Cesar Millan

I think Dr,. Goodnow and Giselle have stated things very well. Cesar uses force training techniques. In other words, he adds punishment to his training. I, personally, use very little punishment in my training. My dogs work for me not out of fear, but out of a desire to please me and have fun. My training is a blast for my dogs. Just tonight, I was on the sofa watching TV, and I said something about "work." My sheltie about came out of his skin in excitement thinking we were going to go in the backyard to "work" (ie train). They live for it. They love it. Dogs trained with punishment do it to avoid punishment, not out of joy. My dogs do it for fun and love.

Cesar has pushed training back 20 years because we USED to use those methods (myself included). Those of us from those days see what Cesar is doing and know the results. Sure, they work. We used to use them. No, the end result isn't better because the dogs aren't working in joy. They're working in fear.

It is basically the old methods wrapped up and glitzed up for a new century. I'm very saddened he has gotten popular. It's made my job as a profesional trainer much more difficult!!

I think some of his methods are good, some are debateable, and alot depend on the dog. I use both positive and negative reinforcement. I don't force dogs, I teach them. And when they are taught and choose not to listen, THEN I force them. In other words, my dogs learned in a positive manner, but know that if they don't listen they are going to be in trouble. Positive training is good because the dogs learn to enjoy their training. Negative reinforcement is good because you will get a dog that listens. Neither one is wrong. I want both adog that enjoys training and a dog that listens well, so I use both. Belgians vary from one end of the scale in temperament to another, and my dogs tend to be harder tempered and very high drive. I don't screw around with positive training if I know it's not going to work.

His work is amazing, but I don't agree with him on some things. He's on this whole dominance trip thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agilityk9trainer

I think Dr,. Goodnow and Giselle have stated things very well. Cesar uses force training techniques. In other words, he adds punishment to his training. I, personally, use very little punishment in my training. My dogs work for me not out of fear, but out of a desire to please me and have fun. My training is a blast for my dogs. Just tonight, I was on the sofa watching TV, and I said something about "work." My sheltie about came out of his skin in excitement thinking we were going to go in the backyard to "work" (ie train). They live for it. They love it. Dogs trained with punishment do it to avoid punishment, not out of joy. My dogs do it for fun and love.

Cesar has pushed training back 20 years because we USED to use those methods (myself included). Those of us from those days see what Cesar is doing and know the results. Sure, they work. We used to use them. No, the end result isn't better because the dogs aren't working in joy. They're working in fear.

It is basically the old methods wrapped up and glitzed up for a new century. I'm very saddened he has gotten popular. It's made my job as a profesional trainer much more difficult!!

---

for those of us that are old...i.e. me
it(the years of outdatedness) has been pushed back farther, my guys are here as a last resort before PTS happens. I have a 89% sucess rate , not bad considering all the variables. Cesar is a personable and PC correct act to follow. In the short term.
My dogs work because they love to do it, there is a difference. A dog that obeys and a dog that works are 2 very different beings. Mine will do both, I am saddened to see the ones that obey, since that is fear and will never allow them to reach their full potential. It isn't hard to break a spirit, what is difficult, is to help them find it again.

just my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsoul

I think some of his methods are good, some are debateable, and alot depend on the dog.

---

Jordan I couldn't agree more. I've tried some of his methods on my dogs, some work and some don't. What works on the girls doesn't always work on Bon, what works on Bon doesn't always work with the girls. It all depends on the dog.

I personally like Cesar and think he has a gift with dogs. But of course that's just my opinion.

I read his book, found it entertaining but wasn't impressed. He seemed to be on an ego trip. then when I read what he did with the threadmill thing I was totally turned off. I think he's mostly out for power over dogs, some of his methods I find border on cruelty. I personnally don't like his methods or him.

Has anyone seen the South Park episode with Cesar Millan? By far my favourite episode. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsoul

I want both adog that enjoys training and a dog that listens well, so I use both.

---

See, I get that using positive methods. Both a dog that enjoys training AND listens. We wouldn't have made it to the AKC Agility Nats if my dog didn't listen! :D

I think most people jump the gun and go for the pinch collars, choke chains, collar pops, ear pinches, nose slaps, etc. BEFORE giving all=positive methods a chance. They will work in high drive, over the top dogs. My dogs are very dominant, VERY high drive, VERY tough. Yet, I have taught them using all positive methods. And, the result is a dog who has pure joy in his job, isn't afraid of reprisal and runs like the wind.

I do find that between one to five percent of dogs (or rather their handlers) need to go to the more adversive methods I just mentioned. I personally find it much more difficult on the trainer to be all positive. Because of this, some people can't do it. They don't have the skills necessary. It takes great understanding of the dog, great timing and an excellent ability to read dog body language to be proficient at all positive. It's must much easier to collar pop a dog for bad behavior than learn how to shape and mold good behavior.

With any dog I train, I always start all positive and add in mild adversives (a soft spoken "no" or a "eck" for example) as the individual dog requires. Starting right off the bat with a training collar or other adversive is over-kill, and again, destroys that magical bond that all positive training creates.

I, too, have used a mix of positive and force training (punishment - not to be confused with reinforcement as punishment is not reinforcement). However, I still never reached the level of bond I was searching for until I dispensed with the heavy corrections.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfsoul

Has anyone seen the South Park episode with Cesar Millan? By far my favourite episode. :D

---

agh nuts....I missed that one. I'll have to catch a repeat of it someday.

I fail to see any" punishment" used in Cesar's dog interaction.His method
is as simple as it sounds & confounds some critics because it doesn't take
a lot of thought to communicate successfully with dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

I fail to see any" punishment" used in Cesar's dog interaction.His method
is as simple as it sounds & confounds some critics because it doesn't take
a lot of thought to communicate successfully with dogs.

---

I don't think you know what "punishment" is when refering to Operant Conditioning (ie. how dogs - and people for that matter - learn). Here's a quick lesson.

In scholarly circles, they use the term "positive punishment" to refer to added punishment (not good punishment). Punishment is anything negative. It can range from a quite, softly spoken "no" to a "tssk" (which I believe Cesar uses in abundance) to a collar pop to a nose slap to an Alpha Roll to beating your dog with a brick. It's anything negative. People often don't realize they are using "punishment" because they don't consider what they are doing to be very harsh at all, but if it's designed to point out a bad behavior or correct a bad behavior, chances are it's a punishment. Some of the punishments I've heard Cesar uses are collar pops, verbal punishments, "flooding" (which I consider a punishment) and sticking his finger down a dog's throat. None of these are necessary to train a dog to listen and obey.

In Operant Conditioning, dogs learn by rewards and punishment, just like people. For instance, if a dog gets into the trash can, they get rewarded with great smells and possibly some tasty rotting food. Instant reward. The dog WILL repeat this behavior. He has learned that trash can = good smells = repeated behavior. However, if you make the trash can scary by placing a Snappy Trainer in it (a "Positive Punishment" here also called a remoter punisher), then the dog goes to the trash can. The Snappy Trainer goes off. Now, trash can = scary snappy things = stay away from trash can.

Yes, positive punishment works. However, what's more powerful is the positive approach (minus the punishment). By using rewards and play and fun, dogs don't work out of fear. They work out of joy. Those of you who have never trained all positive are really missing the boat. Believe me. The benefits are so strong in the bond you get with a dog trained using positive reinforcement. It's heads and tails abouve the other methods, which again, I have used. They are old school and outdated.

This evening on the CBS Evening News, they had a piece on the AKC Agility National Championships. The reporter (Steve Hartman, I believe) commented that after every run he saw, regardless of how many mistakes were made on course, the handlers came out praising and loving on their dogs. Why? How could this work? Remember, these are the cream of the crop of agility handlers and dogs nationwide. So, why do these successful handlers praise their dogs even when there were mistakes on the course? Shouldn't they be adding punishment, like Cesar would?

The answer is simple. If punosihing worked, you'd see handlers doing it. But it doesn't work. The dogs have to love what they're doing to do agility at that high of a level. They have to have tremendous speed and joy. If the handlers were punishing their dogs for mistakes on the course, what would the dogs eventually do? Why, run slower or shut down completely! The speed - the incredible joy - would be gone. There would be no top agility dogs in that nation...only slowly running dogs who were afraid to mess up because of reprisal. We don't want that. We want enthusiastic dogs who can't wait to get on the course and run like maniacs! We get what we want out of our dogs by rewarding the good behavior and ignoring the bad. Soon, the dog is only giving us good behaviors on the course, AND we still have maniac speed dogs out there.

Agiity is changing how we look at dog training. We are seeing a whole other world. Dogs can be trained - and extremely and highly trained (yes, the listen AND love it) - without much punishment at all. They can learn to love work - to live for it - to experience pure joy when working - and yet work perfectly and accurately with their handler.

It's a whole other way of thinking. Cesar is still back in the old days of punish to get results. We've moved so far beyond this. Yes, a little "positive punishment" is still acceptable. I certainly use the word "no" on occasion (although never with a green dog on the agility field). However, the old methods of collar pops, training collars, etc. are just that. Old methods. Very few dogs need this if trained properly in positive methods.

The positive way is a very powerful tool and still far too few people are aware of the power within their reach if they would but change their old school mindsets when it comes to training. Believe me. I used to be one.

You may be great at what you do, but you are NOT training dogs who would be labeled killers, dogs who have attacked people and other dogs.....an agility dog is something else entirely. You are comparing apples to oranges, not apples to apples. What Cesar does is completely different than what you are describing and for the dogs he is working with, and the people he is working with, it works! It's not the same thing at all as to what you describe so no matter what YOU do as a trainer with agility dogs, means nothing to the dogs he deals with. He doesn't hurt them, he puts them in their place in the pack order. I don't agree with everything he does, but what he does has a place and is needed. He deals with dogs with people problems, and people with dog problems, and helps them learn to coexist for the betterment of both. I don't see that as wrong.

He doesn't claim to be a "trainer", he helps people and their dogs learn how to communicate on a level both can understand so there is harmony in the home for both. He doesn't try to train agility dogs, or personal protection dogs, or dogs for the blind, he tries to fix problems that already EXIST between people and their dogs.

His pack of dogs do not act like they fear him one bit. They are happy to see him and are happy to do as he asks. They don't have the tail/head down posturing of fearful dogs. They do not run from him or cower before him. So I don't really know why you say he instills fear in them.

You are right, Vela. He's always saying "I train people and rehabilitate dogs" I think he's amazing and haven't seen any abuse at all.

I personally love his show, and I think he is great with the dogs.

I have to agree with Vela here. I train for agility, but I never let the fact escape that my dogs are high drive Belgians. They are dangerous dogs, simple as that. When Visa went to her first seminar (shortly after I got her) the host said she needed to be taken out of agility RIGHT away -- She was too dangerous. This was after two years of only positive training. I got her, saw a dog that wasn't eager to please, was not particularily motived, self-rewarded herself by not listening, and plain just didn't enjoy her training. She had very uncontrollable drive and a mild working sharpness which did make her a potential danger. I used alot of negatives, and it worked for her. Instead of not listening altogether, she stops listening only when she becomes bored of it, and then the training ends. She is now a controlled dog -- My service dog at that -- I got rid of the working sharpness and she is now reliable. And now that she knows what to do, she enjoys her training. But I will never be able to resort to ONLY positive -- every time I try, she starts to take advantage of me. She is a smart dog and she knows what she wants.

Having malinois in fur coats (lol), I honestly couldn't care less if my dog enjoyed what it was doing in the long term -- if it is a required command, they will do it, like it or not. I live under the idea that these dogs are dangerous and it is my job to control them. I am glad my dogs understand that there are consequences to their actions. I honestly can't think of any "positive" ways to control sharpness in a working dog.

My co-breeder is the same -- both positive and negative. She grew up with the Kohler method of training. Her dogs didn't have fun all the time, but they listened 100%. When she was a teenager she went to a positive training class. Her dog enjoyed it, but at the end of 8 weeks it jumped up and stole a chocolate bar from her hand. It would NEVER have even thought of doing that before the class. She liked the reliability of the harsher training and the dog's eagerness towards positive training. So she developed both a postitive and negative attitude.