Fennell V Milan - I'm So Confused.

[Joypod]

I'm confused!!!! I've been reading heaps about dog psychology and have also watched Cesar Milan and Jan Fennell's dvd's. The main difference between the two are that Cesar seems to find a solution to all problems by teaching the owner how to walk their dog and by 'correcting' bad behaviour. Whereas Jan ignores bad behaviour completely to get a result.

Has anyone else been confused by these two 'gurus' of dog psychology or is it just me?

[Staranais]

I personally think the take home message is that dogs are very adaptable animals and can learn from a wide variety of training methods. It's not so much that one author is totally wrong and the other is totally right, they probably both say some sensible things.

I think it's also worth considering that different methods will work best for different dogs, (the cases that didn't work so well for each particular method probably didn't make it onto the DVD).

Do you have a specific problem you need to solve, Joypod, or are you just interested in learning more about dog behaviour? In any case, I'm sure there will be someone on the board to help, either by giving you advice about your issue, or recommending some further reading.

[Joypod]

Thanks Amhailte. I think you're right about dogs being very adaptable. Both Milan and Fennell get results but with such different approaches which basically proves your point.

I don't even have a dog yet! Am still in research mode. With that said, my sister has a totally out of control Jack Russell which I'm going to get my hands on (so to speak) when she goes away in Sept for a couple of weeks and mum and dad are house/dog sitting for her. I'm going to see what I can do to at least modify her behaviour while she's away.

By 'out of control' i mean she jumps like a loonie on everyone and has started nipping at people too. My sister's solution is to lock her in the bathroom when she has visitors. I've even gave her a copy of Cesar's book which she read but said that she wasn't the problem, it was everyone else. She's in complete denial.

[leopuppy04]

Two very different training methods which you will find throughout dog training. I think the main reason is that they both work. It is up to you to make a decision about which type of method you would prefer I guess

Good luck with your sisters dog - @ the denial

[leopuppy04]

Two very different training methods which you will find throughout dog training. I think the main reason is that they both work. It is up to you to make a decision about which type of method you would prefer I guess

Good luck with your sisters dog - @ the denial

[Staranais]

Well you're lucky then, you have a dog to experiment with. If she's been getting little structure or exercise or training at home, then you'll probably see improvement in her behaviour no matter what method you choose to try. Both of the method that you mentioned are pretty similar - they both rely on giving the dog black and white rules, some pack structure, plus correcting or ignoring bad behaviour. Common sense & nothing new, it's just that these two trainers have reached a wide audience with their books and TV programmes.

Just don't expect the change to persist once she's gone home. I looked after an ex-flatmate's dog for a few months earlier this year, same situation as your sister's dog. She learned to behave pretty well here (no jumping up, no barking at the door, waiting for dinner, no pulling on leash) but apparently is still a pain in the neck at home since nothing has changed there.

[Red Mal]

I don't know anyone personally who has had training with Cesar, but I know of a few that have had training with Jan Fennell, and I will just say one thing. Her training methods seemed fine, and for a long time worked for the owners and dogs, but many have since complained that her methods made dogs depressed. At first I though it was just a few owners feeling sorry for ignoring their dogs. However, even in well mannered dogs who slip up once in a while, more and more dogs seemed to decline and effectively sink into a kind of depression.

I personally know of a few non related incidents where dogs were put onto human anti depressants after this training method from Ms Fennell.

Just my experiences though of friends etc, I've not tried her methods on my own dogs.

[Erny]

RM - you've raised an example of something I have thought of/pondered for quite some time now.

We all pretty much know/realise that dog's live for the "now". Not last week or yesterday or a few hours ago. And not later today, tomorrow or next week.

1. When we correct (physically or verbally - depending on which proves to be an effective punisher) our dog for unwanted behaviour, the correction is given in the "now". It is for what the dog did right then. And with the punishment administered, it is consequently over. Done with. And life resumes.
   
2. When we ignore our dogs it is a punishment that begins at the unwanted behaviour, but continues beyond it (to whatever varying degrees or length of time we apply). It might appear to be a kinder/softer more socially acceptable punishment to many people, but for the dogs it can be quite hard - and moreover, ongoing for a period .... beyond the "now".
   

With these thoughts in mind, I know (IMO) which one seems more "positive" from the dog's point of view, and yet it is often not prescribed to (and in fact objected) by those who perceive themselves as "positive [only] trainers".

ETA: It can also be seen as negative reinforcement - the 'aversive stimulus' (in this case "being ignored") until the dog manages to work out what to do to turn off the aversive stimulus. IMO this can be more difficult and stressful for the dog given that it isn't as black and white as other learning principals can be.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Erny

[Rom]

I've a number of observations that I'd like to make about both Milan and Fennell.

Milans program involves inducing a level of fatigue in the dog before he tries for compliance. Behavioural science seems to support the statement that learning comprises all processes of adaption to the environment which cannot be traced back to instinct, maturing or fatigue. So, while fatiguing the dog may help you gain some control, does it really help the dog to learn self control when its not fatigued? You see it all the time at dog clubs. Those dogs that are uncontrollable and bouncing of the end of the lead at the beginning of the class but show an improvement in the degree of compliance by the end of the class have not necessarily learned anything of value for the next class because they behave exactly the same way. So Milan needs to apply some aversives to get the message across to the dog.

In saying the above, I don't mean to devalue the importance of an exercise program for the dog.

Fennell cites Monty Roberts (the Horse Whisperer) as a mentor and the inspiration behind the Dog Listening program that she has developed. While her program relies on avoiding all applications of aversives/punishment and simply ignoring bad behaviour, she seems to have overlooked one very important aspect of Monty Roberts 'Joining up' process which is the cornerstone of everything he does with horses. That is that during the joining up process Monty Roberts applies a very powerful aversive/punishment to the horse by mimicking a herd behaviour that makes the horse believe that its very survival could be under threat. I'm not about to call what Monty Roberts does cruel though because he has otherwise gently and efficiently rehabilitated many horses for whom he was the last hope. Even in the movie the Horse Whisperer, the rehabilitation of the horse in question did not show much improvement until after the application of a powerfully aversive event for that horse. I'm not trying to say that you would apply the same aversives/punishers to dogs as you do to horses or that aversives would work in the same situations. The point I am trying to make is that Jan Fennell didn't recongnise the aversive/punishment in Monty Roberts work when she saw it. That is the foundation of her beliefs that they are not needed.

There is also one segment I remember seeing on one of Jan Fennells DVD's that I was concerned about. It was about a dog that had shown people aggressive behaviours. Her method of treatment involved having the handler with the dog on lead bring the dog into a room with a person that the dog was reactive to. When the dog reacted by growling, they simply took the dog out of the room, waited for a while and bought it back in again to repeat the process. I'll admit that during this segment that you did see some improvement in the reaction of the dog. However, what they failed to point out is that they were effectively negatively reinforcing the dog for displaying the behaviour that they were trying to modify by removing it from the presence of something that it found stressful after it displayed the behaviour. We know that reinforcers, both positive and negative increase the intensity or regularity of a behaviour. So that segment is potentially very dangerous in the hands of the unitiated. It could be just one of those things where too much footage was left on the cutting room floor. But if Jan Fennell really understood what she was doing, why would she let a DVD be released that so mistakenly represented behavioural science?

[Tonymc]

Joy,there will always be Trainers with different approaches,different methods whether it be Horses,Dogs,Cattle or whatever.

The Bottomline is the result you get with your Dog.Read about different Trainers that appeal to you.Take from different People what you feel comfortable with.Try what feels right to you with the Dog.Note the result you get in the responses of your Dog.If you do not get the result you want then change the approach. Tony

[Red Mal]

Erny, yep you said exactly what I wanted to say. With Fennel it seems dogs feel punished for longer but without reason, it sends the dog into depression as they have already fogotton what the punishment was for.

Rom, I agree here too. I believe that although I prefer Cesar's methods, I would like to see the dogs have more self control and he doesn't address this issue.

[leopuppy04]

ETA: It can also be seen as negative reinforcement - the 'aversive stimulus' (in this case "being ignored") until the dog manages to work out what to do to turn off the aversive stimulus. IMO this can be more difficult and stressful for the dog given that it isn't as black and white as other learning principals can be.

Would you not say though that in relation to the constant positive vs traditional debate that every method no matter what type would have 'some' form of aversive added to it?? IMO - without any form of aversive you would get nowhere.....

I don't know much about either trainer so can't comment on the differences here, but can totally see how the 'use and abuse' could apply here. If you wanted to take the 'ignoring' stance... I am sure many people would pull out the duration for longer than what it should be..... but no matter what type of aversive you use, they can all be effective if used correctly wouldn't you agree? Be it check chains, halters, ignoring, voice or whatever - why? Coz it points out in black and white what is correct behaviour and what isn't....

thats the way I look at it anyway.....

ETA - I hadn't read through all posts yet. ROM - interesting point you make there about removing the dog from the stimulus. I can totally see that as working the 'other' way ie: reinforcing to the dog that it's behaviour is in turn getting itself removed from the 'thing' it finds 'offensive'.... but would you not say that by keeping the dog (on lead) in that room and simply ignoring it while it carries on (this is without knowing the degree of aggression here - i'm talking mild - just a grizzle, bark, growl etc) and then removing it/ rewarding it once it has 'settled' ok or is this not what Fennell recommends either??

Edited July 31, 2007 by leopuppy04

[Mushaka]

Cesar is on BIO in 10mins YAY

[Rom]

ETA - I hadn't read through all posts yet. ROM - interesting point you make there about removing the dog from the stimulus. I can totally see that as working the 'other' way ie: reinforcing to the dog that it's behaviour is in turn getting itself removed from the 'thing' it finds 'offensive'.... but would you not say that by keeping the dog (on lead) in that room and simply ignoring it while it carries on (this is without knowing the degree of aggression here - i'm talking mild - just a grizzle, bark, growl etc) and then removing it/ rewarding it once it has 'settled' ok or is this not what Fennell recommends either??

This is the way I would have preferred that they show the exercise for the benefit of the safety of the audience. But no, thats not how they handled the situation.

However, there were still some problems in that what they showed, the distance that they kept the dog from the stimuli meant that its reaction was fairly mild and could indicate that at this level, flooding may have been appropriate (which is basically what you're talking about I think? ), but there was no explaination of this either which leaves far too much open to the interpretation of the viewer.

BTW, I didn't mean to infer by my post that I thought that the application of a physcial correction or punisher would have been appropriate in this situation for this dog. Just that I'd detected faults in the methodologies.

[Erny]

BTW, I didn't mean to infer by my post that I thought that the application of a physcial correction or punisher would have been appropriate in this situation for this dog. Just that I'd detected faults in the methodologies.

Sometimes though it's how, when and why a physical correction is applied that can make a (good) difference. And it is not just about the application of a physical correction (if one is deemed suitable to apply - much depends on the dog, the circumstances and the environment as to what is productive) - there are other objectives and effects in the equation.

[Tassie]

I think, as has been pointed out, there are problems with all the 'quick-fix' made for TV programs - having to edit down, and at the same time provide something 'dramatic' is likely to lead to misunderstandings or miscommunication.

One of the problems about the concentration on "ignore the behaviour you don't want", is that the other half of the positive message tends to get missed out - "reward what you do want" - using reward in the broadest possible sense - meaning what the dog finds rewarding - maybe = food, maybe owner attention, maybe walk, maybe tuggy, maybe the chance to do some more work.... etc. etc. This is the part, IMHO, that does the real teaching, and when applied promptly, reduces the possibility of depression in the dog by presenting clear and pretty immediate alternatives - do this and you don't get rewarded, do that, and good things happen for dogs. By concentrating on 'making the right thing easy and the wrong thing diffuclt', and showing the dog how it's possible to 'succeed' in a way approved by the owner, ISTM that you're more likely to get owner compliance too, since they can switch from ignoring (which many don't like to do) to presenting the dog with a chance to have success.

Don't know if this makes sense.

[leopuppy04]

BTW, I didn't mean to infer by my post that I thought that the application of a physcial correction or punisher would have been appropriate in this situation for this dog. Just that I'd detected faults in the methodologies.

oh - I wasn't thinking on those lines at all - I was just trying to see where you were coming from considering I know so little about both trainers. The thing that worries me about all of these training DVD's though and shows like 'it's me or the dog' and when it was on 'harry's practice' - is not what we as 'experienced trainers' can get out of them but what the 'inexperienced' take away.... the amount of things that can be misinterpreted and ultimately harm the dog is astonishing.

All you have to do is walk around an obedience class and see the many ways that each person can interpret your directions.... at least they have you there to help them out - a DVD won't know when you are 'fobbing' it

Erny:

Sometimes though it's how, when and why a physical correction is applied that can make a (good) difference. And it is not just about the application of a physical correction (if one is deemed suitable to apply - much depends on the dog, the circumstances and the environment as to what is productive) - there are other objectives and effects in the equation.

so true! But that would apply to any correction, reward etc...

So - to clarify things.... what *does* Milan advocate and what does Fennell advocate??

ETA: Tassie - my sentiments exactly! It often is forgotten about when to reward a dog because after all - they are doing exactly as you would want them to do - lying quietly on a mat, not barking outside, not chewing your shoes, not pulling on the lead etc,etc, etc.... selfish creatures that we are - we fail to reward that as dogs in our minds *should* behave like that naturally - I try and live by the rule of 10 positives for every negative. I guess that also means that when the negative is applied it is 10 times more effective as it is in 'stark contrast' to what they are used to

Edited July 31, 2007 by leopuppy04

[Joypod]

I actually read Cesar's book before even hearing about Jan Fennell. Then I watched Jan's dvd which was around the time my confusion started. Cesar's method of stopping a dog before it even starts a bad behaviour (by jerking gently on it's leash) seemed so effective to me. His philosophy of the dog following the pack leader on the walk being important also made sense to me. Then along comes Jan who doesn't even seem fussed about people walking their dogs or not and who doesn't give the same sort of correction.

Having read your posts, I think I'm going to stick with my initial instinct of Cesar's way being more effective in the long term. It makes more sense to me for some reason.

[skip]

I've also been reading a bit about dog training and more so behaviour. I read the book Cesars' Way and I am now reading a book by Jan Fennell. But in Cesars book he refers to a book as furthur recommended reading by a lady Patricia McConnell Ph.D. called The Other End Of The Leash: Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs. This book was in my local library and I enjoyed it more than any other. It is detailed but so easy to read and understand. Well worth reading.

And I know how frustrating it is when somebody close has a dog whose behaviour drives you crazy. You can see how easy it would be to correct but they say it is too hard. I went to stay with a relative and her poodle barks madly at the beach for a stone to be thrown. I couldn't stand the constant manic barking. I convinced her to use a ball ( teeth please! ) and not to throw unless the dog ceased barking. By only a few walks the dog accepted the ball and seemed to carry it for a while as well. So much more peaceful and the dog might have a tooth left in his head at old age. My friends timing was a bit off but the dog knew in one day that I wouldn't throw unless it stayed quiet. Very clever dog has trained her owner perfectly.

But ultimately the owner will be revert back unless they instigated the change. Some people don't want to change or modify behaviour. I guarentee that when I go to visit again that the poodle will be off again. But it is very interesting.

[Staranais]

The point I am trying to make is that Jan Fennell didn't recongnise the aversive/punishment in Monty Roberts work when she saw it. That is the foundation of her beliefs that they are not needed... But if Jan Fennell really understood what she was doing, why would she let a DVD be released that so mistakenly represented behavioural science?

I think that's a really valid point Rom. I mean, isn't it a worry that a "professional behaviourist" doesn't recognise aversives and reinforcers when she sees them?

I've read a couple of Jan Fennell's books, one of which was partially a biography, and her method appears to be have been developed after she watched a few videos of wolves, read Monty Robert's stuff, then she experimented with some mildly problematic dogs with her newly invented method and got success. Her bios never state that she's done any recognised courses on dog training, apprenticed or trained with any good dog trainers, or even competed successfully in any dog sports, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, IMO, if you have a mildly obnoxious dog then I imagine using Jan's "Amichien" bonding rules sensibly probably won't do much harm to most dogs, any more than applying any other form of ground rules would. But I don't think I'd trust her with a severely problematic dog. From what I've read of her, she just doesn't seem to have the knowledge base to understand or deal with dangerous or really problematic dogs. Perhaps I'm doing her an injustice, but that's the impression I get.

But in Cesars book he refers to a book as furthur recommended reading by a lady Patricia McConnell Ph.D. called The Other End Of The Leash: Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs. This book was in my local library and I enjoyed it more than any other.

I really liked that book too.