Cesar Milan

[Lynne B]

I disagree with many of Cesar Milan's methods, but I know he has quite a following...here's a website that Dr. Sophia Yin (a vet/trainer that I have much respect for) linked on her facebook page:
http://beyondcesarmillan.weebly.com/index.html

[Adina P]

I agree with you. I think we throw around the term 'abuse' a bit liberally when it comes to giving dogs unpleasant consequences. As though anything unpleasant or undesired by the dog is automatically wrong/evil or mean and cruel. There are trainers that advocate training where you barely ever TOUCH your dog for fear of using too much 'force.' Well 'force' is not inherently bad...it's all in how you define it and use it. For example some definition of force:

"tr.v. forced, forc·ing, forc·es
1. To compel through pressure or necessity: I forced myself to practice daily. He was forced to take a second job.
2.
a. To gain by the use of force or coercion: force a confession.
b. To move or effect against resistance or inertia: forced my foot into the shoe.
c. To inflict or impose relentlessly: He forced his ideas upon the group.
3.
a. To put undue strain on: She forced her voice despite being hoarse.
b. To increase or accelerate (a pace, for example) to the maximum.
c. To produce with effort and against one's will: force a laugh in spite of pain.
d. To use (language) with obvious lack of ease and naturalness.
4.
a. To move, open, or clear by force: forced our way through the crowd.
b. To break down or open by force: force a lock."
( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force )

Attaching "abuse" to any and all physical manipulation or 'force' (given the wide variety of definitions and possible applications) damages the horror of true abuse, watering it down so that when true abuse occurs there's not a clear distinction.

I also don't think Cesar's a 'trainer' as far as obedience is concerned and he wouldn't be on my list of people to beg help from. But that's because I think good OB training typically takes care of MOST of the problems he deals with save for the severely aggressive dog cases that require a bit more know-how.

Obedience training is obedience training...discipline is discipline. The dogs he features on his show are almost always neither trained nor disciplined and their owners just kinda let their dogs do whatever they want, stand back 'helplessly' and then have the nerve to complain about their dog's problems--usually (occasionally they are people who have earnestly given an effort before giving up and calling Cesar). What drives me most batty watching the show (which I think is entertaining overall). Cesar is a good show man, charismatic, and despite opinion to the contrary I think he CARES deeply about dogs--the behavior of the dogs in his rehab center/pack is great. They are happy to see him, they defer to him, they get along quite well for such messed up backgrounds and different breeds/personalities.

But I also think that only he can really do what he does (whatever hocus pocus he has over the dogs is beyond me) the way he does it and as well as he does it. I think there are good things to pull from the show: act confident, be calm (have you ever seen him scream and yell and lose his temper toward a dog??? No, his corrections are never personal or filled with anger or anything like that). It promotes exercising the dog and setting boundaries.

Do I practice what he teaches? Not really...but again I believe in obedience training FIRST. Teach your dog to do things on command, reliably and you don't need to poke and prod him, etc. Would I try what he tries with aggressive dogs? Heck no! I ain't touching someone else's aggressive dog...he doesn't mind a bite...I do. I'm NOT a fan of the alpha roll and think it's ridiculous and dangerous and if used needs to be done by someone who knows what they are doing to a dog that absolutely must be stopped AND that person needs to be SURE they will win the fight.

Overall, I'm all for praise and being positive and teaching the dog WHAT to do and working one's butt off for good obedience. That takes care of SOOO many common problems, that anything left over will be minor/and or way easier to deal with.

I think Cesar is good at what he does and he accomplishes what he wants to accomplish... I personally do not think he's abusive, but that's me.

BUT I do not think he's a trainer or someone to emulate. HE can do it, HE can psssst the heck out of dogs and get them to stop doing things. But there's more to training then getting a dog to STOP something.

Training also involves TEACHING the dog new things ... which I've never really seen him do. He may have talent and charisma, but he lacks experience in teaching/training dogs...only in getting them to stop doing things.

I think there are things to learn from him such as: be confident, improve your timing, stand up straight and get things done...but those aren't training specific.

[1xar0x2rcx0li]

Great link Lynne.

I dont think wolf pack is the answer to everything, but I do think dogs benefit from consistant leadership and clear boundries, however you establish that..

As a scientist I always try to find published articels for things. Here is the abstract from an article against wolf-pack theory.

"A popular perspective on the social behavior of dogs in multiple-dog households sees the dogs' behavior as reflecting the sociobiological laws of the rigidly structured dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolf packs. This view suggests that aggression problems among dogs are natural expressions of conflict that arise whenever dominance status is in contention. One recommended solution has been for the owner to endorse and enforce a particular dominance hierarchy because, on the wolf pack model, aggression is minimized when the structure of the hierarchy is clear, strong, and stable. This article questions the validity of this perspective on 2 principal grounds. First, because it does not seem to occur in the wild, this article suggests the strong dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolves may be a by-product of captivity. If true, it implies that social behavior—even in wolves—may be a product more of environmental circumstances and contingencies than an instinctive directive. Second, because feral dogs do not exhibit the classic wolf-pack structure, the validity of the canid, social dominance hierarchy again comes into question. This article suggests that behavioral learning theory offers another perspective regarding the behavior of dogs and wolves in the wild or in captivity and offers an effective intervention for aggression problems."

Regarding the dog-wolf and people-ape comparison:
Dogs were wolves about 15,000 years ago (pretty recent in evolutionary terms) and are still the same species so it should not be surprisng that people will try to equate dogs and wolves, you just need to actually be correct in what wolves do!! Dogs did evolve out of wolf ancestors. Apes and subsequent h*** species diverged over 2.5 million years ago and we did not evolve out of apes, but rather these two species came out of a common now extinct ancestor, quite different than the evolution of dogs. But we still like bananas and scrathcing our butts!

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

"Dogs were wolves about 15,000 years ago and are still the same species"- there is quite a bit of disagreement on that.
From the link Lynne provided above:

Myth 1: The dog is a descendant of the wolf. Because of this
we should regard him as a sort of tame wolf in our living room.

"The idea of the dog as a tame wolf has a huge romantic attraction for us. We imagine the great grey
wolf of the northern regions of the Earth, a powerful wild animal weighing 160–220 pounds, who
spends his days hunting deer, moose or elk. We dream of our own ancestors finding (or stealing) a
wolf puppy and raising him with lots of TLC. We imagine this pup growing up to be man’s friend and
companion, and bearing tame pups for us. After thousands generations of this, we supposedly
produced the dog as we now know him. We see a direct line of descent going from our own dog
straight to the mighty grey wolf we see on Discovery Channel. Wow, a wolf in our living room, what a
powerful feeling!

We now know that this isn’t how it happened. Our ancestors didn’t tame the dog at all. The dog most
likely tamed himself. Besides, the dog’s ancestor isn’t the mighty grey wolf of Discovery Channel.
That wolf didn’t exist yet when the dog began to split off into a new species — the grey wolf as he is today had yet to evolve, just as the domestic dog did. What you need to imagine is a much smaller animal, who had already split off from the wolf family line, some 200,000–500,000 years ago. This ancestor wasn’t a specialised hunter like the wolf is, but rather what biologists call a ‘generalist’ — an animal that is not limited to one special food source or environment, but that can adapt to various situations. This smaller ancestor probably looked somewhat like the dingo and other primitive dogs who still live in the wild today. It may not have been a pack animal. In fact, pack living is rare among canids. So, like most of the generalist canids we see today, the dog’s ancestor probably lived in pairs and temporary family groups, able to deal both with being together and with being alone."

[Adina P]

To me all this talk about wolves. vs. dogs is interesting, but it still doesn't tell us much about whether Cesar is effective, ineffective, good, bad, or otherwise. Sometimes a technique works even if the reasoning behind it is faulty. I listen to some of the stuff Cesar says and roll my eyes because I think he's pulling it out of his a##---BUT it works for him. A lot of positive-only or positive-mostly folks were horrified when he forced the Great Dane to walk through the hallways that scared it spitless (or should I say made it drool like a faucet). So he flooded the Great Dane through his fear and the darn dog came out FINE in the end and was no longer afraid of walking the shiny floors. HIS reasoning behind it wasn't accurate... but it worked. Many balked at this despite the fact the Dane was FINE in the end and lost his fear. Yes he was stressed in the process---a lot of change is stressful and perhaps someone with treats could have gotten the same result with less stress over the time period of a few weeks. But does it really matter when, in the end, the dog is FINE and got through the stress and lost his fear?

[Karen, Jasper and Jackdoodle]

That particular show struck a nerve with me, because that is the kind of thing I had to work very hard on with Jack when I first got him, and I am here to tell you that not only would that particular way of doing it have been absolutely impossible for us, it would NOT have worked in the long term. First of all, all the confidence and standing up straight in the world will not force a 150 lb dog to move when he doesn't want to. Secondly, if you do somehow force them into a situation they are desperate to avoid, it is going to be that much harder to do it the next time. Trust me on this one. It took a lot of work, a lot of trust-and-confidence building in other situations, a lot of exposure, and a lot of ordinary basic obedience to get Jack over some of his irrational fears in certain situations. Like you said above, a lot of what CM does is "quick fixes". I don't necessarily call what he does abuse, but I am absolutely positive that it wouldn't work for the average person, or make permanent changes. I don't know if that Dane was fine or not, but that one episode is not a good demonstration of how to get a dog to overcome fear. I also don't necessarily agree that purely positive methods are the only way to go, or that you should never let a dog know he is out-of-line and you are displeased with him. I get in Jack's face in no uncertain terms when he is reactive in an aggressive manner, and I don't have to use a choke chain to get my point across, either. I use only body language and words. But as you also said above, there has to be a basic relationship in place, and it takes time and work to get to that point.
The wolf-dog stuff that really bothers me is not what this discussion is about, but I do think it's important to understand the differences.

[Adina P]

I agree that Cesar isn't really a person all dog owners need to emulate. Jack is Jack and you are you. Neither you or I could be a Cesar stand-in...even with a ton of coaching :) So I don't mean to imply that 'flooding' is what others 'should' do...only that it seems to work for him. When I said the Dane was fine it was because they showed him some time later walking those hallways without a problem and his owner was very pleased. Cesar made it work in that instance...so I think he has some sort of knack for reading dogs and getting the job done. But he's NOT easy to follow...shouldnt be mimicked...and his explanations don't always make sense. The only parts that are worth copying because they are consistent thru each show are his mantra of 'exercise, discipline, affection' -- and setting 'boundaries and limitations' for dogs. but the best manner in which discipline and boundaries are taught, set and enforced will vary somewhat case by case. Those who watch and try to copy exactly are not always using a lot of common sense or good judgement. He does this sorta instinctually... and the average pet owner doesn't have his instincts.

[Lynne B]

He suppressed the behavior- he did not extinguish it, and in my opinion- using 'flooding' can damage a dog's trust in humans. I watched one show where Cesar used his 'techniques' on an aggressive pitbull. The dog seemed 'cured' after a few weeks in his dog camp or whatever it is, but when he reintroduced the dog to the owner, the dog immediately attacked another dog...oh well, so much for that...what did he do? He blamed the owner for not having the right 'energy' around the dog and suggested that she let him keep the dog and he would give her one of his.

99% of dogs who aggress do so out of fear. There is only one rational way to deal with fear, and that is desensitization, and since it's not an instant fix, it doesn't play well on a TV show

[Adina P]

I think you would agree that more often than not...owners ARE the ones at fault. So regardless of the vague 'energy' idea he espouses...this dog's owners probably sucked at dealing with their dog.

As to suppressing vs. extinguishing...well sometimes either is fine. But I do agree something else needs to be done in the meantime. One can't JUST suppress.

In my opinion basic obedience training (by 'basic' I mean basic commands...but with the goal of reliability not just teaching what words mean) done well can take care of LOTS...and some dogs will need a little bit of management beyond that to keep things under control.

Good obedience training instills confidence, mutual trust and respect (from dog to human and human to dog), and builds relationship.

A dog, trained well, learns that there is freedom IN holding a sit stay and can do so calmly in situations that USED to be stressful (various surfaces, around strangers, around exuberant dogs, etc). Same with heeling in places that used to trigger wild behavior or pulling on leash, etc.

I firmly believe getting a dog to be 'good' and under control is BEST accomplished by a commitment to general reliable obedience to the basics...and that usually means much more than a beginner's class or practice in the house. It takes a huge amount of consistency and taking this practice into the real world. THAT is hard work...regardless of training method and I don't think the average pet owner wants that much work thus they give up by saying 'But we've BEEEEEEEN to classes and he still pulls on leash.' Well...'classes' don't train a dog...YOU (speaking universally) must train the dog.

[1io1xas2wgid6]

On this particular show the owner decided to keep the dog and Cesar continued to work with them, it ended well with happy dogs and owners. Even in traditional obedience classes the humans are trained to train the dogs.

[1xar0x2rcx0li]

A few snippets from some high quality scientific journals.........

"The preponderance of molecular evidence points to an origin of dogs from the wolf, Canis lupus. The molecular findings are also supported by a large body of archaeological evidence that implicates the Near East as a likely locus of definitive domestication [although dog domestication may have begun in Central Europe as early as the Upper Late Paleolithic. Wolf domestication is seen as the result of 2 interwoven processes originating >14,000 years ago during our hunter-gatherer nomadic period. First, a founder group of less-fearful wolves would have been pulled toward nomadic encampments to scavenge kills or perhaps salvage wounded escapees from the hunt. Thereafter, these wolves may have found utility as barking sentinels, warning of human and animal invaders approaching at night. Gradually, natural selection and genetic drift resulting from human activities began to differentiate these wolves from the larger autonomous population. Once people had direct interaction with wolves, a subsequent, “cultural process” would have begun. Suitable “preselected” wolf pups taken as pets would have been socialized to humans and unconsciously and unintentionally selected for decreased flight behavior and increased sociality, 2 trademarks of tameness. Eventually, people established control over proto-dog mating. From this point forward the wolf in effect became a dog, under constant observation and subject to strong artificial selection for desired traits. Selection for tameness entails morphological and physiological changes through polygenes governing developmental processes and patterns, and these provide grist for the mill of further iterations of selection. For wolf domestication, the phases of natural and artificial selection blend one into the other, eventuating in “man's best friend” with doting and obedient behaviors. Although dogs have been prized as household companions for thousands of years, the wide phenotypic variation of modern dog breeds began more recently (3,000–4,000 B.P.), leading to the ≈400 breeds recognized today by the Dog Breeders Associations."

And "The question of the origins of the dog has been much debated. The dog is descended from the wolf that at the end of the last glaciation (the archaeologically hypothesized period of dog domestication) was one of the most widespread among Holarctic mammals. Scenarios provided by genetic studies range from multiple dog-founding events to a single origin in East Asia. The earliest fossil dogs, dated 17–12,000 radiocarbon (14C) years ago (YA), were found in Europe and in the Middle East. Ancient DNA (a-DNA) evidence could contribute to the identification of dog-founder wolf populations. To gain insight into the relationships between ancient European wolves and dogs we analyzed a 262-bp mitochondrial DNA control region fragment retrieved from five prehistoric Italian canids ranging in age from 15,000 to 3,000 14C YA. These canids were compared to a worldwide sample of 547 purebred dogs and 341 wolves. The ancient sequences were highly diverse and joined the three major clades of extant dog sequences. Phylogenetic investigations highlighted relationships between the ancient sequences and geographically widespread extant dog matrilines and between the ancient sequences and extant wolf matrilines of mainly East European origin. The results provide a-DNA support for the involvement of European wolves in the origins of the three major dog clades. Genetic data also suggest multiple independent domestication events. East European wolves may still reflect the genetic variation of ancient dog-founder populations."

[Tara L P]

This is what NAT GEO said on "And Man Created Dog" which aired last night.

Our ancestors adopted a pack of young wolves whose mother had been killed. The women of the tribe actually 'nursed the baby wolves' creating that special bond from hormones, endorphines, etc. The wolf babies travelled with the cavemen group and as new pups were born, they would keep the 'docile pups' and rid the aggressive/mean ones. This created a natural selection through evolution of man/wolves/dogs.

Even if you think that's balony it was a great show! Very entertaining. Ella thought so too:)

[Lynne B]

It sounds like a great show- wish I had seen it, I think I was watching some crap on food network..