"The Dog Whisperer"

[Elizabeth77]

Again I bow to the experience of so many on this forum. I have learned a lot from reading the threads and asking questions.

I think it is the same with Ceasar , I do love watching his shows and have got some ideas that seem to work very well for my Meg. One thing I learned is to try and look and feel assertive when correcting Meg , standing tall and puffing out my chest!!!! It does work.

Like so many situations there , in my opinion, is no training system that one finds a hundred percent acceptable ; different ways of teaching sports for example.

So from all the advice available I am going to take what makes sense to me and works for my dog , listen to those that know, and omit any suggestions I am not happy with. I will also try to remember that Meg is a dog as well as my loving friend.

[DJF]

Hey Kristine,

 

No I did not mean to imply that, and I apologize for that misunderstanding. I was just saying that I was surprised to see that the network would show someone actually correcting dogs, when that is seen as a bad thing in some circles.

[bc4ever]

Maybe the best thing about Cesar Milan is that he gets people talking, and hopefully, thinking.

[Ms.DaisyDuke]

Now that I actually have digital cable, I have the National Geographic chanel and was able to ejoy a "Dog Whisperer" marathon this week end. I was surprised that he did seriously recommend one family to seek help from a professional behaviourist AND told them their agression issues with a german shepherd were actaully being started by their smaller ill-mannered something or other. Otherwise, still don't like his pinchy-pinchy methods.

 

I did find a REALLY good use for his show....Daisy has an incredibly BAD habbit for rushing the t.v. when dogs are on (stemed by the fact we used to have a 56" t.v. and she's dog reactive...great combo) so, I've decided to use his show to desensitize her to dogs on the tube! So far it seems to be working nicely!

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

The one thing I really object to about CM is the way he seems to make dog training more of a mystique thing - if you are not successful you aren't giving off the right mojo, or something.

 

I am WAY SO NOT a step by step person. But I've learned from years of helping people with their dogs that it helps them so much more to have a concrete goal, and a step-by-step on how to get there. Sort of a flowchart.

 

Now, dog training isn't actually like that. But the more times you step a person through dealing with something, and show them how it fits in the framework, the more that person can start making their own guesses on how to effectively shape their dog's behavior.

 

I saw Victoria for the first time last week, while in the hospital. I was cheering by the end of the episode. And yes, at one point she made the silly girls she was dealing with, get down on the ground and imagine that they were 12 inches tall. I think she's got a point.

 

People forget what it's like to be a dog and they simultaneously over-baby a dog, and have expectations that are way too high - assuming that the dog understands automatically what "correct" is, and that the dog is totally on board with how to get by in our world without unduly annoying people.

 

I know in my own experiences, that the first thing I have to do is get people to understand, to the best of my ability, the origin of the behavior and even the whole attitude of the dog, from the dog's own point of view. I've developed a repertoire of word pictures that help people understand basic concepts like a dog's craving for partnership, some of the causes of odd post-placement behavior, reactivity and what helps the majority of cases.

 

Victoria is a TV personality and seems very visual (witness her penchant for distinctive "uniform" ). So her hapless clients get on the ground, crawl in crates, and who knows what else?

 

One problem with these TV shows is lack of context. CMs shows tend to make everything look very fast. The few Stillwell shows I saw gave me a good feeling for passing time - cars leaving and arriving, time periods stated, changes of clothes allowed. The CM shows I've seen deliberately disguise the passage of time using various TV tricks I'm privy to and can spot pretty easily - but most people wouldn't notice. That doesn't make me happy while considering the man's integrity.

[Sophinator]

Oh, what the heck. Let me throw in a few more comments here.

 

I do notice that Cesar is learning himself and I give him credit for that. For instance, he now acknowledges that different breeds have different needs. And they need different training approaches. Well, duh.

 

But the dominance alpha thing? Does he recognize the difference between a dog who is aggressive because he is full of himself and a dog who is scared but confident enough to think that a good offense is the best defense? You don't "rehabilitate" them the same way. Does he recognize that some dogs are naturally dominant and some wouldn't try to take charge if the world were coming to an end? Dominance, per se, is not a bad thing. In the wolfpack analogy, somebody has to be able to step in and take command if the alpha is injured or killed. If all the other wolves were "calm submissive," the pack would be in deep doo-doo. Frankly I'd rather have a dog that can think for herself and that can cope in my absence.

 

Cesar still doesn't seem to grasp that dogs do have personalities and that the individual dog does need to be taken into account. Heck, we all know that even human babies express personality at an early age, from the quiet easy-going infant to the one who screams bloody murder at every turn. All in the same family, same genetics. Again, with the wolfpack, you're going to have timid cubs and bold cubs, relaxed cubs and cubs who overreact to everything, and so forth. Why should our dogs be any different? So it isn't animal first, then species, then breed, then individual dog. Sorry about that.

 

I really wouldn't have a problem with Cesar if people just realized that his show is entertainment and not the Bible of Dogdom.

[Smokjbc]

Oh, what the heck. Let me throw in a few more comments here.

 

I do notice that Cesar is learning himself and I give him credit for that. For instance, he now acknowledges that different breeds have different needs. And they need different training approaches. Well, duh. >>

 

I think he has always recognized that, in fact he has a saying something like "dog then breed then companion" or something that I have heard him break down from the beginning as a way to get people to understand that it is a dog first, breed second, and THEN their companion and friend.

 

 

But the dominance alpha thing? Does he recognize the difference between a dog who is aggressive because he is full of himself and a dog who is scared but confident enough to think that a good offense is the best defense? You don't "rehabilitate" them the same way. Does he recognize that some dogs are naturally dominant and some wouldn't try to take charge if the world were coming to an end? Dominance, per se, is not a bad thing. In the wolfpack analogy, somebody has to be able to step in and take command if the alpha is injured or killed. If all the other wolves were "calm submissive," the pack would be in deep doo-doo. Frankly I'd rather have a dog that can think for herself and that can cope in my absence. >>

 

I think it is safe to say, based on watching nearly all of his episodes and the fact that he specializes in extremely aggressive dogs with what appears to be success, that yes- he understands the difference. I have never gotten the impression that he uses a cookie cutter approach- certainly his style will remain the same but I've never seen him do the exact same thing twice when dealing with a different dog.

[JBlaylock]

My opinion, Cesar makes sense...to me.

 

Dog's in a wild pack certainly won't ever use gentle reinforcement to correct an ill-behaved member who is stepping out of or above his place in the pack...so, if you want to have a happy dog, you need to treat it in a way that its natural instinctive psyche requires, which is sometimes rough correction. Dogs aren't people, and they are a crapload tougher than us, and they do not have human emotions like hurt feelings, only seemingly similar reflections perceived by us as human emotions, but really just reactions based on instinctive behavior.

 

But, that's just my opinion, and I won't argue it or try to push it on anyone.

[PSmitty]

Kind of timely that I just read about this study done on the use of aversive training methods and then someone dredges up the Cesar Milan thread!

 

Clicky here:

 

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/current/research/030509.html

 

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=1548

[JBlaylock]

Good article. But I believe that the studies only show those results because of the amount of people who missuse firm discipline. Of course doing it the wrong way will produce an agressive dog who is likely to lash out. So, while my opinions are that his methods work, at the same time i do not think they are for everyone, because most who will try his methods will do it the wrong way, too firm, in anger, or not matching the firmness with calmness and compensating with the correct positive rienforcement.

 

Just like I believe a bad child should be spanked, I believe they should never ever be spanked in anger. The purpose should be clearly layed out in a calm and informative matter before hand. A dog should never be disciplined in anger, and if you do it right, with the right body languge etc, the purpose will be explained to the dog in their own language.

[Northof49]

My opinion, Cesar makes sense...to me.

 

Dog's in a wild pack certainly won't ever use gentle reinforcement to correct an ill-behaved member who is stepping out of or above his place in the pack...so, if you want to have a happy dog, you need to treat it in a way that its natural instinctive psyche requires, which is sometimes rough correction. Dogs aren't people, and they are a crapload tougher than us, and they do not have human emotions like hurt feelings, only seemingly similar reflections perceived by us as human emotions, but really just reactions based on instinctive behavior.

 

But, that's just my opinion, and I won't argue it or try to push it on anyone.

 

First of all, how many wild packs of dogs exist in most of our areas, and how many of them have been studied. Yes, I do know that there are feral dogs out there, but most of the time these groups of dogs are disposed of quite quickly. If you are trying to base this on wolf pack interaction, you won't see any of this in wild wolf packs, which are tight familyl units. THis is corrorbated by numerous studes of wild wolf packs, including a 12 year study following the same wolf pack up in northern Canada (Ellesmere Island I think).

 

I have 4 -5 dogs living with me all the time. My friend has 9 - 11 dogs at any time, so we each have had a pack of dogs for 20 plus years. When we get together we have a pack of anywhere from 12 - 16 depending what foster dogs we have living with us at any one time. When she has people staying with her, she will have anywhere up to 24 dogs in the house.

 

When one of them gets out line with someone else, the first thing that happens is "the look". IF "the look" doesn't get the dog that has stepped out of line to start towing the line (which is does in 90% of the time), the next step is a snarl and lip lifting - this usually does it, BUT if that doesn't do it, then a snarl and clacking of the teeth - by this time 99 % of the time the whole thing is settled. The other 0.5% of the time a light grab to the muzzle of the offending dog fixes it. ANd another .05: of the time a bit of a snark fest between the dogs gets going, which doesn't go anywhere because we don't let it.

 

As I say, this if from living in multi dog households over an extended period of time, and this scenario has always been consistent. We only have ever seen the supposed grabbing by the neck with a dog that is socially inept, and never within our packs.

[Root Beer]

Dog's in a wild pack certainly won't ever use gentle reinforcement to correct an ill-behaved member who is stepping out of or above his place in the pack

 

Dogs in a wild pack don't expect each other to pee in a designated potty area. Dogs in a wild pack don't feed each other prepared meals compete with supplements. Dogs in a wild pack don't participate in dog sports. Dogs in a wild pack don't throw tennis balls. Dogs in a wild pack don't use leashes.

 

So, guess what? If my domesticated dog in a human household can understand to pee in a designated potty area, come to expect and anticipate prepared meals, participate with me in dog sports, retrieve tennis balls, and understand good leash manners, then my dog can understand training through reinforcement.

 

...so, if you want to have a happy dog, you need to treat it in a way that its natural instinctive psyche requires, which is sometimes rough correction.

 

There are great multitudes of happy dogs who are not trained through rough corrections. That's a fact.

 

Dogs aren't people,

 

No, dogs aren't people. And I'm not a dog. My dogs live in my houshold - a human household. Therefore, they just have to put up with being trained and cared for by a human.

 

How 'bout this? Since I'm the ALPHA and the leader in my home, it is my absolute rule that my dogs completely accept the fact that I am a human being and I refuse to growl at them, bark at them, zzzzzt at them (what wild dogs zzzzt at each other, anyway?), scruff shake them, leash pop them, or get "rough" with them. The dogs are under my domination and I, as LEADER, decree that they will be happy, content, obedient, and respectful dogs without me doing any of those things. If they don't like it, tough. They don't get a say in the matter.

 

Doesn't that fit right in with Cesar's way?

 

and they are a crapload tougher than us,

 

My husband is tougher than I am. Should I get "rough" with him on occasion because he's tougher?

 

and they do not have human emotions like hurt feelings, only seemingly similar reflections perceived by us as human emotions, but really just reactions based on instinctive behavior.

 

Then why do you talk about what they need to be happy? Happiness is an emotion. If dogs only have reactions based on instinctive behavior that is perceived by us as happiness, why should we care if they want us to get rough to make them happy?

 

That's illogical.

[JBlaylock]

If you are trying to base this on wolf pack interaction, you won't see any of this in wild wolf packs, which are tight familyl units. THis is corrorbated by numerous studes of wild wolf packs, including a 12 year study following the same wolf pack up in northern Canada (Ellesmere Island I think).

 

 

Have you ever spent time with wolves in person? I have. Wolves most certainly do use firm discipline with each other. True they can be very sweet and positive for each other, but also firm and rough.

 

Here I am gettig a hug from my wolf friend Koa, at the sanctuary.

 

 

Here I am spending time with the timid little girl who needs more rehabilitation to overcome her fear from years of mistreatment.

 

 

Here I am getting my kiss goodbeye from Sable on our way out.

 

 

Here are Yoda and his lady friend. She is incredibly rough in her discipline of him. The owner of the Sanctuary has lost a finger while getting caught in the middle. They get extreemly rough and extreemly serious in their firm dicipline.

 

 

I've spent time with wolves, I know what i'm talking about. They most certainly do use firm discipline like what Cesar mentions..

 

Anyways, again, i'm not going to try to push my opinions on other people, I just felt like giving another side to the arguent, so that anyone else with similar feelings doesn't feel alone.

[Root Beer]

I regularly spend time with wolves, i know what i'm talking about. They most certainly do use firm discipline like what Cesar mentions..

 

Anyways, again, i'm not going to try to push my opinions on other people, I just felt like giving another side to the arguent, so that anyone else with similar feelings doesn't feel alone.

 

Dogs aren't wolves.

 

Turn it the other way around. Should wolves live in our homes because dogs do? Should wolves become guardians of flocks, seeing eye guides, and lap pets because dogs are?

 

I hear the argument for behavior modification through punishment because of phenomena seen among wolves. If the argument doesn't work the other way around, it falls apart when it comes to drawing conclusions about dogs based on wolves, as well.

[Northof49]

Here is one of the main studies on wild wolk packs http://www.wolf.org/wolves/learn/basic/res...tus_english.pdf

2008 was the 23rd year of this study.

 

Is is well noted among those that have studied both wild and captive wolk packs that "captive wolf packs" and wolf hybrids "packs" are not represntational of wild wolf pack interactions. It was the study of a captive wolf pack that led to the stupid alpha roll theory in wolf packs in general, and it was recanted by the same people in a short period of time when the studying of wild wolf packs showed that this was not part of true wolf pack behaviour. Unfortunhately the dog world latched onto the alpha roll and didn't care that the it had been proven false and inaccurate.

[JBlaylock]

Root Beer

 

I get your points and they are all very valid.

 

Yes domesticated dogs are diferent than wild dogs, you are right.

I also shouldn't have implied that only a dog who has rough discipline is happy. WHat I meant was that rough discipline fits right in with what they instinctively expect, which will make them happy. Other methods can produce happy dogs too.

 

Sorry if I offended you, I sometimes word things the wrong way, and I certainly don't ever intend to sound like I am saying my way is the right way and any other way is wrong.

 

Agian, I'm honestly only trying to say that my opinions agree with Cesar, and I won't push them on others, but at the same time, i don't believe in a dogmattic conversation (no pun intended) where only one viewpoint is allowed and nobody better argue against it. I know other people here probably agree with Cesar's methods too, so by sharing my opinion, I am hoping they won't feel alone.

 

Peace lady.

 

PS: "My husband is tougher than I am. Should I get "rough" with him on occasion because he's tougher?" I wish my wife would get rough with me because I'm tougher!

[JBlaylock]

Dogs aren't wolves.

 

Turn it the other way around. Should wolves live in our homes because dogs do? Should wolves become guardians of flocks, seeing eye guides, and lap pets because dogs are?

 

I hear the argument for behavior modification through punishment because of phenomena seen among wolves. If the argument doesn't work the other way around, it falls apart when it comes to drawing conclusions about dogs based on wolves, as well.

 

I did't say they should. I posted that as a reply to the statement made that wolves do not use firm discipline.

 

Also, to Northof49, you said "Is is well noted among those that have studied both wild and captive wolk packs that "captive wolf packs" and wolf hybrids "packs" are not represntational of wild wolf pack interactions"

 

 

There was only one hybrid in the bunch here. The rest of them were full wolves, born and raised in the wild, who happened to stumble upon ignorant humans, get trapped or captured or injured to near death, and then discovered by someone with a good heart who brought them to the sanctuary for rehabilitation.

[PSmitty]

Dogs in a wild pack don't expect each other to pee in a designated potty area. Dogs in a wild pack don't feed each other

How 'bout this? Since I'm the ALPHA and the leader in my home, it is my absolute rule that my dogs completely accept the fact that I am a human being and I refuse to growl at them, bark at them, zzzzzt at them (what wild dogs zzzzt at each other, anyway?), scruff shake them, leash pop them, or get "rough" with them. The dogs are under my domination and I, as LEADER, decree that they will be happy, content, obedient, and respectful dogs without me doing any of those things. If they don't like it, tough. They don't get a say in the matter.

 

Hee! Love it.

[Root Beer]

Sorry if I offended you, I sometimes word things the wrong way, and I certainly don't ever intend to sound like I am saying my way is the right way and any other way is wrong.

 

You didn't offend me. I was merely discussing the topic at hand - as many of us who populate discussion boards are prone to do.

 

Agian, I'm honestly only trying to say that my opinions agree with Cesar,

 

Did I say that your opinions should or should not agree with Cesar? I didn't.

 

and I won't push them on others, but at the same time, i don't believe in a dogmattic conversation (no pun intended) where only one viewpoint is allowed and nobody better argue against it.

 

Since you are vehemently against only one viewpoint being allowed, I gather you're glad that I have expressed an opposing view.

 

It seems that we are in agreement that differing viewpoints are very welcome in this discussion!

 

I know other people here probably agree with Cesar's methods too, so by sharing my opinion, I am hoping they won't feel alone.

 

And that goes both ways. I know other people here agree that there are many better methods out there than Cesar's. By sharing my opinion, I am hoping that they don't feel alone.

 

Now we've got everyone covered and nobody is feeling alone today!

 

Peace!!

[Dixie_Girl]

I think what a lot of folks don't realize is that Cesar grew up in a rural town in Mexico. And he DID have lots of interaction with dogs that for all intents and purpose were "wild". I.E., no structured life to speak of. They were his companions. What he learned from them is the basis for his therories on dogs and their training. I have watched probly 90% of his shows and I still don't get the "he's too harsh" thing that folks try to push on him. Perhaps there are some things he does that is uncomfortable for some people to do. Fine. But don't throw the baby out with the bath water. All I know is that I truly believe he cares about dogs. IMHO(again IMHO)he is more concerned with the dogs than he is the people. IOW, he is not afraid to tell people, hey, you are screwing up your dog. He has done some wonderful things and just because you don't agree 100% with everything he does, it shouldn't be said he is a lousy person and dog trainer.

 

And as far as I am concerned, wolf's and dog's are apples and orange's. It's like trying to compare your house cat to a lion or tiger.

[JBlaylock]

PS: Root Beer, I love the drawing in your signature, the way the little white dot eye captures the wolf like stare of the Border Collie.

[hsnrs]

My DH and I both love to watch his shows. Also It's Me Or The Dog. It is so much better than the stuff on TV now adays. Sometimes we learn what we are doing right and try to apply some of his rules. Some of them we don't agree on anyway. Mostly things that don't bother us any way. The thing my DH really hates the dogs to do is bark. Drives him crazy. N

[mbc1963]

I've had my say about Cesar... but I do have something to add about the "alpha roll."

 

Most people here know my dog's story: he was a street dog in Puerto Rico for 18 month to 2 years before he came home. He had a lot of "feral dog" behavior early on: if I fed him something in public, he constantly looked around to see if another dog was coming near. He'd actually eat (publicly) with his tail between his legs. He was very food possessive and protective, and I still have to watch that tendency in him.

 

He absolutely has a different set of doggie manners from most of the dogs around here, who weren't raised with large groups of other dogs. He can read a dog's posture from 50 yards. He'll make a large, curved approach to avoid interacting with a dog he feels is in any way threatening or dominant over him. He spends a lot of time on walks pretending he's sniffing reeeeeally interesting plants to avoid having a face-to-face confrontation wtih a potentially tough dog. Whatever his early life, it taught him that avoiding conflict is the safest route to self-protection.

 

BUT, he is hypersensitive to body language when he has to interact with a new dog, and he's completely savvy in how to express displeasure to another dog. (He's got way too quick a trigger; is reactive in general.) A head or muzzle that even comes close to going over his back is not acceptable and leads to snarling and snapping to drive the other dog off. He can learn to play with dogs who act this way, but he has to "teach them" first that he will not be humped in any form. Only when he's had a few snappish interactions and the other dog has learned his boundaries will he relax. Sometimes, the posturing dogs fight back; hence, my keeping Buddy leashed when we meet new dogs most of the time.

 

I've seen a couple instances where dogs crossed Buddy's line in the sand and exhibited "unacceptable behavior." I will tell you that he DOES alpha roll. Or, maybe, he allows the offending dog to roll over while he chews the dog out. (I'm pretty sure Buddy isn't makign the dogs roll, and I'm really certain he isn't grabbing them by their necks to do it.)

 

It just happened a couple months ago, when a cattle dog mix tried to bump past him on a narrow trail in the snow. (I think treats were involved, too.) The two dogs had just finished playing like ridiculous puppies, and I figured we were OK. But when she tried to pass us, Buddy had her rolled over within seconds, and stood over her, staring into her eyes while he growled. Because he was in perfect control and I didn't want to aggravate the situation, I just let him finish. He must have stood there for 20 seconds or so, just GLARING at this dog while she submitted with all her will. You could almost hear the dog language coming out of his mouth: "Don't you DARE start that with me again! You stay BEHIND me, you hear! Who do you think you ARE!?"

 

When he was done, he just stepped away and the other dog came out unscathed. It was an interesting demonstration; I've never been in a situation before where it was safer to just let Buddy dominate for a few minutes rather than break up a snarky fight between two dogs. What most struck me was the eye contact: Buddy will typically do anything to avoid staring into another dog's eyes. If another dog stares into his eyes as we pass on a trail, he reads it very clearly as dominance, and gets tense and growly. (He prefers the very indirect meeting, with no face-to-face contact until peaceful coexistence has been established.) In this situation, he very clearly chose to look this dog dead in the eyes for a long, uninterrupted stretch - which he obviously understood as being part of the dominance piece he happened to be exhibiting at the moment.

 

The whole thing very much reminded me of watching two guys square off: when the clearly dominant guy gets the other one backed up into a corner, and maybe does some finger-pointing and blowing off steam while the other one tries to pacify him because he doesn't want a fight.

 

Anyway... just an interesting note about the whole "roll" thing. Mind you, I would never try to roll a dog over: Buddy knows what he's doing, and I don't.

 

Mary

[Ooky]

Good article. But I believe that the studies only show those results because of the amount of people who missuse firm discipline. Of course doing it the wrong way will produce an agressive dog who is likely to lash out. So, while my opinions are that his methods work, at the same time i do not think they are for everyone, because most who will try his methods will do it the wrong way, too firm, in anger, or not matching the firmness with calmness and compensating with the correct positive rienforcement.

 

Just like I believe a bad child should be spanked, I believe they should never ever be spanked in anger. The purpose should be clearly layed out in a calm and informative matter before hand. A dog should never be disciplined in anger, and if you do it right, with the right body languge etc, the purpose will be explained to the dog in their own language.

 

I was thinking about this a lot too (in addition to our other thread on Respect this week). There are two ways to use the word discipline - one essentially meaning an act of punishment (or a system of when these acts get meted out), the other describing a state of mind: "They took a disciplined approach to learning." I believe Cesar means both, and probably you do too. However, I've found that by rarely using the first type, and never during training, I don't jeopardize my ability to achieve the second type of discipline with my dog. In fact, it was the opposite in my case.

 

I like Cesar - as a TV personality. I believe he does know how to read dogs so well and that his methods do work for him (I have no way to actually know this, as all I have is public relations and TV-type knowledge of the man's methods and results to go on). And some of what he says really would benefit any Joe Schmoe dog owner - like the importance of exercise and taking responsibility, effort, and time to put into you and your dogs' relationship BEYOND cuddling when the person feels like it. But, using discipline (as in acts of punishment) as a frequent and primary training tool probably ISN'T something Joe Schmoe can be expected to utilize well (as the studies prove), because it involves things like timing, talent, consistency, moderation, a truly calm and confident attitude on the part of the owner, etc. - all the stuff you said about people doing it the "wrong way". I suppose *any* dog training approach requires some or all of the above, but I really do believe the bar is raised much higher in needing ALL of those difficult things, at once, and all the time, with a "firm discipline"-heavy approach.

 

Take using the neck pinch as a primary tool for shaping behavior vs. using clicker training. If I mess up with my timing or consistency with the clicker while training my dog, it may cause a bit of confusion leading to a longer time needed to really grasp the concept, but overall I've found it to be not a big deal. It doesn't affect my dog's attitude, and a mistake on my part in that instance doesn't erode either our relationship OR his sense of discipline - as in his state of mind. However, using frequent, even minor acts of discipline such as leash pops did erode these things when I tried them after watching a lot of Cesar and reading several books that advocate that general school of training. One, when I messed up while correcting, by messing up timing or consistency (when IS that EXACT moment where they start pulling? - I certainly wasn't always hitting it and not for lack of trying really hard) it caused more confusion and did not lead to a disciplined state of mind. That certainly didn't help build the strength of our relationship on either of our sides at all and was a slow drain on the strength of our relationship, pack structure, respect, whatever you want to call it. And here I am spending hours with my dog every day devoted to his socialization, exercise, training - I'm sorry but I think I'm enough of a hatchling "crazy dog lady" to be right in thinking that most Joe Schmoes are not going to try as hard as I did to "do it the right way."

 

I tried to explain this using an example with people in the other thread on respect, and I know dogs are not people. But the concept is the same: using "discipline" like Cesar does - i.e. minor to major corrections as one of your primary tools of behavior training and modification, did NOT work for me or my dog because it got us in a downward spiraling loop. I would pop the leash (I'm using this example b/c it's the main Cesar technique I tried), Odin's ears would go back, and it would have absolutely no effect on his pulling. So I'd pop it again, and he'd feel even less inclined to work with me and instead he would just try to ignore these nagging pops and do his own thing - pulling the leash even harder or jumping, or whatever. I would start out calm, but my own calm wouldn't last because the method wasn't WORKING. I would think of Cesar saying to all those owners, "your dog doesn't respect you - you're not the LEADER", and feel pretty crappy about the whole thing. It was easy for me to assume that Odin had no respect for my leadership, dominance, whatever. But all it really was was that he had no idea what I wanted and didn't understand why I kept squeezing his neck. It was a vicious cycle that wasn't helping either of us get what we wanted or needed, and a disciplined state of mind was the last thing on earth that was occurring.

 

Enter in C/T heelwork training based entirely on positive reinforcement. BAM. Instant success in that the behaviors started to improve immediately, and walks were instantly more enjoyable for both of us. And I only took the clicker on walks for a couple weeks. We now have an obedience heel on command, and also a very nice relaxed loose leash walk, and also a crazy grab the leash in your mouth and lets have some fun together! Any of these when I ask, the instant I ask, and he truly enjoys it. I think recalls are also a good example. Ours was taught based on positive reinforcement. That really is a good test of a "dominance" over your dog, or anyone really. If a dog or person will drop everything and come shooting over in an instant at your command no matter what they are doing, who is in charge? Yeah, you are! But Odin comes to me with the biggest doggie smile, and I don't need anything but myself to make this happen even though initially we used treats. Our formal, positive reinforcement training sessions, especially with the clicker, bring out his disciplined nature beautifully, leave us both happy with ourselves and each other, and reinforce that relationship in other settings.

 

I just really fail to see how zzzzting your dog's neck will end up achieving that for a large proportion of your average Joe Schmoe-Fido combos. I do start stockwork training soon (yay!) and will not be using a clicker for that, obviously. We will see how that goes and how my opinions on the matter evolve, as I'm sure they will!

[Northof49]

Also, to Northof49, you said "Is is well noted among those that have studied both wild and captive wolk packs that "captive wolf packs" and wolf hybrids "packs" are not represntational of wild wolf pack interactions"

There was only one hybrid in the bunch here. The rest of them were full wolves, born and raised in the wild, who happened to stumble upon ignorant humans, get trapped or captured or injured to near death, and then discovered by someone with a good heart who brought them to the sanctuary for rehabilitation.

 

You have a captive wolf pack comprising of a bunch of wolves from different wild wolf family units that are living together in an enclosure, regardless how large your enclosure is. They are not representative of a wild wolf pack. Your situation is the same one which was studied years ago and gave rise to the alpha roll theory which was later proven to be wrong. If you read through the entire document that I provided you will see the differences between wolves in capivity and wolves in the wild. Like one biologist pointed out, determining how wolves actually live by studying wolves in captivity is like determining what a specific human population is like by studying them in a refugee camp - his words not mine.