An Interesting Link

[SkySoaringMagpie]

It may be the breed I have too, it is usually a mental game with them, not a physical one and I get much more success by stopping and thinking than by using physical correction. The "is that the best you can come up with, infidel?" look of disdain reminds me to keep it smart, not physical.

When I read the above I thought you were inferring that 'smart' training doesn't include physical corrections, that physical corrections don't involve thinking it through. If that wasn't the case and you didn't mean to infer that, like I said above, I apologise for misinterpreting you.

For me and my dogs that is true of physical corrections - I believe that if I have had to physically correct my dogs, I should have a good hard think about why my dog ended up in that situation. My dogs are well bred, I've raised them from puppies and they have no HA or DA issues. If you want to trial them they're a difficult breed, but to live with they are pretty easy compared to breeds that are always "on".

They have dawn zoomies and dusk zoomies and craaaazy puppyhoods but much of life is spent sleeping. I do believe I should be able to manage them without physical corrections - partly my value system and partly the fact that they're not that hard house manners wise. Me not using physical corrections does not mean I do not use punishment or that I fail to enforce boundaries. I do both. But that's pretty easy stuff, you can achieve an awful lot by not letting them push you around and NILIFing them.

I don't have a dog damaged by its past life or bad breeding. Perhaps if I had a really challenging dog with major HA or DA issues I would have to adjust what I do. Right now, I don't. I also do preventive pet dog training, I don't deal with hard cases - they get referred off before they even get a chance to get into my classes. For the stuff I see, physical correction isn't necessary and I think it is important to get students thinking about constructing the dog they want to see, rather than just focussing on what they don't. Human nature being what it is, people will do the latter without any help, they need a big push to do the former in my experience.

Also, mea culpa, I could have phrased that better or added a qualification to make it clearer. I ranted at the OH tonight and said "can you believe someone got cranky with that post of mine!!" all outraged and OH said "well you did call them dumb". I almost shouted "I DID NOT" down the phone before realising I had lost my sense of perspective.

In short, it wasn't intentional but unbiased observers agree that I didn't phrase it as well as I could have.

Hope the above makes my position clearer.

Edited for spellinks

Edited July 22, 2009 by SkySoaringMagpie

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

my observation is that we are all passionate people about our dogs and the training of them. sometimes because of this we can loose perspective and our words don't come out as we really mean or want them too.

i would rather be passionate and have discussions with passionate people than have ho hum converstaions about something that is not important to me.

in the end we are trying what we can and what we know to manage the best we can with the dogs we have in our lives with all their individual quirks.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I think that's a fair post but I think the problem some people have with corvus' posts is that she is not saying that, she is trying to extrapolate her own experience to warn people off what she sees as suffering the same consequences as she did with her one single dog.

CM himself says in his book (thought I am not suggesting he made this quote up) "two dog trainers can't seem to agree on anything except the fact that a third dog trainer is completely wrong". Everyone is entield to their own beliefs IMO, I am not going to suggest what you are doing is wrong if it works for you, but to suggest that people might be infinitely damaging their relationship with their dog by doing something (when the person suggesting it has only had experience with their own dog) is wrong.

Sure, I think one of the things about this being a pure breed forum that supports rescue - you are going to get a really wide variety of dogs and people and it helps always to be aware that just because you're experienced in one area, there's a huge variety in the dog training field and no one person is going to be able to cover the lot. People don't just have different methods, they have different goals, different standards, different criteria, different problems. I am not saying the scientific principles of dog training vary, or that breeds are mono-temperament but the experience does vary depending on the dog and the person.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

So why do people react so much to criticism of an American TV personality who has "don't try this at home!" slapped all over his show's disclaime

I put a similar disclaimer on my emails when giving out info to a client - this information is for the dog analysed please do not pass this on to other people.

similar behaviors can be form different causes. One person goes 'oh my dog does that!' tries it and regresses the dog or doesnt fully understand what they are doing and make it worst. It's not training a trick it's dealing with a potentially dangerous situation with a stressed dog. Isn't that more responsible then 'hey go home and give it a go yourself!'.

Sure, the disclaimer has a purpose on a show that is purportedly for entertainment. But the purpose is not dog training. So my question still stands, why do people leap to defend him against Cesar "bashing" but let snarking at just about any other well known trainer just slide on through? Especially as Cesar is by far the more popular and influential person. Why does he inspire people to defend him when experts are either lukewarm about him or actively critical of him?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

So why do people react so much to criticism of an American TV personality who has "don't try this at home!" slapped all over his show's disclaime

I put a similar disclaimer on my emails when giving out info to a client - this information is for the dog analysed please do not pass this on to other people.

similar behaviors can be form different causes. One person goes 'oh my dog does that!' tries it and regresses the dog or doesnt fully understand what they are doing and make it worst. It's not training a trick it's dealing with a potentially dangerous situation with a stressed dog. Isn't that more responsible then 'hey go home and give it a go yourself!'.

Sure, the disclaimer has a purpose on a show that is purportedly for entertainment. But the purpose is not dog training. So my question still stands, why do people leap to defend him against Cesar "bashing" but let snarking at just about any other well known trainer just slide on through? Especially as Cesar is by far the more popular and influential person. Why does he inspire people to defend him when experts are either lukewarm about him or actively critical of him?

i am not sure why people defend cesar or not but what i do know is that his program has brought dog training to the forefront and this has to be good for the general public.

he also advocates desexing dogs, looking after them well etc so again, this is good for the GP.

even though we all think about training and managing dog behaviour the GP really don't so any program that shows a variety of dog behaviours that may seem very bad but can be resolved by training may just help reduce the number of dogs that are put into pounds as hopeless cases.

i don't advocate or defend him i just think the fact that there is a dog training program on TV is good.

the same goes for it's me or the dog, good for the GP to see dog training can solve some issues

[Erny]

Why does he inspire people to defend him when experts are either lukewarm about him or actively critical of him?

I think you need to ask "what experts"? By that I mean, what do the "experts" who you think are "actively critical of him" or are "lukewarm about him" have in common? Could it be the training methodology they prescribe to that actually prevents them from acknowledging any good about him?

[SkySoaringMagpie]

Why does he inspire people to defend him when experts are either lukewarm about him or actively critical of him?

I think you need to ask "what experts"? By that I mean, what do the "experts" who you think are "actively critical of him" or are "lukewarm about him" have in common? Could it be the training methodology they prescribe to that actually prevents them from acknowledging any good about him?

No I don't think so, because the lukewarm ones usually acknowledge that he has his heart in the right place, his charity work, and his ability to perform the techniques he recommends. Take a look at Steve's comments in this thread. Not a ringing endorsement, but he notes some attributes.

The actively critical ones will still usually note his speed, confidence and strength in the context of it being inappropriate to demonstrate some techniques to people without those attributes.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i think he is highly instinctual which means he does not have an "accepted" methodology to fall back on. i think this causes some people who have trained in dog behaviour to be sceptical of his methods.

with the many methodologies in dog training around i think that people will choose what method works best for their dog and not every methodology will work on every dog.

i don't understand why there has to be "camps" of people grouped around each method each camp yelling that the other is wrong or not quite right.

IMO the more methods the better because for sure one of the methods will work with any dog.

[Erny]

i don't understand why there has to be "camps" of people grouped around each method each camp yelling that the other is wrong or not quite right.

IMO the more methods the better because for sure one of the methods will work with any dog.

But that's exactly what some "camps" disagree on. So you see, even when you embrace them all (as I and others do), you are also simultaneously saying that those that don't are in your opinion incorrect. IOW, you are in the "embrace 'em all" camp :D

ETA: Wow! That was exciting! Have only just noticed the new "group hug" emoticon and I got to use it .

Edited July 22, 2009 by Erny

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i don't understand why there has to be "camps" of people grouped around each method each camp yelling that the other is wrong or not quite right.

IMO the more methods the better because for sure one of the methods will work with any dog.

But that's exactly what some "camps" disagree on. So you see, even when you embrace them all (as I and others do), you are also simultaneously saying that those that don't are in your opinion incorrect. IOW, you are in the "embrace 'em all" camp

ETA: Wow! That was exciting! Have only just noticed the new "group hug" emoticon and I got to use it .

Erny i will need to think about that. my first thoughts are i don't really care if others choose only one method or others choose many. what i care about is having a method that works for the dog in question.

i tried several methods before i found one that worked with my dog. if i was closed minded then maybe i wouldn't have found the one that worked.

but back to what you said about the "embrace em all" simultaneously saying other who don't are incorrrect, i will need more time to think about this.

thank you for making me think tho'!!

[Erny]

No worries, Jaxx's Buddy. And also think on the flip side - IE That others will disagree with your philosophy as well, because there are methodologies within that philosophy THEY don't agree with, so therefore they will think you are wrong.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

ok you are right Erny.

i do believe that if a person uses a method or technique and it is not working but they persist with the technique then i do think they should try something else and if they don't then they are wrong or not doing the best for their dog.

damn!!! i hate being judgmental.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

No worries, Jaxx's Buddy. And also think on the flip side - IE That others will disagree with your philosophy as well, because there are methodologies within that philosophy THEY don't agree with, so therefore they will think you are wrong.

and now i get it, it's a no-win situation and here am i wanting a win-win!!

[Quickasyoucan]

I think I am a bit in the embrace them all camp too, in that I think if you are too narrow minded about things then you might miss out finding out what is right for your dog. I also confess to watching anything that has dogs in it cringe worthy (like Its me or the Dog) or otherwise. I have to admit to finding a great deal of similarity in messages even though the outward philosophy or terminology might seem different. And I find that oddly comforting as it means (hopefully) that we are on the right track.

I don't think you have to like everything a behaviourist or trainer does either to like or admire them. After all I am sure people who are married don't like every aspect of their partner's temperament or indeed that of their kids. My dog snores, doesn't mean I don't still love him

I think maybe why people defend CM is because they admire, as Steve mentioned, that he is instinctual and he does genuinely care about the dogs and rehabilitating dogs that others view as beyond redemption. And cos he is on TV, maybe if Erny or Steve were on TV we might feel inspired to criticise or defend them more

ETA: I am also a great believer in experiencing something before I criticise it. I admit to apprehension about the PP collar before I put it on my own arm and around my own neck :D and tugged. A lot better than being choked with a check chain believe me. It gave me comfort that this was okay to use on my own dog and the fact that when it is on the corrections needed are only slight and few if any added to that comfort. I don't have any e-collar experience but if I were to consider I needed it I would use the same approach. That same approach also led me to bin the halti after seeing the distress of my dog when it was prescribed years ago at dog training. He hated it and it mysteriously disappeared from the car. I still to this day think that maybe he chucked it out whilst I wasn't looking

Edited July 22, 2009 by Quickasyoucan

[Erny]

No worries, Jaxx's Buddy. And also think on the flip side - IE That others will disagree with your philosophy as well, because there are methodologies within that philosophy THEY don't agree with, so therefore they will think you are wrong.

and now i get it, it's a no-win situation and here am i wanting a win-win!!

.

No matter Jaxx'sBuddy. Main thing is (IMO) that your mind is open .

And also, by having a philosophy you're going to be seen as at least partly right by everybody :D.

Edited July 22, 2009 by Erny

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

No worries, Jaxx's Buddy. And also think on the flip side - IE That others will disagree with your philosophy as well, because there are methodologies within that philosophy THEY don't agree with, so therefore they will think you are wrong.

and now i get it, it's a no-win situation and here am i wanting a win-win!!

.

No matter Jaxx'sBuddy. Main thing is (IMO) that your mind is open .

And also, by having a philosophy you're going to be seen as at least partly right by everybody .

:D :D

[SkySoaringMagpie]

i think he is highly instinctual which means he does not have an "accepted" methodology to fall back on. i think this causes some people who have trained in dog behaviour to be sceptical of his methods.

with the many methodologies in dog training around i think that people will choose what method works best for their dog and not every methodology will work on every dog.

i don't understand why there has to be "camps" of people grouped around each method each camp yelling that the other is wrong or not quite right.

IMO the more methods the better because for sure one of the methods will work with any dog.

The difficulty is that there are some methodologies that are not OK. Like teaching a dog not to dig by filling the hole with water and nearly drowning it. It's not OK because it's both inhumane, and unnecessary. I'm guessing that if someone popped up here and said "I'm planning to do this to stop my dog digging" people would post some variation on "whoa, how about you try this other thing first?" Some methods do need to be discredited and more appropriate methods taught in their place.

More difficulty comes when you move further down the spectrum into the grey area and people have different views about what is humane, and what is necessary. Someone might agree for example that a e-collar is OK if the dog is going to get shot if it chases another stock animal, but not OK for your average suburban pet. These are examples by the way, not my views. What is going on there is that people are weighing up the immediate consequences if the training doesn't work combined with the possible fallout from the training. And people don't always have accurate information on which to base those assessments.

I suspect much of the debate here (with a couple of exceptions) is about application as well. There is a degree of elitism that is hard to get around. I mean, you do need skill and self control to train appropriately. I saw a shocker at a show recently who had neither. Humans as a species aren't all that great at self-control or skill, and aren't that great at understanding where their weaknesses are when it comes to self-control or skill either. So people pushing for milder methods are often more concerned about the likelihood of proper application than about the technique when properly applied. You can debate this until the cows come home, ultimately it's a similar debate to the US gun debate. Some people firmly believe their fellow citizens can handle that kind of fire-power, others don't. It's a wider philosophical question than just a dog training one.

So I'm probably not a group hugger. I'd try and self-assess but there's a thread in OT about the freudian slips of people self-assessing so I'd better not

[Erny]

The difficulty is that there are some methodologies that are not OK. Like teaching a dog not to dig by filling the hole with water and nearly drowning it. It's not OK because it's both inhumane, and unnecessary. I'm guessing that if someone popped up here and said "I'm planning to do this to stop my dog digging" people would post some variation on "whoa, how about you try this other thing first?" Some methods do need to be discredited and more appropriate methods taught in their place.

Sorry. My fault for not making myself more clear.

When I make reference to "methodology" I tend to be referring to "Positive Reinforcement", "Positive Punishment", "Negative Reinforcement" and "Negative Punishment". There are training "techniques" within each of those methodologies, some of which I'd use and others that I wouldn't. So by me embracing all methodologies doesn't mean I'd use all techniques.

More difficulty comes when you move further down the spectrum into the grey area and people have different views about what is humane, and what is necessary.

I agree with that and every circumstance, every individual dog, needs to be taken into account at the time.

I suspect much of the debate here (with a couple of exceptions) is about application as well. There is a degree of elitism that is hard to get around. I mean, you do need skill and self control to train appropriately.

Yes - I see the point here as well. No matter how much one might worry about who will apply what and how though, shouldn't mean that a whole "methodology" should be out-lawed when in itself it may prove for some dogs to be the one thing that keeps them safe (as well as other people safe) from harm.

[huski]

In short, it wasn't intentional but unbiased observers agree that I didn't phrase it as well as I could have.

Hope the above makes my position clearer.

Anita - definitely. Again I'm sorry for misinterpreting you. I get where you are coming from now

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

<snip>

I suspect much of the debate here (with a couple of exceptions) is about application as well. There is a degree of elitism that is hard to get around. I mean, you do need skill and self control to train appropriately. I saw a shocker at a show recently who had neither. Humans as a species aren't all that great at self-control or skill, and aren't that great at understanding where their weaknesses are when it comes to self-control or skill either. So people pushing for milder methods are often more concerned about the likelihood of proper application than about the technique when properly applied. You can debate this until the cows come home, ultimately it's a similar debate to the US gun debate. Some people firmly believe their fellow citizens can handle that kind of fire-power, others don't. It's a wider philosophical question than just a dog training one.

<snip>

i do not think that every methodologies techniques should be used, ie i don't think that you need to follow everything in each methodology or try every technique. i choose which fits for the dog i am working with and my set of values.

the above para of yours is indeed thought provoking and something i had not considered, thank you!!!

i think you are onto something here. when i work with my dog, i make sure i am in the right frame of mind. i don't work with her if i am already feeling frustrated etc. so i always try to be in a calm and assertive frame of mind.

i always think before i give any correction if the correction is really necessary and i always think of what is the right type of correction to use. because i have been doing this for a long time it doesn't take me long to think this through.

i know i never "over correct", ie the correction fits the mistake. so i am very measured when i do this.

however, i have also seen people loose it when they have over corrected their dog and in particular saw one guy beat his dog after training because the dog didn't pass the class. (i did something about it.). in this case he had no self control so i know what you mean.

Maybe the milder methodologies are the right methodologies for people who are starting out with training as they can't do so much damage to the dog if they don't get it quite right.

this does not mean that if more experienced trainers choose this methodology that they are poor trainers, it just means this works best for their dog.

hmmmm....much to think of in this thread, thank you all once again.