I absolutely 110% disagree when people justify utilizing the extreme forms of the "dominance theory" (i.e. alpha rolls and "assertive touches", i.e. forcefully hitting the dog) because the dog is reactive or aggressive.

Cesar is "amazing" because he uses positive punishment. Punishment has instant results because it suppresses behavior. Dog growls. Hit. Dog growls again. Alpha roll. Dog stops growling. Is that amazing? Or is that disturbing? What is amazing to me is that people still believe in this stuff, when modern psychology and decades of research and behavioral modification have taught us that there are far more effective methods of long term rehabilitation of reactive and aggressive dogs.

Quote Originally Posted by Emma<3Beth View Post
A lot of dogs he works with are agressive and he has to be firm. If a Pit or Rottie want to get something you have to be firm.
As you can see from my siggie, I have a Doberman girl. She is strong, she is willful, she is energetic, and high drive/high pain tolerance. Surprise, surprise, she is also extremely reactive. I do not and never will "dominate" her in the way that Cesar advocates. The basis of Cesar's attitude towards aggressive dogs is that they're trying to assume the alpha role. In other words, they're trying to assert their dominance over the human by taking control of the environment and resources. Uh huh. Right. So, why does my 100%-positive-reinforcement-trained dog do this by herself?

That, folks, is a completely UNtrained behavior. I have NEVER taught Ivy this behavior; it's completely natural. So, tell me again, why does my dog react? Because she's dominant? Really??? Am I really supposed to believe that?

Bottom line: Not all "bad" behaviors stem from inadequate leadership, as Cesar would like us to believe. THAT is my major gripe with him.