize time-proven methods that actually work. The facts be damned, when they contradict their dog training beliefs.
(One of the best-known advocates of AVSAB methods lives in California and teaches classes on these methods. She has yet to train her own dog to reliable off lead heeling despite her attempts and a stream of food bribes, has been kicked out of numerous dog parks because her dog won’t stop attacking other dogs, and has been observed giving “monster” corrections to her dog using a head halter – a tool dangerously unsuited to delivering corrections.)
The AVSAB says: “Punishment can facilitate or even cause aggressive behavior.” True, but that result is rare. Yet what AVSAB fails to understand is that not using punishment to nip inappropriate self-rewarding behaviors in the bud is many times more likely to lead to aggressive behavior in dogs.
Balanced dog trainers are still asking for an example of just one dog that has been successfully trained to an AKC OTCH (obedience trial champion) title using the methods espoused by the AVSAB. Not a single verifiable example has been provided. Yet old-fashioned Koehler dog training has led to hundreds of AKC OTCH dogs. The AVSAB says that Koehler dog training is inferior, since it utilizes punishment. And yet the measurable facts using this metric for a demanding, objective test of dog training methodology indicate that Koehler dog training is vastly superior to the methods espoused by the AVSAB. (The Koehler Method of Dog Training – KMODT — is not my cup of tea, but there’s no disputing that it works. Them’s the facts.)
Likewise, one will be frustrated trying to locate competition schutzhund dogs that have been successfully trained using the methods espoused by the AVSAB. These competition dogs were trained using methods that the AVSAB says are inferior. I have had the privilege of learning from some of the most accomplished schutzhund trainers in America. They are the most open-minded, learned dog trainers I have known, who travel the world to learn from the best; both the “book knowledge” the AVSAB relies upon, and the hands on “what works in the real world of dogs” knowledge. If the AVSAB methods were superior, competitive dog trainers in very demanding sports like schutzhund would have already adopted them. They have not done so because the methods fail when attempted.
When a scientific hypothesis or theory is contradicted by the facts, the hypothesis or theory is proven false. As Einstein said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Millions of times over, pet dogs, competition dogs, and working dogs have been successfully and reliably trained using methods that the AVSAB claims are unscientific, inferior at best, and dangerous at worst. Millions of times over, dogs have achieved off lead freedom and satisfying relationships with their handlers thanks to balanced training methods, rather than having to be managed with head halters and bribed with a stream of treats by those afraid to use corrections. What the AVSAB advocates isn’t science-based; it’s a faith-based philosophy of dog training.
The training methods advocated by the AVSAB have led to hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of ill-trained dogs. These dogs leave their owners unsatisfied, so the dogs lead stressful, overly managed, and often lonely or boring lives. These methods have created a thriving business for their advocates. They also keep many balanced dog trainers employed, people who pick up the pieces and work to correct the problems created by these methods. Sadly, many of these ill-trained dogs don’t get this second chance. Many get dumped in animal shelters as adolescents or adults when their owners can no longer tolerate living with these out of control animals. Many of these dogs are being killed in these shelters, or are being declared pathologically aggressive, when there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the dogs. What these unfortunate dogs have lacked are human leaders who apply methods of dog training that have been proven to ACTUALLY WORK over thousands of years of successful dog – human relations.
Comment by LauraS — February 5, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
LauraS, while I agree with you that not every method works for every dog, I don’t think it’s fair to blame ASVAB for the millions of poorly trained dogs out there. In reality, most dog owners don’t go through any formal training at all. Those that do are not likely to consult a veterinary behaviorist unless they’re dealing with some sort of major issue (like extreme aggression.) Even those that do consult their vet or consult a behaviorist are much more likely to listen to the professional they know and trust rather than rely on ASVAB’s policy statement.
Beyond that, this is something I think about a lot and I’m just not sure whether there is a “right” or “best” method. I’m lucky in that my dog is incredibly easy to work with and really doesn’t have any behavioral problems. I use verbal corrections when I need to, but don’t really have to go beyond that. If I did use leash pops or things of that nature, I think I’d end up with a frightened dog since Buddy is so submissive. On the other hand, I’ve met dogs who you could blow an air horn at and they’d pay absolutely no attention. Every animal is different.
Comment by Tara — February 5, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
You can also add competitive field-trial/hunt test retrievers to your list of “jobs” that we’re still waiting to see a successful application of the training methods advocated by the AVSAB.
just sayin’ …
And Tara … I agree that every dog is different. I think that recognition is the sign of a good trainer, not unyielding belief in one school of thought or another. I have a Sheltie. I have retrievers from field bred lines. Have I used different training techniques on the Sheltie v. the retrievers? Oh yeahhhhhhhh. And hey, the difference between my 4-year-old male retriever and 4-year-old female retriever is pretty amazing, too. He’s all drive and all business. For her, life is all a big game.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 5, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Tara, I’m not blaming AVSAB for all untrained dogs. I’m blaming the overly-permissive, ‘we mustn’t ever “punish” Rover mindset’ that is common among many pet owners and dog trainers today for millions of ill-behaved and often out-of-control dogs. The AVSAB’s fundamentally-flawed position statements derive from the same ideology that created this mess, and sanction the same unbalanced methodology.
Beyond that, this is something I think about a lot and I’m just not sure whether there is a “right” or “best” method.
Exactly.
Comment by LauraS — February 5, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
I saw an early show of Cesar’s in which he forced a terrified dog to “face his fear” of entering a backyard in-ground swimming pool by literally dragging that dog by the leash into the pool. I’m not a professional trainer, but even I know that there are better, kinder ways to help a dog decide that he wants to live the life aquatic.
You can use as much New Age jargon as you want — abuse is still abuse. And what I saw on that show was abuse, pure and simple.
Waiting for flames now …
Comment by Susan — February 5, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Hey Susan … I’m going to say (again) that I’m no fan of the show.
But … I do believe we’ve gotten “cultish” in dog training (more than ever before, and that’s hard to believe!), and I would like to see an acknowledgement and discussion of techniques that are outside the current policially correct school of thought — and that are efficacious and humane.
I’d personally like to get the discussion to open up again.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 5, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
All I have to do is watch Cesar on TV and my dog behaves better.
Comment by Sharyn — February 5, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Discourse on this subject is vital. It goes beyond just training philosophies however. It also has to do with what society will allow a dog to be.
I see an ever narrowing definition of what is an “acceptable” range of temperament for our dogs. And I will blame some of that on the philosophies behind the methods deemed appropriate by AVSAB and also their dismissal or condemnation of other training philosophies.
my experience comes as a rescue volunteer who has seen a number of dogs labelled as dangerous and un-adoptable because they had personalities or behavior issues that were not amenable to training or correction by these methods. Many of these have been successfully rehabbed, sometimes very quickly, using a variety of training methods, some of which I am sure would not have been on on AVSAB’s approved list.
There are plenty of dogs out there who will become perfectly decent companions using PP methods, but I dread the day that dogs who do not are condemmed as defective or deficient.
Comment by Jenniferj — February 5, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Gina, I believe you are just trying to surpass Christie’s commment counts. Don’t pretend you didn’t know about the new numbering, either …
For the record, I never said Millan was a “very good chap.” And I have suitably abused the reporter — who had also been speaking to the painfully British Martin Deeley — for this. What I said was that he had very good chops.
My snarky written critique of the “science” and the logical fallacies (esp. the false dichotomies and straw men) in the AVSAB’s advertising flyer did not make the article. Perhaps I’ll re-craft it for my own blog. I’d paid little mind to this brochure before the reporter sent it to me and asked.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 5, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Susan, my dog lives to do wilderness search-and-rescue. Whether it’s training or searches, he thinks it’s The Best Game In The Universe.
One of the requirements in my K9 SAR organization before a team can attempt a mission ready test is a swimming signoff for the dog, typically in a lake or pond. My dog wouldn’t hesitate to walk into water up to his chest, but he was afraid of getting buoyant in water.
My dog would not swim, no matter what inducement I attempted. I tried his favorite reward, I tossed a tennis ball in the water. No matter how I tried doing that, gradually increasing depth, or whatever, I couldn’t get him to willingly swim. My attempts were actually building his stress about swimming rather than reducing it.
A dog trainer friend suggested I take my dog into the water and swim with him. So I pulled him via a long line into a lake with me. He did not like that at all. Probably much like the dog in Millan’s program, he wasn’t going in unless I dragged him in. But my dog learned that he isn’t going to sink to the bottom, and that he can swim. It took a few sessions of that for his fear of swimming to be reduced to the point that he would swim after tennis balls tossed into water. Then it became just a matter of getting enough reps of ball fetching into various ponds and lakes. My dog became eager for the fetch/swim game. He got the swimming signoff, and we later passed our mission ready test.
For a while I had an unexpected problem. While he and I were training in wilderness environments to find a hidden person, if my dog smelled a pond he’d lead me to that — hoping for a game of fetch/swim (and lemme tell you, pond scent travels a long distance). A simple “leave it” a number of times made that go away.
I reject the notion that causing temporary stress — yes, even fear — in order to create a learning situation amounts to abuse.
Try telling my dog that the end result — he gets to continue doing what he loves most in this world — was abuse.
Comment by LauraS — February 5, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
Heather,
The number of comments thing is a little running joke I have with Christie. In fact, the top most-commented-on posts are all hers, and it’s not even close. Doesn’t matter to me, really. I’m just teasing her.
I didn’t do a thing to make the comments come out numbered. The WordPress software was just upgraded by the folks at BlackDog, and I figured it was part of that. Software upgrades, not my thing.
The misquote … well, I have no doubt you gave it to the reporter but good.
I understand that you didn’t get everything you wanted into the piece, but I referred the reporter to you because he was looking for he other side of the discussion after the veterinary behaviorists released their statement. He was trying to present a balanced report, and judging from the almost even pro-con responses coming in to VIN News, I think he managed it pretty well.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 5, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
I believe what I did with the reporter is generally referred to as “busting his chops.” Bwaa haa haa. He said his hearing was going. And in fairness, I have a rather gnarly cold. I just find it humorous that I became British by association.
I didn’t expect him to reproduce my philippic; I do know how this works.
We had a nice chat and I gave him some suggestions for working with his excessively soft Kelpie, and the name of a herding instructor near him who is a bit more experienced and patient than the first person he tried, who declared the dog talentless after one short attempt.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 5, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
I sense a lot of jealous dog trainers who wish they had the brand recognition that Cesar has established. While I wouldn’t follow all this tactics, I can’t knock him until there is some proof of inappropriate behavior.
Comment by Anne Good — February 5, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
One of the big differences between Cesar Millan and other “traditional” or “balanced” trainers, is that he is actually secure and confident, and doesn’t feel the need to claim that dogs trained by other methods are untrained, or that trainers who use other methods are too ignorant of dogs to ever be trusted with them.
He, shockingly, recognizes the untrained dogs he works with on his program as untrained. Not “trained by methods that don’t happen to be my personal faves.”
Some of the cases on his show—notably Kane the Great Dane, who was afraid of shiny floors—I don’t believe he handled in the best way for the dog. But it’s clear that he loves dogs, AND that he likes people—including people who are not his blind acolytes, people who disagree with. And that last point alone sets him apart from other “balanced” or “traditional” trainers, who have so much basic respect for other trainers who disagree with them that they diss reward-based training as “food bribes”.
Comment by Lis — February 5, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
I still find this all rather curious, since Millan doesn’t consider himself a trainer at all, but a dog rehabilitator. Which I think is quite different.
I also find what sounds like knee-jerk hostility tiresome when aimed at someone who doesn’t seem to believe that almost any behavior by a dog, no matter how awful, should not only NOT be a capital offense, but believes with all his heart that they can be rehabilitated and at least have a decent life at his center, if not go home with a family.
A lot of people turn to him in desperation after one or more trainers have advised them to put the dog down, which reminds me of that saying about how doctors can bury their mistakes (Frank Lloyd Wright, who went on to way that architects can only plant vines).
What I have heard him talk about is “leadership” which is not the same thing as “dominance” at all.
It reminds me of that old Japanese movie Rashomon, where one event was seen very differently by the seven people. What meaning one takes from something often depends on what perceptions one brings to a situation. Kane the Dane seems to be almost a Rorschach test in that regard.
If people don’t listen to what he says and try to do some of the things he does, especially if they don’t have calm/assertive energy, then, surprise, they’ll probably get a different result. Holding someone on tv responsible for what a viewer chooses to do at home is a red herring.
For myself, finding that emotionally neutral energy state has had immediate, visible, positive effects in handling shelter dogs, dogs in the neighborhood and my own dog.
Maybe more later, so I can help pump up Gina’s comment numbers ;-)
Comment by Susan Fox — February 5, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
I am a trainer/behavior consultant who works with fearful/aggressive/’hard to train’ dogs on a regular basis. I watch dog training shows on television in order to answer my client’s questions about them. I’ve watched far too many episodes of Mr. Millan’s show — enough that I can no longer be politically-correct when discussing this among canine professionals. I’m through apologizing or sugar-coating my thoughts on what, to me, is a moral issue. While I may take a different tack with my clients, whom I’m in the process of educating… I shouldn’t have to do this with people who are supposedly already educated in canine ethology/biology/physiology…
Anyway — I have also posted the following on another blog; it says everything I want to say:
I made myself watch the WHOLE episode with the Jindo twice.
I happen to have some training in medical issues. I watched the episode twice, first with the sound, and the second time without the sound (that old bugaboo research has shown that when a person is looking right at something, if someone else is giving a ‘voice over’ or explanation, it really doesn’t matter what they are seeing — they will remember what they HEARD most of the time).
During the first viewing, I heard Mr. Millan talk about the need to bring the Jindo into a ‘calm, submissive state’ during and at the end of the segment where he used a choke collar to help him do so (he did pronounce himself successful in this endeavor).
During the second viewing, my physiology education kicked in. What I SAW was the physical evidence of strangulation and having ones air supply cut off. First, struggling for air, gasping, trying to escape. Next, a stiffening of the body as the tissues are being robbed of oxygen (you notice the dog’s legs stop bending, either at knees and later at hips). Then we see the animal fall over stiff-legged on it’s side — another manifestation of severe oxygen deprivation. Finally, the dog’s tongue, swollen and dry, is seen hanging out of his mouth (but only for a very short time before the camera switches back to Mr Millan, who is explaining that the dog is now in a ‘calm submissive state and ready to learn’).
What I saw, without voice overs, was that he nearly killed a dog by cutting off it’s oxygen supply on national television. I was appalled that the owners did not bring abuse charges against him — I would have expected the wife to, at the very least. I was even MORE appalled that the ASPCA or even the HSUS didn’t bring charges, either.
Abuse CAN be quantified, and I see it on that show. When I watch it, I feel like I’m living in some alternate world where public floggings are still acceptable and attended by throngs of spectators. It makes me physically ill to see any living creature harmed for the sake of television ratings.
Comment by jo — February 5, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
LauraS—I’m no fan of all-“positive” trainers. In my experience, they’re quick to kill what they can’t fix. In one case, a perfectly delightful Basenji mix who had become nippy with visitors was tossed treats every time visitors arrived and he nipped at them. Surprise—a full-blown biting problem rapidly developed. The owner then took the “positive” trainer’s advice to have her dog killed because he was “dangerous.”
But—the Koehler method as an alternative? Here’s the essence of the Koehler approach to dog training, taken verbatim from The Koehler Method of Dog Training (which is designed to be used by pet owners):
The Koehler method for stopping a dog from barking: “equip yourself with a man’s leather belt or strap heavy enough to give your particular dog a good tanning. Yup—we’re going to strike him. Real hard. . . . lay the strap vigorously against his thighs. Keep pouring it on him until he thinks it’s the bitter end.” (pp. 168-169)
Housebreaking a previously housebroken dog that has started pottying in the house:
“[Give] the dog a hard spanking of long duration [defined elsewhere as severe flogging with a heavy leather belt], then [leave] him tied by the mess he’s made so you can come back at twenty-minute intervals and punish him again for the same thing” (p. 175).
Chasing and biting bikes, etc.:
“Give him about five minutes of the hardest tanning you can administer. Use a belt heavy enough to make him really feel your efforts.” (p. 172)
Fence running and bolting:
“Find out . . . how you hold and shoot [a slingshot]. . . . Your dog . . . is not apt to outrun, nor ignore, [eight or nine] BBs. If he does . . . small steel balls . . . are procurable at many stores. . . . Rear back and let him have it” (pp. 158-159)
(There is a logical spinoff of this one, and that is simply shooting the dog with buckshot. The last person I know of who did this wound up with a dog carrying a load of buckshot in his liver.)
The Koehler method for stopping a dog from digging: “fill the hole to its brim with water. . . . bring the dog to the hole and shove his nose into the water; hold him there until he is sure he’s drowning. . . . fill the hole with water and repeat the experience the next day, whether the dog digs any more or not.” (pp. 178-179)
The Koehler method for stopping a dog from chewing: “select a piece of the material he has chewed . . . and place it well back, crossways, in his mouth. Use a strip of adhesive tape to wrap the muzzle securely in front of the chewed material, so that no amount of gagging and clawing can force it from his mouth. Perhaps you are wondering if these frantic efforts to rid himself of the material will cause the dog to scratch himself painfully. Yup. They surely will.” (p. 166).
The Koehler method for stopping predatory behavior: “Obtain a cull chicken . . . Fasten a few coils of the fence charger’s live wire to one of the chicken’s legs, tie the legs together . . . it takes a lot of electricity to even make a chicken tingle, so feel no compunctions when you turn on the six-volt charger. . . odds are that your astounded dog will drown out the chicken.” (p. 182)
The Koehler method for stopping a dog from fighting with other dogs: “equip [yourself] with a piece of rubber hose about 16 inches in length and one and a half inches in diameter. . . . Into this hose . . . slide an equal length of wooden dowling . . . At the first growl or aggressive move the hose is brought down across the middle of his muzzle” (pp. 38, 176)
The Koehler method for stopping leash grabbing by the dog: “Lock both hands onto the leash . . . and lift straight up. . . . ‘Clear off the ground?’ you ask? Yup—until he longs so fervently for Mother Earth that he’d hardly invite another ‘lifting’ by grabbing the leash again.” (pp. 35-36)
A few more details from Koehler on how to hang a dog: “The dog is suspended in midair. . . . When finally it is obvious that he is physically incapable of expressing his resentment and is lowered to the ground, he will probably stagger loop-legged for a few steps, vomit once or twice, and roll over on his side. The sight of a dog lying, thick-tongued, on his side is not pleasant, but do not let it alarm you. I have dealt with hundreds of these” (p. 37).
LauraS, are you not familiar with training in drive? This is how Schutzhund and other sport training is done. The ideal training approach is a balanced, flexible one that requires careful attention to each dog’s character and needs. But this requires a great deal of thought and intelligence. It’s far easier to base training methods on a one-size-fits-all political approach, which is why so many dog trainers are sadists or ninnies or both.
Comment by SusanS — February 5, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
One of the most pointless debates in dogdom. Who CARES how other people train their dogs? The sad fact is, the biggest problem is that most don’t do any kind of training.
The “don’t spank your kids” crowd is by far the most annoying, and the Cesar=idol crowd is the most numerous. It always makes for sparks, but there’s no point to winning the debate.
I don’t think the “OMFG he beats the dogs” rhetoric is even in the same zip code as reality, nor do I think any of those dogs are being abused in any way.
But again, it doesn’t even matter, I don’t care how you train your dog, just that you’ve done more than nothing.
Positive only zealots are annoying like vegans and missionaries are annoying. I don’t want or need to be converted. Shut up and let me eat my hamburger, deny the existence of your god, and correct my dog the way I see fit.
Comment by Christopher — February 5, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
I’m one of the executive producers of the “Dog Whisperer” series.
I’d like to clear up a few inaccuracies.
1. American Humane has never visited the “Dog Whisperer” set. A representative of The Humane Society of America did visit the set. HSUS is supportive of Cesar and the show — they have provided amazing assistance for a special we are producing about puppy mills.
2. Some may think Cesar’s treatment of Kane the Great Dane was harsh. I was there directing the story and all I can tell you is within 11 minutes, Kane was walking back and forth on the shiny floor with his owners. He has not been afraind of shiny floors from that moment forward….that was filmed almost 5 years ago.
3. No dog was partially asphyxiated in an episode. Period. The proof is on tape.
4. Cesar doesn’t use any one method. He observes the case in front of him and decides what would work best. He has used positive reinforcement on the show dozens of times.
5. Cesar never speaks ill of another trainer. He believes that any humane method that works is fine by him. We can all debate what we each think is “humane.” He has saved countless dogs from being put down. We have received thousands of thank you letters from viewers who now have great relationships with their dogs from what they’ve learned by watching the show.
Jim Milio
Comment by Jim — February 6, 2009 @ 12:08 am
Lis, results-based dog trainers are interested in what works, and what doesn’t work. We learn from those experiences.
We don’t expect any given method of dog training to work with every dog. But when a widely-advocated philosophy of dog training cannot produce a single AKC OTCH titled dog, schutzhund competition dog, or (to add Gina’s example) a competitive field trial retriever, well, that’s saying something pretty sweeping about its efficacy in demanding dog training disciplines.
There are no tools or methods that positive dog trainers use that balanced dog trainers don’t also employ. The difference is, we don’t expect those tools or methods to work in all situations, or with all dogs. We don’t reject something just because it’s in the wrong quadrant, or because some guru declares it “cruel”. We adapt and use what works with the dog in front of us, for the thing we are trying to accomplish with that specific dog at that moment in time.
My husband spent a week in Billings, Montana recently, a follow-up to Heather Houlahan’s earlier visit. He was helping to guide the wonderful volunteer handlers there in implementing a taming protocol for the nearly 200 feral and semi-feral dogs that had been seized from a hoarder/puppymiller. After several days of this, one of the handlers sheepishly said to my husband, you won’t agree with this, but I use a pinch collar on my own dog. She assumed that because he was advocating a protocol that requires an extreme non-confrontational approach with the seized dogs that my husband was a purely-positive trainer. My husband replied that he had 3 pinch collars and an e-collar outside in his car, that one doesn’t train a powerful schutzhund dog to championship competitions without using one or both tools, and that these were inappropriate tools for these dogs at this time. Balanced dog trainers adapt to the dogs in front of them.
Had you seen my dog and I at SAR training last night, you might have been forgiven for assuming that I’m a purely positive trainer. My dog couldn’t have been more revved up happy, and the search problems we did were a fantastic game of hide-and-go-seek, with much effusive praise and ball fetching fun. Not a single correction of any kind. I don’t know how much more “positive” dog training can be than that. But had he chased after Bambi, or one of the coyotes that was yipping nearby (he did neither of these), the e-collar correction he would have received would have disabused one of any notion that I won’t use appropriate corrections when needed.
There are many who implicitly or explicitly hurl baseless accusations of animal cruelty or animal abuse at humane balanced and traditional dog trainers.
Do you suggest that we just keep quiet when we are accused of committing felonies? Among other things, these accusations are intended to intimidate us into shutting up. Ignoring these things is not a luxury we can afford, not when there are those who are attempting to impose their dog training philosophy onto others through the force of the law.
I’m “secure and confident” that some who are becoming increasingly shrill in accusing humane balanced dog trainers of animal abuse, combined with overreaching animal rights organizations and their allies in government, will attempt to impose their philosophy onto the rest of us through new legislation and inappropriate enforcement of existing animal cruelty laws. Especially when self-proclaimed experts using a false veneer of science like AVSAB add fuel to their arguments. These efforts have had some success so far, by getting e-collars or pinch collars outlawed or banned in some places.
Criticizing someone who resorts to a stream of food bribes to get her own supposedly trained dog to heel is not dissing the use of food as a training reward. It’s criticizing a person for teaching classes on dog training while at the same time being unsuccessful training her own dog. BTW, bribes and rewards are fundamentally different things.
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 12:30 am
LauraS, are you not familiar with training in drive? This is how Schutzhund and other sport training is done.
Yes, I am familiar with it.
Drive is the engine that propels nearly all schutzhund training and trialing. Even while doing the obedience exercises, schutzhund dogs are in drive. When doing schutzhund protection, that’s about the highest state of drive I’ve seen any dog in. I’ve watched intact adult males, some of them experienced studs, drag their handlers right past bitches in heat — who they totally ignore — when it’s their turn on the schutzhund protection training field. And if one observes schutzhund training sessions, one is likely to notice that all of the advanced dogs are wearing either a pinch collar or an e-collar, and their handlers are not shy about using these tools.
I participate in K9 SAR with my dog. That is also all about drive. It’s not possible to compel working dogs to search for missing people, for narcotics, for bombs, or for anything else. Search dogs have to want to search, to be driven to do it. That doesn’t mean we don’t use appropriate corrections when SAR dogs chase wildlife or livestock, roll in animal carcasses, eat cow patties, or disobey life-saving commands.
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 12:57 am
We don’t expect any given method of dog training to work with every dog. But when a widely-advocated philosophy of dog training cannot produce a single AKC OTCH titled dog, schutzhund competition dog, or (to add Gina’s example) a competitive field trial retriever, well, that’s saying something pretty sweeping about its efficacy in demanding dog training disciplines.
I wouldn’t know.
Or, y’know, care.
It’s produced a lot of great pets, and I’ve had several, and known quite a few others. I learned reward-based training, not from a book, but from my first dog over forty years ago. She crumbled at a raised voice even if not directed at her; any sort of “punishment” used by “traditional” trainers (and believe me, yes we did read those books) was simply too much for her to absorb the intended lesson.
Reward-based training, including walking away or gently ushering her into her crate when her behavior wasn’t what was wanted, produced a dog who, as an adult, was happy, friendly, well-mannered, and a wonder to acquaintances who “knew better” about dog training that we did. At least, according to them. And, apparently, you.
My current dog would have been put down in most shelters in America, had she been unfortunate enough to land in one. Instead, her breeder took her back, and placed her with me, and I started working on her fear of practically everything, and the resulting fear-aggression.
Working on it with treats, toys (after I taught her what toys are for), praise, and, toughest of all to enforce with other people who “know better”, ignoring her when she needed to be ignored. She’s a hit nearly everywhere I take her now, sweet and friendly with people, especially with young kids even when they have no idea how to behave around a dog. Other dogs are still more of a challenge to her, but she has lots of dog friends now, and she passed her Canine Good Citizenship test in September.
No, she’s not an AKC OTCH titled dog, has no schutzhund titles, is not a competitive field trial retriever, nor ever likely to be any of those things.
But, like the people who call Cesar, or the other current hot tv trainer, Victoria Stilwell, that’s not what I was looking for. I was looking for a good pet.
Apparently, that’s not good enough for you, and my dog is just a fluffy little failure.
Criticizing someone who resorts to a stream of food bribes to get her own supposedly trained dog to heel is not dissing the use of food as a training reward. It’s criticizing a person for teaching classes on dog training while at the same time being unsuccessful training her own dog. BTW, bribes and rewards are fundamentally different things.
There’s a term for that sort of person: a lousy trainer.
I know this will come as a shock to you, but there are remarkably lousy “balanced” or “traditional” trainers, too.
Comment by Lis — February 6, 2009 @ 6:14 am
Remember the Petco trainer who muzzled, sat on, poked and eventually asphyxiated to death her client’s dog ‘Ringo’? I remember speaking to that trainer and her crying about how everyone should understand because she was just doing a “technique” she learned from watching Cesar Millan.
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2009 @ 6:37 am
There are no positively trained OTCH dogs? I would not be surprised, positively trained dogs are taught to offer a ton of behaviors and learn for themselves, always searching and offering and exploring, learning TONS of different things. That’s what they are rewarded for doing, so they are constantly stimulated and in drive and looking for new things to do. OTCH dogs must do the SAME routine, over and over and over, perfectly without flaw. I am not at all surprised it takes some aversives to teach that.
Comment by Amy — February 6, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2009 @ 6:37 am
LAME. ‘Gee but I “learned” it off a TV show that says on every episode not to try these techniques on your own. I don’t understand what went wrong.’
The trainer who killed the dog is the one who is responsible - not some TV show the trainer watched. We have a serious problem in our society with accepting responsibility for our own actions.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — February 6, 2009 @ 6:55 am
I didn’t attempt to attach blame either way. Just sayin….that’s where she claims to have learned the technique. That said, if Millan thinks people shouldn’t be taking his advice and trying out his techniques at home, what’s the purpose of the show?
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2009 @ 8:00 am
“The Koehler Method of Dog Training – KMODT — is not my cup of tea, but there’s no disputing that it works. Them’s the facts.”
No, it doesn’t work for many dogs. As a dog trainer, I’ve frequently been called in to repair the wreckage—all too often a once happy dog who has become fearful and snappish.
Even when the dog isn’t a mess, I’ve been struck by how fragile this training often is. If the dog goes to a new home where he is treated with respect and has happy alternatives, the Koehler training often breaks and the dog becomes disobedient. A careful foundation of positive training with the minimum corrections needed produces far more reliable results. It takes longer than pure brute force, but the results are worth it.
Certainly there are very hard dogs that do well with extremely harsh training methods. But this is a very small subset of the dog population.
I use prong collars and e-collars when this will benefit the dog (not just to get a ribbon and a piece of paper). But a trainer has a moral obligation to use the least aversive method that works.
“Yet old-fashioned Koehler dog training has led to hundreds of AKC OTCH dogs.”
Not any more. Have you forgotten why they changed the rules to require that the dog had to be happy doing the work in order to win? The sight of terrified, miserable dogs acting like robots at obedience trials was giving the sport of obedience a bad name.
And, by the way, most pet owners couldn’t care less about OTCH’s. They just want a happy, well-behaved dog.
Comment by SusanS — February 6, 2009 @ 8:03 am
I am glad to see that one of the Executives attached to the Dog Whisperer show has responded to the allegations of “abuse”.
I am also not surprised to see many familiar names here regarding the show.
Cesar Millan has provided one thing to the general pet owning population that no other Dog Trainer has been able to successfully achieve throughout time. He offers hope.
He has propelled dog training into the homes and thoughts of countless millions of people who would otherwise not seek training alternatives for their wayward pets and he has successfully achieved name recognition not only for himself but for dog training, the need for competent dog trainers and has encouraged a market for both where none existed before to this degree.
Although I do not rigorously apply to the theories of “dominance” and “submission”, nor do I identify with that language, the general principals of Exercise, Discipline and then Affection are sound ones.
There are many professional trainers here who have been recognized at the highest levels of their disciplines and I have to ask some of the opposition contributors to this thread; if what they do is harmful to pets, how long do you really think they would have stayed in business as dog trainers?
Don’t you think that if Cesar Millan was actually ‘harming” dogs that he would have been dismissed after all this time?
I operate under the impression that if there were actually physical evidence of cruelty, that this would be a non-issue.
I am pleased that in August of 2004 before the show launched, I instigated a letter to National Geographic that fostered a deep discussion of training, training methodology and what Cesar Millan could offer, which sparked a nationwide movement to recognize and endorse him. I am pleased that National Geographic and it’s executives did not cave to the controversy that surrounds the show and the ‘politics’ of dog training.
I have worked in the sheltering environment for years and I see first hand the failures of owners, the failures of poor choices and the consequences to otherwise normal animals who were not given the opportunity to learn through a lack of education and fearful bias. That is a choice too, but I am troubled by the moral ambiguity of those who are unwilling to exhaust efforts to correct their pets’ untoward behavior, but dump them at a shelter because they cannot, will not or are unable to address what often amount to simple problems.
I am even more disturbed by the unwillingness of some individuals to address problems best served by a timely, effective deterrent and opt to destroy the animal instead, suggesting that this is preferable? To whom? Certainly not the dog.
To the “Susan” who quoted the last chapters of the Koehler Method of Dog Training; it figures that one would deliberately take material out of context to the original work to prove a point.
Utilizing the skill sets in the first part of the book correctly will eliminate the need to use any portion of the last part. It also addresses the dog that is a “real hood” as opposed to most dogs, and is predicated on the dogs prior knowledge of what is considered acceptable behavior. Of course, by reading and applying the first part, you would have known that.
It is indeed unfortunate that so many people are so wrapped up in what appears to be their moral justifications without the benefit of being able to see the bigger picture.
I personally wish Mr Millan the best and continued success.
Comment by Linda Kaim — February 6, 2009 @ 8:09 am
Comment by Joy — February 6, 2009 @ 8:00 am
The purpose of the show IMO is educational entertainment. I think the show inspires owners to think differently about their dogs and training. And hopefully they are motivated to work with a trainer as a result. Well, not the asphyxiating trainer but someone normal.
As a viewer, I can kind of suss out what I would and would not “try at home” from any TV show - I don’t need a disclaimer although I appreciate that they are there. For example, I know when I watch Rachael Ray, I might “try this at home” vs. when I watch Dog the Bounty Hunter, I understand I’m watching someone in a profession I have not chosen for myself who has experience and training I don’t have and can get results that I most likely could not. Cesar falls into that latter category for me.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — February 6, 2009 @ 8:16 am
“Terrified, Miserable dogs”?
Really?
I guarantee they are not Koehler trained dogs.
Just because someone says they train with the method don’t make it so.
Comment by Linda Kaim — February 6, 2009 @ 8:21 am
To me, pointing to Koehler is about as helpful as sneering at the other side as “foodies.” There are elements of both schools that fit and fit well into a trainer’s tool kit, and other parts that don’t.
I had that book 40 years ago, and believe me, I wouldn’t follow much of that advice then, when I was an 11-year-old training our standard poodle. My dad’s belt never was borrowed as a dog-training tool, rest assured.
There are four ways to change an organism’s behavior, be it a snail or your spouse: Here’s the chart.
Within those four boxes when you’re working with dogs are choices of techniques and tools, and the gifted trainer reads the dog, the problem, the client, the relationship the client has to the dog, the current status (loves the dog but frustrated with the animal’s manners, is afraid the dog will hurt some one, hates the dog, etc.) and what relationship/results the client hopes to have.
The trainer then assesses the tools and techniques from those four options based on the information she has and her own experience in the efficacy and safety of any given technique.
Of course, it’s true that the training necessary for demanding dog work — SAR, schutzhund, field trials — produces a level of performance most pet-owners don’t need at all. While it’s true you teach a young, high-drive, birdy, field-bred Labrador to turn, sit on a whistle and wait for direction from 200 yards away with a hug and a hot dog, the fact is most people don’t need a dog who does that.
That’s why I’m arguing for opening up the discussion. Different dogs with different training challenges owned by different people with different desires need varied approaches.
And when trainers consider only the tools in one or two of those boxes, they’re not going to be able to train the wide range of activities we ask from our dogs. When that happens, we are denying our dogs their full potential and ourselves the joy and the benefits of working with towards and with a well-trained dog.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 6, 2009 @ 8:32 am
This man has helped so many people. Who cares what a panel of “professionals” says? How many dogs has he saved from euthanasia? These people call/come to him usually as a last ditch effort, when they have two choices: give the dog away, or put it down. Just think of how many hundreds of dogs this man has saved. People are jealous because he IS the best there is out there. I have never seen a person so in tune with dogs and shows them how much they are appreciated.
P.S. I do not watch the show religiously, but I watch it at least once a week. This man has a gift. Let him share it and make the lives of dogs and their owners better.
Comment by Keisha — February 6, 2009 @ 8:46 am
I had a very shy, insecure, fear-snapping little female Afghan Hound who I took through a Koehler class years ago. If I’d have heard all the warnings about the method, I’m sure I never would have done so, but since there wasn’t much else out there at the time, that was what you did.
Zena thrived in the classes and overcame her fear of strangers touching her on the stand for examination. She heeled with a wagging tail and did screaming recalls to butt-dropping sits that put traditional obedience breeds to shame, finishing with enthusiastic leaps to heel. Throw chains did not phase her in the least, and she learned to do fabulous long sits and downs with distractions like chickens walking around her.
The classes completely turned her around and she became confident and reliable around strangers. She graduated in the number two spot with a 198 in a large class, and while we didn’t make time to compete with her, she did end up “starring” in a car commercial (1985 Mercury Lynx) where she worked completely and reliably off-lead in San Francisco.
On the other hand, I’ve seen a well-known, long-time obedience trainer — a show-no-mercy Koehler loyalist — browbeat the hell out of a young Lab at a Humane Society match. This person was a real drill sergeant who was famous for hanging, and sometimes spinning, fractious dogs. She scoffed at the use of treats for motivation (“you think you’re gonna have a steak in your hand when you need to recall that dog across a busy street to save its life?”) And she was responsible for countless advanced obedience titles.
The more I read about dog training / dog trainers, the more the above joke (“The only thing two dog trainers will agree on is that a third dog trainer is wrong”) makes sense.
Judging by the behavioral issues I see in the majority of animals that enter our shelter each year, I think the far bigger problem is no training at all.
We should focus more attention on getting people to train their dogs, period — then educate owners about how to choose the right kind of class for them and their dog, because what works for one person, dog and situation is just not going to work for the next.
One size does NOT fit all when it comes to dog training, but no training at all definitely results in a lot of dead animals.
Comment by stellaluna — February 6, 2009 @ 9:07 am
I’d still like to hear what a positive only technique would be for, say, the Border Collie on DW that had lost an eye biting the tires of the tractor on the farm he was living on.
Cesar used an e-collar to great effect. I don’t think a click and treat mentality could break through the intensity of the drive in a dog that went from 0 to possessed the second the tractor turned on.
I imagine you could try and desensitize the dog to the sound of the tractor starting, but you’d need two people at least and you’d probably blow the starter on the tractor before you’d get results, and that wouldn’t even begin to touch the prey drive.
The e-collar can be used by one person, the guy on the tractor, and meets the level of intensity in the dog with a stimulus that is intense enough to get results on a time frame most people are willing to accept.
IMO, the tool fit the problem. But still, there are some vocal people who think that poking your dog with a hand full of outstretched fingers is abuse, and thus an e-collar is extreme abuse.
I just don’t see it.
Comment by Christopher — February 6, 2009 @ 9:12 am
“… How many dogs has he saved from euthanasia? These people call/come to him usually as a last ditch effort, when they have two choices: give the dog away, or put it down. Just think of how many hundreds of dogs this man has saved.”
I have to agree with you on this, Keisha. I also think that a lot of the carping about how Millan does things is probably sour grapes from people who think they have it all figured out and should be making the money he’s making from that show.
Comment by stellaluna — February 6, 2009 @ 9:17 am
Well and the boxes are all fine and dandy - but IMO they’re also terribly outdated. A while back there was this thing called the cognitive revolution. Unfortunately it didn’t start with a shot heard ‘round the world so most of the dyed in the wool, anti-free will / all behavior is elicited behaviorists remained alive and well in animal training fields.
The four quadrants of operant conditioning help explain a lot of behavior. So do the involuntary processes of instinct and classical conditioning.
But… they don’t explain everything. Not by a long shot. From the Brelands’ “Misbehavior of Organisms” to the brilliant work now being done in places like Eotvos University in Budapest, we’re finding out that four quadrants (or worse yet — only two) are a woefully inadequate tool to explain and guide behavior.
Comment by SmartDogs — February 6, 2009 @ 9:19 am
Yeah, I know … I was using them, again, in an attempt to simplify things a bit and open up the discussion.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 6, 2009 @ 9:25 am
“… How many dogs has he saved from euthanasia? These people call/come to him usually as a last ditch effort, when they have two choices: give the dog away, or put it down. Just think of how many hundreds of dogs this man has saved.”
Just to play the devils advocate. We see Millan “helping people” in short miraculous segments. There is an occasional follow up, from what I’ve seen, but he doesn’t follow up on every family, does he? How do we know he really helped for the long term or just helped while the cameras were there?
Comment by Lori — February 6, 2009 @ 9:25 am
Well, true — and I totally appreciate the devil’s advocate viewpoint, since I take it myself so much of the time. (And I have the scars to prove it, heh.)
But I’m going to have to assume that if there were a pattern of problems in the dogs and families after the fact, we would have heard of at least a few of them by now. (I mean, you know with all the people out there who hate the guy, somebody HAS to have been doing their own followups, if for no other reason than to prove him wrong.)
Given the level of negligence and ignorance displayed by so many of the people who have let their dogs get so out of control in the first place, I still have to believe that just about anything is going to be an improvement on their situations.
Nothing is perfect — NO trainer is perfect. There are so many variables.
Comment by stellaluna — February 6, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Gina, thanks for your comment about using all of the quadrants. All organisms learn using a combination of all of these. What I’m talking about is the DEGREE of reinforcement/punishment that’s taking place.
All training methods, whether based on reinforcement, punishment or a combination can be placed into levels from least aversive to most aversive — and those levels will vary, depending on the individual being taught and the education of the trainer.
However, while education for a dog trainer CAN be ‘seat of the pants’ like CM (currently, there are NO regulations for becoming a dog trainer — anyone can ‘put out a shingle’ so to speak, without ANY education or training at all), when one is working with a sentient living being, one would hope that one would take into consideration all of the recent knowledge available before making a decision on what methods and levels of reinforcement and/or punishment to use. Otherwise, one may experience someone misusing ANY method/tool/procedure (i.e., as someone already mentioned, being a ‘lousy trainer’ whether traditional or positive…), and the end result is that the animal pays — sometimes with their life.
I work with quite a few shelters/rescue organizations and very closely with a handful of veterinarians and vet behaviorists. I agree that a huge problem is no training at all, but there’s another problem, too. That problem is people — whether ‘trainers’ or your average owner — using too heavy a method with a fearful dog without having even a rudimentary understanding of either the science of behavior or the reason why a particular animal is behaving the way it is. These dogs can quickly escalate into defensive aggression when faced with punitive, harsh methods — and if rolled or ‘forced to submit’ — just what do they learn? The ones I’ve worked with in rescue learned very quickly NOT to trust people…
Suppression of behavior isn’t ‘training’… it’s just a band-aid that falls off eventually, putting the dog right back into rescue or on the table for euthanasia.
Comment by jo — February 6, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Reward-based training, including walking away or gently ushering her into her crate when her behavior wasn’t what was wanted, produced a dog who, as an adult, was happy, friendly, well-mannered, and a wonder to acquaintances who “knew better” about dog training that we did.
Balanced trainers also use reward-based training. Again, positive-only trainers have no monopoly on the application of any type of reward, whether it be toys, food, praise, petting, or anything else.
If your dog didn’t require anything more than the mild corrections that you describe — and wilted under anything stronger than that — in order to become a happy well-mannered pet, then that’s how a balanced trainer would have trained that dog to be a well-mannered pet as well.
The thing is, many dogs require stronger corrections in order to end up in the same place. A balanced trainer will adjust to the dog in front of them. YMMV.
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 10:01 am
There are four ways to change an organism’s behavior, be it a snail or your spouse: Here’s the chart.
Actually, no. Scientists who study animal behavior — ethologists — abandoned operant conditioning as the all-encompassing explanation for animal behavior and learning 30 odd years ago. That’s when the cognitive ethology and cognitive psychology revolutions took place.
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 10:12 am
See above, Laura.
Did you ever see “Broadcast News”? The scene were the head of the network says with no small amount of sarcasm to the Holly Hunter character (I’m drawing from memory here, so it’s a paraphrase), “It must be really wonderful to be you, to also know that you know everything, that you always know what the facts are, what’s right, and what needs to be done.”
Hunter bites her lip, “Really, it’s not,” she says.
Honestly, you remind me of this cartoon that’s making its rounds around Teh Interwebs.
Chill a little, will you?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 6, 2009 @ 10:21 am
jo wrote:
when one is working with a sentient living being, one would hope that one would take into consideration all of the recent knowledge available before making a decision on what methods and levels of reinforcement and/or punishment to use.
What I would really hope is that anyone who hangs out a shingle has made a deep study of the oldest, most proven, most tested methodologies that have been shown to work over scores, hundreds, in some cases thousands of years.
And I’d hope that they would serve an apprenticeship, hands-on, for years before striking out on their own. For some this is a formal master-apprentice relationship, for others it is more eclectic.
Then I would hope that that person would maintain an active, open, searching mind about things that are new to him or her. (Because nothing, other than some tools, is “new” in dog training. Just new to me or new to you. Our species has been doing this for too long.) Along with that active, open, searching mind I would hope to see a healthy measure of skepticism and a resistance to jumping on fadwagons and following gurus.
Still hoping …
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 6, 2009 @ 10:22 am
And for an encore, I think we should all go over to Fugly and start a discussion on Parelli, which seems to be the equine equivalent of Millan in terms of controversy.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 6, 2009 @ 10:32 am
Can’t we just all agree that raw-feeding immigrant show-dog breeders who use electronic collars on Sarah Palin from their offices at the FDA are the Antichrist?
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 6, 2009 @ 10:36 am
:::snort::::
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 6, 2009 @ 10:38 am
Well, if all you have is a hammer, you’ll tend to make every problem look like a nail. In dog training, that seems to translate into a one-size-fits-all approach for some people even when it’s obvious, to me at least, the each dog has different requirements.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 6, 2009 @ 10:52 am
Maybe what we need is The Reality-based School of Dog Training. No doctrinaire thinking allowed.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 6, 2009 @ 10:59 am
I suspect the problem with the name “balanced training” is that its natural opposite would have to be “unbalanced.” Hello, connotations? Which might be the idea.
Comment by Lori — February 6, 2009 @ 11:09 am
to follow up…
On the “Dog Whisperer” series, since the beginning of the second season, we have on camera follow-ups/updates with everyone on the show. We also went back and followed up with as many people we could find from season one for an episode guide book we wrote.
The result: 80% of the people on the show achieved complete success or had gotten the issue(s) under control to their satisfaction.
Of the remaining 20%, most of the people didn’t have the time or inclination to consistently follow Cesar’s recommendations.
Most of what I’ve read in these responses is reasoned debate, which I welcome in the emotionally charged arena of animal welfare.
Jim Milio
Comment by jim — February 6, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Hey Lori, what’s the opposite of “positive?”
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 6, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Jim, that 80% figure is about what I’ve been seeing for the 15 years I’ve been training dogs professionally.
And it’s what I tell clients when they call me about aggression. About 80% of the time, we achieve a result with the dog that satisfies both me and the client.
It is not always lack of follow-through on the client’s part that accounts for that other 20%. Less and less these days, as I screen clients for commitment more rigorously. But there are very few dogs that I conclude simply could not have been helped by the time they got to the point where I first saw them. I can think of maybe four. A couple of those could not have been helped past the point where their parents were introduced.
Comment by H. Houlahan — February 6, 2009 @ 11:23 am
yeah, but “negative” doesn’t also mean “crazy”
Comment by Lori — February 6, 2009 @ 11:25 am
Gina, I don’t claim to be all knowing. Far from it.
I’ve been objecting to those who claim they’ve got The Truth wrapped up in a neat little package, and the rest of us just need to get with the program.
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Heather over at Raised by Wolves has got a great blog post up about the taming protocol mentioned here.
“A protocol for gaining the trust of feral dogs, puppymill and laboratory stock, junkyard dogs, hoarding survivors, and other unhandled domestic dogs”
http://cynography.blogspot.com.....beast.html
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Gina, the problem with these discussions is the trap you yourself fell into when you wrote: “While it’s true you [can’t] teach a young, high-drive, birdy, field-bred Labrador to turn, sit on a whistle and wait for direction from 200 yards away with a hug and a hot dog, the fact is most people don’t need a dog who does that”. The first part of that comment is obviously intended as a sneer at anyone even considering not using traditional adversives in field dog training (or obedience dog training or Schutzhund training or whatever). EVERYONE is an ideologue on this subject and most especially the ones who think they aren’t.
(by the way, your “hug and a hot dog” is not a bad description of how people teach high drive agility dogs, including fieldbred Labs and herding-bred Border collies to turn, jump or stop on a command and keep moving while listening/watching for direction.. I wonder how they do that without physical adversives???. )
Christopher, if you actually are interested, you would easily find an answer to your puzzlement: “I’d still like to hear what a positive only technique would be for, say, the Border Collie on DW that had lost an eye biting the tires of the tractor on the farm he was living on.” (step one: find the distance just before the dog reacts to the tractor; get dog’s attention, mark/reward; step two, move a teeny bit closer repeat repeat repeat) This kind of redirection/counter conditioning does not require multiple people and is one of the most basic techniques in the “positive/operant” toolbox. I don’t claim it works for all dogs (though it worked with my dog-aggressive dog to the extent that he can walk politely past another dog), and I certainly don’t deny that a stupid/inept positive trainer might fail (or that the dog might be so damaged it can not be fixed). But it is really not rocket science… though it perhaps requires more patience and imagination than you may chose to employ. What technique would you use: flooding? Just never letting the dog near the tractor? Getting rid of the dog as useless on a farm? All of those “work”. It is a free country: you can chose whatever method you want.
Jim, I’m glad to read your comments defending Millan against charges of cruelty. But you are being disingenuous to claim that he never “asphixiates” dogs. He regularly hangs red zone dogs that have gotten far out of control and/or are fighting. Hanging is a classic technique that is not news to anyone who has worked with dogs. The purpose of hanging is not just to get the dog off-balance so it can’t fight; it is to cut off the air supply. Cesar also uses e/shock collars, though I have never heard him talk about it. It would be far better if he openly and frankly described and discussed the use of these physical control techniques than to pretend they don’t happen.
Comment by EmilyS — February 6, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
“But it is really not rocket science… though it perhaps requires more patience and imagination than you may chose to employ.”
Or it could just be that I want to train the behavior quickly and use the rest of the time to do something fun with the dog that doesn’t involve “get dog’s attention, mark/reward; step two, move a teeny bit closer repeat repeat repeat.”
Comment by Dutch — February 6, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Found it!! A friend of mine actually said it much better.
“I think purely positive training alone for more dogs, in most situations, takes entirely too long to achieve reliability for most commands - unless one has an endless amount of free time, which most people don’t. I would much rather train my dogs quickly and reliably using a variety of tools and use the time saved to enjoy the fruits of our labor and relax with my dogs instead.”
Comment by Dutch — February 6, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
Although I am not a dog trainer, nor do I play one on TV, I have taken workshops, seminars and classes from people who are, putting together a bag of techniques and tricks that work for me and my dogs for the past 10 years.
Here’s a list of people I have learned from, either in a class situation, having the privilege of seeing them work their dogs at trials or taken classes from people they have taught; Linda Mecklenburg, Elicia Calhoun, Stewart & Patty Mah, Susan Garrett, Jen Pinder, Nancy Gyes, Anne Andrle, Leslie Whitney, Nancy Freedman-Smith. Don’t know ‘em? Look ‘em up on Teh Googles.
Comment by Anne T — February 6, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Or it could just be that I want to train the behavior quickly and use the rest of the time to do something fun with the dog that doesn’t involve “get dog’s attention, mark/reward; step two, move a teeny bit closer repeat repeat repeat.”
Comment by Dutch — February 6, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Ah, the need for instant gratification…
I enjoy the time spent training my dog—and so does she.
And nothing can beat seeing her grow in trust and confidence, as well as in the skills she needs, since she came home to me.
Comment by Lis — February 6, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
Dutch you’re right.
“positive” does take more time, at least initially. But clicker savvy dogs learn very fast.
For adherents (acolytes), that’s precisely WHY they like it… they WANT to build that partnership relationship. And they believe it is more effective in the long run.
But in truth, almost any method works. Dogs are smart, and forgiving of our mistakes. Training is truly about what YOU want to be.
Comment by EmilyS — February 6, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
Hanging is a classic technique that is not news to anyone who has worked with dogs. The purpose of hanging is not just to get the dog off-balance so it can’t fight; it is to cut off the air supply.
I’ve seen this done a couple of times, but it didn’t involve cutting off anybody’s air supply.
Each time, it was a reaction to dominance aggression from a powerful dog. These were not your average pet dog.
Each time, the dog was wearing a pinch collar. The dogs’ air supply was not cut off. I don’t think it’s even possible to cut off a dog’s air supply using a pinch collar.
There was no gagging or gasping for breath. The dog calmed down after a few seconds, and went limp. At that point, the dog was let back down on the ground. Handler and dog then immediately went back to training.
An observer who turned his back for 10 seconds or so — and who failed to hear the dog’s angry burst of in-your-face machine gun barking that caused the handler to resort to this — would have missed the entire sequence of events. He would have had no idea that anything had been amiss.
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
I’m not a Cesar Millan fan.
I don’t have any answers for these extreme tough cases, except get some Ph.D. animal behaviorists to work on them.
I somehow think that if you started working my own dog using the methods Mr. Millan uses, she would quit working for you within 15 minutes.
Honestly, the only animal behaviorist who makes sense to me is Dr. Patricia McConnell.
I am harsh on Millan, because most of his methods may work. And that’s problem. The average person doesn’t know where the limits are on dogs. And if you watch the show for any length of time, he gets bitten a lot.
A lot of what he says is far too simplistic, and that’s one reason why I avoid TV shows about dog training.
I use corrections in training, but with my breed, you CAN overdo corrections. My guess is the average person misses out on that nuance from watching the Dog Whisperer, and may ruin what are otherwise good dogs.
Maybe we do need some revisions on how to deal with really hard cases, but I’d rather this come from a more scientific basis than the metaphysics of “energy.” When he starts talking about energy, my eyes just glaze over.
Comment by retrieverman — February 6, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Well, you ought to de-glaze them, because it’s real and it works. There’s nothing metaphysical about it.
It’a a feedback loop and I’ve now watched it in action and experienced it numerous times since I’ve started to cultivate calm/assertive or emotionally neutral energy.
One example: Since I’ve worked on maintaining calm energy when walking in the neighborhood, I’ve found that I can stop quite a few of the dogs in other yards from barking by just a sound and pointing my finger. Sometimes they even lay down when I make eye contact (the boxers go after each other, but at least they’re not fence fighting with us).
And this is without any contact, up to ten feet away. Call it energy or whatever you want, but when I am a certain internal state, it works. If not, it doesn’t.
And it works with the shelter dogs, too. Instead of winding up when I walk the down the kennel line, they now tend to quiet down as I come to them. They haven’t changed. I have.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 6, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
And Retrieverman, I’ve read a lot of your excellent comments. I’d bet you have calm/assertive energy with your dogs without even realizing it and don’t think twice about it. You probably have it as a natural way of interacting with them. Some of us have had to learn it, like me, who was never around dogs(allergies)until I got a collie puppy five years ago.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 6, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
Wow, Gina really IS trying to beat my record… 85 comments now!
Comment by Christie Keith — February 6, 2009 @ 10:02 pm
We live to serve.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 6, 2009 @ 10:17 pm
It’a a feedback loop and I’ve now watched it in action and experienced it numerous times since I’ve started to cultivate calm/assertive or emotionally neutral energy.
OK, I want to learn more about this. How do you do it?
Comment by LauraS — February 6, 2009 @ 11:07 pm
The part I never understand is either you’re with the “acolytes,” or you’re only in it for instant gratification, either the trainer or the dog is not enjoying themselves, you’re damaging the trust and confidence of the dog, the dog could learn faster if you used a clicker, you don’t want to build a partnership relationship, and I’m making some sort of mistake that my dog needs to forgive me for. That is a whole lot of assumptions considering you’ve never seen my dog, you’ve never seen me train, and you have no idea what my results are.
Comment by Dutch — February 7, 2009 @ 1:48 am
The part I never understand is either you’re with the “acolytes,” or you’re only in it for instant gratification, either the trainer or the dog is not enjoying themselves, […]
Part of what you’re missing, Dutch, is that in clicker training, both trainer and dog are enjoying themselves. Which seems to me to be a clear win. (And are you really having a good time when you’re focused entirely on getting immediate results?)
For all the complaints that “traditional” or “balanced” trainers have about how reward-based trainers describe “traditional” methods, in fact “traditional” and “balanced” trainers tend to talk about reward-based training in terms that don’t just diss the training methods; they’re personally demeaning. Apparently this is supposed to make us understand what utter losers we are, or something, I don’t know. One of the things I like about Cesar is that this is one of the areas where he differs from other “traditional” trainers: he never disses other trainers or other training methods. He’s always personally respectful, and it seems to be natural, not something he’s doing intentionally, as another “technique.”
The “calm/assertive energy” thing, although it’s unfortunate that he sometimes talks about it in full-blown Hollywood woo-woo terms, is some of the best advice Cesar Millan gives, right up there with “exercise, discipline, affection,” and applies whatever methods of training you use.
Comment by Lis — February 7, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Oh, and:
That is a whole lot of assumptions considering you’ve never seen my dog, you’ve never seen me train, and you have no idea what my results are.
Yes, of course I’m judging you on what you say, not having seen your dog. And the same is true of what you’re saying about me and anyone else disagreeing with you. News flash: that’s all we have here.
Comment by Lis — February 7, 2009 @ 7:15 am
It’a a feedback loop and I’ve now watched it in action and experienced it numerous times since I’ve started to cultivate calm/assertive or emotionally neutral energy.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 6, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
A lot of the private e-mails we’re getting talk about the “calming energy” of Millan. Some of them get so New Age nutty in explaining it that I can feel my eyes roll as I read.
BUT … the MORE I read them I started to realize that people are feeling/recognizing something that perhaps I’d been trained/trained myself to not allow myself to recognize or experience because of my highly-tuned BS meter.
This passionate discussion of the “calm energy” is in e-mail after e-mail. Long e-mails that took time to write. Many of them never or hardly mentioned dogs at all.
The upshot: I’m going to have a Millan marathon, looking at the show from a different angle and with a more open mind to this issue of his … uh, energy. Not as a journalist, dog-trainer, pet expert … but just as ME.
Hey, it may not change a thing with what I think, but I am tell you, a LOT of people are taking something from that show that has NOTHING to do with dog-training.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 7, 2009 @ 7:46 am
This all reminds me of Barbara Woodhouse… anyone remember her? She had all these tricks, tools, and techniques she swore were the secret of her success with dogs, and that needed to be adopted by her followers.
But if you watch some of the (somewhat rare) video of her working with dogs, you can see that it has nothing to do with those things. She had a way with dogs. It was her body language, her clarity of focus, her enegery, if you will, that was making the difference with the dogs she worked with.
I think a lot of us here have our own “way with dogs,” and this focus on tools and techniques is sometimes missing the forest for the trees.
Comment by Christie Keith — February 7, 2009 @ 8:13 am
“Walkies!”
Comment by Anne T — February 7, 2009 @ 8:15 am
LauraS, I have some experience with Zen meditation, letting thoughts come up and observing them, so I think that has helped me also perceive my emotional state at a given time.
The Buddhists call it mindful awareness or just mindfulness.
So, I think it’s a matter of being aware of what’s going on in your own mind first and then quieting the constant mental running commentary of thoughts, planning, opinions and judgements. Not easy for us primates.
This started as an experiment to see what would happen if I tried it Cesar’s way (along with other things I’ve learned over the past five years) because it’s like running a gauntlet in the morning when we walk our dog. At least six households in two blocks have up to four barking dogs. Yelling “Shut up” had no effect. It just seemed to amp them up more. I got tired of it.
What I’ve done with the barking, fence-running dogs, is simply walk up to the fence or gate and claim the space. No talk, no eye contact. I think that they are either in an excited state or a “driving off the intruder” state. Like when the UPS man leaves and the dog is so proud of himself for “protecting” the household.
I just stand there with my mind in neutral until they run down. Sometimes it takes awhile. I don’t start unless I can stay, however long it takes. The instant they stop barking, break off eye contact and redirect, I walk away. The only way they can get me to leave is to stop barking.
Having claimed the street and gotten them out of an excited state and into one that seems to be uncertain or calm, I’ve then been able to, usually, block the barking by saying “Hey” sharply and pointing a finger at them. It seems to improve with repetition. If they don’t bark, then I walk up and say “Hi”. I have permission to give treats to one dog.
As I said this only works if I am in the right mental state. I know if I am, because the dogs respond differently than if I’m not (just continuing to bark and run). They’re teaching me.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 7, 2009 @ 8:48 am
In a roundabout way, I’m going to respond to Gina’s earlier invitation for this discussion to broaden to include the ideas of the horse trainer, Pat Parelli. But first, some comments about the use of “energy” in training dogs:
FIrst and foremost, let us never forget what exquisite students of human body language dogs have become over their history. They’re already very eloquent in this language among themselves. But their ability to expand this skill across species lines to humans has a lot to do with their success in becoming our domesticated partners. In other words, one of the main reasons dogs have become such good companions to us is because they’ve become so good at *reading* us like a book. Sadly, the reverse isn’t true nearly often enough.
And we give them a lot to work with. Facial expression, body posture and position, muscle tension, speed of movement - the list goes on, and it’s all salient to a dog. They’re watching us every minute of every day, and they’re modifying their own actions and behaviors accordingly. As Jean Donaldson says, “Dogs do what works”, and staying on the “good side” of humans is “what works” in a dog’s own self interest more often than not. Which is why - by and large - they continue to be such amenable companions.
Of course, a savvy trainer learns to use this to advantage. Shirley Chong talks about “training with soft eyes” when working with a sensitive dog, for example. Which can sound quite silly on first listening, until you delve into it a bit of thought behind what goes on when you use “soft eyes” v.s. when you use “hard eyes”.
Everyone can do this experiment. Spend a moment thinking about something that just makes you melt - your dog curled up sleeping in a patch of sunlight, a kitten burrowing into your lap for a snuggle- something that just inherently makes you go “Aaaaah!”. Reflect on that for a moment, and now shift your attention to what your body is doing. Your face probably feels very relaxed. Your eyes are probably just slightly shuddered. You may be smiling. Your whole body is probably at rest.
Now think about someone who really knows how to push your buttons - an ex-spouse, a bad boss, Menu Foods or the Georgia peanut plant - you get the idea. And now again pay attention to your body. The smile is almost certainly gone. There is probably tension in your face - your brows may be furrowed, and your eyes drawn slightly together. Perhaps your jaw is clenched, and you’ve sat up a little straighter. You WILL notice physical changes in how your body language presents based on how you’re feeling. Based on your “energy” if you will. And believe me - dogs notice this, and respond to it.
Horse trainers use it a LOT. One of the “names” in what is referred to as “Natural Horsemanship” is Bill Dorrance who wrote a book called “True Horsemanship Through Feel”. “Feel” is a really big subject in the horse training world. There was a discussion on one board I used to frequent about how to define a real “horseman” (a term of ultimate respect) and “feel” came up time and time again.
Horse people will tell you there’s an inherent difference between training dogs and training horses, and that it has to do with the fact that the horse is a prey animal as compared to a dog being a predator. And that - therefore - a horse’s responses to human interaction will be shaped by this more defensive instinct that is part of their makeup. I was practically tarred and feathered and rode out of town on a rail for daring to suggest that a lot of the “feel” they were discussing might come down to the interaction between the horse’s careful observation of the human and the trainer’s ability to modify his/her body language in a way that is likely to take advantage of this and elicit the desired response from the horse. The horse people didn’t want to hear something so clinical and descriptive - the almost metaphysical concept of “feel” and its part in defining a “true horseman” is pretty enculturated with them.
Pat Parelli plays this for all it is worth. If anyone gets RFDTV on their cable or satellite service, there are all sorts of horse training programs that are fascinating to watch - including Parelli’s. He does a lot of programs where he is working in a large arena with someone’s “problem” horse, and the program consists of watching him work his way through whatever issues the horse has. He doesn’t do a lot of touching or direct manipulation, or even talking (at least to the horse - he maintains a nonstop patter to the audience which is what a lot of people find so offputting).
It’s almost like magic watching him work. He just *looks* at the horse, and the horse begins doing what he wants him to do. Or at least that’s how it can appear if you don’t really pay attention.
Of course, he’s utilizing body language, and finding ways to “translate” those aspects of horse language that a human can do that will be meaningful to a horse. Believe it or not, facial expression is on that list. Get a “mean” look on your face, and your horse will tend to back away - especially if you incline your body forward - ever so slightly. And so on.
If you understand how the horse will respond to all the various uses and combinations of your body language, and are VERY consistent about how you use and apply them, then you will be able to begin shaping the horse to respond in the ways you want him to. Whether you want to call this “feel”, or “energy”, or just really, really good observational skills and ability to be aware of and control your own body language, the end result is the same. You become a “book” that is easy for your horse/dog to read, and as a result, you become a more effective trainer.
This is true whether you are training horses or dogs, whether you use Pat Parelli or Craig Cameron, Patricia McConnell or Bill Koehler. And it is an inherent piece of the puzzle that separates the skilled trainer from the mostly clueless (vis a vis the strategic use of body language) member of the general public whose dogs so often walk all over them for the simple reason that they don’t really know how to use and apply this essential tool in establishing effective communication.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 10:15 am
Part of what you’re missing, Dutch, is that in clicker training, both trainer and dog are enjoying themselves. Which seems to me to be a clear win. (And are you really having a good time when you’re focused entirely on getting immediate results?)
Yes, Lis, we are having a lot of fun, and being silly, and learning trick and obedience behaviors at lightening speed, or sometimes at glacial speed but making progress non the less. I certainly look forward to training (it’s the funnest thing I do all day) and I can tell that Big Dog loves it too. But I can tell by the number of times you’ve asked this exact same question that you don’t believe me. It really is possible for both of us to have an amazing/fun time training and not use a clicker or bait bag or treats (although all of those tool/things have their place). For me personally, I find that the clicker interrupts the spontaneity of the session so I prefer not to use one with this dog. I’m guessing your experience is different.
I never said that my goal was immediate results/immediate gratification, although that is a tired comment that is often tossed at non-clicker trainers. My goal is always the behavior, reliably performed on cue. There is no implicit timetable. I just wondered (aloud/in print) if there was something to be gained by cutting to the chase.
For all the complaints that “traditional” or “balanced” trainers have about how reward-based trainers describe “traditional” methods, in fact “traditional” and “balanced” trainers tend to talk about reward-based training in terms that don’t just diss the training methods; they’re personally demeaning.
I think that goes both ways unfortunately. I have been personally savaged on several boards and received really nasty emails by a few people who think positive reinforcement is only for the dogs. I hope you don’t think I was disparaging you in any way. I really don’t see that I did, just disagreed with your conclusions. If you have found a method that you like/believe in/works for you; that is more than a lot of dog owners have done. As Cesar says… there are many ways to train your dog.
Comment by Dutch — February 7, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
Thank you Susan and The OTHER Pat for your insightful descriptions of how our moods and body language influence dogs and horses.
Domestication has indeed made dogs keen observers of human body language. IIRC, a scientific study a few years ago found that dogs are significantly better at reading our body language than wolves and even our relatives, chimpanzees.
In addition to their ability to visually read subtle aspects of our body language, their keen sense of smell is probably a significant contributor to dogs’ ability to “read” us.
We sometimes forget, since our own sense of smell is quite horrible by comparison, the richness of information about their world and its inhabitants animals receive through their noses. Our emotions are said to alter our scent. If so, this increases the importance of truly making oneself feel an emotion in order to affect our communication with dogs, and not just try to fake it through control of our body language.
Comment by LauraS — February 7, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
Our emotions are said to alter our scent. If so, this increases the importance of truly making oneself feel an emotion in order to affect our communication with dogs, and not just try to fake it through control of our body language.
But it’s not just “faking it”. I don’t have the cites (I believe it is related to affect theory) but there are findings that when you “fake” an emotion, your body tends to follow through and you’ll find yourself feeling the emotion. In other words, if I want to feel better, I can form my face into a smile, and chances are my brain will respond by sending out signals to my body that I really AM happy and that I will - in fact - start to feel better. “Fake it till you make it”, if you will.
But that’s not really what I was getting at in my post above. Rather, I was observing that inner emotions frequently express themselves in outward manifestations of observable body language that may be to subtle for most people to notice on a conscious level, but you can bet our critters do. And that that’s likely to have a lot to do with the influence of “energy” as posited by Cesar Millan and “feel” as posited by Natural Horsemanship adherents.
That’s especially likely to be true if these trainers work with an awareness of the interplay between their own emotions and the body language they create, with an eye towards keeping that body language very “clean” and non-confusing for the animal. In this case, it’s not a *faking* of the body language. Rather, it’s a finely-honed use of that particular tool.
And since this mind-body connection is so intertwined, then hormones and pheromones and all that other autonomic stuff that comes along for the ride are also involved and - as you point out - likely to be discernible to an animal whose sense of smell far exceeds our own. It all comes with the package. And an astute trainer knows this - even if she or he has never really stopped to articulate it as such.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
For all the complaints that “traditional” or “balanced” trainers have about how reward-based trainers describe “traditional” methods, in fact “traditional” and “balanced” trainers tend to talk about reward-based training in terms that don’t just diss the training methods; they’re personally demeaning.
Traditional and balanced trainers also use rewards in training — an incredibly rich variety of rewards. For the most part, it’s not the use of rewards that is criticized. Sometimes the narrow focus that some “positive” trainers have on food rewards and clickers is criticized. But even in many of those cases, what is being criticized is a lack of understanding that for many dogs, and for many training disciplines, there are more powerful and effective reward systems than click/treat or food in general. Of course, many “positive” trainers do know that.
Mostly what is criticized are:
- the extreme reluctance of “positive” trainers to make appropriate use of other humane tools and methods which are often better suited or even needed with some dogs or for some training goals
- the pseudo-scientific rationalizations that many “positive” trainers make for their training preferences, and
- the implicit or explicit accusations of animal cruelty directed at those who make other choices about how to humanely train dogs
Gina said it well:
“And when trainers consider only the tools in one or two of those boxes, they’re not going to be able to train the wide range of activities we ask from our dogs. When that happens, we are denying our dogs their full potential and ourselves the joy and the benefits of working with towards and with a well-trained dog.”
Comment by LauraS — February 7, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
OTHER Pat, your observations are wonderful and very insightful. I really like the idea of keeping one’s body language “clean” and unambiguous. Since dogs and horses are non-verbal, it would make sense that the clearer we are in our body language, the better chance we have of communicating what we want them to do.
Of course that assumes that we are clear on that, too.
How many people say “sit, sit, sit, sit” (eye roll) to a dog and when you point out to them that are repeating themselves, they are clearly unaware they are doing it. A lot of people have no more of clue what their bodies are doing then their mouths.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 7, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
I have to say — again! — that I LOVE the people who come here and discuss things. ALL of you, although honestly not ALL of the time. ;-)
Regularly readers know that I’m losing my father right now — he’s coming home from the hospital this week after all the home hospice arrangements are set — and that has made me just a tad (OK, more than a tad) emotionally unstable lately.
Last night I actually called Christie from outside my dad’s hospital room because I was reading the blog there (dad was asleep) and got worked up over a comment. Christie (quite sensibly) pointed out that it was sort of a redirected aggression on my part and to just let it go.
And of course, she was right. Because the thing about the REALLY HOT discussions here is that over the course of them you see people starting to focus not on differences but on commonalities, not on problems and barriers but on solutions.
Sure, there will always be differences, and no, we’re not going to solve everything. But I love how people listen, think and try.
I can’t tell you how great that makes me feel, to have so caring, thoughtful people working so hard to help others.
Anyway … that’s all I have for tonight. I’m going to feed all the critters and then drop in on the chat. Hope to see some of you there.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — February 7, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
I hate to follow the comment about your Dad, makes all this seem not very important you know? But as you have pointed out here many times you can care about pets and people and it is not a one or the other. On the subject of energy, I guess I want to add that I have this Collie see and he has the good “mojo”. I use him with problem dogs almost every day, and he calms EVERY dog. Every single one. Fearful, aggresive, feral, abused, out of control etc. Now grantd, we are a team and I am pretty calm, confident, and relaxed myself but there is something to the whole energy thing and how animals pick up on it. We are not calm assertive though, we are calm and educated. Sending you and your familiy good energy.
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — February 7, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
Of course, now we’re getting into Calming Signals:
http://www.shirleychong.com/ke.....alming.txt
And dogs do them far, far better than human beings ever can!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 7, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Yes, my collie Niki has it too. He’s the peacemaker when the cats get in a tiff and helped me find a puppy that had gotten out of someone’s yard. Held them in place until I could get a looped leash on them. The world would be a poorer place without Lassie dogs. And all the other breeds, each of whom is wonderful in their own way.
My thoughts are with you, Gina.
Comment by Susan Fox — February 7, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
I had no idea Gina, my thought are with you as well.
Comment by Dutch — February 7, 2009 @ 6:54 pm
Gina, I do feel for what you and your family are enduring, having been there myself. I am glad you have gone forward with breeding McCutie. That will be the best therapy during a hard time I can think of!
And it’s taken at least 90 posts, but I am beginning to see a commonality emerge from all the posturing and verbage here. And that’s all to the good, for us and for our dogs.
There is no right or wrong here, though it’s hard to separate that from when we feel our most cherished beliefs about Our Methods are being challenged by strangers who have never seen us work with our dogs. There is a body of experience here that says this is what has worked for me and me and me and me. Each is different, the dogs are different, the people are different. But as Pat has eloquently said, the dogs, those astute readers of our body language, have picked up on the appropriate signals in spite of the fact our mouths, feet, shoulders may be saying something different, and finally grasped from all the confusion we generate, what it is we want from them. Says a lot for dogs, I think. And says a lot for us, that we keep trying, learning and bettering our ape selves to break the barriers between us and our canine companions.
Comment by Anne T — February 7, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
I’ve found it’s important to separate the fearful and closed-minded, who care more about their beliefs, ego, money, and being “right”, from the rational folks who actually care about the lives of the dogs, owners, and society as a whole.
After having to squeegie the anti-Cesar venom off my computer screen which was left by the last “positive only” zealot I had the pleasure of chatting with…
This is for the rational:
I think some of the best who successfully achieve great results with dogs, maintain both an open mind and a tool kit which will put the needs of the dog and owner, first.
The methods and philosophies should be flexible and may change depending upon what you are trying to acheive with a given dog within a given moment, and overall. It’s more than just “no one size fits all”. It’s “no one size fits every situation, with every dog, all of the time”.
For teaching tricks, tasks, and specific behaviors and for performance such as agility, why wouldn’t you use mostly the Positive Reinforcement quadrant of Operant Conditioning?
For obedience, results have shown clearly, all four quadrants are more suitable for proofing.
For Counter Conditioning with truly fearful dogs (not mis-labeled aggressive dogs), Classical Conditioning is invaluable.
In social situations, where humans and dogs must live with each other in harmony and society as a whole in safety, there is something Cesar is offering which may have to actually be felt and experienced in order to be understood.
Once you actually experience what your posture, demeanor, attitude, body language, eye contact, vocal tone, focus, intensity, intent…yes, your “energy” is actually communicating about both the environment and yourself to the dog, you will be close to “getting-it”.
Social animals send each other both deliberate and more subtle signals all of the time. It’s the study of the Social Learning (and not just Bandura’s theory) component which is what’s missing from many a trainer’s toolkit. Although, many of them feel there’s something going on which they are using, but not clearly defining.
Most horse people understand this a little better because they are in actual physical contact with the horse.
This is something I actually see and feel when I’m with a dog. Every interaction between myself and that dog is:
On one hand, describing the relationship “who is who” and “where do I fit in”, which determine’s leadership/followership and the action/reaction sequence in the direction of activities.
And on the other hand, communicating information about the environment such as friends, foes, danger, or food sources.
There is indeed more than meets the eye which needs to be studied on a more scientific level.
But for now, whenever I am with a dog, trying to understand it’s behavior and what it’s thinking, Operant Conditioning and Classical Conditioning will also include Social Learning.
Makes sense to me. Dogs in the real world don’t live alone inside of boxes.
Your “energy” matters.
Comment by Debbie Chastain — February 10, 2009 @ 7:25 am
On the topic of Mr. Millan…
I have extremely mixed feelings. Some of his techniques have proven to be, in practice, extremely effective. Small physical corrections provided by a hand or a foot (NOT a kick, before someone jumps on me… ;O) to redirect the dog and allow you the opportunity to replace the behaviour with something more suitable.
Personally, in my training kit I have a giant bag of treats of all sorts, a lupi harness, a check chain, a prong collar, several clickers and 6’, 20’ and 50’ leads.
We train behaviours (generally the more complex behaviours, such as heel, eye focus, directed movement, etc. with a clicker. It’s quicker, the dog understands faster, and it’s no stress. Simple behaviours like sit, down, leave it, stay, etc. we use luring and positive reinforcement.
Once a dog has become reliable (and we always set them up for success whenever possible) we employ aversives for proofing. We also employ aversives for “meathead” dogs. Dogs like labs, shepherds, hounds, some terriers, etc., who have come to us a bit later in life and have out of control behaviours. It’s difficult to train a dog with two hours of pent up energy inside him… but it’s also impossible to walk a medium-large dog effectively for two hours without first training the dog how to walk nicely on a lead, correct? So, we employ a lupi or a prong collar, depending on the personality of the dog, which immediately removes the frustration from the walk.
Then, once the dog is tired, we are better able to focus on problem behaviours. We also use aversives to prevent potentially harmful behaviours. We proof “leave it” “come” and “off” using aversives because a dog who eats potentially dangerous items on the ground, or a dog who runs out into traffic when he slips his collar, or a dog who jumps up on grandma and breaks her hip are all dogs who could end up with serious injuries - or seriously injuring others and earning an ill-deserved reputation.
My point is that while I would NEVER condone hanging a dog (and for the record, that Jindo was NOT on a prong, it was on a slip collar - regardless, hanging a dog on a prong is completely inappropriate and cruel and just lends credence to those trainers who consider the tool barbaric. When used properly, only mild discomfort should be experienced, and then only when the dog chooses to apply pressure to the lead) he does have some basic ideologies that are sound.
And I feel that way about most trainers! I won’t drink the kool-aid, but I will listen intently, try methods that common sense says have a good chance of being effective, and make my decision from there. I take what works, discard what doesn’t, and apply what I feel is the appropriate technique to the appropriate dog.
It should also be noted that there are some PP trainers who will never be successful using corrections. They simply lack the conviction to provide a meaningful, convincing correction to the dog, and the dog learns to ignore the aversive - potentially escalating the behaviour in the meantime.
There are aversive trainers who will NEVER be able to use a clicker properly. They don’t possess that form of timing - after years of timing corrections, learning to time a cue for positive behaviour is a challenge for some, impossible for others. Particularly when they enter into the trial with the idea that it won’t work.
What is truly required is an open-minded approach from both sides. We all do this for the same reasons (or at least, I certainly hope this is the case). We enjoy our students, and we want to see them succeed, see them become responsible doggy members of society, trustworthy and well-behaved. So far I think Suzanne Clothier has come the closest to this ideal (although there are many trainers/behaviourists I would put ahead of her in terms of significant contributions to the world of training and behaviour modification) and I think it’s time we ALL open our minds a bit.
It’s not an all-or-nothing deal. I think THAT is what is missing in the training world right now. We’ve become SO polarized… and both sides are equally to blame.
Comment by Kim — February 11, 2009 @ 7:09 am
Comment by Debbie Chastain — February 10, 2009 @ 7:25 am
Most horse people understand this a little better because they are in actual physical contact with the horse.
Just a small added point of clarification - training a horse includes (or should include) a significant component of what is called “groundwork” where the trainer is on the ground rather than on the horse and working with the horse that way. This needs to be understood as part of the discussion rather than just the work a trainer does while on the back of a horse.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — February 11, 2009 @ 7:26 am
Kim,
Here-here regarding Suzanne Clothier!
Pat,
Yes, ground work is also important. As is the relationship between horse and rider, onboard or not.
Comment by Debbie Chastain — February 11, 2009 @ 10:27 am