[Ucdcrush]

Well, I guess none of us REALLY knows if what we see on TV is a representation of reality.

That said, it is hard to argue with results.

I do see a lot of "expert analysis" about Cesar from degreed individuals who seem to nit-pick about theories, about what Cesar might say that is not scientifically valid, and it seems kind of petty. What about his results? And do they think Cesar HIMSELF has injured or tortured dogs en-route to results, or are they again just talking theory? If they have seen him torture and screw up dogs, what show have they been watching?

 

[Cassidy's Mom]

The ends do not always justify the means. Just because something works it doesn't mean it's a good idea. And since we're seeing a show that's probably hours and hours of action edited down to 45 minutes, there's no way to really know what else went on or how long it took to get the wonderful results shown on the show.

Other people have said similar things about his detractors, and I just don't get it. When an animal behavior expert says that many of Cesar's theoretical explanations are just plain wrong, and that sometimes his assessment of what we're seeing is not even close to what he says it is, that matters to me, and I don't find it to be nit picking or the slightest bit petty.

As I've said in numerous Cesar threads, the good things that he says and does are not new, or revolutionary, or even his idea, they're solid ideas and techniques that any decent trainer is also doing and probably longer than he has, so he doesn't get credit for those over anybody else who's also using them. Ed Frawley is touting the benefit of marker training on his Leerburg site, and good for him, but he's a little late to the party. Everybody else has been doing it for a long time (I first learned about it in Cassidy's first class in 2000, and who knows how long before that other people were doing it), do we give Ed credit for discovering marker training? Of course not - my attitude and many other people is that it's about darned time! It's great that he's doing it now, but he did not invent it.

And the bad things that Cesar does are usually old school compulsion methods that other trainers have moved beyond, often decades ago. I certainly understand their concern that he's perpetuating these ideas and that people watching at home may try them on their own (never mind the disclaimers), to the detriment of their relationship with their dog, and possibly to the injury of themselves or family members.

 

[ken k]

The ends do not always justify the means. Just because something works it doesn't mean it's a good idea. And since we're seeing a show that's probably hours and hours of action edited down to 45 minutes, there's no way to really know what else went on or how long it took to get the wonderful results shown on the show.

that statement sums it up nicely, thanks

 

[TxRider]

When an animal behavior expert says that many of Cesar's theoretical explanations are just plain wrong, and that sometimes his assessment of what we're seeing is not even close to what he says it is, that matters to me, and I don't find it to be nit picking or the slightest bit petty.

I don't find it to be nit picking, but I also don't find it always accurate.

I think that english is not Millans first language, and the way he describes things doesn't always come out in terms that are percieved as they were intended to be.

He also uses words that many people key on from their own perceptions of what they mean in context to some preconceived training theory, applying a different meaning than Millan used them in.

He does force some insecure dogs to face fears a bit too much for me when they are fear aggressive or guarding aggressive, but that's not all there is to him or his methods.

I just happened to see an episode tonight, a lab test dog rescue. The owner, a shelter volunteer, had not been able to touch the dog for years. It ran and hid and would come nowhere near them.

Millan gained it's trust and had the owner walking and petting it calmly in a couple of hours just through his approach, calming signals, and behavior. No treats, not even talking to it. Made it look easy.

 

[codmaster]

Wonder how manyof the "Positive only" trainers would take on the real challenge dogs - judging by the work of a few such trainer folks in our local obedience club (granted a very limited sample), my guess would be not so many. if a dog is difficult they tell the owners to take him/her out of class. One in particular talks often about a "real holy terror"of a dog she used to have - took a long time to find out that the dog she was referring to was about 25 lbs soaking wet. Often wondered about how she and her method would work with a "red zone" mastiff or even a big GSD!

Out of curiostiy, has any one seen any studies done to compare the training time using a reasonable positive only method versus a reasonable more traditional method?

 

[Kayos and Havoc]

Why would time be an issue? If you take the quick route to the detriment of the animal, you may make a change but will it be long lasting and have you you changed the mindset of the animal. If you take the route that builds the dogs trust and confidence you have made a life long change in the mindset of the dog.

 

[MTAussie]

Wonder how manyof the "Positive only" trainers would take on the real challenge dogs - judging by the work of a few such trainer folks in our local obedience club (granted a very limited sample), my guess would be not so many. if a dog is difficult they tell the owners to take him/her out of class. One in particular talks often about a "real holy terror"of a dog she used to have - took a long time to find out that the dog she was referring to was about 25 lbs soaking wet. Often wondered about how she and her method would work with a "red zone" mastiff or even a big GSD!

Out of curiostiy, has any one seen any studies done to compare the training time using a reasonable positive only method versus a reasonable more traditional method?

I think you could find plenty of studies, maybe not specifically on dogs, but if you are serious about it just do a search on google. I think you will find conflicting views there too Mostly what I am seeing is the long term effects are not known, and that flooding has to be done a specific way, and may take a long time (so I guess that may answer your length of time question) because the animal has to be completely over the fear, (or suppressed it completely, depending on your opinion), for it to be effective, or as many studies say, it becomes even worse, and now you have probably lost a lot of trust between you and the animal.

Implosion (flooding) and desensitization it is not new. It is part of psychology. I think that it is important to remember this is a TV show. Kind of like the something on MTV, they will do whatever to make it interesting/shocking enough for people to watch. Regardless, I would take Karen Pryor over Cesar any day, because she has trained more than just dogs, and understands behavior. Having said that, either way, we can't be so stuck on being 'positive' or 'practical' that we are too blind to see other methods that may be more effective, or humane.

Here is a study on humans comparing flooding and systematic desensitization: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/79/5/318/

 

[TxRider]

Why would time be an issue? If you take the quick route to the detriment of the animal, you may make a change but will it be long lasting and have you you changed the mindset of the animal. If you take the route that builds the dogs trust and confidence you have made a life long change in the mindset of the dog.

Time is an issue when the dog is aggressive and biting and a danger to people or other animals.

There is no guarantee you could ever get a dog to face and get over a fear of something using positive only methods.

Time could also be seen as an issue in the nature of stress on the dog.

Is it more humane to force the animal to face it's fear for a short time so it gets to the point of not being aggressive, then moving on to desensitizing.

Or is it more humane to try to entice the animal to face the fear on it's own repeatedly putting under that kind of mental stress for a much longer period of time, possibly years?

Cesar seems to mainly use forceful methods when a dog is either putting teeth on people and biting, or intends to kill another dog, and only until the dog stops trying to bite, which is a change of mindset.


There are two or three cases people point to when they talk about him using force, but they usually only speak to the initial meeting and forceful encounter, not what Cesar actually does to help the dog afterward or the program he leaves with the owners to work on.

 

[MTAussie]

I think if you look into the two methods you will see that neither adheres to a specific amount of time, but the amount of time taken to use the flood method accurately should not be rushed, and it MUST be done with a clear understanding of behavior, and knowledge.
Therefore I think it is not a method that should be recommended to anyone but professionals in a dire need type situation.
TXRider, your very suggestion of forcing the dog to face its fear and then move on to desensitizing suggests you do not understand either method or how to use them correctly. Not that everyone does, but to suggest one method is better than the other, it is important to know what you are suggesting and why. Even more so when actually attempting to use that method on an actual animal.
Additionally, the stress from flooding is exceptionally more than desensitizing, but don't take my word for it, just do some research. What is inhumane is flooding a dog repeatedly thinking that you are helping, and then making the average dog owner with zero training or behavior knowledge think they should do the same to their dog.
Additionally, desensitizing is not enticing, is is small amounts of exposure to the stimuli where the animal can remain calm, and begin to pair the stimulus with something positive.

 

[TxRider]

TXRider, your very suggestion of forcing the dog to face its fear and then move on to desensitizing suggests you do not understand either method or how to use them correctly. Not that everyone does, but to suggest one method is better than the other, it is important to know what you are suggesting and why. Even more so when actually attempting to use that method on an actual animal.

I think you misunderstand my meaning. My meaning was that the response to the fear is changed from instantaneous biting to something else, even if that something else is learned helplessness or shutting down or just avoidance.

A different response, none of which are so automatically a death sentence for dogs as biting is.

All of which then could be more easily dealt with through desensitizing using other methods. Time for the dog is gained, he won't be as likely to be euthanized if he isn't biting.

Additionally, the stress from flooding is exceptionally more than desensitizing, but don't take my word for it, just do some research.

Of course it is, but in some cases once is all it takes for an animal, even a human to come a long way to realizing that what it feared was not actually harmful.

What is inhumane is flooding a dog repeatedly thinking that you are helping, and then making the average dog owner with zero training or behavior knowledge think they should do the same to their dog.

Repeating any method that is not getting results is not wise. Especially one that inflicts stress or pain.

From what I have seen, the show says never try this at home.

Additionally, desensitizing is not enticing, is is small amounts of exposure to the stimuli where the animal can remain calm, and begin to pair the stimulus with something positive.

You can put it that way, but unless you are exposing the animal to the stimuli enough to cause at least some level of stress, you are not desensitizing anything.

And providing access to a valuable resource as a consequence for facing that stressful stimuli is in my view enticing it to face it's fear, and rewarding it for doing so.

Either way the dog faces a stressful stimuli to allow the animal to experience that environment and realize that no harm comes from it if the method is successful. Either way the dog is then rewarded with something positive.

One is simply gradual and more prolonged, the other is not. Either could work better for a particular dog with a particular issue. I have seen Millan use both methods for what it's worth.

 

[Fuse]

That analogy about flooding being like putting an arachnophobic person person in a closet with spiders is horrible.

That is more akin to say, if a dog is afraid of a vacume cleaner, depriving them of sight (maybe smell), puting them alone in a confined space right next to a vacume and turning it on.

A more accurate (but still not perfect) analogy would be taking your son who is afraid of spiders and holding thier hand and showing them a spider in its web in your back yard, demonstrating the spider is not going to hurt them.

No doubt that some of the stuff Ceaser does would have potentially disasterous results if done by a random viewer, I think he gets a unfairly hard rap from the 'behaviourist establishment'.

 

[SuzyE]

and on it goes...cesar millan has brought more attention to dog behavior than any other person in history.

 

[Kayos and Havoc]

Fuse, the analogy about the spiders is fairly accurate. Flooding by definition (in layman's terms) is an overwhelming presentation of a fear causing stimulus.

If done poorly it is disasterous. It is something that must be done carefully and be well thought out.

Have you considered introducing yourself?

 

[TxRider]

Fuse, the analogy about the spiders is fairly accurate. Flooding by definition (in layman's terms) is an overwhelming presentation of a fear causing stimulus.

I don't find the analogy very accurate, technically maybe, but not representative.

I believe flooding is usually more strictly for irrational fears. There is ample rational reason to fear spiders, they are poisonous so it's not a very clear analogy.

Not many rational people do not have some fear of spiders.

A better analogy would use a more clearly irrational fear, a a panic inducing fear of closed spaces, or open spaces, or crowds or of all people of the opposite sex or of all birds or something more clearly irrational IMO.

Like a person with a bird phobia who panics if a bird gets close being locked into a room full of parakeets. Clearly an irrational fear and more representative.

 

[AgileGSD]

I didn't watch this episode yet but he does manage to have 20+ dogs live in a pack and be at peace with each other. That's pretty impressive. Of course, people are able to do this with foxhounds and in huge numbers, but these are GSDs, mixes, pit bulls, huskies, very small dogs, etc.

To say it is impressive, you'd have to know for sure that the dogs really always got along and that they could be left unsupervised together. My understanding is that these dogs are kenneled when unsupervised. He also exercises the dogs 6+ hours a day - most dogs would be pretty easy to get along with if one could exercsie them that much each day.

As for the bringing the dog in and pinning them, I'd not go about it in that way for sure. There is a reason for his bringing one strange dog into the group though, despite how impressive it may seem. Very few dogs, even dog aggressive ones will not try to fight when it is one against many. I have actually seen this in person multiple times with dogs known for fighting with other dogs.

I worked at a doggy daycare and managed sometimes up to 30 dogs a day by myself in a wide range of breeds, all sizes together.

Wonder how manyof the "Positive only" trainers would take on the real challenge dogs - judging by the work of a few such trainer folks in our local obedience club (granted a very limited sample), my guess would be not so many. if a dog is difficult they tell the owners to take him/her out of class. One in particular talks often about a "real holy terror"of a dog she used to.

If the dog is aggressive or so shy they won't interact in class, they shouldn't be there. Group classes are not a place to address serious behavioral issues.

I had a GSD in my classes once that was very aggressive towards other dogs and moving children. The dog could stay in the group class, so I did 6 weeks of private lessons with the owner. We worked through the dog's problems using "abandonment training". It worked extremely well and she was able to come back to class. The training stuck too and she was no longer an issue out and about either.
People don't seem to understand there are a lot of "out of the box" ideas with training that doesn't depend on force. It's either dominance methods or it's giving dogs treats. That couldn't be further from the truth.

There is no guarantee you could ever get a dog to face and get over a fear of something using positive only methods.

Nor is there a guarantee that you could get a dog over a fear of something using flooding. In many cases, flooding makes the dog worse.

Or is it more humane to try to entice the animal to face the fear on it's own repeatedly putting under that kind of mental stress for a much longer period of time, possibly years?

Who is suggesting something will take years? If a trainer is using the same method for years without results with the dog, they aren't a very good trainer.

 

[Kayos and Havoc]

I don't find the analogy very accurate, technically maybe, but not representative.

I believe flooding is usually more strictly for irrational fears. There is ample rational reason to fear spiders, they are poisonous so it's not a very clear analogy.

Not many rational people do not have some fear of spiders.

A better analogy would use a more clearly irrational fear, a a panic inducing fear of closed spaces, or open spaces, or crowds or of all people of the opposite sex or of all birds or something more clearly irrational IMO.

Like a person with a bird phobia who panics if a bird gets close being locked into a room full of parakeets. Clearly an irrational fear and more representative.

How do you know panic in closed spaces is irrational? If you had been locked in one it would be rational in your mind, as would a fear of birds if you had been dived bomb by a few.

No different that the great dane being drug over a tile floor (flooding) that it was terrifed of after it had fallen on one. Irrational or not?

 

[DogGone]

So, I was watching "Dog Whisperer" tonight and Ceasar brought the dog he was working to his rehab center thing to socialize it(I guess). The dog freaked when he put it in and he alpha rolled it while letting the other dogs crowd him while it was on its side. I dunno about this.

To layman that are not familiar with dog and wolf behavior it might seem quite strange.

Cesar Milan is exceptionally good. Cesar is using dog psychology and dog language to control and bring peace to the pack.
Remember that Cesar Milan often takes dogs that would otherwise be put down that other trainers had failed with. I find it strange that many of the people that criticize Cesar are often the ones that can’t train such high-spirited red case dogs and often recommend their euthanasia. Cesar Milan is saving many of these dogs that the critics of Cesar Milan failed with.

There are risks and it's not perfect but Cesar Milan is excellent.

Remember most of the cases he takes and shows on TV are difficult and dangerous "red cases", that often require more extreme techniques.

Behaviorists don't much care for Cesar. His psychology doesn't fit the science.

Untrue. His science is sound; he uses dog psychology and uses canine instinct rather than to try to fight it. The results speak for themselves. He typically as resounding success on so many red cases that have been the result of crackpot politically correct pseudoscience.

 

[AgileGSD]

To layman that are not familiar with dog and wolf behavior it might seem quite strange.

Cesar Milan is exceptionally good. Cesar is using dog psychology and dog language to control and bring peace to the pack.

How is alpha rolling using "dog physcology"?

 

[Cassidy's Mom]

He typically as resounding success on so many red cases that have been the result of crackpot politically correct pseudoscience.

Where did you come up with this? What kind of pseudo-science are you referring to?

 

[TxRider]

People don't seem to understand there are a lot of "out of the box" ideas with training that doesn't depend on force. It's either dominance methods or it's giving dogs treats. That couldn't be further from the truth.

There certainly are.

Much if not most of my training is simple conditioned association for example. It requires no force, treats, praise nor punishment nor rewards.

I religiously repeat a word or phrase consistently when a dog is doing a particular behavior until the dog associates it with the behavior.

A lot of people are taught to do this when a dog relieves itself, to repeat a phrase when the dog starts to relieve to train it to do so on command, I have always used it for so much more, basically for every aspect of daily life.

I use it to teach everything from eating food, drinking water, names of all toys, names of all rooms, names of all outside doors, the truck, the car, to actions like find it, get it, all sorts of things just by always repeating the word or phrase when they do most anything I can attach a word or phrase to like entering a room.

After a few years when they have a pretty large vocabulary of actions and objects and places you can have pretty good conversations, and it gets amazing to watch the gears start turning in their minds and light bulbs popping on when you use a word or phrase they recognize in a different way and chaining actions, objects and places in simple sentences.

The great part is it's so easy to do, no training sessions, no treats, just talking to your dog normally, repeating a word or phrase to mark anything you want them to understand a word or phase for as you go about your day. Like repeating the name of a room every time they enter it.

Kind of like capturing a behavior with a clicker, but a lot less formal.