I'd have to see that actual clip to make a call. I've watched his show quite a bit recently and not once have I seen him go overboard.

 

Well, I saw it and I wouldn't ever want him to grab my dog like that, swing him through the air onto the concrete floor and hold him there menacingly. I thought he was quite reasonable. Not any more.

 

I am sure I would have felt the same way you do minpins, because we are more into the gentle calm stuff. However as long as his temper was in control and he didnt hurt the little guy it more than likely was just something that looked rough but was ok.

I trust him with his dogs as I do Victoria, and honestly I have yet to find a person close to me that I would let correct my dogs.

I called one women that was recommanded to me and asked her how she trains, she uses force and choke chains and she went over how I should dominate my puppy. She said I had to hold him on the floor till he gave in, no matter how long it took.

Sai was 9 weeks then, and I asked if it was ok to do with a puppy and she was all yes. I did what she said till I cried. Sai never submitted to me in fact he got worse during the holding him down episode and the whole situation got loud and he and I were both upset. I have never seen him attack my hand or react so horrifyied that way before.

I learned that she was wrong to have me try that on my PUPPY, adult dogs are different. And Sai does not dominate me and I never tried that horrible way on him. I might when he is older and needs it but not as a puppy.

It was like spanking a one year old baby with a belt....Too much extreme for the wrong age ya know!

Some people are too rough and dumb and I do not agree with their methods...like that women on the phone gerrrr

But Ceaser, well he seems to have a way with dogs like no one I have ever seen. But if he does that too rough again we will write him a letter wont we

 

theres a lot of conflicting views on ceasar milan on this forum. search some past threads about him and you'll see what people think about his methods.

 

Thanks, Snoppykins. I admit, I don't know much about the man and have watched only a couple of his shows but it really bothered me as the dog was so small and he almost threw it to the floor (I'm sure he didn't hurt the dog but still).

 

The biggest thing I think I have learned with dogs...and kids, take what I see works and that I am comfortable with and use it. Also I keep an open mind and will try new methods as long as they are not abusive.

I like Victoria because she has the best methods I have ever seen. And I like Ceaser because he helps me understand the behavior of the dog and why they act and feel a certain way.

 

Sure it was Cesar Milan and not that Brad guy from off of "End of my leash" ?? Now THAT guy goes overboard!!!!!

 

HONESTLY! I really can't stand him. He's so condescending to the owners and tries to be a therapist or some sort of relationship guru. He really needs to calm down and revise his training methods.

 

As far as tv trainers go.....I take what I like and leave the rest. I find it hard to believe that he scruffed the dog and slammed it onto concrete. Do you have a link so I can watch?

 

I'm not a Cesar fan in the least, but for the dogs that he deals with, sometimes the methods he uses are the best way for him to get through. He generally (it's gotten less and less as the seasons have progressed, from what I've seen) is dealing with MUCH more red-line dogs than people like Victoria Stillwell. Sometimes the methods he uses are as much for his own safety as they are for the purpose of training.

I don't really agree with it, but I can't condemn him for it either. Different cases require different methods. None of us have dogs that would be one of his red-line cases, so no we wouldn't ever want those methods used. If I owned a dog that fell into the type that he would treat using those methods? I might just let him, because I'm nowhere near the skill level it would take to rehabilitate these dogs, while he does it every day.

 

i love that you said this, and are not a cesar fan. i have tried many times to explain this to people who dont like him. yes for a dog that is of normal temperment and behavior, his methods CAN be extreme. but that is generaly not what he works with. Cesar has always claimed to be an expert on REHABILITATING dogs, not training them. his methods are aimed at fixing the dog who is about to be euthanized for attacking a baby (just an example). i wouldnt call cesar milan to come out and do obediance with my 3 month old puppy. but if my 3 year old lab mix started attacking other dogs and acting aggressive in general, then he might be the way to go. there are many different trainers for different things, and cesar works with certain types of dogs. I have said many time that i do not believe that Victora Stillwell could help some of the dogs cesar has worked with. Cesar has said himselfthat many dogshe works withwere deemed "dangerous" by other trainers and they all recommended putting them down. If cesar can save dogs like this and truly fix them, why are we judging him so harshly?

i also know what you are describing sounds awful, but i have seen other threads on many forums that say things like "i cant believe cesar did this to this dog", then i watch that episode and cant even find an instant where cesar is being abusive. i think a lot of it has to do with how you interpret his behavior. i work with dogs, and understand that sometimes you have to be hard on a dog. it is not all hugs and kisses. i find that a lot of people who are "animal lovers" (those who dont tend to understand that training aspect of dog ownership), just interpret his actions in a completely different way than they were intended to be. yes it may look like he is trying to hurt the dog, but i highly doubt that if i watch it, i will interpret it the same way.

EDIT: Curbside Prophet posted somelinks and i looked at them. to further prove my point of how people interpret cesar differently, i saw thee episode with Jonbee, and did not think that ANYTHING Cesar did was abusive.

 

Usually when Cesar does this, it is because the dog did something of the extreme, attacked his owner, attacked someone else, or attacked another dog, all behaviors that need to be nipped in the bud.

I do enjoy treat training for parlor tricks, but very much enjoy Cesar's veiw on actual dog psychology.

 

I do enjoy treat training for parlor tricks, but very much enjoy Cesar's veiw on actual dog psychology.

That's an interesting way to state an ignorance.

http://www.4pawsu.com/cesarfans.htm

http://www.4pawsu.com/dogpsychology.htm

 

What was the name of the dog and what kind of dog was it? I'll see if I can find a clip. The worse I've seen him do was grab a chow mix by the scruff of the neck and hold him down and that was right after the dog bit him and drew blood. He definitely didn't throw him

 

I am very cautious/skeptical of EVERY trainer/technique. It's a very personal thing to judge, and the debate will go on for many many years to come.

I've never been in a parlor or bar. ¿Is that why things like "shake" and "roll over" mean nothing to me?

 

While parlor tricks are mostly meaningless, for many dogs it is a huge boost. For instance, when I work with Priscilla in a new area, before I start teaching the "hard" stuff like heeling, long duration stays, etc.. I do a succession of easy tricks like sit, down, shake, wave, bow, stand, and so on. It gets her into the training, she gets high rate of reward, is focused on me completely, and is confident that she's doing the right thing.

That's why I teach parlor tricks, anyway.

 

The alpha roll is the most controversial part of Cesars method. Personally, I have only seen him do it on extreme cases...usually the dog bit someone or another dog and drew blood. He explains in his show and in great detail in his writing, that he only uses this in red zone cases and should NOT be used by novices. I have seen nearly every episode and its not like he does this every time, and each time he's done it for his own safety.

Did you see enough of the stroy to see what the dog did to deserve the consequence? Also, remember that you said later "I'm sure he didn't hurt the dog". If the dog wasn't hurt, and he kept the dog from hurting another person or another dog, would that set your mind at ease?

 

No, I didn't see the entire episode and I really am not worried about the dog. I just worry that people watching people like him will do things like that to their dogs when their dogs don't deserve it.

I probably didn't word things right. I'm terrible like that.

I'd honestly forgotten he only deals with hard cases so he probably was justified. I just have a new puppy and am probably a bit oversensitive to things I see.

I have watched his show a time or two and didn't really disagree STRONGLY with anything he did.

I'm glad some of you reminded me of what he does and why. I do hope, though, that people watching his show don't think it's okay to train your dogs and puppies like that. That's all.

I've never seen Victoria Stillwell's show. When is it on? What network? I've never heard of her actually.

 

The other thing to realize is that yes, you CAN help aggressive dogs with strictly positive methods. McConnell, among others, does this every day. The problem is that it takes a lot of time and (here's the real key to it) it doesn't make for good television. When Cesar gets bit, and holds the dog down for a moment while things get under control, it's really exciting. When McConnell clicker trains a dog to have self control in the presence of stimuli, honestly that's quite boring.

I'm grossly simplifying it all, but that's really it in a nutshell.

 

I agree with what another poster said, but I actually do like Cesar Milan. I agree that some of his techniques are a bit harsh... but for the most part, the dogs he is needing to rehabilitate NEED that kind of training and treatment to snap out of it. Just assuming... That little dog was probably one of those little psycho barkers, snappers, and biters that freak when someone picks it up... so I would say there is nothing wrong with what he did.

But of course, I dont know if that is what happened... I would need to see the clip.

I admire both him and Victoria, both of them have techniques that work. But I use my own techniques and positive reinforcement when I train... why? because that is what I have learned best and what has worked for me. Sometimes it does not work for everyone.
Nessa

 

I've watched most of Cesar's episodes and have never seen him do anything that would physically hurt a dog. Not even close.

The dogs he flips over are usually mature dogs with serious aggression problems. Maybe some people think they can cure that by offering tidbits or clicks, but I think Cesar's approach is more primal, more dog-like, more direct, more effective. Cannot compare to normal 'dog-training'.

We live in an incredibly soft world when so many people panic at the thought of someone being physical with a dog. Dogs (aside maybe from some foo foo breeds I have no experience with) are tough; they can handle it physically and psychologically.

I'm all for Cesar 100%.

 

You've got one thing right, at least. Dogs ARE tough, and it's amazing they have put up with us this long.

I've trained what I'd guess Cesar would call a red-zone dog using positive reinforcement. The difference between my methods and his would be that he would have you believe his methods take 2 weeks. Mine took 6 months.

I recall a episode where he took in a pit bull, made it part of his "pack" and in his rehab facility for 2 weeks, and said the dog made a turnaround. He said it still needed some work, but in that same episode it got in a serious fight after those two weeks. The reality is, even using his methods, you're not going to turn a "red-zone" dog around in any less time than someone using positive reinforcement.

I remember another member here disagreeing with me, having used punishment to make his dog get along with cats. I felt it was harsh and unneccessary, but evidently it took him only about two to four weeks to stop his dog from going after the cat. I thought it took me about 6 months with positive reinforcement.

The caveat however, was it took many more months after that for the dog to get along with the cat, and actually enjoy the cat's company. So it didn't take just a month, it took just as long to get to where my dog was with the cat using positive reinforcement.

So yeah, I'm a pretty firm believer in positive reinforcement. It takes a long time, and doesn't make for good TV. It's easier to punish the dog so that it's afraid to attack another dog when you are around. But that's not curing the problem.

 

The difference between my methods and his would be that he would have you believe his methods take 2 weeks. Mine took 6 months.

Cesar repeatedly states that the owners have to take the responsiblity to continue with what he has taught them in how to deal with their dogs. At the end of his sessions with the dogs & owners, he says that his job is done, now it is up to the owners to be consistent with what he's taught them. He tells them that the dog will regress if the owner does not continue with teaching the dog. It's not Cesar's fault if the owners get lazy or slack off thinking their dog is "cured".

smileypits: I do think that although there is a warning in the beginning of the show about trained professionals, it should be stated more often that ONLY trained professionals should do it.

Actually, when he is dealing with a "red-zone" case the warning is repeatedly flashed on the screen.

So yeah, I'm a pretty firm believer in positive reinforcement. It's easier to punish the dog so that it's afraid to attack another dog when you are around. But that's not curing the problem.

IMO, it sounds like you have "punishment" confused with "correction". Cesar does not use punishment and his intention is not to instill fear. Cesar's methods teach the dog to understand his place and role in the family/pack, who is the leader, and the rules of the home. I have never seen anything he's done to be anything I would call "punishment". He's teaching the dog through correcting the negative behavior that it is wrong to attack another dog. And to get the dog's attention when it's fixating on the dog it wants to attack, he taps it on the butt with his foot, or tugs to the side with the leash. I believe positive reinforcement is very important and highly useful, especially with puppies, but it will not apply in every situation with adult dogs.

Yes, dogs aren't people, but I don't think we can say they are absent of emotion. In fact, you'd be overlooking one of the crucial models of learning if you did.

I don't think smileypits said they were "absent" of emotion. I believe smileypits said dogs don't have "people" emotions, which is the truth.

 

I enjoy watching him because 1) there are lots of pit bulls and 2) he doesnt sidestep ignorant owners and 3) Overall, he's teaching people the right things.

Dogs are dogs. They aren't people, they dont' have people emotions and they actually LIKE to be 2nd in command or 3rd, 4th..... I like that he doesn't sidestep around this.

His training methods are for advanced knowledgable people only. For a regular person to watch his show and see him do an alpha roll - it's absolutley HORRIBLE but to someone who understands why/why not and how to do it safely and calmly - it's a great tool when things get REALLy out of control. I do think that although there is a warning in the beginning of the show about trained professionals, it should be stated more often that ONLY trained professionals should do it. People can put themselves in VERY serious positions with an true Alpha dog in their house trying to roll them over. I once heard of a lady with 2 german shepherds, they got into a fight and she alpha rolled one of them. The 2nd one jumped her in an attack. She ended up pleading for help from her 2nd floor bathroom because they were outside the door. If you start an alpha roll, you better KNOW how to do it and KNOW how to do it correctly...... so no I don't agree with him doing it on national tv so that everyone can see just "how easy" it is. Also - if this technique is used inappropriately, it can harm your dog and harm your relationship. Only a trained professional would KNOW the correct times and the correct level needed to do such a thing.

Victoria still uses dominance in her training methods. Her firm posture and hands on the hips is -usually- enough for most dogs that she has on her show. She also uses a slightly more positive method of making the dog submit (lay down) which is close to the same thing that Ceaser does, just not hands on and also the dog isn't near "red zone".

I could go on and on - talking about trainers is a common thing that my friends and I have talked about at length...... lol

 

They aren't people, they dont' have people emotions and they actually LIKE to be 2nd in command or 3rd, 4th..... I like that he doesn't sidestep around this.

Yes, dogs aren't people, but I don't think we can say they are absent of emotion. In fact, you'd be overlooking one of the crucial models of learning if you did.

As far as my dog is concerned, she likes to be #1. She's first to sit at the door when it's time for a walk. She's first to wait patiently before exiting the door, and she's first to engage in eye contact to elicit my cue. What I'm saying is, hierarchy's are great for telling stories, but they have no practicality when you're actually seeking to train appropriate behavior.

Victoria still uses dominance in her training methods. Her firm posture and hands on the hips is -usually- enough for most dogs that she has on her show. She also uses a slightly more positive method of making the dog submit (lay down) which is close to the same thing that Ceaser does, just not hands on and also the dog isn't near "red zone".

Dominance is not posturing. Dominance is not getting a dog to follow a cue. Dominance is the winning of a resource in a given context. We both want the last slice of pizza, I take it, you want it but let me eat it, I'm dominant. I love pizza, you hate it, I take the last piece and eat it, am I dominant? No. Nothing was contested. The best dog trainers train for no contests...both parties should win. Dominance is only a label for the winner in a contest, it is not a description of actual behavior.

The reason "authoritative" posturing is so useful is that it freezes all other body language which may elicit the behavior you're trying to change. By being "calm" and "assertive" you're effectively eliminating problematic antecedents of the behavior.

 

Well, I'm totally comfortable with the relationship I have with my "pack". My guess would be they are comfortable with me as well (and the cats). I'm not out trying to judge parlor tricks for anyone else's dog, but I only train the things I will use. Now i will politely bow out of this discussion as the forum is super serial as of late. Lighten up folks...

I have as much a problem with Cesar as I do Victoria. Meh. Once you've met one trainer discussing another, you've met them all.

 

Why do you watch it if you don't like his methods? Just so you can see what others are talking about?

 

I don't have cable, so I can't watch it often, but I would imagine that from a logical standpoint, it makes you a better trainer to be as well versed in the methods of as many trainers as possible. Every time you see someone working on a dog, whether you enjoy their methods or not, you can learn something.

The biggest thing that I enjoy about Cesar? His timing. He has absolutely phenomenal timing and response to dogs. He can be talking to the owners, full eye contact, seemingly ignoring the dog and the instant it acts out, he is on top of it. Many times I've sat watching the dog and just the dog, and missed out on the cues he picks up.

What he does after those cues, I will leave to him, but I learn from his timing every time I get to watch his show.

 

RE: Trumpetjack: Makes sense to me

 

I disagree. Her posture is purposily telling that dog "You better behave Mister or Else!" just like Ceaser. Shoot - she even says those words^^ as she stands that way in front of the dog. The dogs are lower key and so her level of "dominance" is lower key as well.

I almost missed the sarcasm of the last quote. So essentially you are saying that you allow your dog to be #1 in order to see her true personality? I just want to be clear.

 

I disagree. Her posture is purposily telling that dog "You better behave Mister or Else!" just like Ceaser. Shoot - she even says those words^^ as she stands that way in front of the dog. The dogs are lower key and so her level of "dominance" is lower key as well.

You do understand that VS studied in drama before becoming a dog trainer, right? You do understand that being dramatic sells, right? In fact, I believe the original title of the show was suppose to be "Doggy Dominatrix", but was changed for fear of the backlash. The show is meant to promote learning theory by luring in people to the whole dominance theme that follows DW's show. That's why she dresses the way she does, that's why the show is titled the way it is, but don't fall when the rug is pulled from under you.

Regardless, I've never heard her use the word dominance, and if to communicate to an owner how to eliminate problematic antecedents is to say such things, well, then that's what you do. This does not mean dominance exists of it being employed.

So essentially you are saying that you allow your dog to be #1 in order to see her true personality? I just want to be clear.

No, what I'm saying is that I've taught my dog which behaviors are preferential. If I take the time to see the world through her eyes, she's gaining all her preferences (they happen to be mine too), why should I care who's 1, 2, or omega? It's a silly construct is what I'm actually saying.

 

Hmm yea... just saw that. Are you saying we're all ignorant Curb?

I'm just asking... I'm giving ya the benefit of the doubt because I actually do really respect you and your opinions and advice . But I truly do not think I am ignorant for liking to see Milan use his techniques.
Nessa

 

Anytime someone's opinion differs with their own, they are often labeled as rude. I can't worry about that.

I don't think it was having a different opinion that was labeled as 'rude'...I think it was your use of the word 'ignorant'. Ironically, when I first read that, I felt (like others here) you called someone 'ignorant' because someone's opinion differed from yours.

 

I didn't call anyone ignorant. The idea that learning theory is only useful to teach "parlor tricks" and does not use "actual" laws of 'dog' psychology, is ignorant. Had I called K9 an idiot (I don't believe this at all), then yes, I meant to be offensive. I did not/would not do that.

To this moment I am not sure what exactly is bothering you besides the fact that I believe in a different training method than you.

See above.

Are you referring to the name parlor tricks? I find this kind of funny, because it sparked an argument when actually it's just what I call the 'cutesy tricks' that my dog does. Such as "up, rollover, be shy, drop dead, act wounded". These are all tricks that are shown for fun...are they not? These are tricks, not in the same category as a dogs behavior....

I took exception to your implication. But no, dogs have no concept of tricks. What we call tricks is actual dog behavior, no different than aggressive behavior, or fearful behavior, or other behavior owners find problematic and want to modify.

 

On another note.. everybody...

I am interested in knowing people's opinions of Cesar's "pack"...

Is it helpful? Harmful? Is it a good way for dogs to learn to become social, or is it just another example of his flooding techniques?

 

I don't think your going to get a responce for this either without conflicting veiws....

 

I didn't call anyone ignorant. The idea that learning theory is only useful to teach "parlor tricks" and does not use "actual" laws of 'dog' psychology, is ignorant. Had I called K9 an idiot (I don't believe this at all), then yes, I meant to be offensive. I did not/would not do that.

So there is a difference between calling someone ignorant and calling someone's ideas ignorant? Personally, I think it would be hard to use the term ignorant without it coming across as rude, but that is just me. Perhaps in 10 years of being a teacher, it has been drilled into my brain that delivery is everything. There is a difference between "that idea is ignorant" and "I think that idea is incorrect and here is some evidence that shaped my opinion".

 

So there is a difference between calling someone ignorant and calling someone's ideas ignorant?

IMO, yes.

Personally, I think it would be hard to use the term ignorant without it coming across as rude, but that is just me.

Why? K9 said herself she was ignorant about math. We're all ignorant about something, what's the harm is stating an absence of knowledge exists? As a teacher I would think you'd see this as an opportunity to fill the void. I thought my links filled that void.

There is a difference between "that idea is ignorant" and "I think that idea is incorrect and here is some evidence that shaped my opinion".

Well, you're saying that the person is wrong. I find this slightly more offensive than saying an idea was stated without knowledge of what it actually is. But that's just me.