Does anyone watch Dog Whisperer?

[finn's mom]

Great thread. I like Cesar. The girl, Victoria, on the other show, drives me bananas. I try to watch the show when it comes on, but I haven't made it past four or five minutes. I have used some of Cesar's techniques in my home with our six dogs, and have seen improvement. My dogs are my family, but they have been learning their place in it the last few months. Just as an example, our three are no longer allowed to sleep in our bed, since we will have a co-sleeper next to the bed for the baby. They still get loved on like there's no tomorrow, they just have a few more restrictions than they did before. I don't agree with all of Cesar's methods, but I haven't met or seen a trainer that I do.

[MonicanHonda]

I find for me, what works best is the use of Victoria's AND Cesar's methods. I like things from both of them. And that's all I'm going to say.

[bckrazy]

“just aren’t wired right”. Well there it is, had to come up at some point, these are the final words of so many positive trainers who have given up before me. No dog “just ain’t wired right”, every single dog in existence wants to, and can, return to balance.

I truly believe that some dogs are inherently unstable dogs who cannot be helped... just like some people, some animals of any species, can never be "normal". Particularly because we, who control the breeding rights of our dogs, selectively breed for bizarre and dangerous traits (aloofness, silent attacks, DA/HA). I do feel that supressing/"leadership" is likely the only way to "rehabilitate" some dogs. Dogs who are not motivated by people or food or praise or interaction at all, which is indeed unusual and bad wiring for a dog, might be motivated by fear/"respect" of a leader. But to me those dogs are in the minority.

I study feral and wild dogs, and I know for a fact that in every pack there is one leader (+alpha female) and that leader does not hesitate show that he is at the top, and the followers accept it, it's in their instincts to, just as domestic dogs are, who share over 99% of the same genes as the wolf - that's something that you just can't deny. Wolves were domesticated to be adjusted to humans 15,000 years ago, and renamed the "domestic dog", that's just fact. Not only do I study the wolf, but I compare and contrast their behaviors with domestic dogs, domestic dog packs and feral packs, the similarities are endless, the only differences tend to be that most domestic dogs are just ill-equipped for survival, and of course, are fully adjusted to humans.

I felt compelled to quote this again, as the topic of wolf behavior and dogs being the equivalent of wolves has been brought up over & over. Some one I respect A LOT directed me to this link, and I would love for you and anyone else that's interested to take a gander: http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006...estic-dog.html & this if you have a couple of hours: http://www.nonlineardogs.com/socialorganisation.html

Being a volunteer at a rescue shelter, I know that if a pit bull comes in from rescue, it has some issues, that’s a fact you can’t deny unfortunately.
On a somewhat random but relevant note, can I just remind you that I use positive reinforcement all the time (seriously) but I cannot use it when it is simply not possible to.

I have met countless rescued Pit Bulls who have never had a mean bone in their body towards any man or animal. Lovable, sensitive, goofy lugs. In my experience, Pit Bulls are a far more resilient and good-natured breed in general than most breeds, including Border Collies.

the fact that I’m male and your female I believe does have some, if not a lot of influence on our opinions about dogs and dog training.

I agree 100%!

I have noticed that men tend to feel empowered by using physical force and being a "leader"... in any situation, not just dog training. There are positive trainers who I adore who are men (Dr Ian Dunbar is one of my favorites of all times), but most of my encounters with "dominance" trainers have been men. It brings up a really nice quote from the second link I posted.

"Not only do the concepts of “dominance” and “submission” assume that the contents of a dog’s consciousness are similar to the contents of human consciousness, they are also unparsimonious and inelegant, and are entirely superfluous in explaining the behavior of the domestic dog. Respondent and operant conditioning are sufficient to explain the behavioral responses on the organizational level of the system called “dog”, and to explain the emergence and maintenance of a larger canine social system."

In many cases of dominance theory, I find that assumptions are made more than real, true, scientific observation. Dominance enthusiasts assume so much, when one can observe isolated dog "packs" all day long, and that does not change the fact that we will never think exactly like a dog or know what is going on in a dog's brain. We can only use what we have, to change they way that they react and behave, in a foreign world, ruled by a completely foreign species of animal.

With regards to the debate, it could go on forever (quite literally…so)-with the things we disagree on, I propose that we agree to disagree, and agree that what we each use works best for us individually.

You're right. I've said my piece... if not more. I did learn something, and I respect that you don't take "natural" training to extremes.

To be honest, you'd have to see me working with a dog first hand to see whether you truly agree with / understand what exactly I do.

I would love to see that. I'm sure it would be eye-opening! Feel free to keep posting here, don't be afraid of me. I'm usually quite well-behaved, believe it or not.

[Jags mom]

I truly believe that some dogs are inherently unstable dogs who cannot be helped... just like some people, some animals of any species, can never be "normal".

I agree with that totally. In the way humans are mentally challenged i feel dogs can be like that too. wiring gone wrong during fetal development. working at a grooming shop i have had thousands of dogs in front of me and have noticed just odd behaviour(like one puppy i groomed at 3 months was very aggresive and i dont mean biting out of fear it was full blown aggresion and it was a shih tzu pup). I have asked a few vet friends and they all agree there are mentally challenges dogs. while in school i worked with mentally disable kids and there wer ones that were just very slow and there were some that got very aggresive when they were challenged, again i belive that dogs are the same way. and when the wiring has gone wrong there is nothing you can do to fix it. not even cesar, though i do love his ways.

I cant remember where i had read this but its a tested thing in dogs that pits are one of the most well rounded if you might say dogs there are. they great with kids, other dogs(if socialized properly, same as any other dog), less likely to snap at nothing, they usually have a good reason, very trainable, great couch potatoes when you want them to be and athletic both at the same time. there is a whole buch of reasons why they ranked the top of the list of dogs tested but i cant remember the site i found it on.

[buttercup132]

Being a volunteer at a rescue shelter, I know that if a pit bull comes in from rescue, it has some issues, that’s a fact you can’t deny unfortunately.

Go ahead and stero type some more...
I work with pitbull rescue and alot of them that come in are perfectly fine.

Your saying that if a pit puppy comes into the shelter that because it's a pit it automatically has problems?

[Alysser]

Being a volunteer at a rescue shelter, I know that if a pit bull comes in from rescue, it has some issues, that’s a fact you can’t deny unfortunately.
On a somewhat random but relevant note, can I just remind you that I use positive reinforcement all the time (seriously) but I cannot use it when it is simply not possible to.

You have GOT to be kidding me? You're telling me pitbulls that come into rescues have issue of some kind? That is a very general (and ignorant) statement to make. I actually liked some of your posts until you said this dumb statement. Not all pitbulls or just dogs in general that come into rescues have "problems". I volunteer at the SPCA and very few pitbulls there have "problems". Most of the dogs at the SPCA I work at come in because their owners are having economic problems or they are moving, Not because they have "problems".

If you meant something else or I misunderstood you, I'm sorry but I really hate when people say pitbulls have problems because they came to a shelter.

[atchbedyto]

Being a volunteer at a rescue shelter, I know that if a pit bull comes in from rescue, it has some issues, that’s a fact you can’t deny unfortunately.
On a somewhat random but relevant note, can I just remind you that I use positive reinforcement all the time (seriously) but I cannot use it when it is simply not possible to quote by gtmanning .

We have had many APBT's come in from SPCA and rescue sources and they have turned out to be wonderful pets. Also, some behavioral motor patterns seen in many purebred dogs are lost when not selectively bred for which happens with many. One of the Vet tech's and the head Vet rescued APBT's and used positive only training on them and had lovely dogs. Even in the old AKC books it states that Staff's, APBT's and other bull breeds are the easiest breeds to rehome.

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. Quote by gtmanning

I have used positive methods on my ultra dominant ultra aggressive (human and dog) Rottweiler with GREAT success. I have however seen many people using corrective forced based training that the dogs have gone on to attack. Your typical cowboy trainer who likes to impress others with his skills of taming the wild beast

I study feral and wild dogs, and I know for a fact that in every pack there is one leader (+alpha female) and that leader does not hesitate show that he is at the top, and the followers accept it, it's in their instincts to, just as domestic dogs are, who share over 99% of the same genes as the wolf - that's something that you just can't deny. Wolves were domesticated to be adjusted to humans 15,000 years ago, and renamed the "domestic dog", that's just fact. Not only do I study the wolf, but I compare and contrast their behaviors with domestic dogs, domestic dog packs and feral packs, the similarities are endless, the only differences tend to be that most domestic dogs are just ill-equipped for survival, and of course, are fully adjusted to humans. Quote by gtmanning

What kind of studies are you doing feral and wild dogs, what resources are you basing your studies. I disagree with what you have say. Our domestic dog (Canis familiaris) evolved to be an opportunistic scavenger, humans did not capture a few Wolf pups and domesticate them Heck if that were the case with our modern ways we should be able to domesticate wolves now a day. Humans way back in time would not have had the means nor the time/interest to domesticate a wolf. Canis familiaris (you'll find them still living as they have for centuries in 3rd world countries, you'll see them living in dumps etc but always living around human activity and human waste areas). Also domestic dogs do not mate with one superior dog, they can be bred by multiple dogs when in heat. The males do not stick around to help raise the litter, which is what a pack is all about. When our 6 dogs first started living together we had one female and one male which were intact, the breeder wanted a litter. They were the breeding pair which in a pack would have made them the so called alpha's...correct me if I'm wrong. These 2 are so far from being dominant it's not funny. Even while the female was in the prime of her heat cycle there were no issues with our dogs, we never had to seperate them.

Many biologists call domestic feral dogs groups and not packs. Plus dogs are very well equipped for survival they have in fact made a very unique niche in the world that has made them prime to survive and would survive better than wolves. As long as there are humans dogs will scavenge off us Coyotes as well have adjusted and differ a great deal from wolves as well. Which brings up another item about the genes and mtDNA studies, they are for the most part inaccurate.

Dogs naturally and instinctually follow behind or beside leaders, so nothing else is necessary. Quote by gtmanning

Really? I have owned dogs for 40 years and had have multi dog households for that time frame. My dogs are well trained...but, my dogs have fun on their hikes with me. I depend on hikes to get the energy out. My dogs run ahead, play, run back to me, play in the water etc they do not walk behind or beside me all the time.

When I was growing up Positive training was our natural way of training dogs...that's how my grandfather trained all his dogs and the wild life he rescued as well. When I tried using correction based training I had people who were "experts" in that kind of training help me with my Rottie..it didn't work for her. My personality and corrections do not mix. I've also seen many dogs ruined by correction based training. It seems the people who talk the most about alpha this, alpha that I am the leader, my dogs know their place etc have the most screwed up dogs . I see it often as I work in a dog related field of work. When we were growing up dogs were dogs and they grew up with us kids and they went every where with us. They were good dogs as they were social from day one and had the opportunities during the critical period of sociliazation. We had a Shepherd/Husky mix, border collie mix and we always had the neighbors Shepherd and husky with us and other neighborhood dogs would hang around us kids and our dogs. They all got along, there were no fights and they loved hanging out with us kids, they went to the beach with us every day etc. Our dogs were never confused, a confused dog is a dangerous dog and that is what I see a lot of is people confusing the heck out of their dogs. We never gave much thought to how well behaved our dogs were back then but we certainly got a lot of compliments. Our dogs slept with us kids, when we ate meals they sat under the table and patiently waited for hand outs, came to my friends houses and were very good...they were such a part of my childhood and we did not go to extremes training them...they naturally learned from example. I think sometimes that our dogs were so well behaved and we didn't put much thought into it we did not use corrections etc. We never over thought it. Now we have people who are trying to make dogs seem a mystery, wolves that are trying to adjust to living in a human family...silly really. When my mom was growing up dogs were used for everything from baby sitters, going to the store to fetch groceries...Newf's were used for that a great deal, hook up a cart and send the Newf off to the local grocery to pick up food by itself. No pack leader to walk with it, the dog did it out of routine. I have a book written by locals of dogs when they were growing up and how much dogs did for them.

As a studier of canids and wild canids I can honestly say yes. Most of the time all the animal needs to project is a dominant energy and the other animal will roll over and show their neck to the dominant animal, the neck biting is rarely required, and if it is, it does not puncture the skin. Truth is, a pack of wild dogs or wolfpack would never become as instable as a lot of the domestic dogs owned by people today, so to forcefully alpha roll a pack member is actually very rare and pointless in a normal-functioning pack of canids.
Alpha rolls etc never have the intent to kill or maim etc as you keep repeating, they only help to reinforce the rankings that will keep the pack at total relaxation with one another, and with wild canids, to survive (domestic dogs still have this instinct). Quote by gtmanning"

OK lets take a livestock guardian dog, when a livestock guardian pup begins to show dog social motor patterns toward sheep the pup will roll on its' back and expose their belly to the sheep. For a farmer this means the pup has successfully bonded with the sheep. The dog is being submissive to the sheep but will go on to be a wonderful guard dog for these very same sheep. So, are the sheep dominant over the dog? The reason a wolf pack would not become unstable like many dogs owned by humans is most times wolves leave packs and go form their own pack...they rehome themselves LOL I've seen my very highly dominant Rottweiler roll on her back in front of puppies, for her its showing the pup that she basically means no harm and intices play - this is what she learned. My dogs also will roll on their back for any human they think may rub their belly. For them rolling on their back for humans is not being submissive it's for a positive action they have come to expect from it. Who can resist a belly rub. Our male Newf Dylan which is a dominant male will lay around the grooming shop on his back for hours while other dogs walk by etc. He likes this position as it's comfortable and he likes to show off the goods. He is not showing any sort of submissive behaviors towards anyone etc. I've seen my dogs when they are playing rolling around on the ground together, for them it's not rolling over to show submissive they are playing and having a blast. I think it's very good to be able to read dogs body language, it has helped me out a great deal working with dogs to read their body language. But at times some people really over do it and read too much into it...or try to bring up wolves and pack behaviors...to be a dog is not to be a wolf.

[stace1319]

ok... I think this topic has gotten a little too personal and way out of hand for some people.