The Dog Whisperer vs. Victoria Stilwell
83Imagine you are locked-up in a house with a large Cujo like dog as a companion, and you can't leave the house until you have Cujo in a mostly non-psychopathic state.
Who would you rather have with you in the house;
Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer, or Victoria Stilwell from It's Me or the Dog?
Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer
Truthfully, in that imagined Cujo scenario, I would pick The Dog Whisperer. I wouldn't even have to think about it.
Who would you pick to help you with Cujo?
See results without votingWhy The Dog Whisperer?
- In the Cujo scenario, I am left with very little choice but to confront the dog, whip him into shape, so that I can get the hell out of that house.
- I am not really interested in remaining with Cujo after I escape, so I want a fast, short-term solution.
- I do not really know Cujo, and am probably scared shitless by him, so I can't say that I am particularly concerned about his welfare, while I am trying to escape with my skin intact.
- The Dog Whisperer is good at confronting dogs, and his methods are probably the most effective in getting them subdued in the shortest amount of time.
- If I get attacked by Cujo, I think The Dog Whisperer has the best skills to stop him before I sustain any serious damage.
 | Amazon Price: $13.99 List Price: $24.99 |
Forget Cujo; What About My Own Dog?
However, what happens when our own dog misbehaves? Who do we want to be there to help us with our dog ?
For training my own dogs, I would pick Victoria Stilwell, from It's Me or the Dog.
Why Victoria Stilwell?
The Dog Whisperer vs. Victoria Stilwell 1
Trust and bonding.
With my own dog, there is no need to hurry. I do not need to whip him into shape as fast as possible. Rather, I want to take my time and be very careful with his dog obedience training, so that I earn his trust, and improve our bond.
The aversive training used by The Dog Whisperer, is more likely to bring fast results. However, if it is not accurately executed, it can erode your dog's trust in you, and weaken your relationship.
The reward training used by Victoria Stilwell may take more work, more patience, and more time. However, it is safer, helps create trust, and improves the overall relationship between you and your dog. Reward training is just better dog kung fu.
 | Amazon Price: $9.00 List Price: $17.99 |
Which do you think is better?
See results without votingThe Dog Whisperer vs. Victoria Stilwell 2
Confrontation vs. management.
The Dog Whisperer's dog training techniques are, in large part, based on confrontation. When faced with a behavioral issue, you confront your dog, and stop the bad dog behavior primarily through physical techniques. To deal with fear issues, you force your dog to confront his fears by flooding him with the fear-stimulus, until he learns to tolerate it.
Confrontation, is often more satisfying, because it is very visceral, has quicker short-term results, and involves high adrenalin, physical action.
Victoria Stilwell's dog training techniques are mostly based on management and diplomacy. When faced with a dog behavioral issue, you distract your dog, and stop the problem behavior by controlling your dog's attention, and his resources.
To deal with fear issues, you properly manage your dog, and only expose him to small amounts of the fear-stimulus at a time. You desensitize your dog by pairing the fear-stimulus with good rewards (e.g. dog treats, dog toys, dog play). In this way, your dog starts to re-associate the fearful situation, with something good, and learns to tolerate it.
Management and diplomacy is often less satisfying. It is not very visceral, takes more time for results, and involves a lot of waiting, repetition, and patience.
However, confrontation is sometimes dangerous because it may cause a dog to break-down from extreme stress, or respond in kind with teeth and claws.
Management and diplomacy tend to bring better long-term results. You teach your dog alternate ways to control his impulses, and give him the freedom, time, and opportunity to learn to live well in our confusing, human world.
The Dog Whisperer vs. Victoria Stilwell 3
Type of Leadership.
Being in control of your dog is very important.
Our human world can be confusing and dangerous to our dogs, and our laws are created to protect humans, not dogs. Therefore, we must assume leadership, protect our dogs, and make sure that they do not inadvertently hurt children, bite hands, eat poisonous food, or run into traffic.
Cesar Millan, The Dog Whisperer's philosophy supports more of a totalitarian rule. The dog must always follow what you say, no ifs, ands, or buts. The dog must walk slightly behind you, and is expected to be obedient at all times. Failure to abide by your commands will result in a swift, physical correction.
Victoria Stilwell's form of leadership is more democratic in nature, and takes a dog's specific issues and needs into account. Dogs that are afraid of neighborhood walks, can be encouraged with food, toys, and play.
Dogs that pull, can be better managed and taught with a head-halti. Dogs that are aggressive, can be distracted and desensitized by controlling distance and rewards. Safety is still maintained by using proper equipment and management strategies, so that the dog is never exposed to extreme situations that he cannot handle. In other words -
Set your dog up for success, and try to minimize failure.
Which leadership philosophy is better for your dog?
See results without votingWho would you pick to help you with your own dog?
See results without votingThe Dog Whisperer vs. Victoria Stilwell 4
Which is safer?
Many supporters of a totalitarian rule say that the iron fist is necessary to ensure the safety of the dog. A common example used is having your dog stop on command while he is running into traffic.
Supporters of a more democratic rule ask, "What is the dog doing running into traffic in the first place?".
It is true that mistakes sometimes occur, but with proper management, we can reduce the frequency and potential danger of those mistakes.
In fact, the management strategies used by Victoria Stilwell are probably a lot safer than the confrontation strategies used by Cesar Millan because the stress from confrontation can cause a dog to act in an erratic, unexpected fashion.
While The Dog Whisperer himself may be able to stop these erratic actions, novice trainers, like the most of us, may just get bitten.
Finally, consider what type of leader you would prefer. A totalitarian country may be cleaner and have less crime, but the payment is less freedom and less choice.
Join HubPages, earn money, and share your dog stories with us.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (1)
- Beautiful
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
Most of us are not master trainers.
This is why Cesar Millan says -
"Do not attempt the techniques you are about to see without consulting a professional"
In fact, dog training is not regulated, so most trainers are not master trainers either. Therefore, it is best to listen to Cesar Millan and use alternate techniques that are effective and less risky.
Just wanted to point out the Cesar Millan master both methods, and use them appropriately.
Another imprecision is that the article says that the Cesar Method is shorter, but the truth is that it give faster results but Cesar always says to be consistent for a long period of time to have a definitive good result.
Ivan Stewart arrogant remarks about Cesear being less evolved and his general pompousness might go unchallenged by those who think having a college degree is necessary in training dogs but most level headed people know you don't need a university degree to train or understand basic dog behavior.
Cesar has real world experience, he's actually out there handling, training and educating people about dogs. Meanwhile Mr Stewart in a class room, watching a tv show with his students pointing out how Cesar doesn't have the required 'certification' or university degree.
No wonder the man sounds a little salty...
You all bring up a very important point which is that being calm is very important when communicating with people and being calm is also very important when communicating with our dogs.
I think most people agree with this point.
However, television shows are all about drama, and keeping everything calm does not create the dramatic moments that are necessary for popularity and ratings.
Reward training is all about keeping a dog calm, setting him up for success, and *not* provoking aggressive reactions. Instead, desensitization, counter-conditioning, and resource control techniques are used to teach dogs alternative ways for expressing themselves and getting what they want most.
This gives us many great tools for living well with our dogs, but it does not make for good t.v. Therefore, drama must be created in some other way, for example by arguing with people.
Alternatively, we can also create drama by provoking a dog into aggressive action, being bitten by a dog, and physically engaging with a dog.
However, as Virginia points out, this is not necessarily a good reflection of what is "real", because television shows are highly edited and most of us are not privy to what happens off-camera and behind closed doors.
This is why television is probably not the best place to get accurate information on how to live well with our dogs. For that, I rely on observing my own dogs, and also on the calm, rigorous, and objective studies from animal and behavioral psychology. Here is one such study -
@ katy & Virginia: I totally agree. Victoria shows you how to maintain an already fairly well behaved dog. What does she do with really bad dogs or overly aggressive ones? She tells people to dump them or have them "humanely" killed. Cesar never turns down a challenge and will give ANY dog a second chance (even red zone ones). His rehabilitation center revolves around those tough cases. Victoria runs away from the difficult dogs.
Victoria is a maniac. I watched her completely loose her cool, scream and then cry on The Great American Dog this morning, while debating training techniques with another trainer. I would never let ANYONE that unstable near my animal. Get a grip Victoria!
This “trainer” needs to understand that there isn’t any one way to train a dog. It is your responsibility to be well versed in all types of training, so that you may apply what is needed at the time for the specific type of personality that you are dealing with. Accepting others opinions is part of growing as a professional, and believing that your way, is the only way is ignorant! Also you can tell a lot about how someone deals with animals, by the way they handle people, and if this behaviour that I witnessed is any indication of her conduct, I wonder how “positive” her training is with dogs, off camera, and behind closed doors. This woman is an, unstable, out of control Pit Bull herself.
The key to dog training is to properly manage our dogs so that we prevent dog fights.
A dog fight not only causes physical damage, but also significant mental damage. The more a dog fights, the more aggressive or fearful he will become.
We want to set our dogs up for success and protect them so that they gain confidence and do not need to use aggression to protect themselves.
Victoria Stilwell's show is entirely based on dogs with small problems and she doesnt have faith in herself. You can see she wont touch a lead if a dog is about to misbehave, the reason? because she cant do it. Cesar on the other hand shows the most serious of cases and has no problem in showing his confidence and taking a dog straight away. Victoria Stilwell is a dog trainer only and runs a mile from a dog fight or just says "its bitch aggression get rid of the dog".
Yes! Ivan, you hit the nail on the head! I'm a certified R+ (positive reinforcement) trainer, APDT member trainer & Ian Dunbar is hands-down the way to go. Victoria is wonderful, Cesar is a horrific mess. What you don't see between the wonderfully edited part of his show is where he uses an RTC - Remote Training Collar, which shocks the dog at 127 levels! (And he thinks this is great because all those levels mean you can tweak it better. Who cares, I say, it's still a shock collar). And YES I have personally met & interacted with Stilwell, Millan & Dunbar. I have attended workshops and/or seminars with all three. There is no question that Dunbar is the most effective - be hard pressed to find another professional who can actually implement non-aversive, non-punishing behavior that is also affective, when generally a correction must be aversive (read: NOT positive punishment, which Cesar uses, but if it's not aversive, it won't work, period, and keep in mind that R+ training & aversive stimuli are not mutually exclusive.
Oh, and sorry Ryan - you show your ignorance by questioning Mr. Stewart on his knowledgeable & accurate assessment.
What is a Professional Dog Behaviourist? Please entertain me Mr. Stewart.
As a professional dog behaviourist, I would advise only following Dr. Ian Dunbar. He is a vet, and a certified dog behavioural specialist.
Using sound dog behaviour understanding instead of 'hay seed' and conjecture is always the best approach
Cesar Millan is not a dog behaviourist. I teach a university level dog behaviour program, and I use Dog Whisperer episodes to show students what not to do when working with problem dogs.
Ms Stillwell, is a little more evolved than Millan, and is at least on the right track. The worst thing people can do is rely on TV entertainers for sound dog behaviour advice.
I respect what you're saying. And absolutely if you can control a dog without physical force using only positive reinforcement and reward training that is the way to go. However, I do believe that in some circumstances drastic situations may call for harsher discipline methods.
If a dog bites someone or attacks a child the method of correction should maybe involve a certain amount of pain for the dog. Should a dog be allowed to inflict pain but under no circumstances receive it? Pain is a part of life. Sometimes a little pain (corrective) given at the proper moment can produce effective results. I think sometimes when people make the mistake of attempting to correct a dog using bad energy (while fearful or angry) they get less then ideal results and quickly give up. It's as much of a challenge for the owner to remain balanced as it is for the dog.
That aside sometimes people can just agree to disagree. Most dog owners have nothing but good intentions. I hate to see a dog getting hurt and I also hate to see people getting hurt by out of control dogs. Find something that works for you, period. I've personally owned four dogs (all rescues) and with all of them I frequently had to adjust my training techniques to fit the situation.
Thanks very much for the discussion, this is an interesting forum. It's always nice to talk with other dog lovers.
"The only time I have seen Cesar use a shock or choke collar (temporarily) is in extreme cases where a dog might have otherwise been euthanized"
As I understand it, the Illusion collar is a modified choke collar. It holds the choke collar higher on the dog's neck where it is more sensitive so that the pain stimulus will have a greater effect.
As for shock collars I remember an episode with a dog called Bella where Millan recommended the use of a shock collar for food aggression issues. I remember that Millan took off his shoe and tried to jab/touch the dog with his foot. When that failed to bring results, he recommended using a shock collar, presumably to 'get the dog's attention'.
Also, many trainers take a strong stand against shock collars and advise their clients to use alternative techniques that are safer, and leads to a better quality of life.
"I do not believe that Cesar's techniques of rehabilitating dogs are a form of "negative punishment"."
As I said before, Cesar uses both reward and aversive techniques. Reward techniques apply "negative punishment" to stop bad behaviors and Aversive techniques apply "positive punishment" to stop bad behaviors.
Techniques such as collar corrections work by applying pain to the dog (positive punishment).
http://shibashake.hubpages.com/hub/Cesar-Milan-Dog
"In any case I think that a consistent routine using positive reinforcement and a firm hand when necessary is needed for the success of any human to dog relationship."
I very much agree. I think dogs need rules and boundaries. I think they like having a consistent routine. And like you, I also think that positive reinforcement and reward training are the way to go.
Hi shibashake,
In response to your reply:
By nature animals are very physical beings and therefore relate to the world around them in this manner. They don't sit around the dinner table and have conversations with friends or family because they can't talk. When animals play they get physical, when they show affection they get physical, when they are protecting themselves they get physical...they respond well to touch and physicality.
In life and in smaller concentrated groups there will always be leaders and followers. This makes the world go round. Too many leaders and you get chaos. The question is; are you or your dog going to be the leader of your family?
In my personal experience using treat based redirection does not work when a dog is in a heightened state of mind. They almost always seem to respond to a firm touch and clear boundaries. I have seen Victoria avoid any and all situations where the possibility of a negative outcome was evident. In one episode she instructs an owner to completely avoid taking her dog to the dog park because he is too out of control. She doesn’t offer a resolution to the actual problem or suggest going back after the dog has been better socialized. Cesar devotes himself to finding a way to get a dog to be relaxed and happy in ANY situation. Not just for the benefit of the owner but ultimately for the dog's well being.
I do not believe that Cesar's techniques of rehabilitating dogs are a form of "negative punishment". Physical correction if done correctly (without anger or resentment) does not inflict pain. It is like grabbing someone's arm or moving them to the side (To REDIRECT their attention). Children also respond to touch like this (where words and yelling almost always fail).
The only time I have seen Cesar use a shock or choke collar (temporarily) is in extreme cases where a dog might have otherwise been euthanized for a bite history or when the dog owner currently uses the collars or requests him to do so. He's not been shown to use shock or choke collars while rehabilitating any of his dogs at his rehabilitation center. While on a job at someone’s home he always brings an illusion collar along.
In any case I think that a consistent routine using positive reinforcement and a firm hand when necessary is needed for the success of any human to dog relationship. The goal is to find a way to relate to your dog in a healthy way, strengthening the bond between you, no matter what method you choose.
Hello Penny,
Thanks for your balanced and well thought out comment.
As you say, I think being calm, consistent, and patient is important in all dog training whether it be reward based or aversive based.
In terms of the clicker, it is just a behavior marker. It helps in communicating with our dogs, and it can be used with both reward and aversive training. However, it is not a necessary component in either reward or aversive training.
"I've seen Cesar reward dogs with affection and use food simply to get their brains moving forward."
That is true. Millan uses both reward and aversive training. Sometimes, he also uses shock collars, choke chains, and alpha rolls, which I think are more risky and difficult to execute well.
"Positive reinforcement isn't all about giving treats. "
Yes I agree. Reward training does not just involve giving food or treats. In fact, reward training can be used to encourage behaviors (positive reinforcement) and it can also be used to stop bad behaviors (negative punishment).
I have respect for anyone who cares enough about dogs to take time to train them and make a better life for them.
That being said I truly believe that using Cesar's methods you will develop, over time, a deeper bond with your dog. He or she will learn to depend on you for leadership, food, and companionship. Positive reinforcement isn't all about giving treats. I've seen Cesar reward dogs with affection and use food simply to get their brains moving forward. In reply to the comments saying the Dog Whisperer's methods are fast? Heck no they're not. They are hard and can take a long time. You have to be calm, confident, patient, and consistent for months, even years, to see long term results. But you and your dog will be better for it.
Victoria's methods, in my opinion, seem a little more superficial and much less hands on. Maybe even a little removed. I saw a few episodes where she never once touched the dog she was training - not even to pet it. This way a dog will learn that you have control of the treats and to respect the treat (or reward). Obviously this way works great for some people but it's just not my cup of tea.
I like to tumble and wrestle with my dog. She respects my touch whether it's to give affection or as a training tool. If she gets too rough during playtime with me or someone else I don't have time to get up, grab a clicker and a treat, then go back and distract her with it. In that situation I'll simply use a harsh "shh" sound and my own energy to let her know it's not okay. Then I usually have her sit.
I use treats to train my dog to do tricks and basic commands but even with the treats I am still very hands on. (i.e. scooping her into a sitting position if she's not complying.) I like to know my dog is paying attention to me and not watching where the treat is. Cesar's methods work for me and I wouldn't trade the relationship I have with my dog for anything!
Thanks for your comment EpicJourney.
Cesar Millan uses positive reinforcement techniques when communicating with people and it works very well.
Victoria Stilwell uses positive reinforcement techniques when communicating with dogs and it works very well.
Cesar Stilwell would be an uber dog trainer. ;)
I have never owned a Mal so I don't have any first hand experience. From talking to some friends of my Sibe breeder it seems that Mals share some very similar characteristics with Sibes including their independence, intelligence, high prey drive, and friendliness towards people.
Glad to have another dog lover on HubPages. Welcome!
Hey Shibashake! I'm new to hubpages and stumbled upon this hub of yours and wanted to say good job! It takes a lot of guts to tackle an issue as tricky and as polarized and popular as these shows are. I have watched both shows regularly and knew there were differences but could never really pinpoint what they were. Your point of view in this hub is a fair and thorough summary of how you see the differences I commend you for that. I may not agree 100% but you did a great job of explaining yourself in a very hospitable and clear manor. Equally tricky is the responses and commentary in your comments, again while I may not agree with the point of view entirely I've been impressed with how civil you've tried to keep the dialogue and still get some good conversation going. That's not easy and I respect that a great deal! Especially with how potentially tricky and defensive people can get over this topic. Job well done Sir. Your dogs are awesome! Quick question out of curiosity. Have you ever had dealings working with Malamutes. I have a 1 year old malamute and love her to death. I don't have any issues with her other than what all mal owners deal with. I'm just curious how similar or different raising a Mal and raising a husky is, do you know or have an idea? I wasn't sure if maybe you've had conversations about it before :) Thanks, and again great hub!
Guest:
I agree the world is round and forms part of the universe.
shibashake:
I agree as well and don't see why it wouldn't be this way, after all science has proven this in many ways, and trying to take credit for others achievements is just plain wrong, as well agreeing that the world is round and forms part of the universe for totalitarian purposes
Guest:
WTF?
shibashakewachamcallit:
If you disagree with others points of view then you should consider visiting other websites.
Guest:
What are you talking about? are you stoned?
I'm sorry but this is way to funny jajajajajaj!!!! jajajajaja!! Read your posts!!!
It's like your answers or replies are for questions or statements that where never made, I wonder If this Is how you carry your out life in general? jajajaja what's up with that? your weird.
Dear Sara,
If the point is to personally attack others, then I must decline. For those types of discussions, please check out the Religion and Politics threads on the HubPages Forum.
Good luck and I hope you find what you are looking for.
I've been reading some of your answers and replies to other commentators, and It seems that you tend to drift away from the point that people are trying to get across by making short half truth statements. It's like your answers or replies are for questions or statements that where never made, I wonder If this Is how you carry your out life in general? I have an idea!! why don't you reply to this post and future ones, without drifting away from the point, and without half truth statements.
Dear Sara,
I believe that most people who own dogs love their dogs very much. Therefore, they try their hardest to do what they think is best for their dogs.
There is no evil in that nor is there any envy.
Just because others may not agree with me does not make them evil.
Just because others may not agree with Cesar Millan or Victoria Stilwell does not make them evil either.
This story is not about envy, it is not really about Cesar Millan or Victoria Stilwell, nor is it about us. This story is about the dogs that we love. I find that the most is learned by sharing ideas and having civil discussion of animal behavioral theories and studies.
Nothing is gained and much is lost by demonizing other people simply because they have different views.
As for dog training - most of the dog training techniques we use today are based on operant conditioning principles. As I discussed above, dogs can be conditioned using an aversive stimulus or a reward stimulus. Cesar Millan places a greater emphasis on aversive training whereas Victoria Stilwell prefers reward training.
I think that Cesar Millan has a very charismatic personality and one of the things that I like most about him is that he always uses positive techniques when communicating with people. That is why his message is so well received.
As for aversive dog training, this is what Cesar Millan says -
"Do not attempt the techniques you are about to see without consulting a professional."
Therefore, I listen to Cesar Millan. I watch his show because it is entertaining, but I use alternative techniques to train my dogs because they are less risky and more effective.
This is stupid!! Victoria vs Cesar, Victoria doesn't have any methods she's a disciple of God know what school, Cesar Is a gifted person who we all should be thankful to have with us in this world, don't you realize this?
Envy always has a perfectly reasonable excuse when it intends to harm others, and never showing the true evil behind it's actions.
You look like a nice person SHIBASHAKE, don't support others envy(Victoria or a whole school of though), because you will be contributing to evil. Remember that it's not Victoria or her teachers who are evil, it's the destructive feeling of envy that has invaded them.
From the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania -
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/news/if-youre-aggres
“This study highlights the risk of dominance-based training, which has been made popular by TV, books and punishment-based training advocates,”Herron said. “These techniques are fear-eliciting and may lead to owner-directed aggression.”
Confrontational techniques have a high risk of *causing* aggression and fights.
As for breaking up a fight, that is not achieved by either aversive or reward methods. Aversive and reward methods are used for behavior conditioning. When the fight has started, we are too late to train/teach the dogs.
Breaking up a serious dog fight is a very difficult and dangerous exercise, especially for non-experts. Even experts can get hurt when trying to stop a serious dog fight.
From what I have read, one of the most common ways to stop a dog fight is to lift both dogs up by their hind legs, and back them away into an enclosure; all the while doing our best to prevent the dog from turning and redirecting his aggression onto us.
Sounds very dangerous to me. However, there is no "punishment" at this point, reward-based or aversive-based. It is all about separating the dogs with the least amount of damage to everyone. The worst thing we can do is to inject more aggression or dominance into the situation.
I have never had to do this, and have never seen anyone doing this either. Lucky for us, serious dog fights do not happen very often especially when dogs are properly managed, trained, and socialized, so that they have a high threshold before resorting to aggression.
- The key to dog training is to set our dogs up for success and to avoid fights. Fights only encourage more fights
Hi, that is the ideal - but in reality fights can and do happen. the important question is who's methods would be most effective at resolving the situation at the moment the fight breaks out? Come to think of it, how do you break up a fight using reward training??
I'm sorry, but when I look at these two, I see why there are so many ill behaved dogs. You are rewarding a dog for situations rather than intrinsically using the dogs own reasoning skills to not perform a certain behavior. PErhaps its the editing, but Victoria always avoids the real problem and instead tricks the dog. You can't have all of your neighbors keep their dogs away from your dog.
My red cocker spaniel is my first dog and I was warned that this is NOT a beginner dog, but I didn't want him to have to go to a shelter... Well, over the past few years, we've formed a VERY close bond and throughout my training efforts, I've discovered that my dog ONLY responds to positive reinforcement. If I get too hyper or I actually beat him (as I did once or twide in the early days), he simply just shuts down and does not come anymore. So I HAVE to think of something else and what's worked is patience and positive reinforcement all the way (or else the cold shoulder for half a day if he's really gone off the deep end). He is SUCH a stubborn dog that even now, there are moments I'm just not on his radar, but I've learned to preempt those (free and empty fields to go hunting) and keep him on a leach.
Trying to compare Cesar to Victoria is indeed like comparing apples and oranges. I think Cesar's solutions depend on Cesar himself! He is THE Whisperer and a difficult act to follow! I have a feeling that Victoria makes people understand that dogs are not mystery creatures that only respond to a person's special aura. She teaches people techniques that they can apply themselves with their own little auras and which they can reinforce each and every day at home. Makes sense to me!
- The key to dog training is to set our dogs up for success and to avoid fights. Fights only encourage more fights.
- Reward training includes the use of food and also other resources including freedom, affection, play, etc. All dogs have to eat. With reward training, we simply make our dogs work for their food instead of giving it to them for free. The same amount of food is given so there is no overfeeding.
- Dogs are smart and they think for themselves. They don't just obey for no reason. We motivate dogs by using reward techniques (Victoria) or aversive techniques (Cesar). Both have their pros and cons.
Truthfully, it is not about Victoria vs. Cesar but rather about which training techniques give our dogs the best quality of life. Is using physical force to get our dogs to obey without question really a good quality of life?
victoria is so damn stupid !! she thinks she train dogs but they only obey because they want the snacks she's giving them. Everytime there's a fight between dogs she doesn't make anything to stop them !! she just looks at them and steps backwards!! But Cesar actually makes something to stop them with the ssssssstt thing and he doesn't give dogs food to make them obey him!! and he also explains what's wrong with the dogs. In one chapter Victoria only told the owners to give one of their dogs to someone else. Seriously wtf? She was supposed to train dogs so people can keep them!! Personally I've tried Cesar's techniques and they totally worked!! But If i ever want my dog to be fat i'll try Victoria's methods
In one episode millan kicks the dog in the stomach. If someone kicks my dog, I would kick his *$#*&^#!#$ *** out of the door! Victoria is not better, she is THE best.
Without doing the extensive research you obviously have, I've noticed the few episodes of WHISPERER I've seen that Cesar is called in when the dog's owner is at his/her wit's end. And if I'm not mistaken, he doesn't want to train your dog the way they do in obedience school - that should have already been done. He's there to correct a specific psychological problem only. So much of what he preaches makes sense, but as you say, you shouldn't follow just one method, but listen to several viewpoints and then tailor them to what would be appropriate for your dog and your situation. Now I have to check out this other lady.
I like your profile name - very clever!
I agree with you that rules and structure are necessary - for any dog. However, there is a myth in dog training that rules can only be enforced with pain and physical force which many studies have shown to be false.
I have a Shiba Inu and a Siberian Husky and both of them respond much better to reward training and the control of resources. Reward training does not just involve the use of treats, but includes all resources including food, freedom, affection, walks, play time, and much more. Independent breeds respond much better to resource control because they quickly learn that the best way to get what they want is to do what we want first.
Physical force and pain only makes independent dogs fight back more, which causes an escalation in the force of the correction, and so on. Personally, this is not the type of relationship I want to build with my dogs.
I am not sure if this has been mentioned as of yet, but ideally I want to have Cesar Stilwell train my dog.
Here is why, each of them have benefits and uses when training. I own 3 Siberian huskies and I can tell you that with this breed you MUST be the alpha. There are times when you need to dominate and be assertive (without being abusive) BUT that needs to be complemented with a reward system.
Siberian huskies are very food motivated, but they are also very intelligent and free thinkers. They will size up a situation and decide if the treat is more rewarding to them than doing what they please.
This is where the pack mentality needs to be set. In a pack the Aloha dog set the boundaries and all the beta dogs know that they must work within those boundaries or else there are consequences.
I work closely with a dog behaviorist who does exactly that. He melds the two systems together. It is a process many military dog trainers use.
Hello annasile,
As you say, the discussion shouldn't be about whether Cesar or Victoria wins, but whether positive methods and reward training are more effective than poking, alpha-rolling, and applying pain to a dog.
"With my dog, a rottweiler, I must rule with an iron hand, but also with positive reinforcement as well"
That is very true that rules and structure are still very important, and they can be effectively enforced using positive methods, such as by controlling a dog's resources, including his freedom and food.
"more and more Cesar is using positive methods and rewarding with treats."
That is very good to hear.
if dogs are left to their own devices, they do form packs.
Has anybody noticed that more and more Cesar is using positive methods and rewarding with treats. With my dog, a rottweiler, I must rule with an iron hand, but also with positive reinforcement as well, so I think it depends on the dog
"In most cases he identifies what the owner is doing wrong and makes attempts to use positive reinforcement to have the dog change behavior while correcting what the owners are doing wrong. "
Sounds great to me. It would be awesome if this happens.
In the meantime ...
There are several episodes where Cesar Millan recommends the use of shock collars which Victoria Stilwell is very much against.
Cesar Millan uses alpha rolls on dogs, especially in the earlier DW episodes, but I have also seen him using it in more recent episodes. Victoria Stilwell is very much against that.
Cesar Millan relies very heavily on the use of leash corrections and choke collars, whereas Victoria Stilwell uses redirection, the start-stop technique, and the head halti.
As you say, Cesar Millan *does* sometimes use reward training techniques - the most popular one being no-talk,no-touch,no-eye-contact, which works very well. There are also several episodes where he uses food rewards for example when dealing with fearful dogs or to put on a muzzle.
At the end of the day, Cesar Millan favors aversive techniques a lot more than Victoria Stilwell.Victoria Stilwell is against most aversive techniques especially pain based aversive techniques. I have seen her use some sound aversion techniques, but only in very early episodes of It's Me or the Dog.
I think most people that comment negatively towards Cesar Milan are simplifying the whole comparison.
First, if one watches more than one or two Cesar episodes, they will find that he has very few times actually tried to dominate a dog. In most cases he identifies what the owner is doing wrong and makes attempts to use positive reinforcement to have the dog change behavior while correcting what the owners are doing wrong. Wow, sounds much like Victoria. I have watched both of the trainers and honestly I think that about 90% of what they do is similar, even though their reason for doing it may not be. Dominance over the dog is to control bad behavior in some cases, and I have seen Victoria do this, not just Cesar. Positive reinforcement and reward can be used, and Cesar does this as well. Now Cesar doesn't use food treats, and I actually agree with this. I do use Food to teach tricks, but I use positive "treats" in the form of petting and hugs rather than food. To each their own.
I like em both.
That is an excellent point Jori. I have never seen Cesar recommend euthanasia. In the more extreme cases, he takes the dogs himself and rehabilitates them at his center.
Well, since I'm European and grew up with positive reinforcement dog training I train my dogs following principles similar to those used by Victoria Stilwell. I think, they're promising much better results for the average dog owner since they're easier to apply correctly and include less risks (as has already been pointed out carefully in the discussion above). So I tend to fancy Victoria's style of training if it's her vs. Cesar Millan.
But there's one thing that earned her my deepest disapproval and disrespect. Maybe you'll remember that episode of It's Me or the Dog concerning two spaniels named Breamble and Benji. Victoria was called to help because of their greedy food obsession and because one of the dogs, Benji, had bitten a daughter. The owners started training the spaniels according to Victorias suggestions and received good success with Breamble concerning the former uncontrollable behaviour in the kitchen, but less with Benji. In the end Benji happened to bite another of that family's daughters and Victoria decided via phone consultation that there was no point in rehoming Benji but he had to be euthanized immediately due to his "dangerousness". The owners followed her advice.
This drove me really mad because from what I saw on the show I didn't get the impression that Benji was a truely aggressive dog. In fact he seemed quite well behaved to me if there was no food around. Surely Benji had severe issues with food that made him bite humans and as he tended to steal anything from the children's hands he could get hold of he severely lacked respect for them. As the family couln't genuinely retrain Benjis behavior it seemed to me that for everybody's safety they weren't the right home for that dog. But I definetly didn't think Benji was a lost case and there was no hope of rehabilitating him apart from his former family. Victoria let him down.
And that's the point where I'm sure Cesar Millan would have stepped up to the plate and have done what's needed to rehab Benji. I've never seen him backing away from a challenge and sentencing any dog to death. In my mind Cesar's ability to remove dogs from their familys and train them in a complete new environment in the absence of any negative influence the owners might exert and his pack of dogs offer plenty of precious training/rehab ressources Victoria can't provide.
Benji's death sentence wouldn't have been neccessary if Cesar treated the case.
Just my 2 cents,
Jori
Yes, dogs are pack animals. So are people. That is why we build groups and communities wherever we go.
However, it always escapes me how this leads to the false conclusion that aversive methods are superior. Aversive methods are based on operant conditioning principles which applies to both pack and non-pack animals. Reward methods are also based on operating conditioning principles.
It is also true that dogs are not human. Humans are also not dogs. There is little reason to pretend to be a dog by fake biting them, and poking at them. Dogs know that they are dogs; they also know that we are not dogs. We are the ones who are often confused over this fact.
I definitely agree that puppy training is key. And most trainers, even traditional trainers recommend using reward training on puppies.
Ok, First of all, I've been studying the canine species since I was young, and still am, and if anyone above realizes that if a dog is let free or is a stray they ARE pack animals. they will usually get together, and form a PACK! just go look in Ohio or places where they see dogs running loose and they are together! Wolves and dogs are VERY closely related so share the same traits and mind-sets. If people keep saying that they aren't then they are just "babying" and "humanizing" their dogs, which I'm not against loving your dog and creating a strong bond, but when it comes down to it, a dog is a dog, and needs to be treated as such. I have had many dogs before and occasionally show them, and there was one dog I had that was considered an "extreme" case. I used Cesars' method and got a long-term affect, and the dog didn't love me any less than before! Then I tried the postive reinforcement and that only worked for a while. Personally I think both trainers are good, but if you want to avoid problems in the future, work with the dog when you first bring it home! Puppy training is key when you want it to learn ahead of time, instead of later when you get problems, and then you start fighting over questions like this, and trust me you've got trainers all over the world with similar and different methods, working with INDIVIDUAL dogs! NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE! I just had to get this off my chest.
I wouldn't hand over a DEAD dog to Cesar Milan!!!!! Granted, he's good at selling HIMSELF...but that's about all. I have trained for 30 years, earning approximately 30 performance titles on dogs and a couple of dogs belonging to others, of a variety of breeds. That includes a CD, CDX, UD, and 6 legs on a UDX on my great Rottweiler, Jazz. Cesar's method is about domination. Victoria's is based on the principles of operant conditioning. Cesar wants to be the boss. Victoria teaches her clients to UNDERSTAND their animals and to modify behavior using positive, intelligent methods. I really appreciate that she is teaching the PEOPLE as she progresses. The problem is BOTH cater to people who don't know squat about training and managing dogs. Victoria is teaching these folks intelligently.
The most common way to shape a dog's behavior is through operant conditioning. This is backed by many years of research and studies in the area of behavioral and animal psychology.
Here is an article on how dogs learn -
http://shibashake.com/dog/dog-psychology-cesar-mil
These studies show that BOTH reward training (which includes using food) and aversive training CAN WORK when properly applied. Each strategy has its own pros and cons. In fact controlling a dog's resources including his food is one of the best ways to establish a position of leadership.
Here is an article on the pros and cons of aversive and reward training -
http://shibashake.com/dog/dog-obedience-training-g
The danger of t.v. shows that overly emphasize aversive training is that they present a *false* impression to dog owners that some dogs, particularly stubborn, independent, or dominant dogs cannot be trained with reward techniques. This is FALSE. Studies in animal psychology show that behavior can be shaped using BOTH methods. In fact, many qualified animal behaviorists choose to use reward training because it tends to get better results, more trust, more loyalty, and carry fewer risks. A very good example is Dr. Ian Dunbar. In fact, the trainers at Dog Town which also airs on NatGeo effectively rehabilitated fighting Pit Bulls using reward training. That is the best way to gain trust.
There are a lot of opinions when it comes to dog training, so I rely most on the rigorous research and studies in behavioral and animal psychology.
I myself have currently two dogs, a caucasian shepherd and a newfoundland. (We've had German Shephards before, but they have all passed away.) And I can ensure you - and everyone else - that the first could never be properly trained by using the Stilwell method. And I don't think any dog should be trained that way. Dogs are mans servants, not friends, and they should know to respect their owners. Their OWNER not sweets, which is what Stilwell does. Don't attract the dog's attention with candy and bribe it into doing what you want with sweets. It should respect you, obey you and not some lame reward. What happens the day you forget the pieces of chicken home? Will your dog come then when you call for him? But if the dog respects you and treats you as his owner, then it will come and be loyal. It worked with all of our dogs, and we've had quite a few during the years.
Only cats can (and should, always should) be "trained" with sweets, for cats only react when they want to. But that's only because they - more or less - rule the world. They're on top, and they know it.
So treat your dogs as dogs, PLEASE, and make the world a little better place. But this is just my little opinion from Finland :)
Perhaps we should consider ...
Why even get a dog if we have so little regard for his welfare?
I think everyone understands that dogs are not human but not being human does not mean that they should be slaves.
"this things happen only in the US."
That is why it is such a great country. Everyone has the freedom to pursue their own happiness, voice their opinions, and fight for the rights of their beloved companion dogs and cats. Go USA!!
And in fact, many other countries have very progressive laws when it comes to animal rights. England is a good example.
Yes dogs are not human, but this *does not* mean that they should have no rights and no happiness.
Dogs are animals not humans and this is the first error, Democracy and choice for dogs ? this things happen only in the US.
Indeed it is a good idea to keep an open mind and consider all methods.
Dogs act in a very rational manner. They repeat behaviors that get them good results and stop behaviors that get them bad results. It is us humans that sometimes act irrationally.
Dogs also have needs and goals of their own that sometimes may diverge from what *we* want. Having a dog that blindly follows us does not mean a better quality of life for the dog and it does not translate into a happy dog.
There is a lot of literature in behavioral psychology and a fair number of experiments that have been conducted on both aversive and reward based techniques. All this good information can help us make effective decisions for our dogs.
http://shibashake.com/dog/dog-psychology-cesar-mil
When it comes to dog training, everybody is an expert. However, there are few to no controls on dog trainers and dog training schools. Anybody off the street can claim to be an expert dog trainer and start a dog training school.
Nobody knows our dogs better than ourselves. By keeping informed, and reading up on actual behavioral psychology techniques and experiments we can make better decisions for our dogs. We can give them a good quality of life and not just force them into a yes-sir, no-sir existence.
Nobody should rule any method out. All single methods are flawed + All dogs, breeds and owners are different = Recognise the dog for what it is and energy. Look at dog and owner situation, environment and find the correct method for that partnership. A dog will always follow good or bad leader. Dogs unlike human do not have to form rational, thought-based reasons for anything to exist like humans. It is plain as day that most dogs show dominance, submission, hierarchy and for a reason, so we must manage the leadership from that dogs energy.
I'm not sure why so many folks are compelled to create competition and conflict between Cesar's approach and that of Victoria. I'm part of a rescue and rehabilitation group and we see a huge range of behavior, anxiety, trauma, etc and every dog is different. In addition, every person working to help dogs is different. Those of us who work with the more difficult cases has used Cesar as a guide with great and long lasting success with countless dogs and have found that Victoria's approach provides perfect follow-up and integration with what we've learned from Cesar.
Whether Cujo or the regular family dog, or a pup who's in between, my ideal would be a series of sessions with Cesar and Victoria together. I don't see their approaches as being in conflict, but rather as complimentary if understood and used properly.
letting a tv personality tell you how to train your dog is like voting for a presidential canidate based on oprah's opinion.the goal of any tv show is high ratings,nothing more.good informational dvds and books can be boring and difficult to follow but are worth the effort.try steven lindsay's(applied dog behavior and training)it's a 3 volume set,isn't cheap,it's hard to follow but if you stick with it you'll know more about dogs than any tv trainer.these books are based on scientific studies not feelings and emotion.know what the #1 cause of dog death is?EUTHANASIA.the #1 reason?BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS.when one of these dog experts runs into a dog they can't help it's never their fault,it's the dogs!he must be unstable or have weak nerves!check out cesars and victoria's past ocupations before you take them too seriously.
Dog training uses operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Both operant and classical conditioning methods are part of behavioral psychology and animal psychology.
Cesar Millan also uses operant conditioning and classical conditioning methods.
http://shibashake.com/dog/dog-psychology-cesar-mil
Cesar Millan himself says not to follow his aversive training methods because they are risky.
"Do not attempt the techniques you are about to see without consulting a professional. "
We should all follow his very good advice.
Victoria is a dog trainer, ceasar is a rehabilitator. there is a difference. Training uses human phsycology on dogs while rehabilitation uses dog phsycology on dogs :) Training is also a more of an extra thing, but rehabilitation is a way of living. If ceasar was a trainer, I would totally not agree with his methods but he is NOT!!
Why is it that we are "harming" the dog if we do ceasar milans "touch"and methods. HALLO we should take a look at how dogs act around each other. THEN tell me if a simple "touch" harms the dog... xD lol
Some people say that cesear methods are short-term. But he is just showing the owners, that when HE handles them, they dont have a problem, to show that it is the HUMAN not the dog!! THen the owners have to work on themselves to achieve what ceasar showed them is possible :)The dog is always capable, the humans need to learn...
About beeing a pack-leader: I know that it sounds "cruel", "mean" or whatever but the truth is, thats how dogs are. Our social culture is alot different, why? WE are not DOGS!! Since WE are the ones who use dogs to our own plesure and advantage WE have to think like THEM not opposite :O
"Dogs are pack-minded, people are about the individual."
People are also pack animals. That is why we build communities. Solitary confinement can quickly make a person become a bit mad. It is the same with our dogs.
And yes dogs are pack animals but they have individual preferences, quirks, etc. Pack just means they do not enjoy being alone and like living in a group. It does not mean they are not individuals. Different dogs even of the same breed can be very different from each other. Dogs may work with other dogs and with us to achieve common goals, but they think for themselves.
"humanizing him is a greater harm?"
Dogs are not human. It is important not to humanize a dog because they communicate differently, view things differently, and do not have malice in the same way that people do. But we should still treat them with kindness and respect.
"The "aversive" method, which is a term I hate"
The term describes the methods. Aversive methods deliver an aversive stimulus - which is often pain. If it were not painful or unpleasant, the methods would not work. The stronger the external stimulus one is trying to overcome, the stronger aversive stimulus one must apply. This has all been shown over years and years of animal psychology study by scientists.
"I realized it's an amateur opinion page, which is certainly something to which you're entitled."
You are correct, I never claimed to be an 'expert'. Much harm can come from blindly following so-called 'experts'. I prefer to get all the *facts* that I can, do research of my own, and listen to all the different points of view. Then I can make an informed decision based on my dogs' temperaments.
There is more to dog training than just opinions. There is a whole field of study in animal psychology with rigorous results and a wealth of information on how dogs truly think and learn. To ignore all this collected knowledge is doing a great disservice to our dogs .
I should have mentioned that I have a 2 yr old Pit Bull and she is extremely smart. The "aversive" method, which is a term I hate because of what it brings to mind - it's just treating a dog like a dog and it works great with her. She is always happy and doesnt seem to "cower in fear before her master", which is the kind of image the term seems to conjure up. However, I must also admit that I thought this was written by a professional but after snooping around further I realized it's an amateur opinion page, which is certainly something to which you're entitled. we'll just agree to disagree
There are a lot of people on here talking about "psychologically harming" the dog by using a "totalitarian rule" and the article actually asks if you'd prefer a totalitarian dictator over a more democractic rule. Cesar is not Saddam Hussein or Idi Amin. Dogs are not people. It's not even a working comparison. Dogs are pack-minded, people are about the individual. I just watched Victoria crawl into a dog crate to show the owner how it feels. Again, dogs are not people. Dogs choose a small cozy space on their own because they're den animals - people tend to choose as much land/house as they can afford. How can you argue that Cesar's method may be harming the dog, when humanizing him is a greater harm? Being treated like a person is usually what created the problem in the first place.
I like Victoria Stilwell because she teachs you how to train a dog on your own without her help.
while i am a VC supporter, your analogy of who would you choose to help with cujo is moot. cujo was not a poorly trained dog or a dog with problems, he had rabies. the only help was to euthanize.
Remote collars or shock collars can work for getting dogs to obey commands. Indeed pain is a powerful stimulus.
However, the risks are quite high as has been shown by several scientific studies on the use of such collars including the commonly cited studies of Polsky and Schalke.
As a dog owner I am most interested in the well-being and quality of life for my dogs. The studies above show that dogs trained using such techniques experience a higher level of stress that is often associated with the environment. When *not properly used*, this stress can also become aggression.
I choose to use other techniques that work well and do not expose my dogs to such unnecessary risks.
Check out this video....my rebuttal to Victoria Stilwell's opinion of Remote Collars.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=Dc_5SPdDz9I
That is a great analysis Zxanatos.
I think what you are doing makes a lot of sense. Most of the time, use the less stressful techniques, but when you need to, just the threat of going Cesar will be sufficient to stop bad behavior.
Thanks for sharing your experiences with us. I may write something up about this - it is a very interesting perspective.
Well I must say that I am partial to both dog trainers. i own 2 American Bull Labs and they seem to have personalities that blow away most Bully Breed Dogs. No matter how much you try to correct them nicely, they will always be destructive. Once I found Ceasar's methods alot of the issues went away, but anotehr issue started to surface. My dogs started to become afraid of me, although they did listen, they would cautiously watch me. I didnt like that at all. I then found Victoria and saw her methods which take the dogs feelings into effect. I tried her methods and they worked too, but it was much more fun for the dogs and the dogs listen even better. With Victoria's methods though, sometimes my Bullies would take advantage and act up big time, but as soon as a start going into Ceasar mode they stop, behave, and do what they are supposed to do.
So in closing, i think mixing the techniques is a awesome way to train. Now I have very difficult dogs, so this way may not work or be needed for others. Just wanted to share my 2 cents about it.
Hi there. I just found this article, and because it was interesting, I read most of the comments following. I do have something to add.
I've been watching Cesar for quite some time, and I have to say that his techniques are NOT inhumane. He does not hurt dogs, at least from what I can see, and he very obviously loves and cares about dogs a great deal, often so much more than even their owners. On his techniques: I think Cesar is an amazing trainer, and one of the reasons for this is his amazing energy and ability to stay calm. Also, he just has a quality with which dogs seem to relate.
That said, I personally have tried his techniques at home, with mixed results. Why mixed? Basically, because I'm not Cesar. I think for a lot of everyday people, it can be very difficult to implement Cesar's techniques properly, mainly because most of us simply aren't that calm, patient, and as concerned about our dogs as we might like to think. Just because you love your dog doesn't mean that you're extending the correct energy to them.
This brings me to a point I'd also like to make: Cesar's show, to my mind, is in many ways more about people than it is about dogs. In this respect, the man is a genius. He sees people and their energy for what they are, and offers ideas on correcting human behavior that can allow us all to better relate, not only to our dogs, but to ourselves and the world. He teaches us to be patient, calm, assertive, understanding, loving and strong. Whether you agree with his training techniques for dogs or not, this simply must be realized and appreciated.
Personally, I think that there's a happy medium that must be found; a balance, if you will, between aversive and negative reinforcement, and redirection and positive reinforcement. There are dogs that will respond in kind to food and positive reinforcement, and there are dogs that simply must be dominated (in a calm, assertive way) in order to help them understand where the boundaries and limitations lie. Cesar is very correct in saying that treating a dog like a human is a bad idea. It's the same as treating any other species like something it's not.
In trying to understand and care for our dogs, the best things we can remember are, sadly, often the most difficult; that is to be patient, loving, understanding and emotionally balanced. These are all things Cesar teaches, and they apply across all lines, from dogs to children, and to every relationship you will ever have in your life, including the one with yourself.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a cure. That is why it is important to do rabies vaccination on all our dogs and cats. For my dogs, the first vaccination lasted for one year and subsequent ones last for three years - so it is a pretty easy thing to do.
Umm, Cujo had RABIES!!! So its not likely that either one could have helped the situation. I'm not sure what they do for animals that have rabies now. I HOPE theres a cure. If not, just like the movie "Old Yellow" and "Cujo" nothing a shotgun wouldnt cure. (I dont think a gun is a good idea, I'm just saying what happened in those movies. If there is no cure, I suppose they put them to sleep right?
In reward training you discourage bad behavior by taking away a resource. In fact control of resources is the most common method that all pack animals use to maintain leadership including humans as well as dogs.
When I was growing up, my dad was able to get me to follow rules just by withholding his approval. My mom used physical corrections and she did not get good results.
With dogs, we naturally control all of their resources so it is easy for us to achieve a leadership position *without* the need for physical force. When I want to discourage a behavior, I simply take away one or more resources and vice versa when I want to encourage a behavior.
DogTown is a show that airs on NatGeo that I really enjoy. The people there run a shelter and they rehabilitate all of their dogs using reward training - even Michael Vick's fighting dogs.
I must say i have watched both programs on tv all i here is people judging cesar and i balive what he says about being a pack leader is quite true and dogs are a pack animal or why would the wont to be with people and other dogs otherwise they would be more like cats who are totaly indapendant .and dogs look for leadership from us which means there must be a leader .I have watched many a animal as i have worked with them for most of my life and all animals which are in packs ect have a method of controling others to make boundries by rewarding negative with negative and posative with posative its what they seem to understand most of all how many times do you see other animals give another one some food to stop it from doing something wrong all though i balive in these methods i dont agree in any form of crulty as this just scares animals and makes them fearfull of us its just a matter of getting and good balance between trust and respect because without one you dont get the other pluss at least he trys with all dogs and when his methods fail he dont just wright the poor animal off and kill it
Thanks for all the info and links Nicco. I will definitely check them all out.
"I don't know that I'm qualified yet to talk about aversive techniques"
I think you have much more experience than most people :) Would be interesting to hear about all the techniques you tried with your dog wrt. his dog reactivity.
That is a common problem that is often difficult to address.
"If I had my own TV show documenting my training trials and tribulations, I would probably be in trouble with somebody!"
I already get into all sorts of trouble by just writing on HubPages. :D
Ah, you are much better than me. I am usually too lazy to look up the sources.
There are a couple of places where people argue on the aversiveness of the GL. One was a prong collar website, which I can't find now, but the whole argument was about how the dog sulked with the GL on but was still its happy self with the prong collar. Another is on Suzanne Clothier's website at http://flyingdogpress.com/. You have to create an account (it's free) to read the articles. There is an article titled "The Problems With Head Halters".
Basically, the argument is about how dogs hate the nose loop, and that the nose loop is an aversive stimuli to the dog. While this is true in most cases, the primary design of the GL is not to be a tool that administers aversive stimuli in the same way as correction collars. You can use the GL to give a dog whiplash, but again, this isn't its primary design. So I mean, it kind depends on your definition of aversive.
I don't know that I'm qualified yet to talk about aversive techniques, seeing as how I have no experience with a prong collar and only limited experience with a makeshift choke collar (I've tried that thing that CM does where he puts the leash on backwards and creates a makeshift choke leash). If I had my own TV show documenting my training trials and tribulations, I would probably be in trouble with somebody!
Hi Nicco,
Actually I thought the article was interesting because it cited several studies I was not aware of so I was going to look up on them. I have looked at Polsky's and Schalke's studies but have not read some of the others. I figured you might find some of these studies interesting as well.
I agree with you that most of the points made have been made before by many others.
"The most aversive equipment I own is the gentle leader, which many agree is actually more aversive than a prong collar."
Wow - I have not seen this before. Really? I would like to see some of these arguments, so if you can give me some links that would be great.
I have used both before but don't use either of them currently. Still, I do not see the Gentle Leader head harness as an aversive device because it does not administer an aversive stimulus. It is more a management device like a leash. I suppose, like a regular leash and collar, a dog could choke himself by pulling too hard and thereby apply the aversive stimulus on his own but this is very different from using a prong whose primary purpose *is* to deliver a pain stimulus.
"Using aversive techniques is like using fire to kill weeds in the lawn; you risk killing more than just the weeds."
Heh - I really like this. You should write an article on aversive techniques. I think you have a lot of good information and it will be very helpful to many dog owners.
Thanks for the link, it was a good summary. I've read all of those explanations before in some form or another through various sources, and I fully agree with all of the points. My trials have confirmed to some degree what these articles say as well.
By the way, I need to reevaluate my original estimate. I'm probably closer to 90% positive and 10% aversive these days. The only time I use a physical technique is when my dog gets fixated on another dog outside, even then I am still experimenting between positive and aversive strategies. I can achieve everything I want elsewhere through either body language or what might be considered reward techniques. I don't own a prong or choke collar. The most aversive equipment I own is the gentle leader, which many agree is actually more aversive than a prong collar.
Believe me, I've read these articles and am well aware of the fear, confusion, and stress that improper punishment can cause. I've seen it in my dog myself, and I did not like it. Using aversive techniques is like using fire to kill weeds in the lawn; you risk killing more than just the weeds.
I don't have a solid explanation for why I don't completely exclude aversive techniques from my repertoire. I think part of it has to do with the idea that nothing in life is 100% positive, and that if I can fix a problem in seconds without creating another problem, then why go through the long winded trouble of certain reward techniques?
Hi Nicco,
Mike just posted this link on one of my other articles. I really liked the article and think you may enjoy it as well.
Edit: He will do the undesired activity and then quickly move out of the way to avoid the punishment, even when I WASN'T planning on administering anything.
I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying there. The dog is not making the choice to walk, the human is. The dog has no idea that failing to heel results in not getting to walk.
I strive for positive training as much as possible, but I do not have any moral or ethical objections to reasonable, informed, and effective physical corrections, as long as you teach the dog what to do instead. I don't see all physical corrections as punishment or aversive stimuli. Someone can tap me on the shoulder without me getting hurt by it. I guess I'm somewhere in between, maybe 75% positive and 25% aversive. In the eyes of positive only folks, that makes me a 100% aversive trainer.
Like the Monks of New Skete and CM, I don't see positive reinforcement as just treats and praise. I see it more as a daily attitude and allowing the reward to be built in.
I've done some trial and error with using physical corrections, and I've found that some of the time, my dog doesn't understand what the correction is for. He will do the undesired activity and then quickly move out of the way to avoid the punishment, even when I was planning on administering anything. He doesn't understand that he can avoid punishment altogether by not doing the undesired activity. This is just as scientific studies suggest. Clearly, I am still an amateur at this dog training thing.
It was hard for me to not take this personally, as it felt like the dog was telling me, "Look asshole, I can do what I want and still avoid punishment!" but I knew better than to think that. I certainly never acted out on my frustrations, instead I would come home to re-evaluate what I did. My intention when using corrections is never to hurt the dog or to teach the dog what's "wrong." My goal when using physical touch to break the dog's fixation so that I can tell it what I want, so that I can teach it a more rewarding behavior. Obviously, I've mentioned my failures, but I've also had success. In my failures, I felt myself straddling the thin line of trust. In my successes, I felt a real camaraderie with the little guy.
If I could use positive only methods and get the results I want, that would be ideal. Sometimes, there is no other way to break a fixation, unless you happen to be carrying around a big piece of raw beef. Too many dogs have been successfully trained with correction techniques to completely discount their usage. Whether it's positive only or correction based training, I think the most important thing is for the trainer to be informed and responsible at what they're doing.
Hello Nicco,
I hope you do not take any of this personally. None of this is meant as any kind of judgment against you. As I said above, everyone has their own opinion and there is no absolute truth here. But I am always interested in hearing new opinions and having discussions so that I may continue to update my own thinking and improve my interactions with my dogs.
"I wasn't suggesting that all dogs must walk in the heel position, I was using teaching heel as an example of how both reward and punishment techniques can achieve the same level of control."
I think that the method used does affect the type of control as you yourself have described in your comment.
With reward training not walking in a heel just means that the dog doesn't get to walk, whereas in aversive training not walking in a heel means delivery of an aversive stimulus (usually pain) until the dog submits and walks in a heel position.
In the first case, the dog gets to decide whether he wants to go for a walk in the neighborhood in a heel position, or not go to the neighborhood at all and stay home to walk wherever he wants.
In the second case the dog MUST walk in a heel position or he will keep having to endure the aversive stimulus. I suppose it is a choice here as well, but a poor one. The dog can do what Master wants or continue to endure pain.
While the end goal may be similar - the methods often do affect type of 'control' or leadership.
"But just as with people, I don't think that ALL physical corrections damage trust."
Why take the risk? I prefer not to especially since reward training is just as or more effective in the long-term for achieving similar goals; as you have effectively argued above.
"Football coaches get in the grill of their players; they yell at them, slap them, etc, but in the end the players love their coaches like fathers."
I can't comment on that since I haven't been in a football team. Not everyone can or wants to be in a football team.
Again, I think it comes back to temperament and what is necessary. It is not a matter that aversive techniques do not work or that they will ALWAYS cause a loss of trust. Aversive training can work when applied properly by experts - but it is whether they are necessary and whether they are worth the risk given the dubious gains - I think not. Also there is a cost, in terms of loss in quality of life.
Personally, I would detest having others brow-beat me into doing what they want. Sometimes we may have to do what others want for resources, but at least we have a choice of when, how, and what.
I am curious - do you use any pain-based aversive training? If not - why not? and if so, which ones do you use and under what circumstances? I ask because I am not wholly clear on your position and would like to learn more :)
I wasn't suggesting that all dogs must walk in the heel position, I was using teaching heel as an example of how both reward and punishment techniques can achieve the same level of control.
In my case, it was necessary to get my dog to walk in the heel position and it's necessary for ME to decide when he stops. At first we just taught him loose leash walking, but he would zoom around, tripping us up. The leash was loose, but he was all over the place. It was too dangerous. If he smelled an interesting scent at the side of the street he'd lunge for it. We decided that loose leash wasn't enough, he needed to heel. And to stop his lunging to the side, we decided we weren't going to reward it by stopping for him. He stops when we stop.
It's not ideal for him. I would love for him to sniff everything he wanted, to walk wherever he wanted to go, but in order to safely coexist with humans, it is necessary for us to enforce these rules. If I was able to walk my dog off leash, I would be all for it. If your dog walks nicely on a loose leash, that is fantastic. I'm not going to take that away from you. For our situation, heel was a necessity due to safety concerns.
We didn't use punishment to train heel, unless you consider the gentle leader head halter a punishment. We used strictly reward methods to teach heel. So because my dog has learned to heel through a system of rewards, does that still make me a controlling person?
I'm 100% with you with regards to gaining trust and respect. But just as with people, I don't think that ALL physical corrections damage trust. I think CM's dogs trust him just fine. Football coaches get in the grill of their players; they yell at them, slap them, etc, but in the end the players love their coaches like fathers.
Happy holidays to you too! I enjoyed this discussion too.
"It doesn't matter if you use punishment or reward techniques, you are a totalitarian ruler because the dog MUST heel walk in the end."
And therein lies the differences in level of control. My dogs walk on a loose leash and do not need to always walk close to be and slightly behind me. I just do not see the need for it - I will shorten the lead when I need more control but most of the time they get to choose where to go and where to stop and smell the roses. Since I don't have their tracking skills, I have no clue where the best scents are and where they can enjoy themselves most.
In your opinion I would be an irresponsible dog owner - which is fine because everyone has a right to their own opinion :) However, not everyone shares that opinion - i.e. not everyone agrees that that level of control is necessary and will result in the best quality of life for their dog.
There are probably also people who think that I am a bit too harsh because I will use non-marks and a stern voice.
So everyone is probably in a different spot in this control continuum, and it is interesting to discuss which position we are in and why - which is what the article tries to highlight.
Dogs with jobs such as service dogs and police dogs are very special dogs that have gone through much temperament testing. Only a small number of dogs work in these very important areas and much is asked of them - therefore they must have a special temperament. Dogs that do these tasks enjoy the work and find it rewarding, but not all dogs can or want to be service dogs or police dogs.
Most pet dogs are not either.
My Shiba loves to hunt so he would probably be a pretty good hunting dog because it is something he loves doing, and something that comes naturally to him. When I play flirt pole with him - he is extremely good with following commands. But then there is no coercion in that.
If I were to force him to be a service dog - it would not work out well for anyone.
Why MUST all dogs walk in a heel position all the time? Why does my dog have to submit to teeth brushing at that particular time and not an hour later when he is ready? Why does my dog's entire world have to revolve around me and what I say and none of my world revolves around him?
As for the method of control, I agree that both can be used to achieve similar goals but which techniques one uses often affects the level of control as well. Call me crazy but I view someone who is punishing me physically to submit as being *slightly* more controlling than someone who asks or persuades me to the same course of action through a system of rewards. The former does not care what I think or does not respect/trust me enough to give my input while the latter lets me make decisions on my own.
As for which dogs are happier etc etc - it is difficult to tell but I can tell you that if I were a dog I would choose to be in a family that practiced mostly or wholly reward techniques. That is what my dad uses and he is extremely effective at getting me to listen to him. By giving up control, he gets more control.
He is one of the few people that I most trust and respect because he trusts and respects me in return to make my own decisions.
Trust and control - it is a big topic of management not just for dogs but also for people.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Thanks for this fun discussion - it made me think a lot about things, with both people and dogs.
I totally agree with what you say about persuasion vs. force. My mom is a typical old school Taiwanese parent. There were times when I was a kid, when she'd be working on math with me and I wouldn't understand something. In her anger she used physical and verbal castigation, as if it was supposed to help me think better. Looking back on it now, that's definitely not the type of parent I want to be. I was fearful of making a mistake, didn't enjoy math time, and had a weak foundation for my self esteem. I can see the parallels with punishing a dog for making a mistake. It is even worse for dogs, as they don't have a sense of right or wrong, and often don't know what they're being punished for.
I compare that to my mom's younger sister (my aunt), who is as patient and non-abusive as anyone I know. There were times when I made mistakes and expected a punishment, but she never once flinched. She was certainly a less intimidating figure in my life, but the general consensus in our family is that she tended to spoil her kids. Like you though, I had a good childhood and will always appreciate my mom. So yeah, nothing is ever all good or all bad.
Back to your article. I'm not a political expert or anything, so I refer to wikipedia for a more detailed explanation on totalitarianism -
"The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily Authoritarian. But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total."
That really sums up every responsible dog owner who understands the importance of rules, boundaries, limitations. If the training goal is to get a dog to heel walk, you can use leash corrections or you can use negative punishment (180 or be a tree). It doesn't matter if you use punishment or reward techniques, you are a totalitarian ruler because the dog MUST heel walk in the end.
Even if you replaced "totalitarian" in your article with "more control", I still don't agree. A well trained therapy dog trained mostly with positive techniques is about the same as a Cesar Millan trained Daddy. Both dogs are under their owner's full control. Both look pretty happy and content. Both dogs appear to have a good stable long term future with their owners (except Daddy who looks to be nearing 400 years old in dog years).
As I mentioned in my hub article critiquing the critics, I don't think CM necessarily punishes dogs for misbehaving. I think what he does is spell out for the dog in black or white what appropriate behavior is. Of course, applying physical corrections is not in everybody's temperament. Some maybe are too weak to do it, some too gentle, some too angry, some too mentally unstable. How much control you have over your dog is irrelevant of the training method you use.
Hmmm, I suppose for me it is just a term for indicating greater or less control. Not all governments that tend towards the totalitarian end of the spectrum are 'bad'. There are some advantages to greater central control including less bribery, less crime, safer neighborhoods, cleaner neighborhoods, etc.
What is important to me are not the terms but the underlying concepts they describe. People like painting things in black and white but that is rarely the case.
"the problem with calling it totalitarianism or comparing it to slavery, is that totalitarian rulers force compliance from citizens for the benefit of the country and of themselves"
To me that is a separate thing. There are totalitarian regimes that use control to provide a better and safer state for their people. Some people believe that a better life can be provided with greater control and others believe otherwise.
The danger with more central control is when you get some unscrupulous leaders, they can do more harm but it is also true that when you get a capable and benevolent leader, more 'good' can be done because there is a focus of will. Indeed the notions of 'good' and 'bad' are themselves fluid and based on background and culture.
Some people impose more control on their dog because they think it will provide a better life and others impose control just to feel more powerful. The same could be said for people who don't impose any control. Some don't control at all because they are too lazy, too fragile, etc. Some impose less control because they think that will provide a better life. So the motivations for applying more or less control is a separate thing and a separate discussion.
Therefore, there are two questions here -
1. More control vs. less control, and
2. Usage of terms - totalitarian means more than just control.
Usage of terms - You say potato, I say potato. To me the term totalitarian is about control and that is how I am using it here.
"I'm curious, did you think of labeling it as totalitarianism or was it something that you learned in your readings/classes?"
lol - well actually everything that I say is just repeated verbatim from something that I read or heard ;)
As I said before people like casting things, words, people, dogs, etc all in black and white. There is just no such thing. Nobody is all good and nobody is all bad. What most interests me is not an argument of terms or moral correctness, but a discussion of the techniques themselves and which leads to a better quality of life.
This leads us to the second part of the discussion - more control vs less control.
My personal belief is to only apply control when necessary.
My personal belief is that persuasion is better than force. This is also borne out in social psychology studies which show that persuasion techniques can be extremely powerful and have very long term results.
My personal belief is that physical discipline (whatever the motivation) can bring good short term results, but is not effective in the long term.
I was just talking to my mom a few weeks ago and she was trying to say that when she physically disciplined me in the past, it was for my own good :) Truthfully, all that physical discipline achieved was that it greatly weakened our relationship, and did not make me into a better or worser person. However, it did lower the quality of my life at the time.
Certainly it wasn't a bad childhood, it was actually quite a good childhood and I do still love my mom. But just as any childhood there is suffering, fearfulness, unhappiness, and also happiness, triumphs, presents, and breakfast in the morning.
Could be better and could be worse.
In short, I think that totalitarian is not a fair term, as it would suggest that the dog is suffering, fearful, unhappy, or unfulfilled.
How I see it, the problem with calling it totalitarianism or comparing it to slavery, is that totalitarian rulers force compliance from citizens for the benefit of the country and of themselves. Other than the fact that they won't get beaten to death, there's no benefit for the citizen to comply. No matter what someone's life situation begs, they have to comply. Sick? Have a family? Crippled? Nobody cares, you do what we tell you or you get sent to prison camp where you die a slow painful death! People do things for fear of their life, that's the M.O. of totalitarianism.
Contrast this to what Cesar Millan or someone similar does; they are not forcing dogs into stressful situations to benefit themselves. It is all to help the dog so that they can lead a more balanced existence. Many people contend that CM gains compliance by means of fear, that the dog only does stuff so that it won't get beaten - similar to a totalitarian state. That is nonsense. If a dog was truly in fear, you would see it. It'd either act aggressive, run away, or shut down, it wouldn't follow someone it feared. Dogs can't lie like that.
When we think of totalitarian rule - Nazi Germany, North Korea, what comes to mind is human genocide, slave labor camps, prison camps, etc. I can't think of an equivalent treatment CM type trainers put dogs through. I'm curious, did you think of labeling it as totalitarianism or was it something that you learned in your readings/classes? Totalitarianism has a very negative connotation, and it's almost like comparing old school trainers to Hitler.
Hi Nicco,
This is a very interesting discussion. It is very true that dogs rely on us for most things, so they are natural followers to us. As you point out, just that alone is enough to make them follow, and physical force is really not needed, nor effective in the long term
This is similar to the use of force in totalitarian regimes - it gives one the illusion of control for a short period of time but in the long run, the people will revolt and it will be over.
Here is a dictionary definition of totalitarian -
"Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed"
For me it comes down to making choices on your own and being forced to follow.
For example, I get to make the choice of whether to follow what my boss asks of me. I could decide to just not do it or do something else, but then I probably wouldn't get to keep my job for long. However, that would be my own decision and I wouldn't say that the boss/worker relationship was totalitarianism.
This is in contrast to being a slave where I *must* do whatever my master tells me and if I do not, I get beaten or otherwise coerced into compliance.
Sometimes my Shiba decides he doesn't want to brush his teeth at that particular time and is willing to forgo the cheese. That is his choice - I do not follow that up with any kind of further coercion. It is not submission - it is just the exchange of services for resources - similar to the boss/worker relationship. If my Shiba doesn't do the work - he doesn't get the resource - end of story.
"exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life"
I only exercise control *when* it is necessary for my dog's health and safety, otherwise, they are free to do whatever they choose. I do sometimes coerce - for example when Shiba has to go for his yearly shots. However, I try to keep those occurrences down to a minimum.
I suppose it is possible to coerce using reward techniques - for example you could starve someone, and deprive them of other necessities to the extreme. Therefore, physical force is not a necessary ingredient. Ultimately, it is about how far one would go to "coerce" submission.
In a way I am submitting to my boss' authority, but really it is a very light 'submission' and on the far side of true totalitarianism. On the other hand a slave/master relationship is closer to true totalitarianism.
It is true that the words submission and totalitarianism can be used to describe aspects of any hierarchical relationship, but it is all just a continuum and I am using the words here to indicate position in that continuum. So it is all about the 'degree' of submission. The details make all the difference here.
In general, I think that reward training is naturally less coercive than aversive training, therefore it is less totalitarian in nature.
Hello, it's Nicco again, I'm under my hubpages account now.
"For example, I ask that they come and sit patiently by me before a walk. They must sit calmly while I put on the collar and leash. If they do not sit calmly and wait for me to do these things, I don't put on the collar and lead but they don't get to go for their fun walk.
Similarly, they are asked to lie calmly on their side while I brush their teeth. If they do not wish to do so, they don't get the very yummy chicken I give them during teeth brushing.
They make their own decisions based on a system of resources. I don't require that they submit to me, and they can choose whether to follow what I ask them to do or not."
I dig this, and I agree with the idea of avoiding the use of aversive stimuli to gain compliance. I agree that you don't want to physically submit them, but in a way, by withholding what they want until they comply, it is still submission. Don't you think so?
Totalitarianism is a type of system in which the public and private life of people are controlled by authority. To me, all dog owners are pretty much totalitarian rulers. We decide when to walk, when to eat, where to go, when to sleep, when to wake up, where not to go, what not to do - basically every aspect of the dog's life is under our control. That Cesar Millan regularly uses physical corrections doesn't make it more totalitarian than you or I, it just means the consequences for dissent are different.
None taken :)
I use many of Cesar's techniques myself - just not the ones based on aversive stimuli.
Different dog/owner pairs will have different temperaments and preferences. We can make the best decisions for our dogs when we keep an open mind, and collect as much information as we can.
I prefer Cesars techniques, and would choose him over Victoria in any case scenario.. no offense, takes all kinds to make the world go around.
Hello Nicco,
By totalitarian I mean that the dog is expected to follow everything that the human says no ifs, ands, or buts. Non-compliance is followed up by some aversive stimulus which is sustained until the dog submits.
While I do have some rules for my dogs, I generally let them make their own decision as to whether to follow those rules or not. Not following a rule results in the loss of a prized resource.
For example, I ask that they come and sit patiently by me before a walk. They must sit calmly while I put on the collar and leash. If they do not sit calmly and wait for me to do these things, I don't put on the collar and lead but they don't get to go for their fun walk.
Similarly, they are asked to lie calmly on their side while I brush their teeth. If they do not wish to do so, they don't get the very yummy chicken I give them during teeth brushing.
They make their own decisions based on a system of resources. I don't require that they submit to me, and they can choose whether to follow what I ask them to do or not.
Not everyone finds this type of relationship desirable. Some prefer the more totalitarian approach. It is a matter of personal preference.
Now that I know a little more about dog training than I did six months ago, I started thinking about this hub and how you talk about Cesar Millan's totalitarian style of rule.
I don't really see how Cesar Millan is any more dictatorial than any educated dog owner, and quite honestly, I don't think there is enough information on his episodes to judge how he spends his day to day with his own dogs. I don't see any evidence that he implements rules, boundaries, and limitations that are any stricter than what you or I might implement.
What exactly do you mean when you say that he supports a more totalitarian rule?
Yeah my Siberian (Shania) is a 3 legged dog. She doesn't let that slow her down one bit though :) She is very energetic and always up for doing something. She also uses my poor Shiba as her chew toy.
Siberian Shania was a c-section baby, and she was born with a crooked leg. We tried to straighten her bones, but sadly, the procedure did not work, and the surgeon recommended that we amputate.
And you are absolutely right - love the way you say it.
"I think the solution to being "the ultimate dog whisperer" where you are Cesar or Victoria - or Audrey or whoever is just being flexible - thinking outside the box to problem solve."
Would love to read a hub about it wrt. dogs and children :)
Totally off the subject but does Shiba have an amputated left front leg? She is SO beautiful!
My whole philosophy has been (raising malamutes of late) is that NO method works 100% - every dog (just like people) is a one-of-a-kind deal and you have to take into consideration so much when dealing with them as individuals....their breed, are they a rescue dog, etc. and you have to mold your training program to what will WORK with them - that is why we are the masters! ha ha Something that works with one dog will never work with another - even if they are the same breed. I think the solution to being "the ultimate dog whisperer" where you are Cesar or Victoria - or Audrey or whoever is just being flexible - thinking outside the box to problem solve. Not getting caught up in power plays but in just making the situation work in your own home/your own environment. Much as raising kids - is there just one way that works? I had 3 and I think not!
first of all, ceaser millan sux. hes such a butt. hes also a dumbass. in case u havent notice ceaser fans, if a dog is being aggrisive or something like that, all he does is bug the crap out of it. hes just making the problem worse. its soooo funny when he gets bitten or when a dog tries 2 strike cause he doesnt know 2 leave the poor dog alone. everyone knows not to mess with a dog like that esspecilly when it wants 2 be aggrisive. its his fault. victoria stilwell is an amazing dog trainer!!!!!!!!!!!!!! she's genious!!!!!!!!!! she doesnt bug the crap out of dogs when they are feeling threatend. she gives the dog confidence. ROCK ON VICTORIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another very interesting point you brought up - prey drive and other instinctual drives which control dog behavior.
You are absolutely right that there will be times when certain drives are so strong in a dog that "nothing" will be able to counter its effects and that includes both reward and aversive stimuli.
For example, my Shiba Inu absolutely hates vet visits. He gets very fearful and goes into panic aggressive mode. No reward technique is going to work in the moment, but then neither will aversive techniques. The aversive stimulus he has to go through at the vet is already pretty horrible - to trump that I would have to apply something worse and make him fear my aversive stimuli more than the vet. That seems counter productive.
Still, the vet is something that he must do, so it is not all rainbows and sunshine at the end. But I try to give him as much rainbows and sunshine as I can. :)
Hello daudet,
You bring up some really good points, and you present them in a very calm and informative manner. Also, thanks for the link.
In terms of reward vs. aversive, both work, and both are based on operant conditioning principles. Many people seem to only associate operant conditioning with reward techniques, but it actually encapsulates both styles of training, and provides a structure for us to understand how we can shape behavior, not just for dogs, but for all animals.
There is however an implicit assumption that aversive techniques work better, or that aversive techniques work better for all dominant dogs, which I personally do not agree with. It may work better for some dogs, but I am sure that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, by someone who understand dogs well. It is probably dependent on a variety of issues, one of which may be dominance.
I agree with you that dominance does exist in dogs, and it also exists in humans. Denying it, not wanting to talk about it, or using a different term for it, does not make it magically disappear.
My Shiba Inu is a pretty dominant dog. Luckily, he is a small dog. Aversive techniques did not work well on him at all - and yes I had many private lessons from traditional trainers, practiced doing leash corrections properly on a chain link fence to get the snap right, and spent a lot of time reading up on the ins and outs of various dog training techniques. I also visited with many traditional trainers who were not able to control him, and there was only one who had the right energy, was able to execute leash corrections with perfect force and timing, and was great at redirecting my Shiba Inu afterwards. My Shiba responded very well to that trainer, but only to that one.
Aversive techniques *do* work and can work well, but they are also difficult to execute well; even more so on a dominant and stubborn dog.
Personally, I will always use reward techniques first, and that includes both positive reinforcement for good behaviors and negative punishment to stop bad behaviors. This is because they are less risky, and the side-effects of making training mistakes are less serious than aversive techniques.
In truth though, there is no line that clearly divides both styles of training. It is more of a continuum and most of us are in the middle somewhere with biases towards one side or another. Taking reward techniques too far, and not wanting to even use a non-mark seems a bit extreme to me. For bad behaviors, negative punishment techniques work well, including techniques such as the body block, and timeouts which control the dog's resources.
On the other hand, using reward techniques worked out much better for my Shiba Inu compared to leash corrections, and certainly alpha rolls. Since then, I have never really had to do aversive corrections on my dogs. They are not going to win any competitions, but then, that is not the reason why I got my dogs.
It all depends on what we want from our dogs and the type of relationship we want to have.
As for truly aggressive dogs, most people are not equipped to handle them. In such cases, it is important to stay calm and not be fearful which is very difficult to do. Cesar can do it - that man has no fear, and that is a major part of the battle. The other parts has to do with reading the dog and execution of whatever technique with perfect timing.
None of these elements have anything to do with reward vs aversive techniques - it is the "everything else" surrounding it which makes all the difference.
I read LazyDogRex's comments again and could not agree with him more.
"I have a two-hundred forty pound Mastiff who has an aggression problem, and he's getting slowly better with a combination of both discipline and rewards. There is no way, however, that Stillwell's methods could control him when control is necessary. I haven't watched every episode of "It's Me or the Dog," but I've never seen her deal with the behavior of a Red Zone aggressive dog in the 15-18 episodes I've watched.
"
I have a 140 lb. South African Boerboel that is a very dominant dog also. I don't get any real grief out of him. A dog like this would make a quick snack of Mrs. Stillwell, in the first 5 minutes. As far as her positive methods go, I would love to hand her a leash with a flat collar. I would simply walk away and watch her get dragged through the dirt as my dog would attempt to follow me. If she raised her voice at him or jumped in his way, it would be a very bad decision on her part.
She simply does not have the depth of experience to deal with a red-zone or even a dominant dog.
I think that is argument has been over-simplified too many times already.
An article that sums it up for me best is this one...
http://www.thedoghousellc.com/positively.html
The gentleman that wrote the article is a World... yes World Schutzhund Champion. He leans heavily to the positive side but clearly understands and identifies that positive only training can have its limitations.
I train dogs professionally also. I use aversives and reward. I don't think that one should ever exclude the other. Both have their place. The amount of each depends on the dog, the goals and the environments the dog will be exposed to.
If your dogs favorite thing in the world is chasing rabbits, all of the cheese treats in the world aren't going to get him to break off chase from a rabbit. This scenario is typically the challenge that I put to the positive only trainers.
The thing that I really don't like about Victoria is her approach to aggressive dogs.If the dog is truly fearful some of her methods can work. If the dog is dominant or territorial her methods can make the dog much worse. Bartering with a dominant dog will get you into big trouble. I have dealt with lots of aggressive dogs. I have had good success in this area.
Again I think that the public often wants to oversimplify what Cesar does. I don't condone anyone trying what he does. There isn't enough information given during the show to actually learn how to do these things properly.
As far as dogs not being pack animals. I disagree with that also. How come feral dogs form packs and will even hunt deer in the winter time as a pack? Do research on this and you will find my claims to be true.
With dog training absolutism is NEVER the way to go.
Victoria Stilwell did not invent these dog training methods, and neither did Cesar Millan. Many of these methods existed before their time.
I think it does not matter who invented the methods. What matters is which methods work best for our dogs, and those are the ones that we should use.
It seems interesting that I am starting to hear more and more of Millan in Stilwell's show. It seems that there is an unconscience appropriation of approach.
Amanda-Cesar Millan Is the Best!...psychologically harming the dog??? umm okay, i didn't know dogs were secretly undercover humans. You are obviously someone who humanizes their dog. He bases his techniques on how a dominant dog would respond to another dog in order to claim leadership. Cesar is not a Michael Vick, so I dont understand all these people who bash him saying he's harming the dogs. As he would say, dogs are not humans, and it's obvious that so many people are still portraying their dogs as human family members. People who pick Cesar Millan are lazy? So, when he recommends on almost every episode that you should walk your dog a minimum of 45 mins a day is being lazy? I'm not saying Victoria's methods don't work, but I find that Cesar's techniques worked better for me, and I have a shiba inu and he has no behavioral problems at all. I also noticed that both Cesar and Victoria have used some of the same techniques, like claiming space at the door. So to the people who keep bashing Cesar Millan, Open your eyes. If what Cesar is doing is harmful to the dogs, why is his show still on the air and successful and why hasn't PITA gone after him? people just need to stop hating and see that he is a dog lover just like you and I.
People who picked Cesar Milian are just lazy and aren't aware that they're psychologically harming the dog!
Hello sjsj,
"victoria stilwell has NEVER used a shock collar"
That is very true. Victoria Stilwell is actually very much against shock collars as are most trainers. Studies in animal psychology show that shock collars are dangerous, can cause stress, and can encourage aggression in dogs.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Dog-Shock-Collar-Electroni
Always good to see you sjsj.
victoria stilwell has NEVER used a shock collar!!!!!!! whoever said that is WRONG ive seen like ALL of her episodes. the click thingy is a clicker which is a precurser 2 a treat.
Hi sjsj,
Personally, I also prefer using the reward techniques that Victoria Stilwell supports. She also has some really good ideas on how to keep dogs occupied such as timed toy dispensers, flavored bubble machines, and food toy puzzles.
However, I think that nothing is ever all good or all bad. There are always pros and cons to any training system, and to any dog trainer. I try my best to analyze both the good and the bad, so that I can make the best decisions for my dogs.
victoria stilwell's methods are better than ceaser's because she uses positive training. someone said aversive methods can work. 2 me thats not true. i've seen ceaser get bitten before for using aversive methods. all he does is torture the dog if its acting aggrissive. victoria gives the dog confidence. VICTORIA STILWELL ROX!!!! i've seen like all of her episodes i hate ceaser millan
"In my opinion, Victoria's television show is much less entertaining than "The Dog Whisperer""
I would have to agree with you on this. In terms of her clients there is a big change in her USA episodes. However, Cesar Millan is just naturally more charismatic than Victoria Stilwell. This I think comes out clearly in terms of ratings and viewership.
"he's getting slowly better with a combination of both discipline and rewards"
I think that is a very good way to go. All dogs need discipline - I believe that both Cesar Millan and Victoria Stilwell convey this in their respective shows. In this way, both are doing a service to the dog community.
Most of the disagreements people have are centered around the use of reward training vs. aversive training.
In terms of using reward training to control red-zone aggression cases - there are some great examples of that in DogTown. They had an episode where they rehabilitated the fighting dogs from Michael Vick's case. DogTown airs after the Dog Whisperer on NatGeo. It can be a difficult show to watch sometimes, but I really enjoy it.
This study on dog aggression is also interesting ...
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/research/030
"I've got an empty spare bedroom and a limitless supply of TV trays in my freezer if you're willing to work for room & board."
LOL.
Let's not forget that these are television shows which must attract advertising dollars to survive.
In my opinion, Victoria's television show is much less entertaining than "The Dog Whisperer." Forget the Cujo question, and ask yourself, "if I didn't know anything about dogs or have any preconceived notions about canine behavior, which television show would I prefer to watch ?"
Or this: "If I wanted to sit down and have a cup of coffee and a Danish with either Stillwell or Millan, which would I choose just on the basis of whether or not it would be a fun conversation?"
Opinions can differ, but Cesar just seems much more likeable than Victoria, and sometimes the message is the medium
Also, the way the Producers and Directors of the two shows choose to portray Stillwell and Millan interacting with their Client Dog Owners is markedly different. By and large, Victoria's producers seems to pick absolute Ninnies to be her Clients, while Cesar's clients generally seem to be pretty level-headed "just folks" people. When I see Victoria solving the "dog problems" of women who spend hours cooking gourmet meals for the family dog and feed their husband and kids TV trays, I cannot identify those households with anything which seems to Mainstream in the United States. Come on, these are situations better resolved by Marriage Counselors than Dog Trainers.
I have a two-hundred forty pound Mastiff who has an aggression problem, and he's getting slowly better with a combination of both discipline and rewards. There is no way, however, that Stillwell's methods could control him when control is necessary. I haven't watched every episode of "It's Me or the Dog," but I've never seen her deal with the behavior of a Red Zone aggressive dog in the 15-18 episodes I've watched.
If there's anyoneout there who wants to undertake the job of eliminating my Mastiff's aggression, I've got an empty spare bedroom and a limitless supply of TV trays in my freezer if you're willing to work for room & board.
Thanks for the great link Henry! Definitely one to bookmark.
I think the best critique of Milan and his outdated Dominance Theory can be found at this link, with the list of links following the blog post: http://community.livejournal.com/dogsintraining/54 :) But you wrote a good/fair hub, too.
Hello Nicco,
Thank you for your very measured and well thought out response.
"but I would think that the goal is so that eventually you don't need to use the aversive techniques"
Yes that is indeed the goal. Very difficult to get it right though, I have tried. Most people that I see just keep tugging and tugging at their dog using a choke chain - which is both dangerous and ineffective.
"I question whether there is enough evidence to prove that aversive techniques indeed do not work in the long term"
Aversive techniques *can* work - even in the long term - you just have to implement it exactly right, on the right type of dog, and you really have to know what you are doing. That is difficult - especially for people who do not do it as a living.
"To me it's more of a cultural thing than anything else."
You are absolutely right here as well. I grew up in Asia and the culture there is very different wrt. dogs compared to the United States. I prefer to separate the culture of dog training from the science of dog training - so I do not think it is useful to scold people using such terms (I was scolded too when I first started out and was still learning). However, just based on the science and based on my own experiments on my dogs, I truly believe that it is better to start off with reward dog training. It is effective and there are much fewer risks.
Thanks for the great discussion, Nicco.
Clearly you have put a lot of effort and time into developing your thoughts on dog training/behavior/psychology, very commendable. I'm not a Cesar Millan worshipper, I think critically about what people do and do not follow based on blind faith. I have seen certain episodes of the Dog Whisperer where I questioned things Cesar has done. There was one episode where he practically got into a fight with a malamute/wolf type dog (he got his shirt all torn up) and I really thought there could have been a better way to do it. No way could a 60 year old woman have done what he did.
I understand the argument about the dog becoming accustomed to aversive techniques, but I would think that the goal is so that eventually you don't need to use the aversive techniques. Otherwise it wasn't working to begin with. About the long term results, at the end of each Dog Whisperer episode there's always a segment with a "2 months later the dog and owner are doing great" type of thing. That could simply be happy go lucky TV show stuff, or some of it might be real results. Whatever the case, it's clear you are against aversive techniques, but I question whether there is enough evidence to prove that aversive techniques indeed do not work in the long term. Cesar has a well balanced pack of dogs, his techniques apparently work for him. In my experience, as long as I do not hit the dog out of anger, using "aversive" techniques does not erode any trust issues.
To me it's more of a cultural thing than anything else, Americans are so afraid of the terms abuse, hurting, torture that they are reluctant to use physical touch on their dogs when it comes to behavior modification. It kills me when people refer to Cesar's actions as, "intimidating a dog into submission." It's as if Cesar is some sort of monster, but really it's more of a cultural view than a case of inhumanity.
Come to think of it, you are correct about Stillwell being against the shock collar. I got things mixed up in my head. To be honest, I haven't seen too many episodes of her show, I will have to make an effort to watch it more because I thought she had some pretty genius ideas in one episode I saw.
6. "I've seen Victoria Stillwell use the click thingy and an electronic shock collar, both of which are negative stimuli"
Hmmm, I am not sure what you mean. Do you mean 'clicker training'? The clicker is just a sound, and it can be used as a marker to indicate either good or bad behavior. It is like a 'Yes' or a 'No', but better because it produces a unique sound. Most dog trainers use it to mark good behaviors, hence the whole area of 'clicker training'.
I have never seen Victoria Stilwell use an electronic shock collar. In fact, in a recent episode, she was warning people about them. You are right in that in her older episodes of Its Me of the Dog she *does* use some aversive methods, in particular sound aversion methods. She seems to have stopped using those altogether in her USA episodes. Non-pain based aversive techniques such as sound and smell aversion are less risky because they place less stress on the dog.
7. "Cesar and Victoria aren't all that different to me, they use different techniques, but the end goal is the same"
That is true, the end goal is the same for all dog trainers and all dog owners, but *how you get there* , what are the dangers along the way, and what is your probability of success are all very important here. That is why there is so much controversy around The Dog Whisperer.
Looking forward to your reply. :)
Hello Nicco, Thanks for your well thought out comment. This will make for a very interesting discussion.
1. "It's misleading to characterize Cesar as an aversive only trainer, I think he balances aversion with reward"
Yes Cesar does use both:
http://hubpages.com/_srec/hub/Cesar-Milan-Dog-Trai
However, if you compare him to Victoria Stilwell and many other trainers, he uses more aversive techniques. Victoria does not do leash jerks, finger pokes, or alpha rolls, which are the very physical based aversive techniques.
2. "[Cesar's methods are] the most direct way to communicate with your dog."
The truth is, *both* aversive and reward methods are used to communicate with the dog and help them learn. But aversive techniques do a whole lot more than communicate.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Dog-Psychology--Dog-Behavi
3. "Perhaps the main problem with aversive techniques is that it can be difficult to pull off correctly"
That is also very true. They are difficult to execute properly, with the right timing, and with the right redirection. *And* if you do not execute them well, there are some bad risks involved including causing aggression in dogs.
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/research/030
4. "If you can do it with the calm assertive energy of Cesar, I see no reason why it cannot bring long term results"
The danger with aversive techniques such as the leash jerk and others is that your dog can get habituated to the pain. So after time, your dog may longer respond to a given level of pain, and you must escalate your correction. This will depend on the temperament of the dog. In general, you cannot apply too much force, or the dog may get too stressed and break down; but you also cannot apply too little force or your dog will get habituated to the correction and start ignoring this. Getting the right amount of force/pain is difficult to do.
5. "If a dog loves tearing up the couch, how do you fix that with positive only reinforcement?"
Positive reinforcement is always paired with negative punishment (i.e., taking away a reward/resource) from the dog to stop an undesirable behavior. My Shiba Inu used to tear at curtains and such when I first got him and was using *aversive techniques*. I did alpha rolls on him for curtain tearing and that did not work out well for me. When I switched to reward training, all I did was say "ack,ack", body block him away from the area, and give him something else to do. If he continues, he gets a time-out. Note - the time-out is NOT a "let your dog think over his mistakes" session. It is a "negative punishment" technique because it *takes away* the dog's freedom, to stop/discourage a bad behavior. You are teaching your dog that if he can't behave, then he gets his freedoms revoked. I used this on my Shiba Inu and it worked out very well.
I understand what you're talking about when you say that Cesar's style is good for the short term, but I wouldn't say that they are only good in the short term. Afterall, doesn't Cesar apply these same techniques to his own dogs and achieve good long term success?
It's misleading to characterize Cesar as an aversive only trainer, I think he balances aversion with reward. People who oppose his techniques only see him doing leash corrections but don't recognize the other more gentle methods he uses. To me Cesar's methods are not about dictatorship or confrontation as much as they are about finding the most direct way to communicate with your dog.
Perhaps the main problem with aversive techniques is that it can be difficult to pull off correctly. Then again, maybe some people are naturally better using aversive techniques, I think it really depends on what you believe in. If you believe in it working, then it will work. If you question what you do, then so does the dog. If you get angry using aversive techniques, then the dog loses trust in you. If you can do it with the calm assertive energy of Cesar, I see no reason why it cannot bring long term results.
I respect the idea of positive only reinforcement, but for some scenarios it just doesn't make sense. If a dog loves tearing up the couch, how do you fix that with positive only reinforcement? I think in certain situtions, corrective actions are needed. They don't need to be leash jerks or physical touch, but just some sort of negative stimuli. Speaking of which, I've seen Victoria Stillwell use the click thingy and an electronic shock collar, both of which are negative stimuli, so she's not exactly a positive only trainer.
Cesar and Victoria aren't all that different to me, they use different techniques, but the end goal is the same. It's like eating noodles with chopsticks or a fork, neither is right or wrong, the end goal is all the same.
"It's just a more pleasant experience for the trainer when you can be happy and playful while teaching."
You said this really well. I must include it!
I started out with Cesar's techniques and switched after a few months because it did not work out well with my Shiba Inu or with me. I think that when training is more fun, the dog learns faster and the human learns faster as well.
The human usually is the one that needs more help anyways :)
I agree 100%--Cujo, give me Cesar, my dog--a little of both, but Victoria uses way more positive reinforcement. I've watched a lot of both and tried techniques from both, and had good results with both. It's just a more pleasant experience for the trainer when you can be happy and playful while teaching. Beautiful dogs, by the way.
I agree with you, in theCujo situation i would pick Caesar, otherwise i would go with Victoria.
Maybe its me ;)
Btw. Whitney is a really nice gal. She has a 3 legged dog, same as me, so we have been chatting a bit about that. Sometimes it is easy to misunderstand and mis-communicate with people in an online chat because you don't get to see their faces, hear their voice, etc. Also, sometimes people just have bad days or bad weeks.
I think that when someone has strong opinions about their dogs, it means they care very much about them. Both you and Whitney obviously care very much for your dogs, so you already have much in common :)
I did look through the comments on your hub and it seems like for the most part, you both were very civil and polite to each other - just some differences in opinion. As you said, you and I had much more heated conversations and we still turned out to be pals :)
Also I don't think Whitney is ignoring you. She just has a lot on her plate right now.
Stay calm and assertive :)
Hey who is that guy in those pictures?? Yeah.......
Debbie, thank you very much for your well thought out comment.
I think that there is a divide between the Cesar Millan people, and the non-Cesar Millan people; which is unfortunately because both sides really love their dogs very much and want to do what is best for their canine companion.
Cesar Millan, Victoria Stilwell, and other dog traiing shows on t.v. are good in general because they show people that dogs need training and also a lot of exercise.
Personally, I only use reward methods because I have found them to be a lot more effective with my dogs and for my temperament. Cesar Millan, however, does say some good things; for example with respect to calm and assertive energy, exercise, as well as rules and boundaries. I think that we can learn from both sides; and gathering more information will help us make better decisions.
Re pack leadership theory: For me, the important lesson here is that dogs live in our human world; so it is up to us to teach them our very human rules. It is the responsibility of dog owners to ensure that their dogs do not inadvertently hurt themselves and others. I think dogs need rules, routine, and structure. Cesar conveys this information using the pack leadership theory/idea/concept, which I think makes it more accessible to more people. I agree with you that he does push the concept to the extreme sometimes and uses it to support the use of aversive techniques; which I personally do not agree with. Whether the theory/concept is truth or not, I think, is somewhat of a moot point. What is clear however, is that it is a good rhetorical device.
Re Cujo: I think the Cujo example is useful to create a contrast between more extreme circumstances that rarely happen, and everyday circumstances that we go through with our dogs. As you very rightly pointed out, the best way to deal with Cujo is to not go where Cujo lives, and not to create Cujos ourselves either through lack of training, or lack of understanding.
Re Cesar Millan: Unlike many other dog trainers, I think that Cesar Millan is unique in that he is able to convey dog training information in a way that is entertaining and appealing to many people. The good of this is that he alerts people to the need for dog training, and dog exercise. He also gets people a lot more interested in the whole dog training/dog behavior area, which encourages more information collection and circulation. As you pointed out, the downside of this is that he uses mostly aversive techniques, which in turn encourages people to use those techniques.
Most dog owners, I believe, truly want to do what is best for their dogs. It makes sense to find some common ground, and exchange information in a positive manner, so that we may all benefit. Whatever we may all think about Cesar Millan, it is undeniable that he is a great communicator, so that is one of the things I try to learn from him whenever I watch The Dog Whisperer.
I think that we can learn much from Cesar Millan, Victoria Stilwell, and each other by keeping an open mind and staying positive :)
First I would say that the whole 'pack leader' analogy is incorrect. Dogs are not wolves. Dogs don't form packs with leaders. People form packs and have leaders. Is it that difficult for us to imagine relationships that are not based on vertical hierarchies?
The problem for many so called 'Cujos' is that they are afraid and forcing them to deal with what fears them can (and often does) makes their issues worse, not better. Shelters are full of dogs whose owners thought dogs should do what they wanted them to, regardless of how the dog felt about it.
If you regularly find yourself stuck in a house with Cujos I recommend that you get out of the dog business in whatever form you're in, you shouldn't have put yourself in that position to begin with. There are some people I'd rather be with if I found myself in a dark alley in a bad part of town. I might not support their methods of protecting themselves otherwise. How about I just stay out of dark alleys so I don't need a black belt with a gun?
Millan uses old school training techniques. Nothing new or creative there. The fact that some people refer to him as a 'behaviorist' is an insult to the ethologists and certified behaviorists who have spent years studying animal behavior, and living & working with dogs.
Can his techniques work, sure. Do scared dogs need someone bullying or intimidating them into 'calm submissive'- definitely not. It's easy to change how a dog behaves, pet owners without any experience have been doing it for millenia, changing how a damaged dog feels and experiences the world takes more time and skill then I have ever seen Millan use.
He loves dogs no doubt of that and has some good dog handling skills, lots of trainers do, but he had not done fearful dogs of the world any favors. I'd enjoy going for a walk with him one day and 30 dogs and telling him myself.
LOL - thanks for that :) I feel like I should pay you for that one. I'll go click on some of your Adsense ads.
I would not risk carrying dog biscuits ... would be too tempting ... although I don't know how they taste ... I don't wanna end up chasing cars. :)
Hmmm, wouldn't it be much better to have a little Cujo on your side? Instead of saying "dog!", carry some dog biscuits with you, and drop him a little piece whenever you pass by.
You never know, one day, little Cujo may save you from stalkers, muggers, and annoying neighborhood kids :)
Don't be too disappointed when you see this guy. He is a stray dog and so is undernourished. He is the same brand as "Cujo" and thus the resemblance. He is a bit scared of me. Whenever I pass him, I say "dog!" and just gets up from his curled up position and hurries away. :)
He is pretty smart, but in a roguish, Jack Sparrow, kind of way. Shania is smart in a more traditional way, as she is amazing with figuring out interactive toys. My little Cujo will just wait until Shania gets all the food out, and then he will go pick up what he can. Kindda reminds me of Wimpy :)
Looking forward to the picture and some new hubs! Woof, Woof, Woof!
The dog you call "my little Cujo" really looks smart. Close to where I live right now, there is a dog which resembles Cujo. I've taken a picture of him and will post it soon.
Woof!
It is true that the methods are quick, but I'd rather a long-term effect even if it takes longer, and especially if it's more pleasant and enjoyable for the dog.
Thanks for asking. She's actually doing pretty good. She had a tough time with her last treatment but with some antibiotics, she was good in a few days. She goes for her last chemo treatment this Friday.
lol quicksand. I *know* your method of choice.
[Whitney] Even though Cesar's methods may have issues in the long-term, they are a lot more direct, fast, and satisfying; so I think it appeals to more people. I actually started with Cesar's methods. He was recommended by my previous vet tech and my previous breeder. Things started going downhill after a few months. Btw. how is Mia? Hope she is doing well.
[Iphigenia] lol - I have a Shiba Inu who is actually a dog that is more like a cat. He is very clean like a cat, very aloof, and he also supercedes that emotional bond. However, the confrontational approach did not work on him at all. He would fight back every time - just like a cat :) I try to keep an open mind, but sometimes I wonder if there really are breeds or temperaments that do better with the confrontational approach. Confrontation may just be for the people in the equation.
An excellent comaprison. I prefer the 'management and diplomacy' approach because that has worked so far for the 3 dogs that have been in my life. Maybe for certain dog temperaments or breeds the more confrontational approch would be better.
I reasoned, in my ignorance (not a dog trainer), that if I created a strong emotional bond with my dog she would always want to be with me and please me an so do as I say. As i said, this has been successful so far - only cats supercede that emotional bond !
I have to agree with Cesar's method being "fast, short-term solution" meaning it's really not a solution. I don't understand how that's not understood.
Great hub.
"expose him to small amounts of the fear-stimulus" - Good lord who would ever think of such cruelty to animals ???!!!
Thanks Nancy. Yeah, poor Shania always seems to attract all kinds of trouble. Hopefully, her immune system will continue to mature, and she will continue to mature, and be less susceptible to doggie illnesses.
Great article and pictures of your pets--Nice to see the one you were so worried about back to normal....
arkpuppies 2 months ago
I would rather use Cesar. He is a good teacher and I've learned how to read my dogs better with him. I accidentally voted for Stillwell. I've watched her show many times and am not impressed.