[TxRider]

I read a very interesting piece by a human body language expert about Cesar and watching his movement and body language both with dogs and with owners.

Was interesting reading for sure.

Anyway, like I said the most I get out of any TV dog shows is the entertainment value I get from watching my dog react to the dog sounds on TV...

I think CM and VS both do far more good than harm.

[Westhighlander]

Originally Posted by Cracker

There is also an interesting blog entry on Lee Charles Kelly's blog about Cesar's body language being like a predator (which is used in natural dog training..it's a predator/prey drive thing). It's interesting, regardless of your inclinations in training methods.

Lee Charles Kelly has some unusual training methods and has a huge chip on his shoulder. He's always fighting with Andrea Arden on urbanhound.com http://www.urbanhound.com/default.asp. Andrea on the other hand is great, I went to her classes with my puppy. I think she's better than VS. Like CM, Andrea is another case where she did a lot of work with shelter/rescue dogs which led to her own show now. http://animal.discovery.com/tv/under...rea-arden.html

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

If it can prove effective there wouldn't be a need for alternate strategies. Adult dogs are equipped with the same learning tools as puppies. Proven ineffective, yes, we need to try something else or alter our expectations.

The need is because I have to manage exits now, with a big strong dog that desires to kill neighbors pets, not a pup that is much more manageable.

A bomb proof sit takes time, as does a bomb proof recall. Meanwhile I have to go outside several times a day including walks.

If an alternate strategy can work just as well and just as humanely with results now not depending on dependencies of training other things first I have no problem using it. There is no one and only "right" way in my book.

LOL, right now she's demanding in no uncertain terms, in her own very submissive, affectionate and ever so indirect manner that it's time to go walk a few miles and will be physically pushing my arms away from the keyboard and getting very direct about it soon if I don't comply... Gotta love dogs..

[peppy264]

Originally Posted by Cracker

So yes, it can work, yes it can be effective and YES it CAN do harm if not applied correctly. And for those of you who say you have great relationships with your dogs even with using P+ then that is simply the blessing of dogs and their ability in many cases to forgive their owners...says a LOT about dogs and their emotional capacity for love.

Well I think it does tell you that dogs do accept reasonable corrections (physical and verbal) without holding a grudge (something you see in dog on dog communication all the time). Its not a question of forgiveness, which is a human trait. Dogs use P+, as you say, with each other. Its simple, direct communication. Dogs expect it and accept it. It does nothing to hurt the relationship; in fact it reinforces the leader - follower relationship you want with your dog.

Equating P+ with abuse goes too far. Can it be? Yes. Is their potential for harm? Yes. Will a reasonable dog loving person harm their dog using P+ in a reasonable manner (in addition to positive re-enforcement, which virtually everyone uses)? No. You have to be aware of your dog. If it is fearful, an entirely different approach may be needed. Average dog is not going to be harmed by a stare, a 'No', or even one of CM's famous little pokes. If you are so out of touch with your dog that you are going to harm him using P+, then you are probably a hopeless case whatever method you use.

As far as which method is "best", I don't really care - I expect it depends on the handler and the dog. But the important thing to me, is that the dog gets disciplined and trained by SOME method, and does not wind up at the pound. As such, broadcasting CM's messages (most of which I think you support - ie exercise, etc) to millions every week is an overwhelmingly positive thing.

By the way, I think Cracker's posts are amongst the best of DF.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by hulkamaniac

You can have incorrect theory and yet get the result you want. At the same time you can have a correct theory and incorrect methodology and not get the result you want.

The problem with this logic is, when the results are not what you want, you at least have some ground to stand on when modifying your means and methods with sound theory. The same can't be said of incorrect theory, or correctly stated...incorrect hypothesis.

Originally Posted by peppy264

If you are so out of touch with your dog that you are going to harm him using P+, then you are probably a hopeless case whatever method you use.

That's quite assumptive. Some are so opposed to this statement that they don't need P+ to be an effective handler with any type/kind of dog. I've experienced this first hand. If this isn't a goal, even for CM inc., we aren't interested in being humane.

Originally Posted by peppy264

By the way, I think Cracker's posts are amongst the best of DF.

At least we have some common ground.

[hulkamaniac]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

The problem with this logic is, when the results are not what you want, you at least have some ground to stand on when modifying your means and methods with sound theory. The same can't be said of incorrect theory, or correctly stated...incorrect hypothesis.

I don't disagree with that. My problem is with people who make the argument that since Cesar's underlying theories are incorrect that every single one of his methods and techniques are also incorrect. That's just not the case at all.

[FourIsCompany]

Originally Posted by Cracker

I personally think an air horn used on a dog, with it's extremely sensitive hearing is TOO aversive.

I agree. I don't believe in shocking (startling) my dog in any way. I don't use noise aversion, although I know people who do and I don't have a problem with it. But something that scares or hurts the dog's ears is too far for me. I use MILD aversives.

Hey we're the ones with the opposable thumbs and the bigger brains!

One of the things that stuck in my mind when I was preparing for my first puppies years ago was "You have to be smarter than the dog". And I still aim for that to this day. LOL Whenever something is happening that I don't want to happen, I go into observation and analysis mode to figure out how I can use the advantage of my brain to change things.

Originally Posted by Westhighlander

Lee Charles Kelly has some unusual training methods and has a huge chip on his shoulder. He's always fighting with Andrea Arden on urbanhound.com

I've done my share of arguing with him, too, but I like him quite a bit (I must have missed the chip) and I've gotten a lot out of reading his and Sattin's blogs. As with Cesar, I certainly don't agree with everything he says and thinks.

[Westhighlander]

Originally Posted by FourIsCompany

I've done my share of arguing with him, too, but I like him quite a bit (I must have missed the chip) and I've gotten a lot out of reading his and Sattin's blogs. As with Cesar, I certainly don't agree with everything he says and thinks.

Actually, he's usually the one arguing. Andrea just ignores him. I think he's just jealous of her.

As for the chip, he's always trying to point out why the other trainers are wrong and he's right.

[hulkamaniac]

Originally Posted by Westhighlander

Actually, he's usually the one arguing. Andrea just ignores him. I think he's just jealous of her.

As for the chip, he's always trying to point out why the other trainers are wrong and he's right.

Cesar has said before that the one thing two dog trainers will always agree on is that a third dog trainer is wrong.

[FourIsCompany]

Originally Posted by Westhighlander

As for the chip, he's always trying to point out why the other trainers are wrong and he's right.

I guess a few of us around here have chips on our shoulders, then, eh? LOL I do understand what you're saying. He has very strong opinions and is sure he's right. I never had a problem with him, though. I actually love debate, as long as there are no personal attacks and he never did that. I'll have to go look at the link you posted, I don't know who Andrea is.

Originally Posted by hulkamaniac

Cesar has said before that the one thing two dog trainers will always agree on is that a third dog trainer is wrong.

Cesar has said that, but again, he's not the first to say it. It's an old saying among dog trainers.

[Corteo]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

I don't follow your point. It's human nature to cause no harm to our companion animals. Do you disagree?

I agree with you completely. I'm saying, that our dogs should not be treated like humans. So humanity is the wrong word to use. I'm not saying that we need to hit dogs with lead pipes, etc, but our relationship is different than with humans.

I would say it is like this: Dog training is a lot like child discipline. There is a camp that says, that you should be the child's equal (clicker). and there is the camp that says that "spare the rod, spoil the child"(CM, Prong collars, choke collars, shock collars, etc). I say that group 2 is fine as long as you don't over to it. Spanking, can easily turn into abuse. But it is fine, when used correctly.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Corteo

I agree with you completely. I saying, that or dogs should not be treated like humans. So humanity is the wrong word to use. I'm not saying that we need to hit dogs with lead pipes, etc, but our relationship is different than with humans.

We can only be human...humanity *is* the right word. Being humane, treating animals as the animal they are *is* the definition of humanity.

I would say it is like this: Dog training is a lot like child discipline. There is a camp that says, that you should be the child's equal (clicker). and there is the camp that says that "spare the rod, spoil the child"(CM, Prong collars, choke collars, shock collars, etc). I say that group 2 is fine as long as you don't over to it. Spanking, can easily turn into abuse. But it is fine, when used correctly.

Your camp perspective is one, overly simplistic version IMO. Some may feel this way but I see it much different than that, and it has nothing to do with equating dogs to children, being anthropomorphic, or humanity being the wrong word.

Camp one wants to control what can be controlled, antecedents and consequences (OC trainers). Camp two wants to control the dog (dominance theorists).

You can systematically, without emotion, justify the aversions you speak of in camp one...OC trainers can and have justified the use of a prong (me included); by quantifying behavior and adhering to a common sense principle of weighing intrusiveness (from least to most) and its effect. Camp two has no means of doing that - it's not about the application of sound theory, it's the dog's fault. These are the two camps I see.

IMO camp one is in a much better position then camp two in terms of demonstrating humanity; simply because learning theory is founded on verifiable/usable laws.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by FourIsCompany

Cesar has said that, but again, he's not the first to say it. It's an old saying among dog trainers.

What I find funny is the schools of thought if you will, about how a dog thinks and learns in regards to training.

I read several different schools of though about it, and several of them though they have different philosophies about how the dog learns and thinks, and what a dog's mind is capable of they still in the end use the same basic principles for their techniques they just rationalize why it works differently.

The big argument always seem to stem from an almost fundamentalist religious type zealotry about how a dog thinks and learns.

And each also seems to always misrepresent the facts about the others philosophy. Either they don't understand it, or intentionally misrepresent it to argue that it is wrong.

CLK for example states many things about dogs and wolves as fact that are just not true, and his theory about how dogs learn and think is a bunch of hooey for the most part. It's just his way of rationalizing the same thing others do in a different way.

It works for him and some others agree so it must be right. He selectively chooses some science to reinforce his point of view, and discards what doesn't.

Like the bible, you can find rationalization and justification for almost anything. People have and will forever it seems.

The techniques he recommends work regardless, and can be explained as to how and why they work through several theories of how dogs think and learn. Examples I see him give of why another school of thought doesn't work are generally misrepresentation of that school of thought.

It's just a human condition we are all prone to. It's the ones who don't recognize this in themselves, and are quite forceful in their pushing of their philosophy on others that scare me.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Camp two has no means of doing that - it's not about the application of sound theory, it's the dog's fault.

Speaking of an overly simplistic version...

Just because you don't see a sound theory or understand one doesn't mean there isn't one.

In my experience I tend to see camp 2 consistently saying it's -always- the owner's fault, not the dog. If you put CM in camp 2 certainly CM says it in every single case, no exceptions.

"I rehabilitate dogs, I train people" is his calling card.

Both camps seek to communicate and interact with the animal in such a way as to condition the animal to willingly respond to future requests for behavior. They just rationalize how to do so, and how it works in the dogs mind differently from each other.

And for the most part the same principles and methods are used to get there at the root of it.

[Corteo]

In my experience I tend to see camp 2 consistently saying it's -always- the owner's fault, not the dog. If you put CM in camp 2 certainly CM says it in every single case, no exceptions.

I agree completely

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by Corteo

I agree completely

I mean take NILIF for example. It's simply making sure to religiously exert overt dominance in every aspect of the dogs life for every resource you allow.

Nothing in life is free means the dog must do something for me, submit to my dominance and my will, for anything it gets.

Submit to my dominance or I exert it and you get nothing.. No food, no play, no affection... nothing, until you submit to my will and do as I ask.

OC can be rationalized the same way. I have the resource you desire, but you cannot have it unless you do as I want. You are the dominant half of that equation, exerting your dominance and requiring the dog comply to gain the resource.

In shaping you even make the poor dog have to experiment to figure out what your will actually is. Which is good in that the dog learns a process it can reliably use to figure out what that will is that it must submit to in a way seems to be natural for the dog and that it can understand.

Of course this can be rationalized differently, and surely some will take offense at this rationalization. In the end whatever theory helps the human process, rationalize and make decisions on how to humanely communicate desires and conditioning to the dog and get results is all that matters.

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

but its not ALWAYS the owner's fault.

sometimes there are neurological conditions involved.

somethimes the conditions are physiological, genetic etc.

behavior is a response to environment.

humans are not the only environmental factor.

[hulkamaniac]

Originally Posted by zimandtakandgrrandmimi

but its not ALWAYS the owner's fault.

sometimes there are neurological conditions involved.

somethimes the conditions are physiological, genetic etc.

behavior is a response to environment.

humans are not the only environmental factor.

Those are the exceptions and not the rule though. If I have a dog who is running around peeing on everything in the house, what is more likely - a UTI or an unhousebroken dog? The first should certainly be ruled out, but the second is far more likely. The first is no one's fault, the second is my fault and not the dog. No, humans are not the only environmental factor, but they are generally the only environmental constant.

We've all seen children that behave like angels when their parents are around and behave like hellions when they're not. (Some of us may have been those children. I certainly would not admit to it.) The variable then is the parents or in the case of a dog, it's the handler. My dog behaves in public the same way he behaves in my house because I'm around and I enforce my will on the dog. Whether I make my dog behave using dominance (convincing him that bad things will happen if he doesn't) or I use positive re-inforcement (convincing him that good things will happen if he does), as long as the dog behaves I don't see where we have an issue.

[Corteo]

Originally Posted by TxRider

I mean take NILIF for example. It's simply making sure to religiously exert overt dominance in every aspect of the dogs life for every resource you allow.

Nothing in life is free means the dog must do something for me, submit to my dominance and my will, for anything it gets.

Submit to my dominance or I exert it and you get nothing.. No food, no play, no affection... nothing, until you submit to my will and do as I ask.

OC can be rationalized the same way. I have the resource you desire, but you cannot have it unless you do as I want. You are the dominant half of that equation, exerting your dominance and requiring the dog comply to gain the resource.

In shaping you even make the poor dog have to experiment to figure out what your will actually is. Which is good in that the dog learns a process it can reliably use to figure out what that will is that it must submit to in a way seems to be natural for the dog and that it can understand.

Of course this can be rationalized differently, and surely some will take offense at this rationalization. In the end whatever theory helps the human process, rationalize and make decisions on how to humanely communicate desires and conditioning to the dog and get results is all that matters.

I know. You are right.

[TxRider]

Originally Posted by zimandtakandgrrandmimi

but its not ALWAYS the owner's fault.

sometimes there are neurological conditions involved.

somethimes the conditions are physiological, genetic etc.

behavior is a response to environment.

humans are not the only environmental factor.

Of course. You can't expect a dog missing a back leg to learn to stand up and beg.

Or in my case, it's not my fault Hope is how she is, she was 3yrs old when I got her. It is my fault how she will be 5 years from now though.

[zimandtakandgrrandmimi]

Originally Posted by hulkamaniac

Those are the exceptions and not the rule though. If I have a dog who is running around peeing on everything in the house, what is more likely - a UTI or an unhousebroken dog? The first should certainly be ruled out, but the second is far more likely. The first is no one's fault, the second is my fault and not the dog. No, humans are not the only environmental factor, but they are generally the only environmental constant.

We've all seen children that behave like angels when their parents are around and behave like hellions when they're not. (Some of us may have been those children. I certainly would not admit to it.) The variable then is the parents or in the case of a dog, it's the handler. My dog behaves in public the same way he behaves in my house because I'm around and I enforce my will on the dog. Whether I make my dog behave using dominance (convincing him that bad things will happen if he doesn't) or I use positive re-inforcement (convincing him that good things will happen if he does), as long as the dog behaves I don't see where we have an issue.

my point is that other factors do come into play that aren't directly related to the owner.

or controllable by the owner.

and those factors are not always health related either. that's just the most obvious example.

treating *all* behavior as *either* dominent or submissive tends to gloss this consideration over.

many times it can be both. it can be neither(according to any given definition of each)

case in point.

fear aggression. as a result of one's roomate spanking one's dog when one isn't home. this has nothing to do with the owner if there are no obvious signs given by the dog that the roomate is being physical with it.

very possible.

factors vary over such a wide range of circumstances its hard to pidgeonhole it as "owner's fault*