153 replies to this topic

[Criosdaidh]

Hmmm...in the psychology world they call it densensitization. You expose a person (or this case a dog) to something they're afraid of (usually from a lack of exposure, they fear what they do not know) until they are no longer afraid of it. I've used it a little on Achilles, he used to be afraid of squeaky toys but I would sit with him so he felt safe and squeek it, let him sniff it, squeak it, and eventually he learned it was nothing that would harm him. Now he's fine around them.

I think people do it to themselves all the time. We're afraid of something so we try it over and over again (whether its a 4th grader climing to the top of the football stands/ etc) until we no longer fear it.

As far as obedience in situations involving fear, I tend to raise my dogs like my dad raised me. I know whats best for you in the majority of cases, and as long as you eat and sleep under my roof you'll do what I say. He was careful to explain his reasons for stuff to me but I knew that if he told me something to do I wasn't OWED an explanation at that moment because he was my father. He taught me that if you're so friggin hard headed that you gotta be bribed or begged to do something all the time that you'll get it in the face when someone yells "duck!" and you turn around and say "why should I?" as a golf ball plugs you in the eye.

An animal should obey its master because you are the person that feeds him, shelters him, spends your time exercising him, your money giving him care, etc. 99% of the time you are going to know whats better for your dog than he is. If Achilles runs out in the road while a car is coming, I want him to scuttle his little booty back to me RIGHT NOW because I said so, not because I had to wave a chicken jerky treat to get him to comply or because he stood their debating whether going to the other side of the road might be more rewarding than the treats he's used to getting for coming back to me when I call. If he doesn't do what I say exactly when I say, it might cost him by getting him run over or something else. (just an example).

A dog who does what you say out of obedience rather than bribary is a fair trade IMO considering all you do for them. Now the "extracurricular" stuff like tricks, agility, whatever that all should be done with positive reinforcement. Its ok to "bribe" then IMO. I tend to view dogs like kids, they'll do what you want if there is a reward involved, until not doing what you want is more rewarding to them than the treat you're offering then they go on and do what they want. Which like I said, might get them run over or worse. (or picked up by animal control).

It sounds like he's teaching the dog to do what its told by its master, even when its afraid. Just because the dog is afraid of something doesn't mean its allowed to tug at the leesh or run away, disobey, etc. IMO thats how it should be taught. Are you going to bribe your dog to get over every fear? Or do you want your dog to learn that he/she is protected as long as it does what you say?

I'd rather my dog get a little "tough love" to begin with and learn that he/she has a responsibility to be obedient regardless of the situation (and remember most obedience is for the dogs own good anyway) than have to bribe a dog into growing out of individual fears, never knowing when she/he may go berzerk again from encountering a previously undiscovered phobia.

[haleigh]

I would rather teach my dog to obey me out of respect, rather than obeying me for fear of biting the hand that feeds her. After all, it's all a matter of perspective. I could slap my dad really hard right now, and have him reprimand me.What's my excuse? But dad! It was a kiss! It's just a matter of perspective.

[Aussie_Dog]

Hmmm...in the psychology world they call it densensitization. You expose a person (or this case a dog) to something they're afraid of (usually from a lack of exposure, they fear what they do not know) until they are no longer afraid of it. I've used it a little on Achilles, he used to be afraid of squeaky toys but I would sit with him so he felt safe and squeek it, let him sniff it, squeak it, and eventually he learned it was nothing that would harm him. Now he's fine around them.

My definition of desensitization is to SLOWLY desensitize a dog to something scary. You don't chuck him in a pool over and over again until he's okay with it, you start off with the shallowest parts of the pool and stay there until the dog is feeling confident. Then wade in just a little deeper and stay there until the dog is confident. Keep doing that until he's fine with the deeper water.

I was watching a clip of Cesar's show on youtube last night and one part that really bugged me was that he was being too unreasonable, in my opinion. The case was something related to the dog being aggressive to other dogs or something like that, so Cesar was teaching the owners how to walk back and forth past the dog, who was lying on the ground. At one point, the other dog was walking past and the first dog wasn't doing anything, just watching the dog, but I guess he gave a growl or something because Cesar bent over and slapped his side. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's a good way to get a dog to go straight from point A to point C, completely skipping the warning signals (growling) and going straight to attacking. Of course I could be completely misunderstood, as I had the volume low and was missing a bit of what was being said.

[Aussie_Dog]

Yes! Exactly! Do you mind if I use the example next time I am in the same tyep of argument?

Sorry folks, I didn't mean to start another Cesar thread. It was easier to explain the argument by using his name.

Oh, go ahead! It's only once in a blue moon that I can properly convey what I mean when I'm in an argument myself, so we might as well take advantage of these times, lol

[MaggieDog]

Technically what Cesar is doing is flooding NOT desensitization.

As my applied small animal behavior text says: Systemic desensitization is defined by rewarding the animal for quiet behavior when the fearful stimulus is introduced at a low intensity. "Once the animal has habituated to the stimulus at a low intensity, the intensity is gradually increased and the procedure repeated."

Flooding, according to my text, is when "the animal is contiuously exposed to a fear evoking stimulus from which it can't escape until it is relatively or completely relaxed, and only then is the stimulus withdrawn...Flooding works best for mild fear reactions. With a strong fear reaction, the animal may be damaged physically or psychologically. Because of these risks, flooding should not be used."

My dog is not "bribed" btw - she is contitioned to know that I am the source of all things good and her leader and if she listens to me, good things happen. I do NOT want a dog that is a robot and "listens" because he or she is afraid of me. If I trained basics with this, none of the "extracurriculars" we do would flow easily from that state as they all require trust and thinking, not fear and shutdown.

[Root Beer]

I concur. I want a dog who will stand by my side no matter what fears they may feel at the time. Shoot, my dog Shadow (RIP) was scared of loud noises, however I would never rescue her from her fears. She had to face them and deal with them with me by her side. Her job was to protect me, not to consistenly be the child I was rescuing from the evils of the world.

The thing is that there are dogs that are not capable of dealing with serious fear. Just as with any temperament or condition, there are different degrees of fearfulness in dogs and there are different ways to deal with different degrees of fear.

My foster, Mickey, for instance, is very shy around strangers, but within a little while of getting used to someone, he warms right up. He's a dog that is able to face his fears and deal with them. His overall temperament is solid - he just needs some socialization and good experiences.

Speedy, on the other hand, does not have the ability to just "get over it" by me leaving him to face what he is afraid of. In fact, if I'm not there for him letting him know that I will "rescue him from the evils of the world" if need be, I end up with a dog that is completely shut down. At one time he was on the verge of fear aggression because I didn't know how to be there for him. I am so grateful that I didn't take a "he needs to get over it" approach with him because he can't just get over it. His brain chemistry won't allow it. Think of a person who has an anxiety disorder - it's very similar. His job is not to protect me - my job is to keep him safe and help him to know he is safe.

Just from your short description it sounds like Shadow was a dog with a stable temperament who had a particular fear, and was able to deal with it on her own because the overall temperament was there, and so you dealt with her fear of noises in a manner that was appropriate for her. There are dogs that actually don't have that ability and that method would make things worse, not better, for them.

Someone used an example of a child who was afraid of roller coasters, but got over it after her first ride. There are some children who would actually have come out of that experience even more terrified than they were to begin with after the same experience due to a difference in temperament/coping skills, etc. It's the same with dogs. Some might be able to deal with flooding because their fear is based on unfamiliarity or the unknown. There are other dogs that would be made even more fearful with flooding because their fear runs deeper.

I think that with fear in dogs, there is no "one size fits all" approach. It has been my experience that getting down on my knees beside one of my dogs when they are experiencing a fear has resulted in building the dog's confidence, and trust in me. It has also been my experience that letting my dogs get out of something that they were afriad of has given them the ability to go back to it later and be OK with it. I have had good success with very slow desensitization and counter conditioning. I have never had success with trying to make my dog "just deal with it" when fearful and yet, Speedy can do things now that are amazing to me because he has learned to cope in his own way, with my full support.

I hate it for Speedy, but I am very glad that I have had the experience of raising and training a severely fearful dog because it made me learn to think outside the box where fear in dogs is concerned.

[smileyzookie]

I don't want to get into the ol' Cesar Milan discussion again, because I think if you're a doctrinaire believer in "all-positive" training you're going to see harshness and terror and "shutting down" occurring whether they're there or not. (In fact, you don't even have to watch a single episode to see them, if you're so inclined.)

There are many training methods that work, and every one of them works best in the hands of someone who's good at reading dogs. But I firmly believe that no training method works if the person employing it doesn't believe in it, and is only doing it because a trainer told him/her to. If you've been told to do something to a dog that in your heart you recoil from doing, the dog is going to pick up on your conflicted feelings, and the clarity and coherence that's necessary for effective dog training will be lost. At the least the dog will be confused, and confusion itself can lead to worry and fear. So I would say if you have doubts and misgivings about a certain method, that alone is a good reason for not using it.

DITTO!!!! I believe in Ceasars methods, but I think Eileen is right on with this! If you arent behind it, it wont work. Positive training did NOT work for Riven, she is a good dog but positive training made her take advantage, I dont know why. A couple months into having her I saw Ceasars shows and began to do somethings similar and they worked. Of course not rolling or whatever, Riven was a good dog anyway.

ETA: Riven was TERRIFIED of the vacuum, she'd pace and freak when I would vacuum. Now she sits calmly on a chair. I got her used to it with Ceasars methods.

ETA again: I also agree with criosdaidh

[smileyzookie]

First off let me say that I have not seeing one of his episodes. So with that said I cannot comment on him too extensively. However from what I saw it seems he has a basic love for the animals in question. Has he killed any dogs? Has he maimed any dogs? Someone show me some cruelty on his part to justify the overall abhorrance for this individual.

Ditto. He takes dogs that people would put to sleep. Most of the dogs in his "pack" were to be PTS, and he rehabilitated them. Say what you want about his methods, but he is saving dogs.

[philip4420]

I've found this whole discussion really interesting. I'm no expert on training dogs. I'm just training my 3rd at the moment, but I am a primary teacher and the disagreements over methods remind me so much of of discussions about teaching methods. Over the years I've concluded there is no one right way. Children and dogs are individuals as are teachers and handlers. Almost any method will work for someone in some situation, but a good teacher will be aware of a whole range of different methods and try to select the most appropriate for any individual. For some rewards are sufficient while others need sanctions as well. My previous collie was a quiet submissive pup. His whole attitude seemed to be 'tell me what you want and I'll do my best to please you' He needed lots of confidence boosting and reassurance while my present bundle of fun is full of confidence and seems to say ' OK I see what you want and I'll think about it'. He needs much firmer handling. What worries me is the apparant attitude that there is 'one right way.' There have been great human/dog partnerships over the centuries and it would be a pity to lose all that experience just because some ideas don't fit the latest theories. Of course, I don't mean cruel methods which I don't believe work in any case. Some people are gifted with the ability to teach and train naturally but most of us have to learn the skills. Watching trainers at work is helpful but I don't think you can adopt any one person's methods without questions and without adapting them to your own situation.

[Eileen Stein]

The one thing that always cracks me up in spite of all of this, is CM still doesn't bother telling us how many dogs he's killed!

Or whether he's stopped beating his wife.

*****

ETA: I did not mean this to be taken literally. I have no reason whatsoever to think CM has ever beaten his wife. I firmly believe that he has never beaten his wife. Please see my next post below.

[Millie&MeBC]

My definition of desensitization is to SLOWLY desensitize a dog to something scary. You don't chuck him in a pool over and over again until he\'s okay with it, you start off with the shallowest parts of the pool and stay there until the dog is feeling confident. Then wade in just a little deeper and stay there until the dog is confident. Keep doing that until he's fine with the deeper water.

I agree.
And watching him I see him clearly misreading body language and assuming that dogs are dominant no matter what they do. He thinks a dog that runs out the door in front of you is dominant, a dog that rests his front end on you while you're sitting down is dominant, a dog that jumps up on someone is dominant, while in reality they\'re energetic and haven't had those things reinforced.
I've seen him look at a cowering dog and one that is submissive as possible and terrified and then flip it on its back.
I just don't think he's any kind of expert and I constantly hear of everyone telling me they "alpha roll" their dogs just in case their dog is trying to "one up" them. I think someday someone's going to get a serious bite trying to mimic Cesar, if they haven't already.

[Sherry Thoeny]

I wonder if he actually understands dogs more than he seems to. I mean they have to cut this show down to fit in an alotted time, and there is no way they actually show everything that happened. I have a feeling that a lot happens before cameras even start rolling. To me he seems to have a pretty good read on dogs. He does not have time to tell the cameras why he thinks it is aggression and not just exuberance. Or why he uses one approach one this dog, but not another.

But I do think that many people may imitate him without knowing how to read the dog or why he does it. And it could backfire big time.

And of course all of that being said, I have seen very little of his show. So I could be making up half of what I said:)

[dobro_21]

I take tihngs from him and use thing, i watcfh his show alot and some tihng have helped me out alot, like growling when Zipper eats, the tihng i did from watching his show worked.

[Eileen Stein]

Oh, yikes! NO, HE'S NOT A WIFE BEATER!!!

I'm sorry, I was being a smartass. The question "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic example of a question that assumes facts not in evidence -- namely, that the person being questioned did at some time beat his wife. For that reason it's an unfair question -- actually a smear masquerading as a question.

The comment I was responding to, that "CM still doesn't bother telling us how many dogs he's killed!", struck me as unfair in a similar way. It assumes as a fact that he has killed dogs, and rushes right past that to blame him for not having told us HOW MANY he's killed. I should have realized that lots of people wouldn't be familiar with the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question, and therefore wouldn't see that I was being flippant.

Y'all are certainly free to assume/assert that your dog would be dead if CM had tried to train it, or if his methods had been used to train it -- that's a claim that can't be proved or disproved. But please, let's not assume that he's actually killed dogs in the absence of evidence.

[Rye]

Where did you find out he beats his wife...? Didn't know that!

~Tucker

[Eileen Stein]

NO, NO, NO, HE DOESN'T BEAT HER! I withdraw without reservation my earlier remark, and I reject and deprecate any suggestion that he beats his wife, and I sincerely apologize for any implication that might have been given, or any inference that might have been taken, that he now beats, or ever has beaten, his wife.