Not a friend, an acquaintence. Her dog was food posessive and she used the EXACT, to a tee, techniques that Cesar used in food guarding "rehabilitation" including guidance in his book. She challenged her dog just as Cesar challenged that dog, and he attacked her. I could have told her that's what would happen... but no - desensitizing and conditioning using un-obtrusive, un-threatening techniques takes too long. The dog attacked her in a serious way, not just a nip. Just as Cesar himself has been seriously attacked while working with dogs. For the record, my behaviorists have NEVER been bitten by a dog while working with them, as they have the knowledge and care not to push a dog that far.
What do you think of the fact that negative-reinforcement trained dogs practice behaviors out of fear? When CM "tssss"s at a dog, alpha rolls a dog, hand-bites a dog, chokes a dog, what have you, he is telling the dog "stop functioning or I'm going to threaten your life". The dog doesn't understand that Cesar does not intend to kill them... to them, it's either shutdown/fight or die. When they are not given the option to fight, they do shutdown. That is what I disagree with most. A shutdown dog might seem "obedient" and "calm/submissive" to the average person, but a shutdown dog will not give me what I want from my dogs. I want much, much, much more from my dogs.What do you think to the fact that the dogs are only coming to the treat? When I look at that technique, I see an animal, that has a high food drive, that is opportunistic. I don't see a cute funny human that I don't want to hurt it's feelings so I don't do what is natural to them, I see animal.
I don't treat my dogs like cute funny people. I treat them like cute funny dogs! They are! They love me. They love to work for me. They do not do so out of fear, or out of avoidance, they do so out of an ingrained desire to please me. If I spent all of my time physically correcting my dogs and intimidating them, I would have very unhappy dogs (yes I know this from experience), and I wouldn't be happy. I would rather not have dogs.
I emphasized that the treats are phased out. You can use treats, a favorite toy, petting, or just your voice... whatever the dog is really into. You're right, dogs do have food drive and they are opportunistic. That's why I said I "use what I have". Do I have the sense of smell, touch, posture, or vocalizations that dogs have? No. Dogs DO work for motivators in the wild, and those motivations include food, affection, mating rights, etc. Food being absolutely paramount and a necessity to survive. Why not use something that highly motivates your dog to teach them what you want from them?
Dogs are born into our foreign world of cities, buildings, throngs of other people and strange dogs, having to walk on a leash, having a human control when they eat/eliminate/get out. To expect them to just deal with that, without showing them that what we want them to do is highly rewarding and positive, is unfair IMHO.
As I said before... treats are phased out. Food is used to create positive associations and to mark a behavior as wanted. Many years of research has found it to be the best tool in motivating dogs, no, ANY animal. I don't bring treats or a clicker on the majority of my walks and outings... I don't need them for trained behaviors! The fact is, consistency and careful weaning from the motivator has taught my dogs what I want from them (in that case, staying near me) and that what I want is positive and rewarding. Why do you think they use clickers and treats to train Orca and Bears? Do you think natural methods would work with those animals?I have so many questions for positive trainers generally. What happens when the treats run out? And/or when you have no clicker or anything but your mind. Do you know that in natural cases like these these the only option is to use natural methods, that's why they're called natural methods, dogs don't use clickers or treats or persuasions on each other, so it makes sense not to either.
Honestly, if a dog attacks or kills a person using positive reinforcement, they are not doing it right. The point of desensitizing a dog (ie to human contact) is to NEVER break threshold. That is, the point at which the dog's brain is in a state of fight or flight... at that point, they are no longer capable of learning new behaviors. A dog growling/snarling/attacking/shutting down is well past threshold. The point is, never get past level 1, and slowly progress.Another one that boggles my mind. I have heard so many cases of people who try and use positive methods on ultra-dominant or ultra-aggressive dogs, and as nobody has been able to snap the dog out of it, the dog has managed to attack or maim another dog or person. People get hurt using positive methods too, when they're not willing to use the dog's techniques back at him.
The point isn't who seems weaker, or who seems more dominant. People are the most dominance-obsessed beings of all. That's obvious. I don't really understand what you mean by "stop a dog from wanting to kill people". How in tarnations is a dog going to want to stop killing people by being physically hurt by a person? If a dog has the desire to kill another dog, do you think the other dog alpha rolling him is going to extinguish that desire? Or intensify it? Or do you think the other dog being a positive, unobtrusive, ambient source of rewards and good things would intensify it?
I cannot deny that I'm sure some "natural" methods do work for some dogs. I truly believe that behavioral issues in the vast majority of dogs can be solved with positive methods... but I know there are dogs who just aren't wired right. Every dog is an individual. Gonzo will do absolutely anything with just praise as his motivation, while Fozzie is very stubborn and learns new behaviors best with high value rewards. I'm sure there are dogs who respond to neither and need something more than what positive reinforcement training can do, but I feel that those dogs are an incredible minority. Regarding the 50% thing, I think that positive trainers are troubled by the new wave of negative reinforcement trainers (not just natural, punishment in general) heavily due to Cesar Millan. Dog training has made leaps and bounds over the past few decades, as has research into dog behavior, and many positive trainers feel that the Dog Whisperer has set dog training back a few decades.On another random note, why is it that 50% of what most positive trainers say is putting down natural methods? It seems they NEVER mention the good stuff, like what you just said about clickers for example, which as a matter of fact I will take into consideration and think about-thank you. Natural behaviorists, or at least the ones that I know (including me, upto now) never put down other methods, but actually use them in some areas if it is possible. I am also a believer in positive training, but in most extreme cases, it simply is not an option.
It is unfortunate that dogs can't talk! I would love to hear their opinion.The only one you have to debate with against natural methods are dogs themselves, neither I, nor anyone else invented natural methods.
If I had rescued two adopted Pit Bulls? Hmm... well, I find that to be an incredible stereotype/generalization... but alright. Are you assuming that these Pit Bulls are just dog aggressive, or human aggressive as well? My dogs are both rescues. Gonzo was a pathetically fearful and abused dog when I adopted him. He had fear-based HA and DA issues when I adopted him, in addition to being afraid of all kinds of regular house-hold and city sounds, even sneezes sent him into a frenzy. Truly, fear aggression is one of the most difficult behavioral issues in the world to cure. I would think a Pit Bull who was confident, but reactive, would be easier to help if anything.
To be honest, my parents only knew "old-school" (in addition to "natural") training methods when I was 13 and adopted him. We went to classes that used choke chains, that told you to correct every growl or negative reaction, to "nip it in the bud", "give an inch and they'll take a mile", etc. He was much worse by the time he was 1 1/2 years old. Much more fearful, and much more prone to growl/snap at strangers and dogs. There was an incident where he nearly bit some one. It was then that I scheduled a session with the behaviorists at 4 Paws. I wanted to start fresh, so I stopped punishing him, I stopped flooding him, I stopped pushing him alltogether. I desensitized him to people and other dogs, and it took YEARS of work, but he learned to see them in a positive light rather than a scary one that he needed to defend himself against. He earned his CGC and his TDI - he went from being declared a "dangerous dog" to that in 2 years. I would hardly call him a naturally good natured dog, but he is a good natured dog now, not due to his genetics or teaching him that I'm the boss and he'd better follow me or else but by teaching him that the world is a happy place.
Bookmarks