Cesar about Wolf-Dog Hybrids

[Fede86]

Originally Posted by Jennin Lauma

Oh, my... I'm so tired of these statements like "the animal is confused, it does not know whether it is a dog or a wolf"... yadiyadiyadiyaa...

[...]

Also I've seen Cesar kicking the dogs, and for example using an electric collar on a black GSD to accustom it to the family's cat. -I wonder how the dog should learn to concider the cat as a friend / family member, when teached that every time the cat enters the room and the dog sees the cat, it get's painfull shocks...?

I agree. I am quite open minded and I always try to take the best from everyone's theory and methods, I watch Millan on TV and I even read his book. There are some things he says (says, not does) I agree with, for example that you have to be calm and assertive when dealing with a dog, or that many problems can be avoided or partially solved simply by sufficiently stimulating a dog with physical and mental activities.

But all in all there are two ways to deal with a dog's problems: the first is to work on the dog's "feelings" toward a certain situation, which are the cause of its behavior/reactions. The second is to forget about what the dog's mental state is and only work on the reaction itself, shaping or repressing it. It seems to me that Millan basically does the latter. Which also mean that once the control on the dog's reactions weavers, the dog goes back to act as its psychological and emotional state of mind suggests it. So you don't solve the dog's problem, only its owner's problems in dealing with them.

Now, I realize there are some (very few I'd dare to say) cases when you can no longer change a dog's state of mind, when the dog is so far gone that to work on his feelings is too hard ore you don't manage to do it. At that point the only solution to retain a minimum of control on the dog is to at least change its behavior, which is better than nothing.

But that doesn't mean Millan's way is the correct way to educate/train a dog on principle, I would only see that as the very last solution (better than euthanasia or than having the dog live the rest of his life in an enclosure), and you still have to be conscious of the fact that you have not solved the problem, only shoved it under a rug...

What I don't find wise is to publicize his methods on TV to people who mostly cannot have a critical outlook on what he does, and I also don't understand why he uses those methods as his first solution without trying to work on the dog's state of mind first, when possible. Probably because its quicker, easier and cheaper...

[Jennin Lauma]

Originally Posted by Fede86

I agree. I am quite open minded and I always try to take the best from everyone's theory and methods, I watch Millan on TV and I even read his book. There are some things he says (says, not does) I agree with, for example that you have to be calm and assertive when dealing with a dog, or that many problems can be avoided or partially solved simply by sufficiently stimulating a dog with physical and mental activities.

..........

What I don't find wise is to publicize his methods on TV to people who mostly cannot have a critical outlook on what he does, and I also don't understand why he uses those methods as his first solution without trying to work on the dog's state of mind first, when possible. Probably because its quicker, easier and cheaper...

Exactly! I completely agree with you.

[AMERICANI]

Originally Posted by Fede86

I agree. I am quite open minded and I always try to take the best from everyone's theory and methods, I watch Millan on TV and I even read his book. There are some things he says (says, not does) I agree with, for example that you have to be calm and assertive when dealing with a dog, or that many problems can be avoided or partially solved simply by sufficiently stimulating a dog with physical and mental activities.

But all in all there are two ways to deal with a dog's problems: the first is to work on the dog's "feelings" toward a certain situation, which are the cause of its behavior/reactions. The second is to forget about what the dog's mental state is and only work on the reaction itself, shaping or repressing it. It seems to me that Millan basically does the latter. Which also mean that once the control on the dog's reactions weavers, the dog goes back to act as its psychological and emotional state of mind suggests it. So you don't solve the dog's problem, only its owner's problems in dealing with them.

Now, I realize there are some (very few I'd dare to say) cases when you can no longer change a dog's state of mind, when the dog is so far gone that to work on his feelings is too hard ore you don't manage to do it. At that point the only solution to retain a minimum of control on the dog is to at least change its behavior, which is better than nothing.

But that doesn't mean Millan's way is the correct way to educate/train a dog on principle, I would only see that as the very last solution (better than euthanasia or than having the dog live the rest of his life in an enclosure), and you still have to be conscious of the fact that you have not solved the problem, only shoved it under a rug...

What I don't find wise is to publicize his methods on TV to people who mostly cannot have a critical outlook on what he does, and I also don't understand why he uses those methods as his first solution without trying to work on the dog's state of mind first, when possible. Probably because its quicker, easier and cheaper...

Thats it - I left out the part where the the owner had done the most harm in letting the dog get to that point, and you absolutely touched on what I was shooting for! If this problem (which the unwanted behavior has now been suppressed) returns, all of this fighting and choking - would be done again - the problem wasn't fixed.. This is cruel. These techniques are identical to my previously mentioned equipment, where people shouldn't have them or use them if they aren't qualified.

Originally Posted by Fede86

What I don't find wise is to publicize his methods on TV to people who mostly cannot have a critical outlook on what he does, and I also don't understand why he uses those methods as his first solution without trying to work on the dog's state of mind first, when possible. Probably because its quicker, easier and cheaper...

What you need to understand to see where he's (wrongly) coming from, is that he got his start in a grooming shop. What you have to do in a situation like that (limited time, a need to get the work done no matter what) is vastly different than what an owner should do at home. Like you said, it does absolutely nothing to work at the root cause of the problem. People saw Cesar had a knack for it, so with ZERO actual education, he starts training dogs. I'm sorry, but I'm a groomer, I am 100% confident in my own abilities as a trainer with my own pets, but I'm not about to go teaching people without getting training for myself first! We expect a certain level of education in our "experts" that we trust, but just because Cesar has a flashy, quick method, people spout it as gosspal without questioning it.

Jason, as far as other methods go, Cesar is just pushing the dog WAY too fast. You don't need to "dominate" a dog, quite the contrary, actually. Especially a dog that is already shy, it just makes it worse. People that follow dominance based training always mention wolves, but the fact that you CAN push a dog down, so to speak, and they still come back wanting to please is a trait they developed as they domesticated. The village dogs that hung around despite abuse are the ones that got the most scraps and survived to breed.

You need to work to establish trust with a dog like that before bringing it to a situation where it might react. You have no need to dodge teeth when you can easily avoid what brought the dog to that threshold to begin with.

Here's an article that talks about why dominance theory is antiquated:
http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/iss..._yJC0.facebook

[AMERICANI]

Originally Posted by Vicky

What you need to understand to see where he's (wrongly) coming from, is that he got his start in a grooming shop. What you have to do in a situation like that (limited time, a need to get the work done no matter what) is vastly different than what an owner should do at home. Like you said, it does absolutely nothing to work at the root cause of the problem. People saw Cesar had a knack for it, so with ZERO actual education, he starts training dogs. I'm sorry, but I'm a groomer, I am 100% confident in my own abilities as a trainer with my own pets, but I'm not about to go teaching people without getting training for myself first! We expect a certain level of education in our "experts" that we trust, but just because Cesar has a flashy, quick method, people spout it as gosspal without questioning it.

Jason, as far as other methods go, Cesar is just pushing the dog WAY too fast. You don't need to "dominate" a dog, quite the contrary, actually. Especially a dog that is already shy, it just makes it worse. People that follow dominance based training always mention wolves, but the fact that you CAN push a dog down, so to speak, and they still come back wanting to please is a trait they developed as they domesticated. The village dogs that hung around despite abuse are the ones that got the most scraps and survived to breed.

You need to work to establish trust with a dog like that before bringing it to a situation where it might react. You have no need to dodge teeth when you can easily avoid what brought the dog to that threshold to begin with.

Here's an article that talks about why dominance theory is antiquated:
http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/iss..._yJC0.facebook

I agree with you guys - thanks Vicky (for the link) I agree 100% with everything said in that article, but perhaps my definition of dominance and being Alpha wasn't "textbook". I was in the Navy for 14 years.. Never in that time was one of my seniors or officers aggressive or violent. However, they were dominant and they were leaders. Leadership, perhaps, is what most people confuse with dominance.. So when I say I am dominant, I mean "in charge" perhaps we shouldn't use Alpha because that leads us astray and into the realm of being integrated into the CANINE pack - we are a pack, just multi-species... I am confident (example given: ) when I take my dogs to this park where we hike in the woods and go to the Lake Worth spillway, my dogs wiil stay within sight of me and follow back to the car and get in when we are finished. They aren't afraid of violent repercussions if they don't. It is just respect.. On the same note, the one I actually face problems with personally, and the one that proves we aren't dogs (if we need proof), My animals are all well behaved, but the females (and males) want to kill each-other, regardless of what I do alone to stop a fight (I have successfully took a pair of females and a pair of males together (I had help at the time, and I used the "dominant down" for aggression, eventually achieved a state of peace ( I took them to the lake together without fights), but there still remained a measure of tension between the two. They did not fully enjoy the setting near as much as they should have (or would being paired with a different dog). I have to keep them separated, and I hate it.. They matured and stopped getting along.

My earlier post was focused on that particular dog in the video. It was already to the point that it needed fixing then and there. You saw Cesar's arm.. those weren't love nibbles (yet, they weren't at all the worst bite)..

Oh, I see, now! Yeah, semantics are all screwed up with dog training, just because of the associations connected to words over the years. Even if some ideas seem to overlap, it's become standard to drop things like "alpha" and "dominant" for other terms, like being firm with rules and not being a pushover, haha.

Just as an aside, I think the best learning experience I've had in terms of training was the wolf and dog behavior seminar my husband and I attended at Wolf Park in Indiana. They talked about how they train the wolves (only by reward and shaping behavior through treats, absolutely zero correction) and how you can use those methods on dogs, but never any other dog training (i.e. corrections, dominance, etc.) on wolves because they haven't been bred over the years to respond to humans the way dogs do. Just puts it into an interesting perspective.

[AMERICANI]

Originally Posted by Vicky

Oh, I see, now! Yeah, semantics are all screwed up with dog training, just because of the associations connected to words over the years. Even if some ideas seem to overlap, it's become standard to drop things like "alpha" and "dominant" for other terms, like being firm with rules and not being a pushover, haha.

Just as an aside, I think the best learning experience I've had in terms of training was the wolf and dog behavior seminar my husband and I attended at Wolf Park in Indiana. They talked about how they train the wolves (only by reward and shaping behavior through treats, absolutely zero correction) and how you can use those methods on dogs, but never any other dog training (i.e. corrections, dominance, etc.) on wolves because they haven't been bred over the years to respond to humans the way dogs do. Just puts it into an interesting perspective.

I would love to go to that seminar!!! Marcy had mentioned going, I have checked out their site and some videos.. I even bought that book by Shaun Ellis and Monty Sloan, "Spirit of the Wolf"..