Printable View
What I will say is this I have never needed to use a prong or a choke in over 15 years with "dangerous dogs" Rotts or Dobes or my daughters pitties. They respond so much differently than my early dogs did. I would never go back to that type of training. My dogs do what is asked of them at every opportunity because they want to, and honestly they make less errors then when I did use "corrective" techniques.
I am not basing it on Belgians -- I am basing it on Belgians with working sharpness. Belgians with working sharpness ARE put to sleep daily. If my dog ever shows any tendency to bite, I don't care if I have to use negative tactics to remove it. My dog was sharp her first two years I did not have her when she was only postitvely trained. An agility trainer told my cobreeder to put her down. Anyone here who has met Visa can attest to her very nice temperament. She is still drivey but she is no longer sharp. She is controlled. Solo I nipped right in the bud. And yes, I used negative training. But when it comes to biting, I really don't care.Quote:
You are seeing him deal with VERY problematic dogs, dogs on the verge of being put down often, because of their behavior problems, not based on any one breed, but on the dog's behavior. Breed has nothing to do with it, there are problems in all breeds of dogs with all types of people. He is not working with the "average dog" of whatever breed.
How sad. I want my dogs to enjoy life, enjoy working and enjoy me. Yes, they do things they don't want to because I ask it. But they do it out of respect for me, not fear of me. There is a big difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsoul
Dr. Goodnow, I agree completely. My dogs make much fewer errors, too.
Also, I know several very aggressive agility dogs who are doing great having been rehabilitated using the all-positive methods. Must work, or they wouldn't be able to be off lead in such a stimulating atmosphere.
I've tasted force training. I've tasted force training mixed with positive training. I've tasted positive training. I won't go back.
Vela, the biggest problem with Cesar is just what you mentioned. He's working with aggressive dogs, and yet televises his methods. Then, Joe sitting at home thinks, "Hmmm. I'll collar pop my dog, too!" I've had person after person come up to me and say they were doing something Cesar did to their housepets with minor behavioral problems that could be easily fixed without going to such extreme measures. Frankly, he has no business having a national audience showing those methods to people who don't understand when the extremely rare case might be when they are acceptable to use.
I like that he doesn't claim to be a trainer, and yet uses the very same methods trainers used 20 eyars ago. I find that rather humerous!
As for instilling fear, I'm afraid you don't understand what I've been saying. I can tell by others' posts that they don't understand either. Dogs obey out of fear. They don't necessairly show the fear. But, they don't obey out of excitement, love and the pure joy. And, they don't obey out of respect...just fear of reprisal. Again, big difference.
I find it interesting that no one here who has ever trained a dog using mostly positive methods is coming on saying, "Oh, but Cesar IS right!" All of us who HAVE been there, done that are telling you guys who have never used both methods that the mostly positive route IS the best route. I strongly doubt Cesar has ever trained a dog using all positive methods either.
Unfortunately for the dogs in America, many people are again turning back to those old ways, thanks to Cesar, and the dogs are suffering because of it. :(
Sorry I meant to quote Dr. Goodnow, before I replied, then I ended up deleting it anyway LOL. I was referring to what she had said, not you. I agree with what you've said so far. There is sometimes a need for both positive and negative. Negative reinforcement does not mean beating a dog, but there are times when negative reinforcement is necessary for both the good of the dog and the good of the people involved, especially with high prey or drive dogs where danger IS an issue. I don't hit my dogs, but I've told them no, I've scolded them, and they darn well know when they do wrong, but I also love them more than life itself and constantly praise them and love them up. I know you feel the same about yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsoul
I really don't see what the big issue is with Cesar, I think he does a lot of good and not every training method suits every dog or situation and I woudl MUCH rather his training methods used on some of those dogs I have seen than to see them put down.
I also want my dog to do this -- but she never did when taught with only positive training. While they generally used both positive and negative, she was a messed up dog and they used only positive. Eventually they became frustrated and stopped training her because she wasn't having fun. She does enjoy her training now. There is no reason a dog trained either way can not enjoy their training. It all depends on the dog. Frankly I would rather my dog NOT enjoy training, than to skip out on using negative training for a legitimate reason because there is a slight chance, when nothing else has worked, that it could work.Quote:
Originally Posted by agilityk9trainer
I HAVE done both, I have been there and done that. I DO use mostly positive. But when it comes to matters such sharpness, I refuse. Just personal preference. I don't think many people here have dealt with it before and frankly I hope they never have to. It is tough to get rid of once it's there and I imagine impossible if you don't want to correct your dog.
Ah thanks for clearing that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vela
I completely agree!
I suspect the people who had your dog before were not using the positive methods correctly. This is unfortunately common as people mix and match methods (thanks to folks like Cesar!). Also, I didn't say I NEVER correct my dog. I just said I am mostly positive.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsoul
Let me give you an example of the corrections I use. This may help you guys understand things a bit better.
I always start out all positive and add corrections as necessary (I've already stated that, but apparently most of you didn't read my post). Anyway, the corrections I add never cause "baggage." Baggage is when you use a correction that is so adversive, it causes an unwanted and often unexpected behavior in your dog. For example, let's say I want to teach my dog to be quiet. I could grab his muzzle and squeeze firmly every time he barked and yell 'NO!" Would it work? Yes, it would. But, I'd get baggage. The baggage I'd get is a dog who tucks his head whenever I reach to pet it. You see this all the time.
Lets say my dog is chewing. I could go over to him every time, grab his collar, shake it and yell "NO!" Would he quit chewing. Yes, he probably would. But, there would be baggage. Evertime I went to get his collar for control, he would dive away from me.
Collar pops can produce baggage, too, and I've seen it in dog after dog. They shut down and quit working. I've had to rehabilitate these dogs quite often. It's very sad to see them loose their love of working just for a silly collar pop that wasn't necessary to begin with!
I do use correctiions (punishments) but I use them sparingly and I don't use ones that are so adversive as to cause baggage. When training some things, I use no corrections, even mild ones, including even the word "no." The harshest my corrections get is a squirt bottle, and I drop that when the pups are between six and nine months old. Then, I use verbal corrections only. Just a mild "no" is all that is needed.
As for training true working dogs, well, shoot, I'm a professional agility trainer!! Ninety percent of my students' dogs ARE true working dogs! They come from working lines and were bought because of their drive, their intelligence and their dominance! That's what I DO for a living!!
I don't do those things either --- the occasional collar pop when pulling becomes ridiculous but otherwise. I prefer quick verbal corrections. Gets their attention, makes them go back to what they were doing before the behaviour. If the behaviour is aggressive or dangerous I am much less lenient.
Never said you don't train working dogs -- Just said I don't think many of you deal with working sharpness, which is seen more prominently in schutzhund dogs. Not many of the agility trainers I went to understood it or knew how to deal with it. I've seen it alot. I tried to help people deal with it before I fully understood it, and wound up being tore open and bruised and on the ground every time. It's a bit different than just teaching a dog to sit. It's teaching a dog to control it's drive and frustration, two things which come very naturally to the dog, and teaching the dog that no matter what the circumstances are, biting is not okay and consequences come of it.
Isn't this a contradiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by agilityk9trainer
And as for the pop collar, I've done this with all my dogs and you know what? They all get excited when they are getting them put on. Not one of them have "baggage":)
Ahhh.... what's a contradiction? And, I didn't say all dogs develop baggage with collar pops, but some do.
The late pet behaviourist John Fisher always passionately opposed any type of punishment in training and he was a trainer of police dogs for many years before becoming a pet behaviourist. He has had massive influence all over the globe and many well known U.S behaviourists follow his methods.
Here is some of what he put in one of his books.
"Even if the methods used are not as harsh as the two examples quoted (throwing downstairs, locking in cupboard), a lot of traditional training methods can still have an adverse effect on the behaviour we are trying to cure. Let's take the dog-aggressive example and look at the most commonly used cure for this within a dog club environment.
The owner is told to get his dog to sit bside him and make sure that the choke chain is high up on the neck, just behind the ears. Other dogs are then paraded in front of this dog and any aggressive reaction in punished with a harsh 'NO' and a firm yank on the chain. The result is usually that the dog is frightened of showing aggression when it is in the dog club and the chain up behind the ears - and it also learns that the presence of another dog is probably a prelude to punishment, so that when any other opportunities present themselves it is a good idea to chase the other dog off. Result: Well controlled in the club, twice as aggressive outside - exactly the opposite of what was intended."
Also this:
" Punishment as a training aid just does not work. However, until fairly recently, this is the way that dogs were traditionally trained. The danger of punishment is that the dog might learn the wrong thing. As has been stated many times so far, dogs learn through reward, and even then the reward has to coincide with the act, or within two seconds of the act, for it to have a learning effect.
Most of the people to whom I talk readily agree with this principle, and this is all very well when it comes to theory. However, human nature is such that we are in fact a very punishment-orientated animal, and when I pose the following theoretical scenario, it proves to most people just how readily we will resort to this form of training.
Suppose you dog was loose in the park and, from a distance of fifty yards, you saw it bark at a mother and her child and then rush in and bite the child. You screamed 'COME HERE, Fido!' and he returned to you emmediately. Would you tell him he was a good boy?
In reality not many people would, they would probably hit the dog. But this would be to teach it that the act before it's last one was not good. It's last act was to obey you recall command and, from a dog's point of view, that is what it is being punished for.
If you made a terrific fuss of the dog for returning, the mother would tell the police that you praised the dog for biting her child.
If you went onto explain to the police that you were praising the dog for coming when called, they would find it pretty hard to accept and so would the judge.
The problem is that humans cannot seperate values from straightforward learning procedures. Dogs and other animals rely on instinct. If, for instance, the dog felt threatened by the mother and child and attacked the weaker of the two as a form of defence, that would be normal (Although unacceptable)
dog behaviour - remember, dogs bite. Returning to the security of its owner when called, only to recieve punishment for returning, would simply make it wary of obeying in future, not teach it that it shouldn't bite children. From this example, it can be seen that instead of looking at what we are really teaching the dog, we are clouding the whole issue with human values and creating confusion. We are usually too ready to punish the dog for what is wrong, instead of concentrating on and rewarding what is right, but does the dog understand what we are trying to teach it at all?
If punishment is used as a first-time training aid and the dog learns the wrong thing, not only do we create confusion, we also create mistrust".
also this:
"Karen Pryor, an American authority on marine-mammal behaviour said: 'Punishment is humanity's favourite method. When the bahaviour goes wrong, we think first of punishment. Scold the child, spank the dog, dock the paycheck, fine the company, torture the dissident, invade the country, and so on'. The problem is that when we find out that the punishment does not stop the behaviour, what do we do? WE ESCALATE THE PUNISHMENT.
To a certain extent, punishment after the act can have a learning affect on humans, but that is because we have the power of logical thought patterns - I am in gaol now for a crime that I committed last year. I do not like being in jail, so I will commit no more crimes. Other animals do not have this ability, therefore punishing unwanted behaviour after the act only confuses them. Sometimes even punishment during the act can have the reverse effect from one we are trying to achieve."
Also, another top pet behaviourist Peter Neville, I'm sure some of you will have heard of him also opposes punishment as a training technique and basically says the same thing about it as what John Fisher does.
These guys are at the forefront of their field so I do think they know what they are talking about.
In the end, all dogs are dogs. All dogs show aggression for the same reasons and they all have the same psychology so I don't think that saying some breeds need punishment because of their drive where others don't. They still learn exactly the same as other dogs, they are just more likely to show the problems that their drive might bring. If somebody has used so-called positive training and not had the result, they weren't doing it right.
Trying to eradicate aggression by using punishment is the most stupid thing anybody could ever do anyway for the reasons that John Fisher and Peter Neville have both stated. Punishment can even create aggression in the form of self-defence where aggression might not even have been an issue to start with.
Anybody who feels the need to "bully", their dog into doing what they want obviously doesn't really understand the true behaviour of dogs. There is never going to be a trusting teamwork relationship present because, if I was a dog, would I trust an owner who routinely smacked me or shouted at me, yanked my collar and lead etc...for reasons that I didn't even understand?
It makes me laugh when people say stuff like: "He/she knows exactly what he/she has done wrong". WRONG!!! How would they know if the dog knew exactly what it had done wrong, can they read the dogs mind? They know that they know what the dog did wrong and that they'd understand if they were punished in this fashion but that doesn't mean to say a dog understands this.
Canis-Lupess,
Fantastic post. Thank you.
Very wel;l said I have been sitting her trying to put my thoughts and how they have changed over the years into perspective.
That post said it all very well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anna_66
You guessed it Anna, it is contradictory, but they can't see it. :p If
redirecting focus of the dog by a word or short tug of the leash at the moment it's needed is "punishment", then we are not communicating in
the same language. Having a calm,happy & centered animal is what we
all strive for & Cesar does it very well.
Cesar millan's show The Dog Wisperer is mainly entertainment. The big picture is that we don't know what goes on behind the camera!!!!!I like his show but I take it as a show. I can't believe every thing I see or hear.
Read this:Critics
There are professional trainers, behavior consultants and behaviourists that state that Millan's methods are inhumane, referring to the use of alpha rolls, flooding, and constant leash "corrections". According to them these techniques can have serious behavioral consequences. While critics agree that Millan does not hit or physically injure the dogs he is working with, they state that subjecting a dog to these techniques is inhumane treatment.
Dr. Nicholas Dodman, the director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine of Tufts University, has said “Cesar Millan's methods are based on flooding and punishment. The results, though immediate, will be only transitory. His methods are misguided, outmoded, in some cases dangerous, and often inhumane. You would not want to be a dog under his sphere of influence. The sad thing is that the public does not recognize the error of his ways.” [13] In a February 23, 2006 New York Times article Dr. Dodman says of Millan’s show "My college thinks it is a travesty. We've written to National Geographic Channel and told them they have put dog training back 20 years." [14]
Jean Donaldson, The San Francisco SPCA Director of Academy for Dog Trainersstates, “Practices such as physically confronting aggressive dogs and using of choke collars for fearful dogs are outrageous by even the most diluted dog training standards. A profession that has been making steady gains in its professionalism, technical sophistication and humane standards has been greatly set back. I have long been deeply troubled by the popularity of Mr. Millan as so many will emulate him. To co-opt a word like ‘whispering’ for arcane, violent and technically unsound practice is unconscionable.” [15]
Dr. Ian Dunbar, Director of the Center for Applied Animal Behavior in Berkeley says "He has nice dog skills, but from a scientific point of view, what he says is, well ... different," says Dunbar. "Heaven forbid if anyone else tries his methods, because a lot of what he does is not without danger." [16]
Dr. Andrew Luescher, Veterinary Behaviorist for the Animal Behavior Clinic at Purdue University says “Millan's techniques are almost exclusively based on two techniques: flooding and positive punishment. In flooding, an animal is exposed to a fear (or aggression) evoking stimulus and prevented from leaving the situation, until it stops reacting. To take a human example: arachnophobia would be treated by locking a person into a closet, releasing hundreds of spiders into that closet, and keeping the door shut until the person stops reacting. The person might be cured by that, but also might be severely disturbed and would have gone through an excessive amount of stress. Flooding has therefore always been considered a risky and cruel method of treatment.” [17]
On September 6, 2006, The American Humane Association issued a press release condemning Millan's tactics as "inhumane, outdated, and improper" and called on The National Geographic Channel to cease airing the program immediately. [18]
On April 28, 2006, Millan's original publicist, Makeda Smith of Jazzmyne Public Relations and her partner, Foster Corder of Daughters 2 Feed Films, filed a lawsuit against Millan requesting compensation for damages in excess of five million dollars for alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract and breach of confidential relationship. The National Geographic Channel, MPH Entertainment, Inc and Emery/Sumner Productions, LLC are also defendants named in the complaint. Smith alleges that Millan has completely forsaken her after several years of utilizing her expertise to introduce and position him within industry, professional, and media circles, nationally and internationally, without any compensation. [20]
On May 5, 2006, a television producer for the TV series 8 Simple Rules filed a lawsuit against Millan, claiming that his labrador retriever had been seriously injured while at Millan's training facility during an exercise routine on a treadmill.[21]. National Geographic released a statement that Millan was not present at the facility at the time of the alleged incident.