# "The Real Dog Wisperer"



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

We have so many new puppies on the board, and have also, recently, had a little disagreement on how puppies should be raised. I thought I'd post a link to this wonderful interview with Ian Dunbar On raising puppies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenst...-training-advice-from-the-real-dog-whisperer/


----------



## Rita Nelson (Jul 13, 2009)

Great article, Karen, thanks for posting.


----------



## Julie (Feb 8, 2007)

Ian Dunbar- a dog whisperer???? ound:

there are many good trainers and ideas out there for raising puppies.He is only one in a herd of them. I think people should take what they learn from many and apply it as need be. No single person has all the answers for evry dog.


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

Julie said:


> Ian Dunbar- a dog whisperer???? ound:
> 
> there are many good trainers and ideas out there for raising puppies.He is only one in a herd of them. I think people should take what they learn from many and apply it as need be. No single person has all the answers for evry dog.


That's true, and I certainly don't agree with every little thing Ian Dunbar says. That was just the name of the article. The point (to me) was that Cesar doesn't (or shouldn't) have the corner on this either.

Incidentally, don't even get me started on "The Horse Whisperer"(the man, not the book or movie)... A COMPLETE charlatan IMHO.


----------



## curly_DC (Nov 27, 2011)

I think Ian Dunbar and other highly respected dog behaviorists should stop worrying so much about Cesar Millan and his popularity. If the average American hasn't heard of Ian Dunbar, then maybe he should hire a public relations firm. Maybe Ian Dunbar is just too academic for the typical American pet owner to understand his methods. 

As for the pack leader, it's just an analogy. It's an analogy that is also used in business and yes, to describe men, like who is the "alpha dog"? Be the pack leader is easy to understand. It's like when Ian Dunbar says the dog needs more confidence. Well, so how do you give a dog more confidence, by being more confident yourself, ie. being the leader and not putting that responsibility on your dog.


----------



## clare (Feb 6, 2010)

Kindness,firmness,continuity and patience will win the day,a certain calmness also helps,plus basic common sense.


----------



## Carefulove (Mar 20, 2009)

Julie said:


> Ian Dunbar- a dog whisperer???? ound:
> 
> there are many good trainers and ideas out there for raising puppies.He is only one in a herd of them. I think people should take what they learn from many and apply it as need be. No single person has all the answers for evry dog.


Couldn't agree more with you.


----------



## atsilvers27 (Jul 5, 2011)

Carefulove said:


> Couldn't agree more with you.


Ditto. Each dog/owner is a unique relationship. I certainly wouldn't DARE tell someone else how to raise their kids. I think we all agree on basic common principals. I think it's also helpful to share any tips or success stories with each other, but everyone has to find their own path for themselves for what works best in their own situation.

Karen, PM me about the Horse Whisperer, I've read the book he wrote (not the book based on the movie) and have watched several documentaries on him. I am just curious about what your objections are, I was pretty sure he only uses body position, eye contact, and reward, and that the horse chooses to "join up" with him, but I could have missed something.


----------



## CarolWCamelo (Feb 15, 2012)

*trauma, us-learning, Camellia (VERY LONG!)*

All good points being made here. I have some thoughts on this. That is, there are certain similarities between all domestic dogs. This is where the academics have come up with a lot of useful information about the domestic dog as a species. Many different researchers came up with similar results.

Then there are the hands-on people - breeders, trainers, behavior counselors, and even veterinary behaviorists. I've found stuff to disagree with among all these people - and stuff to agree with, too.

Some of those in the academic world work closely with dogs, many, with dogs of all ages, and many different breeds. And some of those people have excellent skills communicating with dogs. Others don't do as well, but many are better than just competent.

Turid Rugaas, with a colleague, videotaped dogs in many situations, often, running free, first, over a period of about two years - they had miles and miles of tape. They studied dog-communication using the tape to help. Wow; I tell ya; it helps SO much to be able to watch videotape, as many of you know! Because, we can see SOME (not all) of the environment, but if we were there for the taping, or if we make videos at home (or in other places), we have some idea of what the environment is for the dog (including puppies).

What we'll probably never know is EXACTLY what a dog is thinking. We just don't share the brains of dogs! But we can learn a heck of a lot from what the dogs do.

It's been amply shown that dogs are emotional creatures, much as we are. The emotional system in dogs is fairly similar to ours; they have brain-parts like ours, including the emotional-brain system. But since their bodies are different from ours (no hands, no thumbs), dogs are left with paws (not always as efficient as our hands; haha!) - and mouths - with which to test their worlds and learn about them.

One thing we can be quite sure of, which is that if we scare a dog enough, the dog will run away (flight) or shut down (freeze), or try to bite (fight).

Dogs who have been traumatized beyond their abilities to cope might learn to attack - to drive away the Scary Thing or Scary Creature. And if they think they've been successful in driving away the Scary Thing (or Creature), they can even try to do that pre-emptively - to avoid trouble before it starts. OUCH!

The easiest dogs are those who have never had a really bad experience.

A lot depends on what happens to the puppies from the time they are born, and even, to an extent, before they are born, so a breeder who takes great care of the dam is likely to come up with puppies who are magnificently healthy and competent. Provided, of course, that the breeder has selected the stud well, and that the dam raises the puppies well, which surely requires some assistance from the breeder, for instance, in providing the environment where that can happen.

These days, pups raised in homes, with careful, graduated exposure to The World Of Home (raised "underfoot," perhaps with a few children, maybe cats, other dogs), and later, to expanded parts of the world they are being raised to live in, can learn to cope with a whole big variety of experiences.

Of course we can't prevent a pup from having ANY bad experience, but the more good experiences they have, the more easily they can overcome a few bad experiences, especially if the bad experiences aren't completely traumatizing.

Genetics do play a big part, both in health and temperament, so there ARE dogs whose heritages are genetically weak (from our human point of view, looking for dogs who can live well with humans) - whose behaviors later in life remain difficult for us humans.

|I won't go into more than that for the moment; too early in the morning! For now, I'll just summarize what is pretty common in dogs:

Frightening experiences CAN traumatize dogs; the amount of fear makes a difference. Once traumatized, dogs remember that. It can take a very long time to overcome such trauma, and some dogs may never fully recover. Yet even previously-traumatized dogs can do well in a human world, providing the Human-Parents comprehend the trauma, and work around it.

Specifically with Camellia: Nobody seems to know just what caused her trauma, but we have a pretty good guess. She was spayed very late; at age 3 years and about six weeks.

Coming out of anaesthesia, she bit, and got punished by whoever was monitoring her. Keep in mind that recovery is a time when dogs are in pain, often, lots of it, appearing as the anaesthetic wears off, and that they are in a state of confusion. I gather the person hit Camellia when she bit.

The other trauma Camellia had was that she was bullied - constantly and daily - by other dogs. I don't know how that came about, but something must have been missing in managing the dogs. Apparently that happened after she was spayed, because I was told Camellia was fine before she was spayed.

The results I see are:

1) Camellia was afraid of any human or animal moving fast when she became my dog.

2) She feels she has to examine her entire environment, at great leisure, to make sure everything is okay, before she feels safe. (She still does a lot of that, and I allow it.)

3) She would back away, run away, if a human she wasn't closely bonded to approached her. (She's now doing a great deal better at this! - she can approach a strange human now, and begin to make friends, but if the human leans over her - looms over her - she will back away - but then, that's true of many dogs!) She's even overcoming that now, in some enviroments. Or with some humans!

4) She is terrified of all other dogs, and tries to drive them away.

This last becomes difficult for me, to say the least! BUT! sometimes I see ****** in this behavior. What's in the environment for Camellia is crucial. Also, the size of the dog matters. So does the dog's behavior. A dog who rushes at Camellia will bring on her efforts to drive it away.

When I took Camellia for her grooming Tuesday, my groomer, Kate, had just finished grooming a small dog of mixed-breed. The dog was totally charming. The owner had come to pick up the dog, and the dog was at her feet. Camellia managed to go nose-to-nose with this dog, who was considerably smaller than she is - without reacting other than to give a friendly sniff, nose-to-nose. THAT is a big *****, and it suggests to me how I might continue to work with Camellia and see if I can get some improvements in her behaviors toward other dogs.

I've found that the dozen years I've put in to studying and learning (and using) the canine calming signals have been my biggest aid in working with Camellia (along with previous experience with having difficult dogs).

Oddities: Camellia is not afraid of loud noises (!)

Nice things: Camellia is great at the vet's and with the groomer, standing up to three-hour grooming sessions with equanimity.

I hope to come back later today to report the training session I had with Camellia late yesterday afternoon; it was fascinating!

Finally - we can only learn, ourselves, from what happens as we go along. We just can't know it all and stop there!

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:55:55 (PDT)


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Thanks for that one Karen, hadn't seen it yet. Nearly all the accredited dog organizations agree with most of what Ian has to say and what he has done for dog training. Paul Owens is the original Dog Whisperer. Cesar sort of stole that title off of him. Two totally different breeds of dogs. To each his own. I won't go there, it only leads to nowhere. Ian has actually worked with Cesar in his book. Ian has no animosity towards Cesar. Of all the professional people and organiziations that have spoken out quite harshly at times, against Cesar, Ian has never said a bad word. Only that "Cesar's different." 

The advice that people offer ,is always up for debate. People have the right to take it or leave it. I'm only going to speak for myself. The advice that I give is not just my opinion. I am in most cases giving advice that is generally accepted by most |"Positive" dog trainers . It is advice that comes from nearly all dog training organizations eg. American Veteranary Sociiety of Animal Behaviorists. International Association of Animimal Behavior Consultants. , American Humane Association., Association of Pet Dog Trainers, International Positive Dog Training Association, Association of Animal Behavior Professionals, Animal Behavior Associates, Animal behavior Society. , International Association for the Study of Animal Behavior, and Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers.
All of these organizations have spoken out on the oudated training methods of which I'm generally referring to. And I will continue to give advice that supports the type of training that these organizations stand for. When you research these organizations you will understand why positive reinforcement type training is the way to go.


----------



## curly_DC (Nov 27, 2011)

My question though is it really Cesar's methods and pack leader theories that receive so much criticism by professional association, or is it because Cesar by-passed their extensive credentialing requirements? Not to insult, but is it really necessary for a dog trainer to have formal education and third party certification? Isn't it possible that some people are just naturally gifted with animals and love animals and spent a lot of time with animals?


----------



## CarolWCamelo (Feb 15, 2012)

curly_DC said:


> My question though is it really Cesar's methods and pack leader theories that receive so much criticism by professional association, or is it because Cesar by-passed their extensive credentialing requirements? Not to insult, but is it really necessary for a dog trainer to have formal education and third party certification? Isn't it possible that some people are just naturally gifted with animals and love animals and spent a lot of time with animals?


EXCELLENT question, Michele!

I don't believe Cesar ever made any efforts to get certified by any of these organizations - do you? He seems not to think certification is important - for HIM. I can go with that; no problem.

And yes, it IS possible that some people are just naturally gifted with animals and love them and spend lots of time with them. And many of these are just great with animals.

What I've seen in criticisms of Cesar's work is complaints about some of his methods; they seem to be the ones based on the ideas you mention, that is, the idea that dogs live in packs, and that they care about rank, status or hierarchy - or that they "want to be the boss."

I'm so glad you said that's easy for you to understand. I do think that idea is easy for humans to understand, because among humans, that's how our culture works, I think especially in North America, Europe, and other places (though not everywhere, and not in all human cultures).

I think you've put your finger on part of what Ceasr does that appeals to so many humans.

I'm a hobby trainer - or, I was. I never went for any certification; I had other interests (and jobs) in life. But I'm deeply attracted to dogs in particular, and have put immense amounts of time into studying them and working with them - first, my own dogs, then some neighbor dogs, then in the local dog club. And I've had good success with dogs I've worked with, whether they were mine or other dogs.

Now and then I consider whether I'd have the time and energy to teach again, in my community - a rural neighborhood. I think of it longingly at times. But - I don't have the energy, for now, nor the time, either. Maybe I'll have more time later; I don't know. We'll see! Most of my neighbors do pretty well with their dogs, and might enjoy a few small classes. I'd love to help them teach their dogs to to tricks, because, as I remarked before, tricks are obedience, and obedience is tricks!

I think the passion that underlies criticisms of Cesar's work arose from the kind of stuff he broadcast under the rubric: "Don't try this at home."

It can be tough to get around passion! Regardless of the source of it, and regardless of the content of it!

If you ask me now, I suggest - NEVER EVER lose your PASSION for your DOGS! Or your children! Or, for me, other humans of all kinds! It makes life so rich! Every day is a joy. Especially since I joined this forum - what a wonderful forum!

I spend more time than I Hav here!

Yes, you do, Mummy! (00) That's okay, I need a rest right now. (00)

Thanks, Camellia! ;-^

Sat, 31 Mar 2012 16:39:16 (PDT)


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

curly_DC said:


> My question though is it really Cesar's methods and pack leader theories that receive so much criticism by professional association, or is it because Cesar by-passed their extensive credentialing requirements? Not to insult, but is it really necessary for a dog trainer to have formal education and third party certification? Isn't it possible that some people are just naturally gifted with animals and love animals and spent a lot of time with animals?


I think Cesar IS naturally gifted. That's why I am really pleased to see him use more and more positive methods on his more recent shows. If youput his innate understanding of dog body language with some scientifically based theory, you'd get one heck of an effective trainer who is ALSO using the kindest, gentlest methods to get the job done.

He has brought on a lot of the criticism by his more outrageous methods of working with VERY troubled dogs... Things that have gotten him so badly bitten that he's had blood running down his hands, and forcible exercising dogs until they are limping, or keeling over from heat exhaustions. Granted, these are not that oftwn, and granted, in SOME of these cases, the animals he has been working with have been so emotionally damaged that he was, really, their last hope.

I remember the Rotweiler who was so frightened of people that it was completely untrustworthy with anyone but a single young girl who worked at the shelter. Cesar not only rehabilitated that dog, but gave him to his son as his personal pet. We've seen the dog a number of times since as one of the "stable" dogs Cesar brings in to help with a reactive dog.

I think ther ARE some trainers who have seen (or heard) only SOME of what he does, and see people try some of his more controversial practices themselves, (like pinning a dog on its back) and end up causing far more problems than they solve. Then these trainers sometimes throu the babay out with the bathwater and decide that anything "Cesar Milan" has to be bad.

IMO, there is some of what he says that is very good... (exercise, boundaries, discipline, affection, and the idea that people need to be calm but assertive) these are all important parts of raising a child OR training a dog. But I strongly disagree with SOME of his methods of discipline.


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

like I mentioned, I certainly respect people's decisions on what to believe when it comes to dog training. Most professionals have nothing against Cesar's lack of formal education in animal behavior. They are basically disagreeing with much of his methods and basic premises. His methods are the very same methods many trainers used twenty to thirty years ago. Many of these trainers have crossed over to the new ideas of dog training. There is nothing new or different about Cesar. He is a very charismatic and likeable man. But his knowledge of behavior is just not there. Totally stressed and shut down dogs are called calm submissive. I could go on and on about this but like I mentioned it always brings out hard feelings in people. Been there done that , many times. If anyone wants more understanding about this topic, feel free to email me. for some articles and web sites. 
Ian has no desire to be as popular as Cesar. His goal and the goal of most of the dog organizations is simply to spread the word on the benefits of modern day dog training and to learn even more about these amazing animals.

I like Jean Donaldson's quote on Ian. ... " Some fields are lucky enough to be granted a giant: a figure whose contributions inspire awe and are unsurpassable. Ian Dunbar is that in dog behavior. There is no single person on the face of the planet to whom dog trainers and owners (not to mention dogs) owe more."


----------



## Thumper (Feb 18, 2007)

Despite whatever disagreeing opinions on who has the better way to train, much like parenting a child, there are many different opinions from spare the rod to positive reinforcing and everything in between, but it doesn't guarantee you will have a star pupil and your kid will stay outta trouble, but that isn't the point I wanted to make..

Cesar should be acknowledged and applauded, IMO, for the work he does to rescue animals, especially ones who are considered 'unsaveable', and the awareness that he has brought to adoption, rescue organizations and pet euthanasia..aside from his training, he does do a pretty large awareness campaign, I don't really watch his show, I have probably only seen it once or twice, but thinking back to the articles I've read and interviews I've seen, I recall more of his rescue outreach than I do his training from general articles, news and the like..

Whether or not he is naturally gifted with dogs (which I believe he is and some people are born with the gift that animals just like them and feel secure around them) or he has the charisma to carry a TV show (which he obviously does) the person underneath those things is truly passionate about saving animals from euthanasia and that has to be applauded in this day and age when so many people turn a blind eye to the problem.

I personally like every celebrity that speaks up for these animals, well, aside from maybe Michael Vick..because I'm not sure if he is very sincere..

Kara


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

I agree totally Kara. Cesar has done a lot for the things you've mentioned. And his desire to do good for the dogs is sincere. No one that I know disagrees with this. Thanks , I should have said that myself.


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

curly_DC said:


> My question though is it really Cesar's methods and pack leader theories that receive so much criticism by professional association, or is it because Cesar by-passed their extensive credentialing requirements? Not to insult, but is it really necessary for a dog trainer to have formal education and third party certification? Isn't it possible that some people are just naturally gifted with animals and love animals and spent a lot of time with animals?


 With regards to your last sentence Michele, I agree. You can learn a lot from simply working with animals. Many great trainers have little formal education in that specific field. But there is even more to be learned from the science behind learning. Dog training has advanced greatly in this area. Huge amounts of information are coming out on dog behavior and the trainers that learn about it are at a greater advantage than someone that doesn't have that knowledge. The trainers in our IAABC are required to take courses and seminars to continually enhance their skills and knowledge. It is unbelievable the things I've learned from just listening to them, compared to even five years ago. There are a huge number of incredibly knowledgeable trainers and behaviorists today. And sharing their wisdom is how everyone should be learning as well as instinctual learning like you're talking about. Some of the people blow my mind, on their knowledge and expertise. That's why I enjoy sharing some of their articles and thougths here . Learning never stops , for us or our dogs.


----------



## CarolWCamelo (Feb 15, 2012)

davetgabby said:


> With regards to your last sentence Michele, I agree. You can learn a lot from simply working with animals. Many great trainers have little formal education in that specific field. But there is even more to be learned from the science behind learning. Dog training has advanced greatly in this area. Huge amounts of information are coming out on dog behavior and the trainers that learn about it are at a greater advantage than someone that doesn't have that knowledge. The trainers in our IAABC are required to take courses and seminars to continually enhance their skills and knowledge. It is unbelievable the things I've learned from just listening to them, compared to even five years ago. There are a huge number of incredibly knowledgeable trainers and behaviorists today. And sharing their wisdom is how everyone should be learning as well as instinctual learning like you're talking about. Some of the people blow my mind, on their knowledge and expertise. That's why I enjoy sharing some of their articles and thougths here . Learning never stops , for us or our dogs.


Dave - I hope it wouldn't offend those who don't feel THEY need or want to study some of this new stuff that's come out You're right; knowledge has been increased greatly, even over the last five years. It can be quite mind-boggling. I keep learning and studying, though mostly by computer; however, I use most of the new stuff I learn, with Camellia, did so with Kwali and Kumbi, and do with any other dogs-and-their-handlers I meet. This latter, now not as clients, because I don't take clients any more, with very rare exceptions.

Of course, I'm the perpetual student; haha! - it's a lifelong habit with me; I am ENDLESSLY greedy for more knowledge, and I can use a lot of it; it gives me new perspectives on the dogs I care for, and those I meet, too, including those who run free in my neighborhood (too many of those, and some people are afraid of them, some, because they are German Shepherd Dog mixes, big, look like purebreds, and one of them approaches closely if not given signals to back off).

But I'm not afraid of them in the slightest, because they DO NOT give off any signals of a potential attack, nor any other signs of aggression. So I give signals to back off from us, and they do that.

Learning to read dog body language is one of the greatest assets, I think, any of us can have. There are all kinds of heavily-illustrated books and DVDs now. Some of them go into extreme detail. Studying material like that isn't for everyone; it's hard to do, and very time-consuming. All the same, learning to read dogs well, I think, gives any of us, whether long-experienced with dogs and their behaviors or not, a great advantage when caring for our own dogs.

The language of study is changing, too. The term "aggressive behavior" has now pretty well substituted for the previous term "aggressive dog." In other words, it's not necessarily that a dog IS aggressive, but rather, that dogs respond to their fears with signals that look aggressive to humans.

Certainly some dogs are dangerous, and it can be difficult to impossible to place them from shelters, because the numbers of people who would be safe with them are so very limited.

Shyness in dogs is also much better understood than it used to be. Yet there's still a lot of work to do, and very much remaining to learn. There's a lot we (read: anybody) still don't know about dogs - about how they think, for instance.

It's become much easier, though, to discover what dogs are saying when they give off signals of fear. The basic techniques of dealing with fearful dogs is to avoid provoking any more fear, but rather, to indicate to the dogs how-and-where they can find safety. Then to make sure to provide that safety for the dogs!

For a dog like my traumatized Camellia, this is a long-term project. I knew that when I took her on. She has come so far, since 16 August 2010, when she became my dog! Yet - because I'm with her constantly, I don't necessarily see just how far she's come. Other people who know her - several neighbors, my groomer, my vets and their staff, comment on the improvements from time to time, and that gives me some kind of perspective.

Every little improvement for and in Camellia is a penny in the bank, and this is a bank that pays interest! Any pun intended!

Using the resources available on the Internet is a very big help, and some, I ignore, as being rather useless, and some, I pay attention to, and soak up as much as i can.

Photos and videos reveal so much useful stuff; so I'm glad people here want photos, more photos and MORE photos, and videos too. I couldn't read them well, though, unless I'd put in the many years of study.

For the Human Dog-Parent who has a difficult dog, learning to read canine signals is especially useful. As I begin to work Camellia with the clicker, I watch what she does, and I'm learning a great deal more about her by doing that! All of it is useful for me - for us.

I have many people to thank for all the work THEY have put in on studying dogs and their behavior, and then sharing their knowledge. Lots and lots of them.

Sun, 1 Apr 2012 08:43:08 (PDT)


----------



## davetgabby (Dec 29, 2007)

Very well put, Carol. You have a wonderful way with words. Yep I agree, it's all about learning from hands on and from others. If we were as observant of dogs as they are of us, we'd be much the wiser.


----------



## Atticus (May 17, 2011)

What I think is important is to always be open to new ideas. I had success in training with the old methods in the 70's that's what I was taught. How ever there are new methods that are better,kinder, deeper. A dog that is actually learning,putting things together,thinking,is such a joy. My first dog was very well behaved but I'm sad to say he "learned" to heel (for example) by avoiding my jerks on a choke chain,while Atticus has "learned" that pulling gets him nowhere and heeling gets him somewhere. 
I will never forget the trainer who told me to scruff shake my dog for growling when I came near her food. I did this once,she learned not to eat if I was in sight and wouldn't go near the bowl. I felt TERRIBLE. Another trainer told me to add food (at first by throwing it near her dish). Eventually she learned that she could eat and that I was no threat. I now have a better sense of training and how dogs think but you have to keep an open mind. I ache for these people with their first dog trying to sort it all out. At least now there are lots of great resources! AND Dave I appreciate your ongoing info on sites as I am constantly sending them on to others!


----------



## curly_DC (Nov 27, 2011)

I do think though that some people associate dog training with raising children, and people are just divided on the positive behavioral supports/training. I think there was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction for the baby boom generation who were most likely disciplined by their parents using corporal punishment ie. spanked by their parents instead of using "time out." Well, now there's another generation of adults who have seen "time out" and positive reinforcement not work at all, as witnessed by bratty 5-year-old kids telling their parents to "shut up." The parents hands are tied in a way, to discipline the child in public, for fear of being called by the authorities for abuse, either physical or emotional.

I think that's why some people now scoff at this idea of positive behavioral support with ALL types of dogs and breeds. They do make emotional associations with training dogs, similar to raising children. 

Time out is a great concept, but Super Nanny seems to be the only person sometimes who truly "gets" how to do it.


----------



## Julie (Feb 8, 2007)

curly_DC said:


> I do think though that some people associate dog training with raising children, and people are just divided on the positive behavioral supports/training. I think there was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction for the baby boom generation who were most likely disciplined by their parents using corporal punishment ie. spanked by their parents instead of using "time out." Well, now there's another generation of adults who have seen "time out" and positive reinforcement not work at all, as witnessed by bratty 5-year-old kids telling their parents to "shut up." The parents hands are tied in a way, to discipline the child in public, for fear of being called by the authorities for abuse, either physical or emotional.
> 
> I think that's why some people now scoff at this idea of positive behavioral support with ALL types of dogs and breeds. They do make emotional associations with training dogs, similar to raising children.
> 
> Time out is a great concept, but Super Nanny seems to be the only person sometimes who truly "gets" how to do it.


I totally agree!


----------



## CarolWCamelo (Feb 15, 2012)

*P.S. causation - fallacies*



curly_DC said:


> I do think though that some people associate dog training with raising children, and people are just divided on the positive behavioral supports/training. I think there was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction for the baby boom generation who were most likely disciplined by their parents using corporal punishment ie. spanked by their parents instead of using "time out." Well, now there's another generation of adults who have seen "time out" and positive reinforcement not work at all, as witnessed by bratty 5-year-old kids telling their parents to "shut up." The parents hands are tied in a way, to discipline the child in public, for fear of being called by the authorities for abuse, either physical or emotional.
> 
> I think that's why some people now scoff at this idea of positive behavioral support with ALL types of dogs and breeds. They do make emotional associations with training dogs, similar to raising children.
> 
> Time out is a great concept, but Super Nanny seems to be the only person sometimes who truly "gets" how to do it.


Super Nanny? Wow, I come to realize 1) How Very Olde I am; 2) How out-of-it and isolated I've made myself over the years!

I haven't had TV for the last 30 years or so; haha! Never go to movies! And spent all that time and more studying dogs, not children!

The last child-rearing "experts" I've heard of are, Mary Poppins, and Dr. Spock! Haha!

I thought the corporal punishment idea was older than the baby-boomers. I'm older than the baby-boomers, too, by maybe ten years or so.

Two comments here. Time-outs DO work. Why? Well, here's what I think. They provide cooling-off periods. They are good for dog (or child, too) and for Human-Parent.

And here's where things can get tricky. Human-Parent needs to be quietly (CALM) assertive (unmovable from the goal). (Sound familiar? hehe)

I love your example of a five-year-old telling Mom to "shut up." Kids copy what they hear. Might have learned such expressions in kindergarten, but just as likely, at home! - maybe from older siblings; maybe from parents.

Any parental response to "shut up" from a kid to parent reinforces the kid doing it.

Well, lots of possible complications in this situation, which has to be rather common in certain circumstances.

How to get around the problem of "disciplining" your kid in public? That is a scary image you raise. I think time-out is the answer, but that too becomes difficult; where do you put the kid for time-out, say, if you're a single mother?

I haven't worried my little head about these things, since times have changed so much since I was a kid!

I could also suggest that any of us with tendencies to kaleidoscopic vision attend to the site on logical fallacies I mentioned before.

You can start here:

http://www.coherentdog.org/tidberries1.php

and the link to the site on logical fallacies is at the bottom of the page, in the next-to-last paragraph. Namely, the site is here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/

The reason I link to my page first is that reading information on logical fallacies can become Quite Confusing, but if you follow the principles I suggest on my page, you should be able to manage quite well.

Have fun on the fallacies site! I'm just not that kind of logical person (in case anybody hadn't noticed). Yet I can get a LOT out of that site; say, primarily, in understanding what might CAUSE what, and what might NOT cause what. And that's important for us to understand, when we make decisions about what to do for or to our dogs (or children).

Mon, 2 Apr 2012 07:12:39 (PDT)


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

Atticus said:


> What I think is important is to always be open to new ideas. I had success in training with the old methods in the 70's that's what I was taught. How ever there are new methods that are better,kinder, deeper. A dog that is actually learning,putting things together,thinking,is such a joy. My first dog was very well behaved but I'm sad to say he "learned" to heel (for example) by avoiding my jerks on a choke chain,while Atticus has "learned" that pulling gets him nowhere and heeling gets him somewhere.
> I will never forget the trainer who told me to scruff shake my dog for growling when I came near her food. I did this once,she learned not to eat if I was in sight and wouldn't go near the bowl. I felt TERRIBLE. Another trainer told me to add food (at first by throwing it near her dish). Eventually she learned that she could eat and that I was no threat. I now have a better sense of training and how dogs think but you have to keep an open mind. I ache for these people with their first dog trying to sort it all out. At least now there are lots of great resources! AND Dave I appreciate your ongoing info on sites as I am constantly sending them on to others!


Good post, Jodi. There is no question that the old, "harsh" methods worked. The question for me is, why when I got a dog so that I could enjoy his companionship and develop a strong bond with him, would I choose to train him using harsh methods, when there are kind, gentle methods to get the same result, and don't have the negative consequences harsh methods sometimes have?


----------



## atsilvers27 (Jul 5, 2011)

curly_DC said:


> I do think though that some people associate dog training with raising children, and people are just divided on the positive behavioral supports/training. I think there was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction for the baby boom generation who were most likely disciplined by their parents using corporal punishment ie. spanked by their parents instead of using "time out." Well, now there's another generation of adults who have seen "time out" and positive reinforcement not work at all, as witnessed by bratty 5-year-old kids telling their parents to "shut up." The parents hands are tied in a way, to discipline the child in public, for fear of being called by the authorities for abuse, either physical or emotional.
> 
> I think that's why some people now scoff at this idea of positive behavioral support with ALL types of dogs and breeds. They do make emotional associations with training dogs, similar to raising children.
> 
> Time out is a great concept, but Super Nanny seems to be the only person sometimes who truly "gets" how to do it.


I agree. I have been teaching violin for about 10 years and have taught many children. There is a distinct difference between a child that changes his/her mind about playing violin (a very difficult instrument to learn) and a child that owns parents that walk on eggshells around that child. The disrespect from the child to the parent is completely obvious. Children are naturally constantly pushing boundaries and if parents are easily pushed over, the children will sense that. I think a similar thing can be said for dogs/puppies. Obviously, there is a balance that needs to be struck when raising kids, as kids can talk and will let us know if they feel they aren't being treated fairly. How we treat our kids will come down on top of our heads by how they behave, and although kids have the final say in how they want to live their lives, we build the foundation on what their lives will be based off. Keep them on too short a leash and they will suffer silently and eventually revolt. Too much slack and they will take over. Similar with dogs. If we are too strict they will shut down and/or lash out. If there are no clear rules some dogs will want to take over.

For example, from the get-go I have always taught my boys to be respectful to Hanna, i.e. don't stand over her (especially both of them) don't touch her when she's eating, don't play too roughly (although usually it's the other way around, I usually will have to tell her to calm down!). However, at the same time I want to let her know that the boys have presedence (sp?) over her. The other day she was on the sofa and one of the boys went over to sit down. She actually growled at him as he was taking over her spot (she has almost never growled, extremely rare for her). I was actually talking with his twin at the same time (that's how good my periferal vision is, all mom of multiples know what I'm talking about!) Immediately I gave her a firm "NO" and sent her to the floor, absolutely unacceptable. The sofa is not hers, I let her on it sometimes, and she has several areas/pillows on the floor that are exclusively hers. If one of us wants to sit on the sofa and she is there, she's the one that needs to move. This territorial guarding behavior has only been exhibited toward my kids, never to myself or my husband.

How is it possible to use any form of positive training methods at that instant? Do I distract her with a toy so she jumps down? Do I tell my kid to go somewhere else? No, and no. Sorry, at that point, I am putting my foot down and sending her packing. However, if my kid were messing with her while she was lying on her pillow and she growled, that's a different story. That would be a time-out for the 4-year-old, he knows the rules!


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

curly_DC said:


> I do think though that some people associate dog training with raising children, and people are just divided on the positive behavioral supports/training. I think there was a pendulum swing in the opposite direction for the baby boom generation who were most likely disciplined by their parents using corporal punishment ie. spanked by their parents instead of using "time out." Well, now there's another generation of adults who have seen "time out" and positive reinforcement not work at all, as witnessed by bratty 5-year-old kids telling their parents to "shut up." The parents hands are tied in a way, to discipline the child in public, for fear of being called by the authorities for abuse, either physical or emotional.
> 
> I think that's why some people now scoff at this idea of positive behavioral support with ALL types of dogs and breeds. They do make emotional associations with training dogs, similar to raising children.
> 
> Time out is a great concept, but Super Nanny seems to be the only person sometimes who truly "gets" how to do it.


There are always people who don't use their tools well, and probably most importantly, are not CONSISTENT enough when raising children OR training animals. I can tell you that it is ENTIRELY possible to raise children without ever spanking them, and have well behaved, polite children who grow up to be useful, law abiding members of society. Did my kids ever misbehave? Of course! All kids do, even those who get spanked. But they learned pretty quickly what was and was not acceptable behavior for members of our family, and lived by those rules.

I am not at all sure this is a "pendulum swing". I think it is a learning curve. I don't blame my parents for spanking us. I truly believe that they were doing the best they could with the tools at their disposal. Same with people who trained with harsh methods when there really weren't any well known alternatives. But now we DO know that children can be raise WELL without hitting them, and dogs can be trained WELL without harsh methods. Why would we want to go back to those old methods?


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

CarolWCamelo said:


> Super Nanny? Wow, I come to realize 1) How Very Olde I am; 2) How out-of-it and isolated I've made myself over the years!
> 
> I haven't had TV for the last 30 years or so; haha! Never go to movies! And spent all that time and more studying dogs, not children!
> 
> ...


Ha! I have to tell you a funny story. We DID use "time outs" in our family when the kids were younger, though not the "Super Nanny" style. Our "time outs" were that the child was sent to his room and expected to stay there until he could come down and talk to us politely and REASONABLY about whatever had gone wrong.

Well, one day, I think I had a shorter fuse than usual, and the kids (probably about 5&7 at the time) were bickering MUCH more than usual. Tempers were flaring all around, and I was about to blow my stack. I finally told them, "MOMMY is going to her room for a time out, before she does something she will regret. DO NOT open my door, or try to talk to me unless the house is on fire." You have NEVER seen two kids calm down so fast in your life. The idea that _I_ had gotten so mad that _I_ needed a "time out" was huge. I don't think this ever happened again. They learned that there was only so far that you could push things before even Mom lost her "calm assertive" attitude.



CarolWCamelo said:


> How to get around the problem of "disciplining" your kid in public? That is a scary image you raise. I think time-out is the answer, but that too becomes difficult; where do you put the kid for time-out, say, if you're a single mother?


I guess I've never cared enough about what other people think to let it interfere with me raising my children or training my animals. When my kids were little, they went through a stage of either bickering, or getting very silly when we were in the car. I would ask them to settle down, telling them that it was too hard to drive with the noise. On a couple of occasions, things kept ramping up until I couldn't stand it any more. I pulled over to the side of the road and made them both get out and sit on the grass. They sat there with tears streaming down their faces. I told them that I could NOT drive the car safely with all that noise in the back seat, and that they could get back in the car when they had settled down promised me that they would behave. A few minutes later, we were back in the car and on the way. I had to do this exactly twice. The second time it was winter, and I had the two of them sitting on a snow bank on the edge of the road. I can't even IMAGINE what people thought! But from that point on, all I needed to do was remind them, and they settled right down.

BUT, and I think this is huge, whether your dealing with kids, dogs or horses, they truly BELIEVED that I meant what I said, and I would ALWAYS carry through with consequences. Calm assertive is important, but IMO, consistency is AT LEAST as important.


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

atsilvers27 said:


> I agree. I have been teaching violin for about 10 years and have taught many children. There is a distinct difference between a child that changes his/her mind about playing violin (a very difficult instrument to learn) and a child that owns parents that walk on eggshells around that child. The disrespect from the child to the parent is completely obvious. Children are naturally constantly pushing boundaries and if parents are easily pushed over, the children will sense that. I think a similar thing can be said for dogs/puppies. Obviously, there is a balance that needs to be struck when raising kids, as kids can talk and will let us know if they feel they aren't being treated fairly. How we treat our kids will come down on top of our heads by how they behave, and although kids have the final say in how they want to live their lives, we build the foundation on what their lives will be based off. Keep them on too short a leash and they will suffer silently and eventually revolt. Too much slack and they will take over. Similar with dogs. If we are too strict they will shut down and/or lash out. If there are no clear rules some dogs will want to take over.
> 
> For example, from the get-go I have always taught my boys to be respectful to Hanna, i.e. don't stand over her (especially both of them) don't touch her when she's eating, don't play too roughly (although usually it's the other way around, I usually will have to tell her to calm down!). However, at the same time I want to let her know that the boys have presedence (sp?) over her. The other day she was on the sofa and one of the boys went over to sit down. She actually growled at him as he was taking over her spot (she has almost never growled, extremely rare for her). I was actually talking with his twin at the same time (that's how good my periferal vision is, all mom of multiples know what I'm talking about!) Immediately I gave her a firm "NO" and sent her to the floor, absolutely unacceptable. The sofa is not hers, I let her on it sometimes, and she has several areas/pillows on the floor that are exclusively hers. If one of us wants to sit on the sofa and she is there, she's the one that needs to move. This territorial guarding behavior has only been exhibited toward my kids, never to myself or my husband.
> 
> How is it possible to use any form of positive training methods at that instant? Do I distract her with a toy so she jumps down? Do I tell my kid to go somewhere else? No, and no. Sorry, at that point, I am putting my foot down and sending her packing. However, if my kid were messing with her while she was lying on her pillow and she growled, that's a different story. That would be a time-out for the 4-year-old, he knows the rules!


I don't see anything wrong with making her get down under those circumstances.

I think that's very different than picking up a young puppy by the scruff of the neck for growling, especially when we (here on the forum) weren't exactly clear what CAUSED the growling.

As a long-term solution, it might be good to teach Hannah "place" (a bed or pillow that she should go to when told, either to keep her safe) or to keep her from acting inappropriately before it happens. Then your son, if he wanted the couch, could just tell her to go to her, "place" without her having the chance to "practice" any territorial behavior.

Working with kids and with animals, I often find it useful to try to think what the behavior I want them to DO looks like, rather than what I want them NOT to do. Partly because, just as you said, it is SO much harder to teach an animal NOT to do something than it is to teach the TO DO something using positive methods.


----------



## atsilvers27 (Jul 5, 2011)

krandall said:


> I don't see anything wrong with making her get down under those circumstances.
> 
> I think that's very different than picking up a young puppy by the scruff of the neck for growling, especially when we (here on the forum) weren't exactly clear what CAUSED the growling.
> 
> ...


That's a great idea Karen. She already knows "kennel" when we have to leave her in the apartment, and she has a pillow on the floor right there in the living room. Part of it is because she wants to be in whatever room I am in, so if I teach her "place" or probably "pillow," and teach my boys that, it will prevent the territorial guarding situation.

I can see how there is a difference between firm no's and harsher training methods. I think maybe where the issue is, is a question of do positive training methods include verbal corrections to the animal such as, No, Off, or Psst! By definition, positive training does not use any correction, only rewards and redirection for undesirable behavior. I'm not so sure the discussion is about positive-only vs the harsher methods, but rather the existence of any verbal correction at all. When I hear or read that someone uses only positive training, if they really do, they would not say "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping excitedly up on people. I'm not saying that's the most effective way of getting a dog to stop jumping, but the argument of positive only excludes those options and I think it's a valid way of training to stop that behavior.


----------



## curly_DC (Nov 27, 2011)

atsilvers27 said:


> I can see how there is a difference between firm no's and harsher training methods. I think maybe where the issue is, is a question of do positive training methods include verbal corrections to the animal such as, No, Off, or Psst! By definition, positive training does not use any correction, only rewards and redirection for undesirable behavior. I'm not so sure the discussion is about positive-only vs the harsher methods, but rather the existence of any verbal correction at all. When I hear or read that someone uses only positive training, if they really do, they would not say "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping excitedly up on people. I'm not saying that's the most effective way of getting a dog to stop jumping, but the argument of positive only excludes those options and I think it's a valid way of training to stop that behavior.


Yes, that's exactly what I think is going on with any debate about correction vs. positive training. For example, the other day I saw a young man walking his small dog in the carpeted breezeway of my apartment complex that leads outside. While they were walking, the dog lifted his leg and peed right there against the wall!! The guy did absolutely nothing except look embarassed. To me, he looked like someone who either didn't know or didn't care not to let his dog pee on the carpet, which makes it more difficult for other house training dogs.

I was walking my dog at the time, and my first thought was, "Dude, correct your dog now!" Just say, "No!"

I corrected Sergio "in the act" of pooping where he isn't allowed to poop, and sometimes I did it in front of strangers and on-lookers. And yes, I felt "judged" by them. And all I had to do was correct him once, "Sergio, no! Not there!" and gently guide him where I wanted him to poop. People did look at me like, "He's just a little dog." And I thought to myself, "It's none of their business how I want to correct my dog." I knew I wasn't hurting him, even though, I've never had a dog before. The alternative to not correcting him, was not acceptable.

As another example, he started chewing and pulling up the carpet in one area of my apartment. I tried distracting with a chew toy. Positive stuff didn't work, until I gently corrected him with a little tap of my fingers on his rump, not a spank, a tap, with a startling clap of my hands. He's not done it since, at least not in front of me. What did he "learn" from that?

And the whole idea of "ignoring" bad behavior to extinguish it, only works if you honestly don't care or aren't bothered that you're allowing your pet (or child) to annoy everyone else around them.


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

atsilvers27 said:


> That's a great idea Karen. She already knows "kennel" when we have to leave her in the apartment, and she has a pillow on the floor right there in the living room. Part of it is because she wants to be in whatever room I am in, so if I teach her "place" or probably "pillow," and teach my boys that, it will prevent the territorial guarding situation.
> 
> I can see how there is a difference between firm no's and harsher training methods. I think maybe where the issue is, is a question of do positive training methods include verbal corrections to the animal such as, No, Off, or Psst! By definition, positive training does not use any correction, only rewards and redirection for undesirable behavior. I'm not so sure the discussion is about positive-only vs the harsher methods, but rather the existence of any verbal correction at all. When I hear or read that someone uses only positive training, if they really do, they would not say "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping excitedly up on people. I'm not saying that's the most effective way of getting a dog to stop jumping, but the argument of positive only excludes those options and I think it's a valid way of training to stop that behavior.


I guess there are two parts of this. First, even positive trainers do occasional use verbals, "no", "Psst!" or, the one I use, "Ehhh!" (I don't consider "Off!" in the same category, since, done properly, this is a cue, taught to the animal, and then used as needed)

As far as people saying, "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping on people, have you ever actually seen this work? I haven't. I've seen the dogs continue to jump until they are hauled off the person by the collar, or fended off enough times by the person that they are jumping on, that they finally calm down by themselves and wander away. So this is a situation where I see yelling "no" or "off" at the dog as a fruitless exercise in frustration. It takes longer, but training a replacement behavior, like "kennel" or "place" actually solves the problem.

In general, if you can say "no!" or "Ehhh!" or whatever ONCE, and get the dog to stop it's behavior, or better still, interrupt it before it's started, (like when I see Kodi heading for kleenex dropped on the floor!:biggrin1 it is an effective, and relatively mild deterrent. Like a warning we might give a small child. If it becomes a habit to yell "no" or "off" (or whatever) at the dog, without the dog immediately ceasing the behavior, it is not an effective strategy. It's not training, and it only causes frustration for the owner, which, unfortunately, in many cases leads to using harsher methods because "the dog won't listen". What has REALLY happened is that the owner has TRAINED the dog to tune them out.

This is where management, and making it hard for the dog to do the wrong thing, while making it EASY for them to do the right thing becomes so important. If you set it up so the dog CAN'T jump on people as they enter the house, you don't need to discipline them for doing the "wrong" thing.

So I guess the short answer is that IMO, an occasional verbal reprimand is certainly within the realm of "positive training". If it becomes the default method of dealing with the dog, rather than finding a way to either train a replacement behavior or manage the situation to avoid the behavior, it is not.


----------



## Atticus (May 17, 2011)

That was really well put karen!!! I was trying to figure out my thoughts and boom Yes I totally agree!


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

curly_DC said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I think is going on with any debate about correction vs. positive training. For example, the other day I saw a young man walking his small dog in the carpeted breezeway of my apartment complex that leads outside. While they were walking, the dog lifted his leg and peed right there against the wall!! The guy did absolutely nothing except look embarassed. To me, he looked like someone who either didn't know or didn't care not to let his dog pee on the carpet, which makes it more difficult for other house training dogs.
> 
> I was walking my dog at the time, and my first thought was, "Dude, correct your dog now!" Just say, "No!"
> 
> I corrected Sergio "in the act" of pooping where he isn't allowed to poop, and sometimes I did it in front of strangers and on-lookers. And yes, I felt "judged" by them. And all I had to do was correct him once, "Sergio, no! Not there!" and gently guide him where I wanted him to poop. People did look at me like, "He's just a little dog." And I thought to myself, "It's none of their business how I want to correct my dog." I knew I wasn't hurting him, even though, I've never had a dog before. The alternative to not correcting him, was not acceptable.


I don't think anyone who has ever potty trained a dog would disagree with what you did. "catching them in the act" is a big part of training them. And in your case, where you have to "run the gauntlet" of carpeting where other dogs may have already eliminated, it is even more important to make it very clear to him exactly where it is and isn't OK to go.



curly_DC said:


> As another example, he started chewing and pulling up the carpet in one area of my apartment. I tried distracting with a chew toy. Positive stuff didn't work, until I gently corrected him with a little tap of my fingers on his rump, not a spank, a tap, with a startling clap of my hands. He's not done it since, at least not in front of me. What did he "learn" from that?


He has learned not to chew it in front of you. He has also learned that you can be scary... something that I DON'T want my dog to ever think. This is an instance where I would choose management... making the carpet very unappealing with either bitter apple spray, or if that doesn't work, hot sauce (you can put it on a paper towel and pin it in the area they are chewing since it will stain if you put it directly on the carpet) This way, there are "natural consequences" to chewing on the carpet. They learn very quickly that it's not a good idea, it doesn't matter whether you are present or not when they try it, and YOU aren't seen as the evil-deed-doer.



curly_DC said:


> And the whole idea of "ignoring" bad behavior to extinguish it, only works if you honestly don't care or aren't bothered that you're allowing your pet (or child) to annoy everyone else around them.


Yes and no. There are some behaviors that will go away just because a puppy is a puppy. You don't have a puppy, you purchased an adult dog, so the circumstances are a bit different. Also, ignoring bad behavior and allowing it to continue, is allowing the dog (or child) to practice that behavior. NOT a good idea. Instead, if you don't want to punish a behavior, you need to train a replacement behavior or manage the environment so that the behavior doesn't continue.

I'll give you an example from Kodi growing up. For a period of time (WAY too long while we were going through it!!!) Kodi did a lot of "demand" barking. I didn't want to totally stop his barking... I wanted him to be able to communicate when he needed to go out, or when someone came on the property. But in our obedience classes, he was driving me crazy. Whenever it wasn't "his turn", or when the trainer was speaking to the whole group, he would turn, look right at me and bark his little head off. The trainer told me not to look at him, to turn my back to him, to down him, then stand on his leash (he was quiet for a couple of minutes that time... until he had chewed through the leash!:biggrin1::frusty NOTHING worked.

The other people in the class were very nice about it... they all had young dogs too, but _I_ couldn't take it. I couldn't concentrate or enjoy the class with him carrying on. I finally quit the class, and started taking occasional private lessons, while continuing a drop-in heeling class that was much more active with less down-time. I also continued our agility classes, where he always waited very politely and quietly in his crate between turns. Eventually, partly because he just grew up, and partly because we managed the situation so that he didn't have the opportunity to practice behavior we didn't want, he learned what was appropriate to bark for, and what wasn't. I know yelling at him wouldn't have stopped this behavior, (dogs think yelling is the same as loud barking!) and I wouldn't have been willing to hit him, jerk his collar or put him in an e-collar. (some of the other things people do to stop barking) As a performance dog, as well as because he is my beloved pet, it was important to me that I maintain his trust in our relationship. Handling his barking the way I did may have taken longer, but it DIDN'T allow him to annoy anyone else, and it didn't damage our relationship.


----------



## curly_DC (Nov 27, 2011)

krandall said:


> As far as people saying, "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping on people, have you ever actually seen this work? I haven't. I've seen the dogs continue to jump until they are hauled off the person by the collar, or fended off enough times by the person that they are jumping on, that they finally calm down by themselves and wander away. So this is a situation where I see yelling "no" or "off" at the dog as a fruitless exercise in frustration. It takes longer, but training a replacement behavior, like "kennel" or "place" actually solves the problem.


I can see using "kennel" or "place" with family members, but how will the dog learn not to jump on people especially strangers but to sit or stay calmly when people enter your house if you use "kennel" or "place"? Usually, when the dog is jumping on people, there is NO correction at all from the pet parent. Or they are laughing when they correct the dog. Then the person who the dog is jumping on, has to give the dog negative attention by acknowledging the dog while it's jumping, which reinforces the jumping. Again it's one of those behaviors that doesn't really seem to be corrected very often by the pet parents.

Just like people in the far distant past abused harsh methods of discipline and training, I think people get very confused about positive behavioral support. They don't understand or use the tools and techniques correctly, which then can be just as harmful if the pet hasn't really learned safe behavior. Ignoring a behavior doesn't necessarily extinguish the behavior. IKEA has some comical time out commercials. The other day in the grocery store, I saw a woman use "red light" to stop a toddler from running away. That seemed to work better than the counting to 3 or 10!!


----------



## curly_DC (Nov 27, 2011)

krandall said:


> He has learned not to chew it in front of you. He has also learned that you can be scary... something that I DON'T want my dog to ever think. This is an instance where I would choose management... making the carpet very unappealing with either bitter apple spray, or if that doesn't work, hot sauce (you can put it on a paper towel and pin it in the area they are chewing since it will stain if you put it directly on the carpet) This way, there are "natural consequences" to chewing on the carpet. They learn very quickly that it's not a good idea, it doesn't matter whether you are present or not when they try it, and YOU aren't seen as the evil-deed-doer. QUOTE]
> 
> Well, I don't believe that Sergio really sees me as "scary" ever.  I think I startled him out of his carpet chewing haze with the loud clap of my hands and tap on the rump, sorta like if someone is sitting on the couch mindlessly eating a bag of potatoe chips. You can try to trade the potatoe chips for celery sticks, or spray something on the chips to make them taste bad. Or you can just take the bag away from them!!
> 
> I understand that carpet is new to him. I worry that I'm at my scariest when I pick up the brush!!! He doesn't like that, either.


----------



## atsilvers27 (Jul 5, 2011)

As far as people saying, "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping on people, have you ever actually seen this work? I haven't. I've seen the dogs continue to jump until they are hauled off the person by the collar, or fended off enough times by the person that they are jumping on, that they finally calm down by themselves and wander away. So this is a situation where I see yelling "no" or "off" at the dog as a fruitless exercise in frustration. It takes longer, but training a replacement behavior, like "kennel" or "place" actually solves the problem.



Actually, Karen I have seen this work, I've used it on one of my old dogs. He was a big mix and when young would get very excited when people came over. At first my parents just put him in a different room, it was just too much. Then, if I got the chance I'd tell the people coming that we have a dog we're trying to train. If he jumps on you, turn away from him but don't back away. (Backing away is the wrong thing to do, this only encourages the dog foward towards that person, that is what you are seeing Karen). With the people ignoring him and me telling him NO, then a down or sit (while wearing a collar) he learned after he calmed down, I would release him and the he would politely sniff everyone then go lay down in the corner.

So it can work if done properly, we just had to find what worked best in our situation. 

I have learned not to completely write off a form of training because of seeing it done incorrectly. I am not a dog trainer, but I had on one occasion steer a client away from using their reward-based training incorrectly, and worsening the dog's behavior. The husband gave the dog a treat after he growled at me. I was astonished and asked him why he did that. He said the wife told him to give him treats at the salon so it calms him down and so he behaves. I told him, Your dog just growled at me and you gave him a cookie. You are rewarding him for growling at me. I took the leash and the dog did nothing. Sir, your dog didn't growl, now give him a treat. I knelt down near the dog. and started petting his neck. OK, sir, he's still not growling, you can give him another treat for staying calm. The lightbulb went off in the man's head, Oh, so I only reward him when he is good. Yes. 

Because I saw the man doing treat training ineffectively, I DID NOT WRITE IT OFF! I gave it a chance to work. I honored the owner's wishes not to use verbal punishment and helped the dog understand what behavior we wanted. Neither should another training method, as long is it is ethical, be completely written off as some people do.


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

curly_DC said:


> I can see using "kennel" or "place" with family members, but how will the dog learn not to jump on people especially strangers but to sit or stay calmly when people enter your house if you use "kennel" or "place"?


Why can't an owner simply send the dog to "kennel" or "place" when the door bell rings? Done with consistency, the dog will start automatically heading for their kennel when the bell rings rather than dashing for the door.



curly_DC said:


> Usually, when the dog is jumping on people, there is NO correction at all from the pet parent. Or they are laughing when they correct the dog. Then the person who the dog is jumping on, has to give the dog negative attention by acknowledging the dog while it's jumping, which reinforces the jumping. Again it's one of those behaviors that doesn't really seem to be corrected very often by the pet parents.


But thats lack of ANY sort of training. It has nothing to do with whether it's positive training or correction based training.



curly_DC said:


> Just like people in the far distant past abused harsh methods of discipline and training, I think people get very confused about positive behavioral support. They don't understand or use the tools and techniques correctly, which then can be just as harmful if the pet hasn't really learned safe behavior. Ignoring a behavior doesn't necessarily extinguish the behavior. IKEA has some comical time out commercials. The other day in the grocery store, I saw a woman use "red light" to stop a toddler from running away. That seemed to work better than the counting to 3 or 10!!


Well, I think that the majority of people don't think much about "training" their dog at all. It's simply that MOST dogs do try AWFULLY hard to get along with people. And, really, truly, positive training has MUCH less chance of being harmful than correction-based training. Correction based training can cause dogs to become fearful and reactive, leading to dog bites. Positive training, done poorly and inconsistently is just sort of on the plane of not training at all.

I like your story about the "red light" warning for the toddler. That's a great, thoughtful way to give a clear, understandable warning to a small child. I think counting to 10 is ridiculous. But Counting to 3, IF the parent is consistent and follows through with consequences, and DOESN'T do delaying nonsense like "2 1/2, 2 3/4..." is very effective. I used it with my kids until they were too old. They NEVER let me get to 3, because they believed with their whole hearts that I meant what I said. It's that consistency thing again. That said, 1-2-3 doesn't work for animals. If you are GOING to make a correction, it needs to be IMMEDIATE. Better still, set them up for success, so you don't HAVE to correct them!


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

atsilvers27 said:


> "As far as people saying, "NO" or "OFF" to a dog jumping on people, have you ever actually seen this work? I haven't. I've seen the dogs continue to jump until they are hauled off the person by the collar, or fended off enough times by the person that they are jumping on, that they finally calm down by themselves and wander away. So this is a situation where I see yelling "no" or "off" at the dog as a fruitless exercise in frustration. It takes longer, but training a replacement behavior, like "kennel" or "place" actually solves the problem."
> 
> Actually, Karen I have seen this work, I've used it on one of my old dogs. He was a big mix and when young would get very excited when people came over. At first my parents just put him in a different room, it was just too much. Then, if I got the chance I'd tell the people coming that we have a dog we're trying to train. If he jumps on you, turn away from him but don't back away. (Backing away is the wrong thing to do, this only encourages the dog foward towards that person, that is what you are seeing Karen). With the people ignoring him and me telling him NO, then a down or sit (while wearing a collar) he learned after he calmed down, I would release him and the he would politely sniff everyone then go lay down in the corner.
> 
> So it can work if done properly, we just had to find what worked best in our situation.


Yes, but you were doing something pro-actively to teach the dog a better behavior. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You weren't just yelling "no" or "off" and expecting it to work. You were TEACHING the dog to greet people politely.



atsilvers27 said:


> I have learned not to completely write off a form of training because of seeing it done incorrectly. I am not a dog trainer, but I had on one occasion steer a client away from using their reward-based training incorrectly, and worsening the dog's behavior. The husband gave the dog a treat after he growled at me. I was astonished and asked him why he did that. He said the wife told him to give him treats at the salon so it calms him down and so he behaves. I told him, Your dog just growled at me and you gave him a cookie. You are rewarding him for growling at me. I took the leash and the dog did nothing. Sir, your dog didn't growl, now give him a treat. I knelt down near the dog. and started petting his neck. OK, sir, he's still not growling, you can give him another treat for staying calm. The lightbulb went off in the man's head, Oh, so I only reward him when he is good. Yes.
> 
> Because I saw the man doing treat training ineffectively, I DID NOT WRITE IT OFF! I gave it a chance to work. I honored the owner's wishes not to use verbal punishment and helped the dog understand what behavior we wanted. Neither should another training method, as long is it is ethical, be completely written off as some people do.


I agree completely that you don't want to write off a form of training based on seeing it used incorrectly. And, obviously, the guy feeding the cookies to the growling dog was totally clueless. You not only helped the dog, but helped him! But I have seen correction-based training practiced by people who are considered among "the best" in the obedience world, as well as some of what CM does. (which is his own brand, and as I've said before, he seems to have been modifying to a gentler approach over time) And it is ABSOLUTELY not a brand of training I would consider for my own animals. I don't care how many awards you can win with an obedience dog, if it takes a pinch collar or an e-collar to get there, I want no part of it. To each his own, but I feel very sorry for the animals subjected to this type of training.


----------



## atsilvers27 (Jul 5, 2011)

krandall said:


> Yes, but you were doing something pro-actively to teach the dog a better behavior. That's exactly what I'm talking about. You weren't just yelling "no" or "off" and expecting it to work. You were TEACHING the dog to greet people politely.
> 
> I agree completely that you don't want to write off a form of training based on seeing it used incorrectly. And, obviously, the guy feeding the cookies to the growling dog was totally clueless. You not only helped the dog, but helped him! But I have seen correction-based training practiced by people who are considered among "the best" in the obedience world, as well as some of what CM does. (which is his own brand, and as I've said before, he seems to have been modifying to a gentler approach over time) And it is ABSOLUTELY not a brand of training I would consider for my own animals. I don't care how many awards you can win with an obedience dog, if it takes a pinch collar or an e-collar to get there, I want no part of it. To each his own, but I feel very sorry for the animals subjected to this type of training.


I haven't watched all of Cesar's videos, especially the newer ones, but there was one episode where he used an e collar which was what the owner wanted to learn how to use on the dog. The dog was a farm animal and the farmer needed her to work the farm. This dog would attack the tires on his huge tractor and she actually lost an eye and severely injured her head from going after the tractor, the poor farmer was at his wit's end and didn't want his dog getting killed in an accident from trying to bite the tractor tires. It was not possible for the farmer to train the dog close up, as he would be driving the tractor and he needed the dog loose on his property as the dog herded livestock. Hence the e collar, to train the dog from a distance and to save her life and the livelihood of the farmer. He'd lose a pet and a useful animal if she got run over, and trained herding dogs are not easily replaced. In a follow-up, the dog and farmer were fine, the dog learned not to attack a moving vehicle and eventually the e collar was no longer needed.

I think in this situation it was perfectly fine to use the e collar and I commend Cesar for saving the dog's life and the farmer's livlihood.


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

atsilvers27 said:


> I haven't watched all of Cesar's videos, especially the newer ones, but there was one episode where he used an e collar which was what the owner wanted to learn how to use on the dog. The dog was a farm animal and the farmer needed her to work the farm. This dog would attack the tires on his huge tractor and she actually lost an eye and severely injured her head from going after the tractor, the poor farmer was at his wit's end and didn't want his dog getting killed in an accident from trying to bite the tractor tires. It was not possible for the farmer to train the dog close up, as he would be driving the tractor and he needed the dog loose on his property as the dog herded livestock. Hence the e collar, to train the dog from a distance and to save her life and the livelihood of the farmer. He'd lose a pet and a useful animal if she got run over, and trained herding dogs are not easily replaced. In a follow-up, the dog and farmer were fine, the dog learned not to attack a moving vehicle and eventually the e collar was no longer needed.
> 
> I think in this situation it was perfectly fine to use the e collar and I commend Cesar for saving the dog's life and the farmer's livlihood.


I will agree with you that on the VERY RARE occasion, when all else has failed, and when the e-collar is used by someone really well trained in it's use, it is certainly better than having a dog kill itself on a tractor tire. However, any Bozo can (and does) go into Petsmart and buy an e-collar just because they don't like the fact that their dog barks in the house. (or whatever) That's not training, it's abuse, and unfortunately, it is FAR too common. As a court of last resort, maybe. But as an expedient, (which is the way they are used MUCH more often) I don't agree with their use.


----------



## Thumper (Feb 18, 2007)

I actually wasn't inferring that raising dogs was anything like raising kids, my inference was that there are many theories to raising kids, as are there are theories to raising dogs, I personally think it is vastly different, as communication with humans is obviously very different than it is dogs, I was just paralleling the similarity that every parent has their 'tested and proven' technique...as does every dog owner.

as for dog rearing...I really just do what is instinctive to me, and use a combination of old school with new school and I do not have a perfect dog, but she's perfect to me 

As for child rearing, I've done quite well, my kids are smart, respectful to me and others and have been in very little trouble (I can't even remember the last time, lol..so that's good) Im' proud of both my 2 legged and 4 legged babies! 

K


----------



## krandall (Jun 11, 2009)

Thumper said:


> I do not have a perfect dog, but she's perfect to me


Then she is "perfect"! 



Thumper said:


> As for child rearing, I've done quite well, my kids are smart, respectful to me and others and have been in very little trouble (I can't even remember the last time, lol..so that's good) Im' proud of both my 2 legged and 4 legged babies!
> 
> K


A mother can't do any better than that!


----------

