# Dog training-Leicester area.



## AlexGSD (Dec 16, 2008)

Hi All,
Can anyone recommend a good dog training providor in the Leicestershire area. I live in the Hinckley area. I was attending paws to perfect in Hinckley but the last session I went to seemed to be advertising for the other branch of the campany which specialise in agility and I had to pay for the previlage. I wont be doing agility with my 2 but I want a bit of guidence with taming their normal boistrous behaviour. I dont mind traveling to pretty much anywhere in leicestershire if they are worth going to but the only other issue I have is that I will preferably be at the weekend due to my irregular hours. If anyone can recomend anywhere then please fell free to let me know.

Thanks.

Alex.


----------



## IsisTheGSP (Dec 16, 2009)

Hi, I have been put in touch with Theresa Franklin who provides training in Burbage:

http://www.dogs-theresafranklin.co.uk/

the Kennel Club adevrtise details of her for their puppy classes, and also the bronze, silver and gold levels of the Good Citizen award training

we shall be starting there for puppy training shortly

i have just realised the date of this post but thought i would reply anyway


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Yes, I've just moved here:

Dog behaviourist now offering new obedience training classes for 2011.

www.jamesconroy.co.uk


----------



## Twiggy (Jun 24, 2010)

www.jamesconroy.co.uk

Just looked at his site - he's obviously a big Cesar Milan fan.

Personally I would go and watch one of his classes without a dog, before enrolling.


----------



## ChatterPuss (Sep 4, 2010)

Delian Graham runs a puppy and junior school near Coalville. Search Delan training! Www.Delan.co.uk


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Twiggy said:


> www.jamesconroy.co.uk
> 
> Just looked at his site - he's obviously a big Cesar Milan fan.
> 
> Personally I would go and watch one of his classes without a dog, before enrolling.


There's nothing Cesar Millan about obedience training, and being aware of pack structure and your role in it in addition to positive reward based dog training makes perfect sense. This is not one opinion versus another. This is the science of dogs and their psychology. We know it to be fact that dogs are pack animals. This is not a theory proposed by Mr Millan.


----------



## Doolally (Oct 12, 2010)

I've not been to this actual training centre Dog Training Leicester | Dog Behaviour Leicestershire, but I have been to lectures by Sara Whittaker and I really like her :thumbsup:

Ha oops just seen the date of the 1st post


----------



## Doolally (Oct 12, 2010)

jconline said:


> There's nothing Cesar Millan about obedience training, and being aware of pack structure and your role in it in addition to positive reward based dog training makes perfect sense. This is not one opinion versus another. This is the science of dogs and their psychology. We know it to be fact that dogs are pack animals. This is not a theory proposed by Mr Millan.


Even if dogs were to pack, which actually the majority of free ranging dogs don't do.....why would they consider humans, who can't speak they're language, to be part of their 'pack'? 
Research has shown that feral dogs don't need to form packs to survive as they have evolved to be scavengers rather than hunters. Most wolves do still need to form packs to survive as they are hunters, and the size of their prey means they must hunt in a pack.
Dogs are not just mini-wolves and should not be treated as such...it just makes absolutely no sense to them to treat them as if they are!!!
And if you believe what you have written I suggest you do a little more research on 'the science of dogs and their psychology'


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Doolally said:


> Even if dogs were to pack, which actually the majority of free ranging dogs don't do.....why would they consider humans, who can't speak they're language, to be part of their 'pack'?
> Research has shown that feral dogs don't need to form packs to survive as they have evolved to be scavengers rather than hunters. Most wolves do still need to form packs to survive as they are hunters, and the size of their prey means they must hunt in a pack.
> Dogs are not just mini-wolves and should not be treated as such...it just makes absolutely no sense to them to treat them as if they are!!!
> And if you believe what you have written I suggest you do a little more research on 'the science of dogs and their psychology'


Pet dogs are not feral dogs. Pet dogs are not wolves. Pet dogs are not scavengers or free roaming. Not my pet dogs anyway. Every dog behaviour course on the planet will teach you about pack structure. Dogs are pack animals whether you like it or not. This doesn't mean they should be treated like wolves. Your comments are totally irrelevant. I haven't mentioned wolves. But the pack aspect to dogs does stem from their origins, the wolf. Again, this is scientific fact. Of course they're not mini wolves. Evolution, human intervention etc has altered them on every level, but many behavioural traits are still hard wired on a genetic level and the dog has the wolf to thank for them. I suggest you also study a bit of dog psychology and not just dog training. I also suggest you speak to someone who has a nightmare dog they can't near because it has become the dominant pack member. All dogs are not the same, and many owners have to consider pack structure in order to resolve issues. Dogs will happily accept a human as a pack leader figure. What experience of this do you have? I've lived with a pack of dogs for a year. I had a Rottweiler, a GSD, two staffies, a Jack Russell, an American Bulldog, and a lab cross. They weren't wolves. they weren't free roaming. They weren't wild. They were all domesticated pet dogs. And they were without doubt a pack. And I was without doubt the pack leader. The idea that dog training is on one hand and dog behaviour is on the other, and never the twain shall meet, is an old fashioned opinion held by outdated dinosaurs. It's high time people learned to combine positive reward dog training with knowing a little about how dogs think. This has nothing to do with Cesar Millan. I have Nottingham Trent University's Animal Behaviour Degree course in front of me, and here's one part of it...Social behaviour of the dog - the social system, social behaviour of wolves, feral
dogs, domestic dogs...are you suggesting the Doctors at the University should go and study the subject a little more because they teach about the origins of the dog, mention the word wolf, and teach about pack structure and the social system? What is it that you believe if you think dogs have nothing to do with wolves and are not pack animals? I'm curious. and what's your experience to so readily criticise others?


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Doolally said:


> Even if dogs were to pack, which actually the majority of free ranging dogs don't do.....why would they consider humans, who can't speak they're language, to be part of their 'pack'?
> Research has shown that feral dogs don't need to form packs to survive as they have evolved to be scavengers rather than hunters. Most wolves do still need to form packs to survive as they are hunters, and the size of their prey means they must hunt in a pack.
> Dogs are not just mini-wolves and should not be treated as such...it just makes absolutely no sense to them to treat them as if they are!!!
> And if you believe what you have written I suggest you do a little more research on 'the science of dogs and their psychology'


From the God Father of dog training himself, John Fisher... Fisher took from ethology the notion that dogs behave in certain ways because they are pack animals, and from behaviourism the notion that reward-based methods are more effective than methods based on punishment. This allowed him to develop a non-confrontational view of training, while still stressing that owners should ensure that their dogs saw them as the boss. His view was that other problems would resolve themselves if the human's position as leader was made clear to the dog, by humans behaving in ways that paralleled the behaviour of alpha wolves, who are leaders of their packs.

Let me guess, John Fisher didn't know anything either?


----------



## HWAR (Jul 19, 2010)

Here is just one article explaining why the pack theory is outdated and no longer practiced by GOOD trainers and behaviourists (nor taught by GOOD establishments in study)

Canine Dominance: Is the Concept of the Alpha Dog Valid? | Psychology Today

There are many many others - you may want to do a little research 

Editted to add a link to Ian Dunbar (the most respected man in dog training) vs Ceasar Millan methods of training http://dogtime.com/cesar-millan-and-ian-dunbar.html


----------



## Doolally (Oct 12, 2010)

My point is that our dogs are far removed from wolves today. I know you have not mentioned wolves, but you did mention packs. Wolves live in packs, dogs generally do not. 
To study dog behaviour is it's natural wild form you need to study wild free roaming dogs. Maybe our pet dogs have never been free-roaming, but that is their closest relative, much closer in evolutionary terms than the wolf. Dog's have moved on from the pack hunting into a solitary scavenger role. They can and do live harmoniously together..but the whole idea of a pack is for survival, dogs do not need packs to survive so the rules of pack life mean little to them. 

As I said, we don't speak dog language...we can try to understand and try to get our message across, but it's physically impossible for us to display the vast array of body language a dog does...The dog does not think of us as another dog, so why does it want, care or need us to be higher in the pack, or dominant over it? It means nothing to the dog. 

There's nothing wrong with being the 'leader' and infact obviously that's what we need to encourage or we'd have dog's running riot all over the place....but the word pack needn't come into it, it's the exception rather than the rule that dog's form packs. If you were to let your lot free would they stick together as a nice little pack? would they hell, and as they don't feel the need to pack together, why should they feel the need to pack with a human?
Human's are hung-up on heirarchy, dog's just want to know their resources are being provided.

You may think i'm hung up on the insignificance of packs, and tbh it's not that I actually care about, we can agree to disagree, but what does bother me is that when people start believing dog's form packs and we are part of that pack, along with it comes the whole baggage of dominance and pack rules, which dogs can really do without.

Research moves on, they're constantly learning things about everything. Even now everything they thought was true about wolves is perhaps not so true, did you know that the alpha wolves don't eat first, the young do, and they actually look after their elderly and take food to them.

To quote John Fisher on being alpha, who of course knows a huge amount and i greatly respect(but times are moving on and he has changed his ideas on some things) "if it's how you want to live with your dog I have news that is going to disappoint a lot of people who have striven to reach this alpha status - it all means diddly squat to your dog" :thumbsup:


----------



## delir (Feb 1, 2011)

jconline said:


> From the God Father of dog training himself, John Fisher... Fisher took from ethology the notion that dogs behave in certain ways because they are pack animals, and from behaviourism the notion that reward-based methods are more effective than methods based on punishment. This allowed him to develop a non-confrontational view of training, while still stressing that owners should ensure that their dogs saw them as the boss. His view was that other problems would resolve themselves if the human's position as leader was made clear to the dog, by humans behaving in ways that paralleled the behaviour of alpha wolves, who are leaders of their packs.
> 
> Let me guess, John Fisher didn't know anything either?


Hello, I also believe dogs form packs. Is there any information on how stray dogs behave in cities? My layman observation is that when the leader wants the other dogs to obey he will bite them in the throat, and I've seen that many times.


----------



## delir (Feb 1, 2011)

HWAR said:


> Here is just one article explaining why the pack theory is outdated and no longer practiced by GOOD trainers and behaviourists (nor taught by GOOD establishments in study)
> 
> Canine Dominance: Is the Concept of the Alpha Dog Valid? | Psychology Today
> 
> ...


I don't care about what Millan thinks: My comment would be:
have you ever witnessed a stray dog fight? and how the leader goes for the throat of the others who won't comply?
I bet that ain't domination...


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Doolally said:


> My point is that our dogs are far removed from wolves today. I know you have not mentioned wolves, but you did mention packs. Wolves live in packs, dogs generally do not.
> To study dog behaviour is it's natural wild form you need to study wild free roaming dogs. Maybe our pet dogs have never been free-roaming, but that is their closest relative, much closer in evolutionary terms than the wolf. Dog's have moved on from the pack hunting into a solitary scavenger role. They can and do live harmoniously together..but the whole idea of a pack is for survival, dogs do not need packs to survive so the rules of pack life mean little to them.
> 
> As I said, we don't speak dog language...we can try to understand and try to get our message across, but it's physically impossible for us to display the vast array of body language a dog does...The dog does not think of us as another dog, so why does it want, care or need us to be higher in the pack, or dominant over it? It means nothing to the dog.
> ...


you're getting way too caught up on the term 'pack leader'. It's used to describe 'the boss'. The alpha. As for the need to be a dog in order to be the pack leader, that's insane. I've seen dogs ruled by humans, cats and even birds. It's an authority figure that the dog respects and takes seriously. Being this figure as well as a loving owner is what being pack leader is all about. Saying dogs are pack animals is more a reference to their social structure and a hierarchy existing. Few people use it to suggest dogs will roam as a pack if let loose. Maybe your dog can do without rules and an authority figure, but I see hundreds of people every year with dogs that are only as they are because that's exactly what was missing. You can't keep referring to dogs as a generic term for all dogs. We have dogs that don't need a pack leader at all. We have dogs that are born to take over if given half a chance. People who don't get the pack thing and the dominance thing, probably have needed to. They have nice submissive, playful, happy go lucky dogs. Some owners with some dogs really need to know about social status, pack structure, dominance etc. The trend toward nothing but positive reward based approaches only, has created the biggest problem with out of control dogs we've ever had. Never have there been so many incidents. And they're not out of control dogs belonging to gangs. 90% of the time it's the family pet attacking someone it knows. With the pack structure as it should be, these incidents could more than likely have been avoided. I use the positive reward based approach all the time for many dogs and many issues. There are however, many dogs I've rehabilitated that would not be alive now if it wasn't for removing the dog from top spot through a dominance battle. No amount of treats can sort these dogs out. The owners have been there and tried it all before I get there. I can put you in touch with hundreds of people who will tell you the same thing. I'm out there every day dealing with dogs that are genuinely dangerous, and no amount of trust, love, respect or treats helps some of these dogs. Sometimes they simply have to lose the psychological dominance battle.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

HWAR said:


> Here is just one article explaining why the pack theory is outdated and no longer practiced by GOOD trainers and behaviourists (nor taught by GOOD establishments in study)
> 
> Canine Dominance: Is the Concept of the Alpha Dog Valid? | Psychology Today
> 
> ...


Are you telling me NTU is not a good establishment? It's one of the biggest veterinary Universities in the country. I've done all the research I need to do, including living with a pack of dogs for a year. I call on my own experience to decide for myself, having tried and tested a variety of approaches and methods for sorting out various issues, what works and what doesn't. The debate about the alpha dog and pack structure will run and run because there will always be owners who just don't have any experience of needing to be more than a loving owner. They haven't had a nightmare dog.

If you can find me a reputable dog behaviour course that does not cover the origin of dogs being wolves, and something about social structure, I'll be keen to read it. As for Ian Dunbar, his earlier work states the opposite of what he now states. He has found a market for himself and a role, which is to say the exact opposite of anything that Cesar Millan says. He's there for all the purely positive fans. A few years ago though...Dr. Ian Dunbar spent nine years studying the social behavior of dogs during a 30 year study performed by Dr Frank Beach at Yale and UC Berkeley. Specific focus was devoted to the social behaviors of a beagle dog pack. In short the findings of this research showed that male dogs have a rigid hierarchy, females have a hierarchy too but with much more variation and when the two are mixed together the males try to follow the structure, often with difficulty, as the females create their own rules depending on how they feel on any given day.

Even Ian Dunbar thinks dogs have a hierarchy and social status. This is not a crazy theory! Anyone with more than a couple of dogs will see pack structure and hierarchy at work every day.

I'm not wanting to win an argument about Ian Dunbar vs Cesar Millan. I have my approach which combines both positive reward and some dog behaviour info and you're welcome to your approach. This entire thread is about whether or not there are dog training classes in Leicester. Yes there are. I am one of those options. If considering hierarchy and how the dog sees you is against your religion, no problem, good luck to you and your dog, pick someone else. We can all research until we're blue in the face and will continue to find study after study that supports our own point of view. This debate is not going away any time soon. In the mean time, I know pack structure and hierarchy exists because I've seen it. I talk from experience. I had ten dogs. I watched, studied and observed. Nobody is telling me the role of pack leader is nonsesense. Maybe for you and your dog. Good for you. My parents are also examples of not needing to do anything remotely pack leaderish. They have two really soft, lovely dogs that do not exist to take over the world or the house! However, I also know lots of couples with seriously dominant and dangerous dogs. They own everything, decide who comes and goes, guard, are possessive, and one guy in Manchester cannot get the dog off the sofa if the dog decides that's where it wants to be. You have to be pretty narrow minded not to consider examining pack structure and making a few simple, safe changes, to see if it helps.

I'm happy to be on here debating and chatting every day, and I find it really interesting. But for every study and quote that says the pack structure approach is nonesense, I'll give you one that says otherwise. Dr Bruce Fogle, author of The Dog's Mind, states that dogs have no concept of equality. Fisher, Dunbar, Coppinger, they've all talked about a hierarchy. As for new studies now teaching us that's all rubbish, I don't buy it. Dogs haven't changed, and in fact, if they have, they've only got more dominant thanks to Kennel Club idiots breeding dominance into them so they look more 'confident' and 'proud' in the ring. Studies are not revealing anything new. What's changed is a demand from owners who cannot stop treating their dogs like babies, for a way of training dogs that means they don't have to compromise their over indulgent relationship with their dog. All of a sudden, it's lucrative to be able to tell people, yes, you can spoil your dog rotten and treat it like a baby. Everyone's back tracking and coming up with positive only approaches to suit the masses. But that doesn't make it right. Tell me how you're going to sort out the kind of dog that wants to kill another dog, with positive only methods and absolutely no corrections? You can wave a steak under its nose and it still wants to kill the dog. You and your treats don't exist. Why don't we see Coape trainers on tv sorting out psycho dogs? I've yet to see Victoria Stilwell tackle anything more than a slightly naughty dog. It's a joke.

We see them teaching dogs to sit stay heel etc, and any muppet can do that. How can the positive only gang continue to deny that pack structure exists when it can be seen every day in dogs interracting with one another? What's going on when one dog can lie where it wants and take anything off another dog, toys, food, but if the other dog tries it, it gets well and truly put in its place?

As I said very early on, not every owner needs to concern themselves with it, but some do. Coape's idea of seeing the pack structure brigade vanish, will never happen. And who are COAPE? A very experienced bunch of people yes, but just one bunch of people, all sharing the same opinion. There's another organisation just as prominent that promotes the education of pack structure in dogs. It's what every vet in the land is taught. Dogs have not changed. Study results are not changing. We're not learning anything new about dogs. We're dressing up a new approach to get lots of work from over indulgent owners.

There's constantly more research, and none of it draws us any closer to a definiteive answer. The best experts in the world cannot agree on this debate. For every study that demonstrates the pack leader thing is a load of rubbish, another one exists to prove it's all correct. Bruce Fogle, Stephen Budiansky, Fisher, even Coppinger and Dunbar. they've all preached pack structure before now. Nothing new has been learned. They're just trying to be trendy and politically correct. People have to get it out of their heads that this pack leader figure rules by force or fear. Absolutely not. It's just about keeping an eye on who makes all the decisions. If your dog is telling you how it's going to be, I would say that's not a good situation. In his book The Truth About Dogs, Budiansky talks about a study conducted by Dr Valerie O Farrell. Her studies demonstrated that dominance aggression issues were directly linked to and had a high correlation with those owners who saught the positive only approach, and were too attached and emotionally involved with their dogs. Another study of a thousand dogs and owners by Podberscek and Serpell showed that the high aggression dogs were connected to a lack of discipline.

You may want to do a little research (patronising smiley face)


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

jconline said:


> From the God Father of dog training himself, John Fisher... Fisher took from ethology the notion that dogs behave in certain ways because they are pack animals, and from behaviourism the notion that reward-based methods are more effective than methods based on punishment. This allowed him to develop a non-confrontational view of training, while still stressing that owners should ensure that their dogs saw them as the boss. His view was that other problems would resolve themselves if the human's position as leader was made clear to the dog, by humans behaving in ways that paralleled the behaviour of alpha wolves, who are leaders of their packs.
> 
> Let me guess, John Fisher didn't know anything either?


John Fisher moved away from these ideas later on as more and more credible research became available.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

jconline said:


> From the God Father of dog training himself, John Fisher... Fisher took from ethology the notion that dogs behave in certain ways because they are pack animals, and from behaviourism the notion that reward-based methods are more effective than methods based on punishment. This allowed him to develop a non-confrontational view of training, while still stressing that owners should ensure that their dogs saw them as the boss. His view was that other problems would resolve themselves if the human's position as leader was made clear to the dog, by humans behaving in ways that paralleled the behaviour of alpha wolves, who are leaders of their packs.
> 
> Let me guess, John Fisher didn't know anything either?


As Tripod says above John Fisher did say he was wrong regards pack leader stuff, he was one of the founders of coape, and their behavioural courses do not teach pack leader.
Wolves only pack re size of available prey and breeding rights, not all wolves form packs, for anyone wanting a deeper understaning read Ray Coppingers book Dogs.
Re aggressive and out of control dogs, they don't need you to be pack leader they need to be trained, socialised and brought back under contol.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

tripod said:


> John Fisher moved away from these ideas later on as more and more credible research became available.


More research did not become available. What a load of rubbish. We've been studying dogs for decades. They are only changing in so far as they are getting more dominant. Nothing has changed, only the public's demand for trainers that tell them it's ok to treat their dogs like babies. Far from COAPE seeing the pack leader gang disappear, we'll come full circle and realise that actually, we DO need to be an authority figure to SOME dogs.

There's constantly more research, and none of it draws us any closer to a definiteive answer. The best experts in the world cannot agree on this debate. For every study that demonstrates the pack leader thing is a load of rubbish, another one exists to prove it's all correct. Bruce Fogle, Stephen Budiansky, Fisher, even Coppinger and Dunbar. they've all preached pack structure before now. Nothing new has been learned. They're just trying to be trendy and politically correct. People have to get it out of their heads that this pack leader figure rules by force or fear. Absolutely not. It's just about keeping an eye on who makes all the decisions. If your dog is telling you how it's going to be, I would say that's not a good situation. In his book The Truth About Dogs, Budiansky talks about a study conducted by Dr Valerie O Farrell. Her studies demonstrated that dominance aggression issues were directly linked to and had a high correlation with those owners who saught the positive only approach, and were too attached and emotionally involved with their dogs. Another study of a thousand dogs and owners by Podberscek and Serpell showed that the high aggression dogs were connected to a lack of discipline.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

I base them on the comments in his last book diary of a dottie dog doctor, and talking to his partners at coape.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Jenny Olley said:


> As Tripod says above John Fisher did say he was wrong regards pack leader stuff, he was one of the founders of coape, and their behavioural courses do not teach pack leader.
> Wolves only pack re size of available prey and breeding rights, not all wolves form packs, for anyone wanting a deeper understaning read Ray Coppingers book Dogs.
> Re aggressive and out of control dogs, they don't need you to be pack leader they need to be trained, socialised and brought back under contol.


Ray Coppinger's book is an interesting read, but there are just as many highly respected people out there that simply disagree. Dr. Frank Beach performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. Nineteen years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.) Some of his findings:

* Male dogs have a rigid hierarchy.
* Female dogs have a hierarchy, but it's more variable.
* When you mix the sexes, the rules get mixed up. Males try to follow their constitution, but the females have "amendments."
* Young puppies have what's called "puppy license." Basically, that license to do most anything. Bitches are more tolerant of puppy license than males are.
* The puppy license is revoked at approximately four months of age. At that time, the older middle-ranked dogs literally give the puppy hell -- psychologically torturing it until it offers all of the appropriate appeasement behaviors and takes its place at the bottom of the social hierarchy. The top-ranked dogs ignore the whole thing.
* There is NO physical domination. Everything is accomplished through psychological harassment. It's all ritualistic.
* A small minority of "alpha" dogs assumed their position by bullying and force. Those that did were quickly deposed. No one likes a dictator.
* The vast majority of alpha dogs rule benevolently. They are confident in their position. They do not stoop to squabbling to prove their point. To do so would lower their status because...
* Middle-ranked animals squabble. They are insecure in their positions and want to advance over other middle-ranked animals.
* Low-ranked animals do not squabble. They know they would lose. They know their position, and they accept it.
* "Alpha" does not mean physically dominant. It means "in control of resources." Many, many alpha dogs are too small or too physically frail to physically dominate. But they have earned the right to control the valued resources. An individual dog determines which resources he considers important. Thus an alpha dog may give up a prime sleeping place because he simply couldn't care less.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Jenny Olley said:


> I base them on the comments in his last book diary of a dottie dog doctor, and talking to his partners at coape.


Thank you. I'm all for stamping out those who think they have to be a harsh, mean and cruel task master. Having an understanding of the need to be taken seriously and seen as in charge is what I promote. Coape's Dr June Williams agrees. "Dogs need a parental, guiding form of leadership that is established when a pet owner can consistently set clear limits, communicate the rules by immediately rewarding the correct behaviors and preventing access to or removing the rewards for undesirable behaviors before these behaviors are reinforced.'

Rules and limits. You can dress it up how you like but everyone ends up agreeing that while dogs might not be wolves or pack animals in the true sense of the term, they need rules and limits, as well as rewarding and encouraging the good behaviour. Dogs do not ignore bad behaviour. Dogs do not turn their back on this and that. They do not hand treats out. A dog will 'correct' another dog for unwanted behaviour. This is where we start to disagree. I believe calm and well timed corrections are fine. Others would never dream of correcting their dog. It's another debate that will go on and on.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

jconline said:


> Thank you. I'm all for stamping out those who think they have to be a harsh, mean and cruel task master. Having an understanding of the need to be taken seriously and seen as in charge is what I promote. Coape's Dr June Williams agrees. "Dogs need a parental, guiding form of leadership that is established when a pet owner can consistently set clear limits, communicate the rules by immediately rewarding the correct behaviors and preventing access to or removing the rewards for undesirable behaviors before these behaviors are reinforced.'
> 
> Rules and limits. You can dress it up how you like but everyone ends up agreeing that while dogs might not be wolves or pack animals in the true sense of the term, they need rules and limits, as well as rewarding and encouraging the good behaviour. Dogs do not ignore bad behaviour. Dogs do not turn their back on this and that. They do not hand treats out. A dog will 'correct' another dog for unwanted behaviour. This is where we start to disagree. I believe calm and well timed corrections are fine. Others would never dream of correcting their dog. It's another debate that will go on and on.


I did the coape course with June williams. The need for rules and limits is true for all of society, not just aminals, I do not see the people making and enforcing the rules as my superiors or my pack leaders.
Just because i don't believe in pack leader stuff, does not mean I am opposed to correction, in certain circumstances.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

jconline said:


> Ray Coppinger's book is an interesting read, but there are just as many highly respected people out there that simply disagree. Dr. Frank Beach performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. Nineteen years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.) Some of his findings:
> 
> * Male dogs have a rigid hierarchy.
> * Female dogs have a hierarchy, but it's more variable.
> ...


To be honest for every study there is another study that disproves what the first study said. I base my beliefs on what I have seen living and working with dogs for years, not other peoples stuff. I don't disagree with most of what is said above, but most of it could also apply to humans, so therefore I don't believe it proves the pack theory


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Jenny Olley said:


> To be honest for every study there is another study that disproves what the first study said. I base my beliefs on what I have seen living and working with dogs for years, not other peoples stuff. I don't disagree with most of what is said above, but most of it could also apply to humans, so therefore I don't believe it proves the pack theory


I agree completely and don't push the pack theory at all, just the need of some dogs to see an authority figure, or their need for some rules and limits. This role or need, people term as 'pack leader', then others get really caught up in the whole 'dogs aren't pack animals' thing. It all gets a bit muddy and totally off point. I don't think even Cesar Millan himself believes dogs are pack animals in the sense that if left to their own devices, they'd roam together as a pack. Of course they wouldn't. They be scattered across L.A!

How long did the COAPE course take you? Does it prepare you for actually getting your hands on dogs with issues?


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

jconline said:


> I agree completely and don't push the pack theory at all, just the need of some dogs to see an authority figure, or their need for some rules and limits. This role or need, people term as 'pack leader', then others get really caught up in the whole 'dogs aren't pack animals' thing. It all gets a bit muddy and totally off point. I don't think even Cesar Millan himself believes dogs are pack animals in the sense that if left to their own devices, they'd roam together as a pack. Of course they wouldn't. They be scattered across L.A!
> 
> How long did the COAPE course take you? Does it prepare you for actually getting your hands on dogs with issues?


Both myself and my husband have done the coape diploma course, it is run over 1 year, when I did it you went for 3 residential weekends, I think its 4 now, plus written work in between. In my opinion it is purely theory, you didn't see a dog, so no way. 
We were both already dog trainers and dealing with behavioural problems, and wanted to broaden our knowledge.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

jconline said:


> Pet dogs are not feral dogs. Pet dogs are not wolves. Pet dogs are not scavengers or free roaming. Not my pet dogs anyway. Every dog behaviour course on the planet will teach you about pack structure. Dogs are pack animals whether you like it or not. This doesn't mean they should be treated like wolves. Your comments are totally irrelevant. I haven't mentioned wolves. But the pack aspect to dogs does stem from their origins, the wolf. Again, this is scientific fact. Of course they're not mini wolves. Evolution, human intervention etc has altered them on every level, but many behavioural traits are still hard wired on a genetic level and the dog has the wolf to thank for them. I suggest you also study a bit of dog psychology and not just dog training. I also suggest you speak to someone who has a nightmare dog they can't near because it has become the dominant pack member. All dogs are not the same, and many owners have to consider pack structure in order to resolve issues. Dogs will happily accept a human as a pack leader figure. What experience of this do you have? I've lived with a pack of dogs for a year. I had a Rottweiler, a GSD, two staffies, a Jack Russell, an American Bulldog, and a lab cross. They weren't wolves. they weren't free roaming. They weren't wild. They were all domesticated pet dogs. And they were without doubt a pack. And I was without doubt the pack leader. The idea that dog training is on one hand and dog behaviour is on the other, and never the twain shall meet, is an old fashioned opinion held by outdated dinosaurs. It's high time people learned to combine positive reward dog training with knowing a little about how dogs think. This has nothing to do with Cesar Millan. I have Nottingham Trent University's Animal Behaviour Degree course in front of me, and here's one part of it...Social behaviour of the dog - the social system, social behaviour of wolves, feral
> dogs, domestic dogs...are you suggesting the Doctors at the University should go and study the subject a little more because they teach about the origins of the dog, mention the word wolf, and teach about pack structure and the social system? What is it that you believe if you think dogs have nothing to do with wolves and are not pack animals? I'm curious. and what's your experience to so readily criticise others?


Sorry, but this is simply not true. Up to date behaviour courses debunk pack theory, and teach the latest ethology and research. There are a lot that still maintain the outdated pack theory, but not "every one on the planet".


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

Jenny Olley said:


> Both myself and my husband have done the coape diploma course, it is run over 1 year, when I did it you went for 3 residential weekends, I think its 4 now, plus written work in between. In my opinion it is purely theory, you didn't see a dog, so no way.
> We were both already dog trainers and dealing with behavioural problems, and wanted to broaden our knowledge.


Yes, this is the problem, and what I'm working on at the moment. I'm in the process of getting a course accredited which involves a 'practical' element. The problem with the accreditation process is that you basically say goodbye to your course once that happens. I'm trying to find a happy balance between getting accredited, but keeping control of my course. So far I have a University seal of approval and can put their logo on my coursework, but can't call it accredited. Nothing's ever easy.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

jconline said:


> Yes, this is the problem, and what I'm working on at the moment. I'm in the process of getting a course accredited which involves a 'practical' element. The problem with the accreditation process is that you basically say goodbye to your course once that happens. I'm trying to find a happy balance between getting accredited, but keeping control of my course. So far I have a University seal of approval and can put their logo on my coursework, but can't call it accredited. Nothing's ever easy.


i know what you mean we looked into it about 8 years ago but found the accreditation process too intrusive to our aims of a course.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

delir said:


> Is there any information on how stray dogs behave in cities?
> My layman observation is that when the leader wants the other dogs to obey _*he will bite them in the throat,*_
> and I've seen that many times.


:thumbup: good one! :scared: _Vampire-dogs, O-m-G!_ :lol: love it! 
got any video? please post a link.  meanwhile, Coppinger says t'aint so - and i have never seen this, in my life.

notice how the _*Alpha*_ is a *male*, here? :lol: it's a *dominant* world, 
and bitches are mere underlings - toys for the boys, and baby-makers for the next generation. :lol:

ladies, be very careful - this fella's a dominant, forceful leader-type.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

jconline said:


> Ray Coppinger's book is an interesting read, but there are just as many highly respected people out there that simply disagree. Dr. Frank Beach performed a 30-year study on dogs at Yale and UC Berkeley. Nineteen years of the study was devoted to social behavior of a dog pack. (Not a wolf pack. A DOG pack.) Some of his findings:
> 
> * Male dogs have a rigid hierarchy.
> * Female dogs have a hierarchy, but it's more variable.
> ...


Frank Beache's and Ian Dunbar's work concerned dog-dog relationships and concerned a group of Beagles living in a constant and steady situation, where food, shelter and care were provided.
Pack is a description, not just of a group of canids, but a cooperative group - this is rare amongst domestic dogs and not consistent in grey wolves for example. 
Although this give us info about these dogs living in this sort of scenario all of this work does not necessarily apply to other dog-dog relationships and it most certainly has nothing to do with dog-human relationships.

I am pretty sure of your source for the above quotes but have you read the original work? Abridgements of work leave out context and scientific fallability, particularly when the edited version is written by one of the participants. 
Have you read others' work on dog-dog social relationships in varying situations?

Just to pick up on something you siad earlier that Ian is out there publicising himself as the anti-CM...what rubbish yourself! Ian was working to promote dog friendly dog training waaay before CM was on the radar. He himself ridicules the idea that social order is important in dog-human relationship.

Plus discipline has nothing to do with social behaviour, its got to do with training - teaching dogs acceptable behaviours.

Instead of reading quoted stats that appear to correlate with your own misinterpretations, read original works and learn to interpret the findings, methodology and contexts.

But then using the term psychology in relation to dogs is a win-win or indeed a no-win. Right now we have no way of determining the workings of the minds of other species, its difficult with humans and even then.... So using that as a basis you can say whatever you like.
This is why reputable practitioners rely on research work in the fields of ethology and behaviourism as these base interpretations on observable and objective data. If you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebra - the back bone of scientific discovery, parsimony.

Anyway, I think this thread has gone waaaay off topic so I'm out


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

jconline said:


> *bold and color added - *
> 
> You can't [refer] to *dogs* as a generic term; [some] dogs... don't need a pack leader;
> [some] dogs are *born to take over, given half a chance*. People who don't get the pack [or] dominance thing,
> ...


actually, that's not true; there are more *dogs* in more *homes* and there are more *people* 
than ever before; popn continues to burgeon, and more people = more pets in those added homes. 
in the USA, 63% of homes in 2010 had at least one pet; 40% of those homes had *two dogs*, not one. 
last year there were *75-million pet dogs in the USA - * not counting SAR-dogs or other working-k9s 
in private homes or k9-cop homes or USDA-kennels, not counting military-k9s; *75-million pets*.

we have not had a proportionate increase in fatalities or maimings or maulings or bites - 
an average of 10 to a high of 12 people are killed by dogs, or die shortly after a dog-attack, each year. 
that has been true for over 30-years; the biggest change is not *number of bites*, but *severity.* Why? 
*dog-size:* in the 1940s and 50s, the common pets were terriers, their mixes, and small hunters: 
Beagles, Cockers, Springers, etc - plus a sprinkle of companion-types: Poodles, Chis, Poms, etc. 
these dogs weighed 5# to 40#, but the average was 15 to 25# - *small dogs, which means small bites.*

today, what are the most-common dogs in the USA? bully-breeds and their mixes, followed by Labs - 
45 to 80# dogs, averaging 65# - *big dogs, which means bigger bites, which means larger injuries.* 
in the 1980s, Rotts hit an unfortunate popular-breed fad; until then mostly breed-savvy longterm-fans 
had kept & bred Rotts; the sudden spike meant not only novice-owners for a breed known to push limits, 
but a LOT of badly-bred Rotts from BYBs, puppy-mills, new show-dog kennels, and anybody else who had 
a male-Rott with testes and a female with a uterus; temperament, health, structure, all went by the wayside - 
*puppies* were all that mattered.

in the 1960s, GSD-mixes stuffed the shelters; today it's pit-types, bully-mixes, and Rott-mixes. 



jconline said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> And they're not OoC-dogs belonging to gangs. *90% of the time it's the family pet attacking someone [s/he] knows.*


that's always been true; over 75% of bites to children that need medical attn are from the family-dog 
or a relative's dog, or a neighbor's, a friend's - not a stray, not a stranger's dog passing by on a leash.


jconline said:


> With the pack structure as it should be, these incidents could... likely have been avoided.


errmm - 90% of the time, *better management* and *supervision* would have prevented the bite - 
leashing the dog before the repair-nik comes by, latching the screen door so the dog could not pop it and 
dart out to bite the postie or package-delivery driver, *supervising every time kids & dogs 
are together in the same space*, so the kids don't hurt the dogs and the dogs don't hurt the kids - simple stuff; 
no "pack hierarchy" is needed, but baby-gates, leashes, monitoring, *preventing predictable events.*


jconline said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> I use the positive reward-based approach... for many dogs and many issues. There are however *many dogs... that would not be alive now if it wasn't for removing the dog from top-spot
> through a dominance battle*. No amount of treats can sort these dogs out. The owners have been there and tried it all before I get there. I can put you in touch with hundreds of people
> who will tell you the same thing.


i work with dogs who have bite-histories; i have not once had *a dominance battle* to 'remove a dog 
from top-spot' :lol: it sounds very dramatic, but even with human-aggro dogs, i've used the same tools, 
the same techniques, and no silly eat-first, humans-on-furniture, humans-LEAD-on-leash, either. 


jconline said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> I'm... dealing with dogs that are genuinely dangerous, and no amount of trust, love, respect or treats
> helps some of these dogs. Sometimes they simply have to lose the psychological dominance battle.


:001_tt1: WoW - that's so romantic.  except that i've worked with dangerous dogs, too - 
and there *is no* 'dominance' battle. Humans own the food, doors, leash, access to everything!; 
where's the battle? :thumbup: we just need to teach the dog *what to do, to get what they want or need*. 
they comply? the door opens, dinner is served, they get the ball, the walk, the game, the bone, the ride --- 
the *'open, sesame'* magic is simple compliance: we get what we want? they get what they want; 
quid pro quo, easy - and no arguments, no struggle, no Alpha-rolls, choke-chains, prongs, shock, nada. :thumbup:

i love a happy ending! :thumbup1: don't U?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

jconline said:


> The trend toward nothing but positive reward based approaches only...


pos-P = apply punishment [something the dog will work to avoid] after UNwanted behavior [the consequence 
thus discourages unwanted behavior] - but it's *positive - * it's just 'punishment', the other quadrant.

'reward-only' or 'pos-R only' is a myth; it cannot exist, as even the lack of an anticipated reward for noncompliance 
or a below-criterion performance would be a disappointment, even tho it is not applied-punishment AKA pos-P. 
positive-punishment and positive-reinforcement are both consequences - life itself gives pos-P, as when 
the dog walks on thin ice, falls in and is chilled by frigid water; most dogs will be cautious of ice over water 
after one such experience, but it can be one-time fatal learning, too.

the environment and life's consequences for foolhardy or curious behavior can be very harsh, indeed; 
no one goes thru life skipping thru sunshine every day, sniffing only flowers, and hearing only birds. 
there is rain, the stench of sewage and truck-fumes, and the clatter and screech of noisy industries, too.  
some of that rain will come on days when we planned a picnic, or a day at the beach to swim [shrug].


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

jconline said:


> you're getting way too caught up on the term 'pack leader'. It's used to describe 'the boss'.
> The alpha. As for the need to be a dog in order to be the pack leader, that's insane. I've seen dogs ruled by humans,
> cats and even birds. It's an authority figure that the dog respects and takes seriously. Being this figure as well
> as a loving owner is what being pack leader is all about. Saying dogs are pack animals is more a reference
> to their social structure and a hierarchy existing.


may i quote from Ur website, James? 


> To gain the kind of experience and insight that money can't buy, I owned and lived with a pack of 10 dogs
> for a year. It was fascinating to see pack structure at work. We hear pompous do-gooders harking on
> about how dogs are not pack animals, and pack structure has no place in modern dog training.
> Let me tell you, what a load of rubbish! My pack were all rescue dogs, all with serious issues. They became
> ...


obviously, i'm just a pompous do-gooder, having not lived with a pack of 10 rescue-dogs for a year. 
i defer to Ur obviously-greater wisdom, sensei, and withdraw on hands and knees.

i won't trouble U any more.  i am unworthy.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Ok, taking info from the thread and the quote posted by LFL:

So, you claim that dominance theory / pack theory / linear hierarchies all exist in dogs - and that you know this from having lived with 10 dogs.

In which case I assume you can answer "Yes" to the following questions:

1) Could you easily list all the dogs from 1 to 10, with 1 being the "alpha" and 10 the "omega" with all others in a linear hierarchy in between?

2) Did the dogs always eat their food ration in this order? (i.e. at no point did they eat simultaniously, or out of order)

3) Did the dogs always find more comfortable or higher resting places than lower ranking members? But less comfortable / lower than their superiors?Without fail?


4) Was control of other resources always controlled in this same hierarchy - i.e. Dog 1 has control of toy, if he gets bored then dog 2 will possess the toy. (ie at no time will a dog take a resource out of this order)

5) Were these dogs exercised at the same time on leash? If so, did they walk behind you in a linear formation? (I imagine that could get complicated with as little as two dogs!)

6) When exercising off leash, were the dogs always in a linear formation - with Dog 1 always in front, Dog 10 always bringing up the rear, and all others in the correct order in between? (At no stage did the dogs head in different directions, or move from A to B out of order)

7) When going through doorways did the dogs always enter / exit one at a time in order of hierarchy, 1 - 10?

8) When you returned to the pack after absence, or when another person came round, did the dogs always guard / greet said person in order?

9) Did dogs routinelly use physical aggression, in the form of neck biting and alpha rolls (forcing the other dog onto its back and pinning it there by force) on lower ranking dogs?

10) Did you at any point see any of those dogs using shock collars, choke chains, prong collars, hitting, kicking, dragging them places against their will, etc?

Questions 1-9. If you can not honestly answer 100% YES to all these questions, every single time, then you yourse;f have disproved the basic theory.

And as I know you can not answer yes to Q10, I think it is safe to say that trying to use "pack theory" to justify violent training methods is frankly ridiculous.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I think I've seen that line of dogs - in one hundred and one dalmatians:lol:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Ahh.... but were you payig attention? Did all those puppies stay in that exact same order every time? Because if they didn't, then the concept of a linear hierarchy is clearly flawed!! 

Loving that image though... like kids in the lunch line at school "Oi!" "You're in my space!" "No pushing in!" "I was here first"....


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I think the very idea is hilarious. I don't imagine the pack theory will ever go away, though, because we have a pack of dogs, just like we have a flock of geese and a herd of elephants. Nobody trains elephants and thinks they are the herd leader, do they?

While they are called a pack, this pack leader crap will never go away. So someone has ten well trained dogs, why does that mean they are their pack leader? Surely just means they have been trained, doesn't it?

And since when did dogs (or anything else) in the wild have doors to go through?

The whole idea is so illogical, I cannot believe people are still harping on about it.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

Wow, JCOnline: you obviously spend a lot of time researching and have a passion for what you are doing, but I can't for the life of me figure out what your _real_ philosophy is!

You say you believe in pack structure, but not pack theory, and that some dogs are just too difficult to rehabilitate using positive methods...or is it because it would take too long for you and you want to solve every problem within a week?

And for all your reading into 'dominance', you have shown you don't understand the term, in a general ethological sense (I'll let you find out what it actually means- homework). Furthermore, the most common research in dog behaviour abhors the pack theory and dominance hierarchies.

Dr Ian Dunbar believes in a social hierarchy but *not a dominance hierarchy*. If anything, he says, it is a 'deference/appeasement heirarchy', because each dog respects each other through subtle communication nuances and, thus, no fights or problems need to occur where 'the boss', as you so eloquently put it, needs to assert their dominance.

What's more, do you have any evidence to back up your claims of some dogs being born as dominant? Do you think that dogs really have genes for 'wanting to be dominant' that portrays itself as a tendency to want to control *every* stimuli belonging to every organism? E.g. A family's couch, a dog's bone etc. All genes are 'selfish', in the sense that their phenotypic effects can be seen to preserving the chances of reproductive success and a continuation of those genes in future generations. However, occording to the pack theory, wolves and dogs hurt each other, and even kill each other, to be leaders, which is totally out of line.

For a canine's genes to have the best possible chance of future survival in the germ line, they are not going to go round killing and physically abusing others around them for no other reason for them being 'dominant'. There are much better reasons to describe social interaction between consepcifics and interrelationships between dogs and humans.

Of course, a dog's ontogeny can develop new behaviours and no dog is the same, but to say that dogs who are aggressive are being dominant, is an absolute cop-out.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

LFL:

DOG ATTACK STATISTICS (source NHS)

•UK Dog attacks have increased in the last 10 years by 60% 
•Children are 3 times more likely to be attacked than adults
•Most of the injuries on the children were on the face.
•Royal Mail figures have revealed that dog attacks on postal workers have increased by 20% in the last year.

The UK population has not increased in the last 10 years by 60%. We are seeing an increase in dog attacks. Fact.

Your proposal of baby gates and leashes is just brilliant. Total avoidance rather than actually sorting out the issue. pos-P = apply punishment [something the dog will work to avoid] after UNwanted behavior [the consequence 
thus discourages unwanted behavior] - but it's positive - it's just 'punishment', the other quadrant. What's your method for dealing with a dog that is determined to attack someone who dares to enter the house? Your client cannot have visitors. What do you do with the client and the dog? How does the reward/non reward approach work when your dog is way more interested in someone's leg that a treat? Are you ignoring the dog and turning your back on it as it tears the visitor apart? Or are you just putting baby gates everywhere?

Colette - I haven't ever mentioned a belief in a truly linear hierarchy so why are you asking if my pack mirrored one? A pack is the plural term for dogs. Some will call pack structure something else, a family, a social structure. Call it what you want. If you think you don't have one and dogs don't need one, you're lying and you're wrong. The word dominance and the phrase pack leader or boss seems to be upsetting lots. Lets look at it. ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority. So answer my questions - do you like your dogs to do as they're told? Do you like them to listen to you and be obedient? Do you want them to come when called? Sit when told to sit? Do you want them to still do those things even when you are not offering a treat or reward, but through obedience? Then this is you exerting your authority, governing control. Where does obedience come from? To obey. That doesn't sound like a lovely relationship based on equality that you all like to think you've got. You're as much pack leaders as I am, you just call it something else.

FYI - yes, the dogs would go through gates and doorways in the same order, it was fascinating to watch. That was the only time you could really see the hierarchy at work. They ate together, slept together, however, Lola could lie where she wanted and take anything from the other dogs. They could not do the same.

What do you think tail positions are all about. Would you just call it a conversation of confidence when two dogs meet? There's a ritual to saying hello. Traditionally, the more 'dominant' dog says hello first, get the first sniff in. The other dog sniffs second. Watch it for yourselves. The dog that sniffs first will invariably have the higher tail position. I'd call this the more dominant dog.

Are some dogs born more dominant? Yes. Again, you might call it more confident. What do you think puppy temperament assessment is all about? Your battle against widely used and common terms is futile and pointless. And it's all because of one man. Cesar Millan. If he hadn't coined the phrase pack leader, we wouldn't be desperately trying to prove dogs aren't pack animals and don't need an authority figure. but they do, and you are your dog's authority figure if your dog does as it's told. How you get there is up to you, treats, discipline, corrections, non reward.

Rottiefan, I hope you now know what I mean when I use the term dominance, pack structure, hierarchy etc. To be the dominant one doesn't have to mean you rule with force and fear. I do use treats, praise, rewards and non reward all the time. I also happen to think some element of compulsion is necessary in that I'm not reliant on treats or rewards or even the lack or absence of rewards. My opinion is that the lack of a reward is simply not enough of a 'punishment' to disuade some dogs from doing some things, and sometimes, something that is more of a correction, is acceptable. That's my opinion and belief. I can think of many scenarios where you failing to give one of my client's dogs a biscuit really ain't gonna do it. Asserting dominance is what you all do every day. You seem to have it in your head that those of us who describe this all as pack structure and being pack leader walk around the house with a big stick, beating our dogs into submission.

This is nothing more than a dispute over terminology. Dogs' social hierarchy is not a fixed linear dominance hierarchy in which the dominant dog maintains order by threatening and intimidating underlings. In the new politically correct termed appeasement hierarchy, subordinate animals maintain order through active displays of submission and deference rather than displays of forcing others into submission. Jean Donaldson offers the Army as a human analogy. Lower ranking soldiers salute their *superiors *with a flourish and then get a cursory salute in return. The general does not enter the room and start throwing his weight around: he simply appears and everyone starts saluting.

Here here, couldn't put it better myself. I don't teach people to rule with force or fear! I teach people how to gain respect and be seen as the superior figure within the 'appeasement hierarchy'. I just find the new labels a load of nonesense and stick to calling it pack structure and being a pack leader. The only point we disagree on is the subject of corrections. When the positive reward/non reward methods fail and the dog is about to be taken to the vets to be put down, I would rather try providing a negative consequence for certain behaviours that are the reason why this dog is booked in to the vets tomorrow, that are a bit stronger than no biscuit. If it helps modify the behaviour and saves the dog's life, good. What do you do when everything in your arsenal fails? Would you rather put a dog down than give it a 'touch' or a physical correction if it is totally unresponsive to rewards?

We all agree on how dogs learn, the mechanics of reward and consequence, operant and classical conditioning etc. Where the world of dog training splits up is on the consequence bit. Some truly believe every dog with every issue no matter how severe, can be sorted out with the reward bit, or lack of it, and they feel the consequence side of the coin need not be anything more than not getting a reward. What a load of garbage. You live in an idealistic fantasy land. It might be true for you and your dog, but if you think it's true for everyone and every dog, you need to wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## AlexGSD (Dec 16, 2008)

My Goodness, I had no idea that my post made 3 YEARS AGO!! would develop into such a long thread......I only asked about training in Leicester........:lol:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Yes, it did go a bit off course! It wasn't our fault, though, just some troll picking up every single thread ever posted with the name Caesar Millan in. Perhaps we should change the title?

I hope you found your trainer.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

JCOnline:

I do agree with this point:



> This is nothing more than a dispute over terminology.


Of course I agree that dogs are a social species, and that the colective term for a group of dogs is a "pack". I also agree that in a household of humans and dogs, the human must be able to control the dog.

However, the original "dominance theory" and most of its recent off-shoots, the concept of a linear hierarchy maintained by violence, etc. are all incorrect. Saying I don't agree with CM's "pack theory" does not mean I do notn think dogs are a gregarious species. Nor do I consider myself an "alpha" or a "pack leader". I am a dog owner. Simple as that.

When it comes to training however, your post gives me the imprssion that you do not have a thorough understanding of how Positive Reinforcement Training (PRT) actually works.

Please don't be offended by this - many people misunderstand, and unfortunately that is one of the biggest reasons people avoid it and rely on abusive tactics instead.

To illustrate:



> So answer my questions - do you like your dogs to do as they're told? Do you like them to listen to you and be obedient? Do you want them to come when called? Sit when told to sit? Do you want them to still do those things even when you are not offering a treat or reward, but through obedience? Then this is you exerting your authority, governing control.


Actually no, it is very little to do with "control" or "authority". It is operant conditions at its most basic, using the primary principles of how learning occurs.

All behaviours are carried out for a reason - i.e. animals do things that are rewarding. (I don't mean rewarded purely in the training sense - but in every sense). Behaviours that are rewarding will be repeated. Behaviours that are not rewarding will be extinguished.

It is a MYTH that dogs and other animals trained by PRT only work for treats / rewards. This is how a new behaviour is initially trained (put on cue) and indeed how it is improved (shaped). 
If you have a dog that will only obey when you wave a biscuit in its face you have not trained it correctly.

Incidentally, it has been well established that intermittent rewards are the most effective - far more effective than constant reward. It is a similar principle to why gambling is so addictive, and so many people play the lottery. If a persons employer stopped paying their salary they would quit their job pretty quick - yet they will play the lottery without fail, every week, despite only winning small amounts about every 1 in 30 games. Anyway, once the behaviour is on cue you immediately switch from a constant schedule of reward, to an intermittent schedule. This actively increases the dogs motivation to work - the dog tried harder to get that elusive reward! (This is how you improve behaviours, as rather than rewarding at random you reward for increasingly better attempts).



> What's your method for dealing with a dog that is determined to attack someone who dares to enter the house? Your client cannot have visitors. What do you do with the client and the dog? How does the reward/non reward approach work when your dog is way more interested in someone's leg that a treat? Are you ignoring the dog and turning your back on it as it tears the visitor apart? Or are you just putting baby gates everywhere?


This also shows a complete lack of understanding about how a behaviourist works. CM might set the dog up to fail like this, in order to brutalise it in the name of training, but the professionals do not.

A professional would first thoroughly assess the dog and the situation, to determine the cause of the aggression (general fear, guarding instinct, previous bad experience etc).

The behaviourist would then find ways of treating the CAUSE of said behaviour problem, setting the dog up to succeed. In many cases this is done by carefully keeping the dog under threshold - so that it doesn't perform the unwanted behaviour - so that the correct behaviour can be rewarded. As the dogs fear / desire to protect its home etc, lessens, the threshold changes. the dog can gradually improve - no one gets bitten and the dog does not need to be brutalised.



> Some truly believe every dog with every issue no matter how severe, can be sorted out with the reward bit, or lack of it, and they feel the consequence side of the coin need not be anything more than not getting a reward. What a load of garbage.


You have totally misinterpreted the concept of "negative punishment" or "removal of reward". You seem to think this simply means "give the dog a treat when behaving, do not give a treat for misbehaving".

It should be remembered that reward is in the eye of the beholder - ie the dog, not the trainer.

As stated earlier - animals do what they do for a reason.

They eat food because it is rewarding. How? It alleviates hunger pains. It tastes nice. It satisfies an internal drive to eat.

They chase rabbits because it is rewarding. Why? Not because their owner gives them a twinky for doing it, but because the chase drive is a natural instinct in many dogs and acting upon it provides satisfaction. Catching said rabbit providse immense rewards, of success, of food, a toy / prize etc.

They bark at the postman, every day, because it is rewarded. Not by their owner but by the postman - he goes away! Which is exactly what the dog wanted him to do.

When trying to eradicate an unwanted behaviour, all you have to do is remove the reward. NOT refuse the dog a treat - but remove the intrinsic reward, ie the reason the dog performs this behaviour.

So if you do not want your dog to bark at the postman - get a friendly local postie to help you by delivering the mail, then as soon as the dog starts barking, postie stands still. Dog will bark harder at first (extinction burst) but then ease off. At the moment the dog goes quiet, postie leaves. Repeat as necessary.
the result - dog stops barking at the postman. Why? Because the dog has learned that barking is not rewarded (it doesn't work - the postman stays put) whereas being quiet makes the postman go away! Dog still feels like a winner, owner and postie both happy.

So yes, I do believe that many problems can be overcome by removal of reward - just not in the sense that you seem to think.

You have also failed to consider the other option for behaviour modification - treating the CAUSE of the behaviour rather than the symptom.

Aggression is an obvious example here. Many dogs are aggressive as a result of some sort of fear. Rather than punishing the aggression (which is highly dangerous!) a behaviourist will determine the cause of the dogs fear, and seek to alleviate said fear through a process of systematic desensitisation. Remove the fear, the dog feels better (its welfare is improved) and as a result, the unwanted behaviour (fear aggression) goes away. No need for punishment.

Of course, there are also yet more options.... interuptors, the addition of non-reward markers, training an alternative, incompatible behaviour and rewarding that, (eg training a dog that jumps up to sit for a greeting - he can't jump and sit at the same time).

And of course, there is management. Terry is not suggesting we avoid all possible situations with our dogs - far from it. 
I imagine (please correct me Terry is I'm wrong) that like most behaviourists, she is suggesting the dog be managed so as to avoid the unwanted behaviour occurring WHILST training / rehab is undertaken. This prevents the dog being inadvertently rewarded for the behaviour, which will increase its resistance to extinction.
And of course, that some management is to be considered responsible ownership even where no behaviour problem exists - for example, not leaving dogs and children together unsupervised, or not walking your dog off-lead up the high street.

Please don't take offense, but judging from these comments it really does seem clear that you do not have a thorough understanding of how such methods work, or why, or even how they are implemented - and yet you are happy to claim they don't work!!

As for this:


> The only point we disagree on is the subject of corrections. When the positive reward/non reward methods fail and the dog is about to be taken to the vets to be put down, I would rather try providing a negative consequence for certain behaviours that are the reason why this dog is booked in to the vets tomorrow, that are a bit stronger than no biscuit. If it helps modify the behaviour and saves the dog's life, good. What do you do when everything in your arsenal fails? Would you rather put a dog down than give it a 'touch' or a physical correction if it is totally unresponsive to rewards?


Again, this totally misses the point.

I could say just as easily, what about all those dogs who were failed by "rank reduction" techniques, positive punishment, etc? I have seen on other forums, training sites the more "traditional" trainers recommending PTS when their methods fail - when not one persona has tried using positive reinforcement, counter conditioning, desensitisation, etc.....

No one is saying we would rather put a dog down that give it a mild correction. I, for one, am saying that as these "corrections" have a very high risk of making things much worse or creating different behaviour problems, and have a relatively low success rate - that this point does not occur.

It simply isn't a case that some "hard" dogs won't be helped by PRT - ALL creatures that are capable of learning, from goldfish to man, are obedient to the laws of learning.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Yes, it did go a bit off course! It wasn't our fault, though, just some troll picking up every single thread ever posted with the name Caesar Millan in. Perhaps we should change the title?
> 
> I hope you found your trainer.


Our fault? Who is 'our'? Wow this is a real little community of Cesar haters isn't it. Take a look at how this thread got off topic. My answer was yes, there is dog training in leicester. It was 'our lot' that dragged Cesar into it and couldn't ignore the opportunity to have a go at someone with a different approach or belief to their own. My post was on here less than 24 hours before somebody had to suggest dogs might be tortured in my class because I combined positive reward training with a little about being taken seriously and seen as the authority figure. I have better things to do than hunt for threads to interfere with and stick my nose in where it's not wanted, but I won't just sit here and not stand up for myself. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be on a 'forum'.

Your name says it all.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

jconline said:


> Our fault? Who is 'our'? Wow this is a real little community of Cesar haters isn't it. Take a look at how this thread got off topic. My answer was yes, there is dog training in leicester. It was 'our lot' that dragged Cesar into it and couldn't ignore the opportunity to have a go at someone with a different approach or belief to their own. My post was on here less than 24 hours before somebody had to suggest dogs might be tortured in my class because I combined positive reward training with a little about being taken seriously and seen as the authority figure. I have better things to do than hunt for threads to interfere with and stick my nose in where it's not wanted, but I won't just sit here and not stand up for myself. If you can't handle that, you shouldn't be on a 'forum'.
> 
> Your name says it all.


Would you rather I had said "my fault" and made it sound like I own the bloody forum? I was not the one who brought CM into things, and I was not referring to you when I mentioned some troll bringing up old threads. I did not suggest anything, in fact I did not post on this thread at all until it got brought up again.

What is wrong with my name? The fact that I call myself the dogs' mum? Is that your problem? Should I have used newfies pack leader? I do call myself mum, that is how I treat my dogs. I do not regard myself as their pack leader and they do sit on sofas and do eat first. No, they don't go through the door before me, because I don't want to be dragged off into the street if they see another dog or next door's cat. I want to see what is out there first.

No, they are not perfectly trained - I do not want that. They come back when called, they do not guard their food, they sit when told, they stay when told and they walk nicely on a loose lead. That is all I want from them.

I have never once responded to any of your posts so I am not sure why you are starting on me, but each to his own I suppose.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

@ Colette- :thumbup: A fantastic post! And isn't it funny that JC has decided not to reply.

@JC- You are right in saying that we are disagreeing on terminology, but you underestimate how important terminology is. If I say the "I think the world's flat" and someone says "No it isn't! It has been proven that the world is round", what's stopping me in replying: "Ah, you see, my definition of _flat_ is the same as yours for _round_".

You say that dogs can be dominant. Wrong. In _*general*_ ethology, dominance is defined as:

_an attribute of the pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favor of the same dyad member and a default yielding response of its opponent rather than
escalation. The status of the consistent winner is dominant and that of the loser subordinate_ (Drews, 1993).

So: 1) an animal can only be 'dominant' in the context of relationships but 2) there is a lot of literature demonstrating that dominance is not appropriate to describing inter- or intra-relationships. Terminology here is very important.

As Colette outlined above, your understanding of PRT is very narrow-minded and does not take into account the fact that everything we do is based on what we find interesting, pleasant and/or successful for our well-being. Thus, using a system of training that educates (we are educators to our dogs, apart from just owners) dogs of the fact that we control the resources that they want, i.e. food, safety, shelter, sociality. How does using a "touch" solve any behaviour other than deter the dog for a time being because it's either too scared to perform the unwanted behaviour again or, similarly, it is too confused.

What I would like you to tell us is what your methods are _*for those dogs that are too hard*_. You keep saying a more correction based form of training is needed- what does that mean?!

On another note, this has gone off topic for a very good reason. Since training is a very important aspect for every dog owner, when someone comes on here wanting to find a trainer/behaviourist and someone, such as yourself kindly offers your services, it's other people's duty to say "watch out here, this person is not using appropriate methods and, thus, maybe save your money for someone who is known and recommended.

If you want to put your website up, fine, but be prepared for scrutiny in this day and age.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Colette said:


> And of course, there is management. Terry is not suggesting we avoid all possible situations
> with our dogs - far from it.
> I imagine (please correct me Terry if I'm wrong) that like most behaviourists, she [suggests] the dog be managed
> so as to avoid the unwanted behaviour occurring WHILST training / rehab is undertaken. This prevents the dog
> being inadvertently rewarded for the behaviour, which will increase its resistance to extinction.


*Bingo!* :thumbup: Got it in one! :thumbsup: 


Colette said:


> And of course, that some management is to be considered responsible ownership
> even where no behaviour problem exists - for example, not leaving dogs and children together unsupervised,
> or not walking your dog off-lead up the high street.


definitely - just because my dog has a good solid recall does NOT mean that i will be leaving my dog in the yard 
with the gate to the street wide-open - that would be foolish in the extreme, IMO as not only can my dog 
be tempted out - by a passing cat, a bunny, a child with an ice-cream cone, a bike to chase... 
but another dog, a person, a stray cat, etc, can come IN. there are too many potential hazards - my dog's recall 
is not a magic-bullet, and i will not rely on it as if it were an appliance warranty - my dog is not 'replaceable'.

some forms of management are lifelong, and IMO make up some of the characteristics of responsible ownership. 
if U do not have good verbal-control of the dog, *they are not off-leash outside a fence - period. * 
U can exercise the dog on a long-line, but no dog without reliable cued behaviors should romp cross-country. 
a good off-leash blast can be had with another dog or 2 or 3 inside a tennis-court, or other safe space.


----------



## jconline (Jan 12, 2011)

The concept of a linear hierarchy maintained by violence

When has Cesar Millan ever promoted this? His mantra is calm assertive. He says it all the time. No matter how physical he gets with the dog, and the most extreme of his corrections is pinning a dog down, which is entirely natural to the dog no matter how upsetting for some owners who don&#8217;t understand dog behaviour, it&#8217;s executed calmly, no anger, no aggression, no frustration.

The problem with his approach is that it cannot be done by dog owners who&#8217;ve seen it on telly. They don&#8217;t do it right, they haven&#8217;t established a position of authority to begin with, and it&#8217; downright stupid and dangerous for people who don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;re doing to give it a go. That&#8217;s the beauty of PRT in that everyone can do it and do it safely. I only leave PRT exercises and simple resource control for owners to do in between sessions.

I understand PRT very well and am well aware that intermittant rewards are most effective. One in ten times is enough to maintain the dog&#8217;s expectation and the desired result. 

What you demonstrate is a lack of understanding of dog behaviour in its purest form. PRT is man made. It is not natural to the dog. Yes, how they learn and the manipulation of it is natural, but dogs do not dish out rewards or withhold rewards to train other dogs. Dogs don&#8217;t ignore bad behaviour. Dogs are physical. The touch is something dogs do to one another, and far from confusing dogs as you suggest, a well timed touch works much better as a negative consequence than not obtaining a reward. 

Lola was the perfect example of a pack leader, this General who walks around calmly, not dishing out aggression or ruling with force and fear. She was respected and the other dogs frequently made submissive gestures and demonstrated submissive body language. Why do they do this to the dog they see as the authority figure? Because they accept him or her as in charge, the boss, the one at the top of the appeasement structure or whatever you want to call it.

Aggression rarely occurs because of this understanding and respect. Now and again, in moments of high excitement or if a new dog comes along that doesn&#8217;t know the rules of the pack or a young dog hasn&#8217;t learned how to say hello politely for example, does the other dog turn away and ignore the dog leaping all over it? No. The dog corrects the rude one with a growl, a nip, the equivalent of a touch. Pinning down is common, even during play. Pups are corrected from a very young age by mum. They are immediately taught about negative consequences with a physical correction. Does mum withhold milk until they ask nicely? No. They get a nip if they&#8217;re being too demanding or if she&#8217;s had enough.

The behaviourists that come at it from the dog&#8217;s perspective using dog behaviour in its purest form, and done correctly with the right energy and timing, do not scare dogs, hurt dogs or use any more force that is not entirely understood by the dog. The fact that it is not understood by some owners or trainers does not mean it&#8217;s wrong.

My Rotty was the rescue centre&#8217;s worst case in 20 years. He&#8217;s now a PAT dog and soon to be a Blue Cross dog. Do you think I achieved that by scaring him and bullying him into being better?

The idea that dominance just doesn&#8217;t exist in dogs is ridiculous. What is at the heart of possessive aggression? Territorial aggression? Humping of a non sexual nature? 

Just as the more submissive members display submissive signals and gestures to this figure likened by those who prefer the appeasement description to the pack structure description to a General that naturally rules calmly and has this understanding and respect, the General achieves that position of authority in the first place through his own behaviour, gestures and signals of being in control. This is all just another way of packaging &#8216;dominant&#8217; and &#8216;submissive&#8217;. I don&#8217;t agree with that and find it too simplistic. I think it&#8217;s more a case of dominant and sub dominant. Aggression is very rare, but now and again the figure in control will be challenged, either by an up and coming member or an outsider. The fact that dogs fight at all is demonstration enough that dogs are physical and dish out physical corrections. Rarely do they actually hurt each other. It&#8217;s more like a wrestling match. Once someone wins and gets the upper hand, and the other submits, the fight is over. When a dog is pinned down, if it knows it&#8217;s lost, it naturally relaxes completely. The other dog does not continue its attack. It walks away. The scrap is over and the hierarchy or &#8216;appeasement society/relationship&#8217; is agreed. 

When I say it is to do with control and authority, I am talking about dogs and dog behaviour. When you say it is not, you&#8217;re talking about PRT.

I&#8217;m glad you mentioned finding the cause of the problem, and you&#8217;re right. You don&#8217;t just deal with the symptoms. And as far as the dog&#8217;s concerned, most of the time, issues are because of this passive appeasement relationship being all wrong. The owner is the one signalling to the dog that the dog is the calm and natural leader, the boss, the one in charge of resources etc. The dog then behaves as such and starts to &#8216;claim&#8217;, &#8216;own&#8217; and guard. Most problem behaviours are not problem behaviours at all. They are perfectly good and natural behaviours for a dog that has been given the position of &#8216;boss&#8217; or &#8216;pack leader&#8217;. 

When trying to eradicate an unwanted behaviour, all you have to do is remove the reward. NOT refuse the dog a treat - but remove the intrinsic reward, ie the reason the dog performs this behaviour.

So if you do not want your dog to bark at the postman - get a friendly local postie to help you by delivering the mail, then as soon as the dog starts barking, postie stands still. Dog will bark harder at first (extinction burst) but then ease off. At the moment the dog goes quiet, postie leaves. Repeat as necessary.
the result - dog stops barking at the postman. Why? Because the dog has learned that barking is not rewarded (it doesn't work - the postman stays put) whereas being quiet makes the postman go away! Dog still feels like a winner, owner and postie both happy.

Yes, this works fine if we&#8217;re talking about a postman not going away. Of course the postman thing is a very obvious example of self rewarding behaviour. The postman goes away and the dog thinks his behaviour is responsible. You&#8217;re getting a little basic and patronising with your unnecessary explanations of PRT. I get it Colette. But what of those dogs that enjoy biting and attacking? You can stand there and ignore barking, then move the postman away only when the dog is quiet. It&#8217;s not an ideal method for the neighbours when you have a dog that will bark like that all day, but it will eventually work. You can turn your back and ignore jumping up. You can ignore a lot. And I see clients every week who&#8217;ve had several PRT trainers before me. They&#8217;ve tried for years. Dogs that enjoy fighting, I&#8217;m not sure how you&#8217;d remove the reward. 

You use fear aggression as your aggression example. No, you would never correct fear aggression. Anyone that knows what they&#8217;re doing, whether it&#8217;s my approach or yours would know this.

There are good and bad trainers and behaviourists. Good ones from both approaches, bad ones from both approaches. I&#8217;m working with a couple now who had the lady out that someone very early on recommended to the lady looking for a dog trainer in this thread. In their words, she made the dog worse. Also in their words, I&#8217;m the best they&#8217;ve tried yet. I&#8217;m not bigging myself up. I&#8217;m saying all I&#8217;m bothered about is helping dogs and owners. Results matter, and dog welfare matters. I have my clients and my feedback to tell me all I need to know. What I do and how I do it works well. I have no problem using PRT and I do use it all the time because of how dogs naturally learn. They&#8217;re very simple creatures. But they also have a psychology different to our own human psychology, and what we think of as wrong for us humans to do, is as natural to dogs as rolling in fox poop. I take into account dog psychology as well as how they learn and the manipulation of it.



I&#8217;m not here to convince anyone of anything, and I won&#8217;t post again to defend my approach. My lack of a future reply won&#8217;t be because I&#8217;m stumped and can&#8217;t answer (rottie fan), it&#8217;s because I&#8217;ve said all I&#8217;m going to and have a life away from forums! Did you really expect me to be sat eagerly awaiting the next post on a Friday night?!

The world of dog owners will continue to be divided, with Cesar Millan in one corner and Victoria Stilwell in the other! It&#8217;s dog trainers versus dog behaviourists, but you won&#8217;t stop me combining the two worlds. It works well and the dogs and the results tell me all I need to know.

One final point, it's not only the CM types that get bitten occassionally. I'm often warned that the dog has bitten previous trainers, they find it only fair to warn me. Countless stories of PRT trainers hurling treats at growling dogs, attempting to create a positive association where there is currently a negative one, a simple 'look, visitors are a good thing', but because their timing is all wrong, and they haven't waited properly for the aggression to subside, they're rewarding bad behaviour and re-inforcing it. Whatever approach you choose, you need someone who knows what they're doing. 

Thank you Colette for the debate, I always find it interesting. I leave you with an offer. If you&#8217;re up for it, get in touch direct through the website. One consultation and problem dog/owner we both attend together. You do your thing, I do mine. We can see each other at work and see the results. We can leave the owners with homework and see what works for them and what doesn&#8217;t. I&#8217;m happy to put my money where my mouth is. Are you?


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

jconline, Dog training-Leicester area.



> What you demonstrate is a lack of understanding of dog behaviour in its purest form. PRT is man made. It is not natural to the dog. Yes, how they learn and the manipulation of it is natural, but dogs do not dish out rewards or withhold rewards to train other dogs. Dogs don't ignore bad behaviour. Dogs are physical.


This is the greatest issue many dog lovers have. If the expert pins down the dogs he is automatically a tyrant, an unsensitive monster, and it is just a matter of visiting a developing country in which lots of strays pin each other down, not very gently, although the majority of times it is just a ritual.

In England you don't have many strays so the dog experience of people is just to treat them like soft babies. Don't get me wrong, I do pamper my dogs but this can make them into manipulative little furry monsters. 

Cheers.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> Youre getting a little basic and patronising with your unnecessary explanations of PRT. I get it Colette.


I wasn't trying to be patronising so please don't take offense. I went into so much detail because I have found simply saying to people "you don't understand" usually gets the response "yes I do" and we get nowhere. To prevent this stalemate arising I gave those numerous examples of where your own comments had indicated a lack of understandingm along with an explanation of why such comments were inaccurate.

I also like to stick to stick to the basics where possible for the benefit of other readers who may not be clued up on all the complex theories and terminology.



> The concept of a linear hierarchy maintained by violence
> When has Cesar Millan ever promoted this? His mantra is calm assertive


Yes, he talks "calm and assertive" but he uses violence.

Alongside the usual nonsense (and it IS nonsense) about eating first, always walking in front etc. he frequently resorts to violence - inc. using the lead to jerk, drag and even hang dogs, using pain inducing aids such as chokes, prongs, and electric shock collars, he hits (sorry - jabs), kicks, wrestles, rolls and pins, and scruffs.

Reminds me of the old saying "talk softly and carry a big stick".



> and it downright stupid and dangerous for people who dont know what theyre doing to give it a go


Funny isn't it how CM, the almighty dog whisperer, expert, is frequently bitten? Or how, in some cases, other people (eg the dogs owner) get bitten. As a direct result of CM's methods.

Isn't it also funny how those professional behaviourists and trainers who do not use violence, get bitten rarely - if ever?

Does this not tell you something?



> PRT is man made. It is not natural to the dog.


Yes, PRT is man made (the clue is in the name) but the basis of this method - reward versus non-reward is the basic premise by which ALL animals learn and thus survive.
If this were not the case animals would waste valuable time and energy on pointless behaviours, detrimental to their health, happiness and even survival; or would fail to benefit (health, pleasure, survival) from rewarding situations. This concept applies to every situation in which an animal learns, whether that situation is natural or man made.



> The touch is something dogs do to one another, and far from confusing dogs as you suggest, a well timed touch works much better as a negative consequence than not obtaining a reward.


I do not believe this is the case, for a number of reasons:

1) Using physical punishment teaches the dog that the behaviour is "unsafe" in specific conditions - namely the presence of the person carrying out the punishment. As a result, the behaviour is often continued during the trainers / owners absence. By removing the intrinsic reward of the behaviour, the dog learns that the behaviour is a waste of time, all the time. The result is that the behaviour tends to be eradicated rather than simply hidden.

2) The use pf physical punishment has a high risk of fallout, due to its potential to cause pain and fear. This fallout often includes such delights as "submissive urination", avoidance behaviours, or in many cases fear based aggression. Using a removal of reward method carries no such risk, and thus is highly unlikely to produce any fallout problems.

3) There is evidence to suggest that behaviours stopped by punishment often recur at a later time, when the effect of that punishment has worn off. Again, this is because the conditions are very specific. Using the quadrants positive reinforcement and negative punishment (inc removal of reward) tend to yield much longer lasting results.



> Im glad you mentioned finding the cause of the problem, and youre right. You dont just deal with the symptoms. And as far as the dogs concerned, most of the time, issues are because of this passive appeasement relationship being all wrong.


I strongly disagree. Most behaviour problems have absolutely nothing to do with any hierarchy / dominance issues. Many are simply the result of a lack of socialisation or training. Some result from a specific event, eg a bad experience. Some have their basis in health problems - which is why most professional behaviourists will only work on vet referrals. And of course, many are simply natural dog behaviours that the owners / society does not approve of.

In my opinion, the profesional behaviourists take the time to fully assess the dog, the situation and the behaviour in order to determine the exact cause which they can then treat.
The "dominance" crowd often (I will not say always) has a biased view of dog behaviour, and automatically seem to blame everything on dominance.

CM himself is a prime example. The dog chases light? He's being dominant over the light. A puppy humping his pillow is dominant over his pillow. The dog that is desperately trying to get away from him, ears back, tail between its legs, cowering and shaking is not fearful - he's dominant. The dog that was never trained how to walk on a loose lead is being dominant. The dog who was encouraged to jump up as a puppy is being dominant.... The list is endless, and its nonsense!

I would also like to point out that while you say you agree that it is important to treat the cause of the problem, rather than the symptom - you spent the first half of your post stating that physically punishing the behaviour (ie the symptom) was the best way.



> The behaviourists that come at it from the dogs perspective using dog behaviour in its purest form, and done correctly with the right energy and timing, do not scare dogs, hurt dogs or use any more force that is not entirely understood by the dog.


I'm guessig you can't be talking about CM here then? As he frequently scares and sometimes hurts the dogs on his shows. I have personally witnessed on his show dogs pi$$ing themselves, cowering, shaking with fear, fear biting (either him, or re-drected at others) showing avoidance behaviours and calming signals, and eventually displaying all the signs of learned helplessness etc. Dogs have yelped, even been hanged to the point of asphyxiation. 
So many of his methods - the physical corrections you appear to be recommending - rely solely on causing pain, and causing the dog to fear the correction.



> The world of dog owners will continue to be divided, with Cesar Millan in one corner and Victoria Stilwell in the other! Its dog trainers versus dog behaviourists, but you wont stop me combining the two worlds. It works well and the dogs and the results tell me all I need to know.


If only it were so black and white. Many of the top behaviourists are also highly succesfull trainers. And many great trainers also offer good behavioural advice. Combining the two I agree will yield the best results. But I don't believe that physical punishment and blaming everything on "dominance" is behaviourism!

Finally, I love a good debate, and think this is a worthwhile topic to discuss - so I do hope you will reconsider and continue posting on this thread.

Thank you for your offer - but I must politely decline. I am not a professional behaviourist - or pro trainer for that matter, and I would not be so arrogant as to offer my services as such. What I am is a scientist, with an education in animal behaviour / welfare / training amongst other things, and a dog owner.
I will leave the behaviour work to the true professionals - not the likes of CM - but the likes of Ian Dunbar, Sheila Harper, Gewn Bailey, Patricia McConnell, Turid Ruugas, etc. They seem to getting impressive results without resporting to violence, using sound methods based on sound principles. And they seem to do it without anyone involved being bitten. Why can't CM and co do the same?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> jconline, Dog training-Leicester area.
> 
> "What you demonstrate is a lack of understanding of dog behaviour in its purest form. PRT is man made. It is not natural to the dog. Yes, how they learn and the manipulation of it is natural, but dogs do not dish out rewards or withhold rewards to train other dogs. Dogs don't ignore bad behaviour. Dogs are physical."
> 
> ...


Dogs do not train other dogs. Stray dogs will fight over resources because there are so few of them and yes, the strongest will get the prize. Doesn't mean he is the pack leader, just the one with the most muscle.

If a dog owner wants to train his dog to perform certain things, like sitting, waiting, staying, coming back when called, it is no earthly good trying to behave like he was part of the pack. Dogs do not do any of those things in the wild, so they need to be taught. And they need a reward to work for.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

Colette Wrote:



> Alongside the usual nonsense (and it IS nonsense) about eating first, always walking in front etc. he frequently resorts to violence - inc. using the lead to jerk, drag and even hang dogs, using pain inducing aids such as chokes, prongs, and electric shock collars, he hits (sorry - jabs), kicks, wrestles, rolls and pins, and scruffs.


You've got an axe to grind apparently, but again, dogs naturally pin each other down in a very fierce way although it is usually a ritual. You just go and visit a developing country and see for yourself the strays.
About the kicks you make it sound as if it was a kick inteded to kill, not a way to catch attention.
I think Pattison is an expert in jabs, a very incompetent good for nothing.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

koki said:


> You've got an axe to grind apparently, but again, dogs naturally pin each other down
> in a very fierce way although it is usually a ritual. You just go and visit a developing country and see for yourself the strays.


um - no, one need not 'go to a developing country' to see stray dogs, feral dogs [born and grew without 
human-contact], abandoned dogs eking it out by scavenging, homeless dogs living in abandoned buildings, etc.

DETROIT has over 50,000 dogs living in the streets, taking shelter in abandoned buildings, breeding, 
starving, hit by cars, fighting over food, dying of cold, suffering from illness and injuries. 
guess what? they *don't* have 'dominance' battles over *STATUS - * they fight over *resources.* 
that's what dominance is about: food, personal-space, a bitch in estrus; resources, not rank.

as for KICKING a dog to 'get their attention' - if that's the sole technique 
that the "trainer" in question has, the only thing which *works* to get the attention 
of the dog they are working with, that's a p*ss-poor trainer, IMO.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> > Dogs do not train other dogs. Stray dogs will fight over resources because there are so few of them and yes, the strongest will get the prize. Doesn't mean he is the pack leader, just the one with the most muscle.
> 
> 
> My friend, I never mentioned that dogs train other dogs. You ignored the part in which I've said that dogs do exactly what your camp considers cruel, pinning dogs down. They do it naturally, don't they? Being extremely physical. Why is it cruel then if they do it in a very natural way, asserting their superiority over others (Meaning someone is the boss and no one dares take what belong to him?)
> ...


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

leashedForLife



> guess what? they *don't* have 'dominance' battles over *STATUS - * they fight over *resources.*
> that's what dominance is about: food, personal-space, a bitch in estrus; resources, not rank.


I never said that they fight for status, I said that they pin each other down. This is a game of words I guess because if the dogs fight with each each for food, females etc, they must be assessing their status in the group for resources, who is the boss. Terminology.



> as for KICKING a dog to 'get their attention' - if that's the sole technique
> that the "trainer" in question has, the only thing which *works* to get the attention
> of the dog they are working with, that's a p*ss-poor trainer, IMO.


[/QUOTE]

You defenitevely have an axe to grind. You must own the absolute truth.:scared:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

If dogs do pin each other down, and I say if, it is part of the fight for resources, not a thing they do to establish who the leader is, like CM and trainers like him say it is. Who gets the prize, food, bitch, water whatever, is not the boss, because next time there is a fight, they may well lose the battle. I think you are probably right in that most in "my camp" as you put it do have an axe to grind. We have kept up with research and scientic proof regarding dog behaviour and would like to see it implemented along those lines, without the die hard "I am their pack leader" people who refuse to update their views, refuse to read anything, because they know it all, and refuse to even listen to anyone else's point of view. The welfare of dogs is what we are trying to protect, not our view that we are right and everyone else is wrong.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

I think at this stage we should stop feeding the trolls in a three year old thread and those looking to unashamedly push their business based on nothing else but misinterpretation


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

tripod said:


> I think at this stage we should stop feeding the trolls in a three year old thread and those looking to unashamedly push their business based on nothing else but misinterpretation


Only rudeness here. No real argumentation, so sad.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Don't know about Terry (LFL) but yes - I will happily admit I *DO* have an axe to grind. People that cause dogs unnecessary suffering under the pretense of "training" make me angry.

People choose to own dogs, choose to train dogs or become behaviourists. For those people to choose to deliberately cause pain, distress and fear - which is unnecessary - is in my opinion inexcusable. Its just violence for the sake of violence. Power trip in some cases.



> My friend, I never mentioned that dogs train other dogs. You ignored the part in which I've said that dogs do exactly what your camp considers cruel, pinning dogs down. They do it naturally, don't they? Being extremely physical. Why is it cruel then if they do it in a very natural way, asserting their superiority over others (Meaning someone is the boss and no one dares take what belong to him?)


Why is it cruel? 
Because it casues unnecessary suffering (pain / fear / distress). When I'm training a new behaviour, or trying to eradicate an unwanted behaviour, I'm just trying to teach the dog to behave in a way that I find acceptable. I'm not fighting him or otherwise competing with him, for his food, or his female, or his bed. I control all those resources because I'm human, with a more highly developed brain and opposable thums.

To give you an analolgy.... monkeys, unlike dogs, DO tend to use violence to enforce a linear hierarchy. They grab eachother, rip hair out, slap eachother, and bite. Serious injuries are not uncommon. 
Would you suggest that the people who work with monkeys in zoos or labs etc should hit and bite their animals, to the point of bruising or drawing blood? Even though safer, more humane, non-violent ways exist? Just because "well they do it to eachother so that's ok"? I would hope not....



> One thing people who only have experienced dogs in industrialized contries is that they see them as fragile babies, which they can be but they fare better if left to behave like dogs.
> Why is it that dogs in the third world, strays, who are usually hunting for food, walking, fighting or assessing who is the strongest to get the prize as you say (in other words who is the boss), are less prone to the ills that plague dogs in countries in which they are pampered to extremes?


This bit I must also disagree with.

Strays, ferals, etc are not in my opionion, better off than the average pet. Malnutrition, starvation, dehydration, disease, parasites, RTAs, etc. are all commonplace. And that's without the added issue of having to compete with other dogs - which risks physical injury, and can thus also lead to further disease. There is a reason that such animals tend to have far shorter life excpectencies than pet dogs.

Coming back specifically to pet dogs, believing in humane, non-violent training methods does not mean seeing them as "fragile babies" to be "pampered to the extreme".

Rather than comparing pet dogs to feral / stray dogs - why not compare like with like?

Pet Dog A lives with owners who favour humane, non-violent training methods - utilising positive reinforcement, negative punishment (removal of reward) and good management. 
As a result, Dog A has never been caused any pain, fear or distress by his owners. He has not faced the risk of injury, or behavioural fall-out. Nor does he suffer from chronic stress. He is well behaved because he has learned that "good" behaviour is rewarding in some way, "bad" behaviour is not.

Pet Dog B lives with owners who follow the old dominance / pack theory, and utilises violent means (such as leash corrections, correction collars, hitting and kicking, scruffing and pinning, etc).
Dog B has, as a result, been deliberately caused some degree of stress, pain, fear, and distress, by his owners. He has been at risk of injury (eg trachea damage from choke chains) and behavioural fall-out (e.g. fear aggression).
Dog B is well behaved because he fears the punishment he knows he will get if he performs certain behaviours. He may become slow to learn new behaviours (often labelled "difficult to train", "stubborn" or "stupid") because he can not predict which new behaviour may result in pain or distress and so is loathe to offer anything new.

Which of those two - Dog A or Dog B - do you think is better off?

That is why I have an axe to grind..... Rank reduction schemes, physical punishment, pain inducing collars, etc are not necessary to have a well behaved dog. Using these techniques is a choice. 
Around the world, dogs like Dog B are being trained in a way that is detrimental to their welfare (and possibly also health) for no good reason!

Finally - nobody is saying dogs should not be allowed to behave like dogs. People from both camps want dogs to behave in certain ways - primarily performing certain behaviours on cue (ie basic obedience) and not performing behaviours that are inappropriate - such as jumping up at guests, biting people, etc. We have the same goals - just different ways of achieving them.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

koki said:


> *bold added -*
> 
> ...people who only have experienced dogs in industrialized [countries]... see them as fragile babies,
> which they can be but they *fare better if left to behave like dogs.*


i want dogs to be dogs - not 4-legged humans. 
however, i don't want dogs to bite friendly strangers, fight other friendly dogs, destroy possessions, etc. 
i train [teach] and i manage to prevent unwanted behaviors.  works great. 


koki said:


> *bold added -*
> 
> Why is it that *dogs in the third world, strays*, ...hunting for food, walking, fighting or assessing
> who is the strongest to get the prize as you say (in other words who is the boss), *are less prone to the ills that plague dogs [where] they are pampered* to extremes?
> ...


here U apparently compare basic needs met and _*owned dogs*_ to street-strays scavenging, 
in the same paragraph? which is it - owned dogs are sick and weakly because they're pampered, 
or street-strays are healthy and strong because they _*fend for themselves, and fight for food?*_ :huh:


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

> This bit I must also disagree with.
> 
> Strays, ferals, etc are not in my opionion, better off than the average pet. Malnutrition, starvation, dehydration, disease, parasites, RTAs, etc. are all commonplace. And that's without the added issue of having to compete with other dogs - which risks physical injury, and can thus also lead to further disease. There is a reason that such animals tend to have far shorter life excpectencies than pet dogs.


This proves my point because you totally misunderstood what I meant: You've never been to a poor country because: Many people own dogs and at the same time those dogs roam the streets of villages. I threw this comment on purpose to see if you really knew.
Of course abandoned dogs do suffer horribly, abandoned and neglected animals suffer hunger, diseases and nobody will assist them unless a good samaritan comes along. what I meant to say was that dogs that DO have owners can also be stray dogs: They are well fed, happy yet they interact with other dogs, fight with other dogs, hunt for food because even your home dogs will hunt for food regardless if you feed them more than enough food.
they will walk, they will even go into the country, meaning a more natural freer life unlike the dogs that are kept in homes without exercise, interaction with other people, dogs etc.
Those are the ones who are more balanced, and sorry for using the slogan cause I know you even hate that.



> Coming back specifically to pet dogs, believing in humane, non-violent training methods does not mean seeing them as "fragile babies" to be "pampered to the extreme".


Many experts of the non-violent school in their fundamentalism prefer their dogs to be disposed of instead of letting them find new possibilities which is also reprehensible.



> Pet Dog A lives with owners who favour humane, non-violent training methods - utilising positive reinforcement, negative punishment (removal of reward) and good management.


There has been many cases of roots that nobody could help, and Millan has a large group of those, and we are not talking about home pets but dogs that have suffered terribly. How can you explain that they can live in such a large group without major incidents if they've been doubly brutalized: By the owner by neglect or abuse and by Millan? It is difficult sometimes to have 2 dogs together because they sometines they go at each other's throats. Imagine a large group of those it would be pandemonium!



> As a result, Dog A has never been caused any pain, fear or distress by his owners. He has not faced the risk of injury, or behavioural fall-out. Nor does he suffer from chronic stress. He is well behaved because he has learned that "good" behaviour is rewarding in some way, "bad" behaviour is not.


Try that with an aggresive pitt, as a matter of fact many cases seen by the Ian Dumbar shool of experts have given up on many of them and Millan took them to his center. it was their last chance. Sad to fall into the hands of a monster, isn't it?

I don't think it is worth to discuss here those issues cause your mind is already made, plus some members, not you, are a bit rude and that doesn't help.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Can someone please explain to me why it is only the poor dog who gets treated in this barbaric way? I know of no other animal, trained to perform tricks, act on film, or otherwise perform trained behaviour, who is subjected to this bloody violent form of training.

You don't see dolphins, whales, sea lions treated this way. You don't see chimpanzees treated this way, or horses. You don't get a horse to perform dressage moves with violent training.

What is it about a dog that brings this sort of crap down on his head?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Hello. It is beginning to sound familiar now, or is it just me who has heard this all before recently only slightly differently put?

I think dog A that Collette is referring to would never have been aggressive in the first place. But certainly a dog who has got to that stage can be helped with her methods. He does not need methods which will make him even more aggressive.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Newfiesmum -


> Can someone please explain to me why it is only the poor dog who gets treated in this barbaric way?


Because he is the one who will take it 

If you treated the average house cat in such a way, you wouldn't have a cat very long - most would relocate at the first opportunity.

Do it to a monkey in a lab and you'd never get near it again. It wouldn't come to you, let alone take a food reward, it would avoid you wherever possible and if you got too close it would defend itself with force.

Try it on a dolphin or a killer whale and you're dead.

But a dog will cower, and show all those appeasement signals that folk seem to like. It will shrink down, and crawl towards you, head held low, tail between its legs, looking for all the world like it is "sorry" and that it "loves" you.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

> newfiesmum said:
> 
> 
> > Hello. It is beginning to sound familiar now, or is it just me who has heard this all before recently only slightly differently put?
> ...


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> > I've been visiting this forum and you kicked out a member because of Millan, right? IT IS NOT ME, *SATISFIED?*
> 
> 
> Not really. It was not me who kicked them out, I don't have that authority and I was rather sad to see them go - I was enjoying it. It was not because of Millan, either. We have lots of DW debates on here without anyone getting banned.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

Colette



> Because he is the one who will take it


aha!



> Try it on a dolphin or a killer whale and you're dead.


Try it on a Pitbull and you're also gone.



> But a dog will cower, and show all those appeasement signals that folk seem to like. It will shrink down, and crawl towards you, head held low, tail between its legs, looking for all the world like it is "sorry" and that it "loves" you.


Too much theory, not enough practice. It's always good to venture into the real world from time to time. Try that on my neighbors Pittbull and you'd be gone in a minute. When the vet came to see him the dog pinned him down the owner got sued, a long story.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> Can someone please explain to me why it is only the poor dog who gets treated in this barbaric way? I know of no other animal, trained to perform tricks, act on film, or otherwise perform trained behaviour, who is subjected to this bloody violent form of training.
> 
> You don't see dolphins, whales, sea lions treated this way. You don't see chimpanzees treated this way, or horses. You don't get a horse to perform dressage moves with violent training.
> 
> What is it about a dog that brings this sort of crap down on his head?


I know I have bowed out of this thread or at least tried to but this is a point I use all the time.

Why do humans treat dogs, horses and children this way and nobody else?

The answer is because we can  

We have selectively bred dogs and horses to take our sh1t and still stick with us - how's that for inhuman 

When trainers began to work with marine animals for example they had to develop ways of working with animals that flat out refuse to tolerate us so this is where force free teaching began - thank you BF Skinner as he was the spark behind that flame.

This is why people think you can't train cats (housecats) - try negative reinforcement or positive punishment teachniques on a cat and they will tell ya all about it :lol:

It is truly disgusting and I like many others here do not stand for it hence the compulsion to revisit and contribute threads like this.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

koki said:


> Try it on a Pitbull and you're also gone.


Now who's showing how little they know - Pit Bulls are normal dogs like every other. They also reel when treated cruelly as many are. They are damaged, traumatised and still rarely bite or attack people contrary to popular opinion and media reports.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

tripod said:


> Now who's showing how little they know - Pit Bulls are normal dogs like every other. They also reel when treated cruelly as many are. They are damaged, traumatised and still rarely bite or attack people contrary to popular opinion and media reports.


How dare you say that! There are dogs that have never been traumatized yet they are afraid of cars, of loud noises, of fireworks (afraid of them to death) and they can bite sometimes not because they are terrorized but because that's their way of showing fear.
How dare you say I terrorize and traumatize my dog for showing those symptoms, you are the one who knows nothing about me nor about how to conduct yourself in a public forum putting other's opinions down!

Again, read the statistics in Britain regarding rotts attacks. Chichuahuas can be as nasty yet they cannot kill anyone.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Koki:



> I threw this comment on purpose to see if you really knew.


I'm sorry - I didn't realise it was a trick question. 

Your explanation, i.e. referring to "latch key" but owned dogs, makes more sense.



> Many experts of the non-violent school in their fundamentalism prefer their dogs to be disposed of instead of letting them find new possibilities which is also reprehensible.


Oh please - not this old gem again!!

There is no evidence whatsoever for this assumption. It is certainly not common practice for non-violent, positive reinforcement using folk to recommend any sort of "disposal" (I assume you mean euthansia?)

Even more so when you are referring to the "experts". Professional behaviourists do not suggest disposing of dogs willy nilly; rehoming may be advised in situations where the current owners are for some rason incapable of doing what is necesary to retrain the dog. Euthanasia is usually only recommended where the problem is believed to be untreatable for good reason - e.g. as the result of a medical condition.

On the flip side - this attitude implies that the yank and stomp dominance camp are all like CM in his anti-euthansia stance. They are not. I have come across plenty of these who have recommended euthanasia for behaviour problems - without trying any sort of humane methods first. Some will say the dog is just too "hard" to be broken, or that it must be "badly bred". They don't usually stop to question whether it may be that the dog is simply not understanding the punishments, rather than not caring about them.



> Try that with an aggresive pitt, as a matter of fact many cases seen by the Ian Dumbar shool of experts have given up on many of them and Millan took them to his center.


Do you actually know the previous experts were qualified professionals? That they were PRT, non-violent trainers specifically?

But the reverse is also true. You would be hard pressed to find even one professional behaviourist who has not been called as a last resort when the popular methods of dominance and violence have failed. In many cases the dogs behaviour was found to have worsened when the other methods were used.



> I don't think it is worth to discuss here those issues cause your mind is already made, plus some members, not you, are a bit rude and that doesn't help.


I will always maintain this issue is something well worth discussing.

However - suggesting that people who are non-violent in their approach are close-minded is unfair, and untrue.

Personally, I have read widely the arguements on both sides. 
I've watched CM's show. Read Jan Fennels book. I've looked at Koeller (sp?), leerburg, and countless others whose names I forget. And I have also looked into the likes of Ian Dunbar, Turid Ruugas, Gwen Bailey, Victoria Stillwell, etc. I have read the books, watched the clips, checked out the peer reviewed papers and similar scientific evidence. I have attended a number of courses on behaviour, training and welfare.
I'm a scientist at heart - I want proof!

And after all that research, combined with my own personal experiences, I have come to the conclusion that the humane approach is far superior.

I'm not the one being close-minded. If you can provide me with proof, I will gladly analyse it and reconsider my beliefs.

Show me that violence is an effective, necessary part of training. Prove that without it we can not possibly hope to have well behaved dogs. Prove that it is not harmful, and will not cause more harm than good. Prove to me that the humane alternatives do not work.

If you can I will stand corrected - but as yet I have seen mountains of evidence on one side, and virtually nothing on the other.

Incidentally - have you noticed that a great many of the humane trainers / behaviourists started out following dominance theory and using violence, but changed over to PRT as they found it to be safer, more pleasent and more effective? Or that the trainers who started out using proper PRT but have since changed to dominance are conspicuous by their absence? Why do you think that might be?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> Try it on a Pitbull and you're also gone.


So you believe that a pitbull is a dangerous breed? You think it right that they are banned? Shows how much you know about dogs, doesn't it? So it pinned the vet down, did it? Didn't that indicate that it had been brutally "trained" in the past and could do with loving care? Of course, it is a pitbull, so what can you expect?


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> How dare you say that! There are dogs that have never been traumatized yet they are afraid of cars, of loud noises, of fireworks (afraid of them to death) and they can bite sometimes not because they are terrorized but because that's their way of showing fear.
> How dare you say I terrorize and traumatize my dog for showing those symptoms, you are the one who knows nothing about me nor about how to conduct yourself in a public forum putting other's opinions down!
> 
> Again, read the statistics in Britain regarding rotts attacks. Chichuahuas can be as nasty yet they cannot kill anyone.


How dare she say what? Did I miss something? Tripod was merely pointing out that a pitbull is no different to any other dog, a fact that most doglovers already know. Why else do you think there is such a big campaign to get rid of breed specific legislation?

Oh, and rottweillers are also apparently dangerous? Give over! Many dogs can be scared of strange sights and noises if they are not used to them; that is something that can be easily overcome with positive reward training, but you have named two breeds who you obviously think are dangerous. Don't forget the staffie whilst you are at it. They have had a lot of publicity lately.

Anyone who reads this sort of media garbage and believes it has no business presenting themselves as a knowledgeable dog owner.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

koki said:


> How dare you say that! There are dogs that have never been traumatized yet they are afraid of cars, of loud noises, of fireworks (afraid of them to death) and they can bite sometimes not because they are terrorized but because that's their way of showing fear.
> How dare you say I terrorize and traumatize my dog for showing those symptoms, you are the one who knows nothing about me nor about how to conduct yourself in a public forum putting other's opinions down!
> 
> Again, read the statistics in Britain regarding rotts attacks. Chichuahuas can be as nasty yet they cannot kill anyone.


Point out where I said that YOU terrorise/traumatise _your_ dog.....

You, like so many, made a statement that alluded you believe Pit Bulls to be somehow different from all other domestic dogs when it comes to the effects of cruelty and abuse - this is a demonstration of knowing little about dogs, Pit Bulls, and the effects of emotional trauma on animals.

Dogs are waaay more likely to be scared of things, not because of what has happened but because of what has never happened. Dogs, particularly those with noise phobias that you brought up as an example, are far more likely to be undersocialised and genetically susceptible to noise phobias ie. of certain types.

And now you are picking on Rottweilers....:confused1:

OK no more contributing to this nonsense, allow the extinction burst to happen (or continue?) and lets all walk away....


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

tripod



> Now who's showing how little they know - Pit Bulls are normal dogs like every other. They also reel when treated cruelly as many are. They are damaged, traumatised and still rarely bite or attack people contrary to popular opinion and media reports.


Meaning Millan i suppose? Look, this I'm right-Youi're wrong is not a very mature nor interesting way of "debating" if by debating you mean going at other's throats just for fun.
Incidentally, there is a curious case of a dog who is is terrified of beans, black beans. The dog literally shuns beans, and he was born and raised at our home.
Perhaps beans also belong to the other school of "terrorizing dogs". or we did abuse him with beans, who knows. perhaps those beans resemble an insect that bit him, who knows.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

koki said:


> tripod
> Meaning Millan i suppose?


No, no that was directed at you - I don't think I have mentioned CM 

As to you're other point...I am not going to waste time debating with someone who has apparently joined to cause trouble. Any intro from you as is custom here? Any posting on other threads other than this one? If this is incorrect please let me know and link but before engaging please develop your knowledge, perhaps read some of the material of others' in the scientific/positive fields....crazy suggestion maybe?

Nor am I engaging with someone who repeatedly twists words apparently to goad others into an argument - welcome to the forum, please have a look around and enjoy


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> tripod
> 
> Meaning Millan i suppose? Look, this I'm right-Youi're wrong is not a very mature nor interesting way of "debating" if by debating you mean going at other's throats just for fun.
> Incidentally, there is a curious case of a dog who is is terrified of beans, black beans. The dog literally shuns beans, and he was born and raised at our home.
> Perhaps beans also belong to the other school of "terrorizing dogs". or we did abuse him with beans, who knows. perhaps those beans resemble an insect that bit him, who knows.


So why do you keep doing it then? Why are you so defensive of CM? We are talking about any "trainer" who uses his methods, believes that dogs are dominant and we have to be leader of the pack. We are talking about anyone who uses punishment to alter a behaviour in a dog.

I used to watch the Dog Whisperer a lot and I have seen him do good things, without any sort of force just common sense. There was a newfoundland on his programme once whose owner said that he would not eat. Turned out they were cooking him burgers and taking it to the dog wherever he was in the house. He never went for a walk because the first time they tried, he just lay down so they said he didn't like going for a walk. This is a newfie trait, both of mine have done the same, but now they love their walks. And once he was burning energy, of course he wanted to eat, but proper dog food, not crap. He never once told them that fried burgers and chips would shorten his life, though, which is what I was waiting for.

It is rather a coincidence though, that I have recently read on here about a dog who was afraid of beans.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

newfiesmum


> So you believe that a pitbull is a dangerous breed? You think it right that they are banned? Shows how much you know about dogs, doesn't it? So it pinned the vet down, did it? Didn't that indicate that it had been brutally "trained" in the past and could do with loving care? Of course, it is a pitbull, so what can you expect?


I've said that rotts, as other powerful breeds are dangerous because of their size and if they exhibit the tendencies my chihuahua has, everybody would be dead meat. I'm not for banning no dogs, just considering the inherent dangers of their powerful jaws.
The pittbull in question was no more aggresive than any dog, in fact he is a happy fellow, yet when he sees a needle he goes crazy as many dogs that I know including my chichuachua.
My chihuahua gets ultra-mad when faced with needles but you just wrap a chihuahua in a blanket and that's it. can we wrap a pitt in a blanket like that?
Also this pitt has not been subjected to any training whatsoever. He just enjoys a care free life, takes his walks etc.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> newfiesmum
> 
> I've said that rotts, as other powerful breeds are dangerous because of their size and if they exhibit the tendencies my chihuahua has, everybody would be dead meat. I'm not for banning no dogs, just considering the inherent dangers of their powerful jaws.
> The pittbull in question was no more aggresive than any dog, in fact he is a happy fellow, yet when he sees a needle he goes crazy as many dogs that I know including my chichuachua.
> ...


If you think a rottie is dangerous because of its size, you must think mine are extremely dangerous! As to the pitbull who pinned down the vet, if he was afraid of needles, then what has that to do with the breed? Any powerful dog could have done the same thing and the owner deserved to be sued for not warning the vet of his fear so that something to be done before the injection. One of my newfies is terrified of anyone going under his tail and he will bite if anyone tries. The vet knows this, so they simply do not do it. Does that make a newfoundland a risky dog to deal with?


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

It is rather a coincidence though, that I have recently read on here about a dog who was afraid of beans.[/QUOTE]

About the beans it is a bit amusing because the dogs is literally terrified of beans! Perhaps he was bitten by some insect that resembles beans, who knows!
This is a real phobia he has.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

newfiesmum



> Why are you so defensive of CM? We are talking about any "trainer" who uses his methods, believes that dogs are dominant and we have to be leader of the pack. We are talking about anyone who uses punishment to alter a behaviour in a dog.


Millan has his methods, which are obviously not always effective. Other's have theirs and that's a fact of life. What is bothering is that you are suddenly called dog abuser just because you correct your dogs with a touch, or a kick (not the one one usually does to play football), meaning being physical which can be interpreted as abuse.
That is not the case.



> And once he was burning energy, of course he wanted to eat, but proper dog food, not crap. He never once told them that fried burgers and chips would shorten his life, though, which is what I was waiting for.


that means that he is an intelligent doggie, watching his diet.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> newfiesmum
> 
> Millan has his methods, which are obviously not always effective. Other's have theirs and that's a fact of life. What is bothering is that you are suddenly called dog abuser just because you correct your dogs with a touch, or a kick (not the one one usually does to play football), meaning being physical which can be interpreted as abuse.
> That is not the case.
> ...


_It means that he had stupid owners. He was a beautiful dog, obviously well cared for, but who the hell wants to live off fatty food all the time? And who is going to want to eat if they are not using any energy? Common sense, really, and nothing that needed a dog trainer_


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

koki said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Many *experts of the non-violent school* in their fundamentalism *prefer* their *dogs to be disposed of [*euthanized??...*] instead of letting them find new possibilities [*homes?...*]* which is also reprehensible.


um - i'm one of those *non-violent* trainers, and i have worked with biting & fighting dogs - 
no chokes, chains, shock, Alpha-rolls, TSSST!, throw-chains, *Bah!*, kicks AKA taps, bitey-hands, 
hanging, poking, scruffs, yelling, looming-over, flooding, growling at the dog, barks at the dog , or any 
other *intimidation, confrontation or fear-tactics, nor any pain or discomfort beyond minimal.* :thumbup:

* i have not _*killed*_ any dogs, and only once suggested euthanasia - 
i stand by that recommendation; it was supported by 2 vets and an ACO.

* unlike Cesar, i don't get bitten 3 times in 5 days, by 3 different dogs, out of 6 or 8 clients - 
:lol: that was a REALLY bad week, Ruby the Viszla, NuNu the terrified street-stray Chi, and the Maltese 
who was petrified of scissors around his face - so _*of course, he just had to groom the dog!*_ :lol: 
good thing the owner was an R.N, she dressed his hands. 


koki said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> There [have] been many cases... that nobody could help, and Millan has a *large group of those*,
> and we are not talking about home pets but dogs that have suffered terribly. How can you explain [them living] in... a large group without major incidents if they've been doubly brutalized:
> ...


the former *Dog Psychology Center* is long, long-ago history; the approx 60 long-term boarded dogs, 
for whom he was paid $15/dog per day by various private shelters and rescues, were *evicted* when he was 
getting ready to go property-shopping for a nice place outside the post-industrial squalor of South-L-A.

CM/DW was not 'rehabbing' these dogs; he was boarding them, and they were exercised, according to *Cesar's Way*,
7-hours out of every 24-hour day - aerobically, not walked on leashes: fetch & compete for the ball, swim, bike-jog, 
running the trails, running with a skater, etc, etc. They did not show them fighting on TV; that doesn't mean 
there were no fights. Also dogs are not inclined to fight if there is nothing to fight over, 
and i think Cesar has brains-enuf not to put an intact-female in the group? 
or drop a nice juicy bone, all meaty shreds and crunchy cartilage and fatty marrow, :scared: in the group? 
these dogs had *activities*, they were *supervised*, and they were *managed.* 
besides all the above, they were *tired - * and dogs don't generally fight _just because. _
these dogs had very few reasons to fight - no food or bones or bitches to argue over. :001_cool:


koki said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Try that with an [aggressive] [pit-bull - ONE t]... many cases seen by the Ian [Dunbar school] of experts
> have given up on many... and Millan took them to his center. it was their last chance.


he did not *take them there -  they were boarded* by clients in the case of 'dog-rehab' cases, 
or *boarded for a daily fee by shelters and rescues who had no foster to take them, nor shelter-space.* 
he was not cruising the streets of L-A picking-up starving or homeless dogs - he was paid to shelter and feed them, 
like any other boarding-facility; clients dogs were there to be worked with, boarded dogs were cared for and 
exercised; that's why he had staff - no one person could give 7-hours a day of aerobic exercise to approx 60 dogs.

did U think he *adopted* every dog there? sorry, not true; *he did adopt Daddy, who belonged to 
one of his first clients - * but the others were there to help pay the bills, and provided color for the show.


----------



## koki (Feb 3, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Can someone please explain to me why it is only the poor dog who gets treated in this barbaric way? I know of no other animal, trained to perform tricks, act on film, or otherwise perform trained behaviour, who is subjected to this bloody violent form of training.
> 
> You don't see dolphins, whales, sea lions treated this way. You don't see chimpanzees treated this way, or horses. You don't get a horse to perform dressage moves with violent training.
> 
> What is it about a dog that brings this sort of crap down on his head?


Sadly my friend, elephants, those gentle giants who also at times get furious and destroy people also get treated this way to perform meaningless tricks to amuse people.
Dogs can also get angry when they can't cope no more, the only difference is that if you are talking about an average dog you can subdue him or her, an elephant, hardly.
Tigers, lions, are also very noble animals that can take lots of abuse in circuses and the list goes on. Animals are not meant to make our lives enjoyable abusing them, like they do in circuses or bullfights or other forms of sick entertainment.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

husbandry behaviors in a sloth-bear - VIDEO 
YouTube - Clicker Target Training Bear 
Sydney Zoo, Aus; sloth bears are noted for attacking humans in the wild; 
they are much smaller than black-bears and tiny compared to grizzlies, 
but black-bears rarely attack and even more-rarely is it fatal. 
sloth-bears are notorious for causing severe injuries and deaths. 
yet this animal is co-operating very willingly.

teaching a 2.5-YO filly to shift her weight off a chosen leg: 
YouTube - Clicker Training Horse to Shift Leg Weight 
she was very uncomfortable, but is now more relaxed - a slight pressure 
on her shoulder is used to give her a hint, and wt-shifting in ANY direction 
[at first] gets a click [marks the success] + treat [rewards the behavior].

these 2 guys are eejits - they don't HAVE a criterion, and they're working 
*in the water with multiple gators - * not a life-extending choice. 
YouTube - Alligator Clicker Training.AVI 
they change their criterion _*three times*_ in the first minute or 2. 
it will be remarkable if the gator learns a darned thing.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

koki said:


> Sadly my friend, elephants, those gentle giants who also at times get furious and destroy people also get treated this way to perform meaningless tricks to amuse people.
> Dogs can also get angry when they can't cope no more, the only difference is that if you are talking about an average dog you can subdue him or her, an elephant, hardly.
> Tigers, lions, are also very noble animals that can take lots of abuse in circuses and the list goes on. Animals are not meant to make our lives enjoyable abusing them, like they do in circuses or bullfights or other forms of sick entertainment.


You don't see a lot of that sort of thing in the UK anymore, thank God. People here no longer want to see performing wild animals, they know it isn't right, so circuses here tend to stick to performing poodles, horses, and the ways of training those animals have changed a lot.

We actually more or less have Mary Chipperfield to thank for the eye opener, when she was secretly filmed abusing a chained up elephant and was banned from keeping animals. Once the great circus family and their methods were brought into the limelight, people became more aware. Obviously that was not the cow's intention and we should thank the camera man.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Terry, I would have thought that trying to clicker train an alligator is not only dangerous, but downright pointless. Do they even have the intelligence to be trained for anything? Don't they work entirely by instinct?

Seems like an elaborate way to commit suicide to me.


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

LOL Newfiesmum all vertebrates at the very least have enough brain for associative learning. Although it yields amazing results associative learning is relatively simple, brain-power wise.

Why not teach animals to actively participate in for example husbandry tasks? If we can for example teach animals such as dangerous ones to target they can be moved without coercion, sedation, fear, panic and with greatly reduced risk to their human handlers.

Although lots of wild animals in captivity are handled in less than humane ways, its far more accepted to use a hands off approach plus these animals tend not to tolerate this treatment for very long. Dogs on the other hand have hung around us for at least 100,000 years and we still treat them the way we do :scared: You misinterpret for example tiger behaviour when you are up close and you're in trouble but maybe we take dogs and their discomfort for granted because they take so much cr*p.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

tripod said:


> *LOL Newfiesmum all vertebrates at the very least have enough brain for associative learning. Although it yields amazing results associative learning is relatively simple, brain-power wise.*
> 
> Why not teach animals to actively participate in for example husbandry tasks? If we can for example teach animals such as dangerous ones to target they can be moved without coercion, sedation, fear, panic and with greatly reduced risk to their human handlers.
> 
> Although lots of wild animals in captivity are handled in less than humane ways, its far more accepted to use a hands off approach plus these animals tend not to tolerate this treatment for very long. Dogs on the other hand have hung around us for at least 100,000 years and we still treat them the way we do :scared: You misinterpret for example tiger behaviour when you are up close and you're in trouble but maybe we take dogs and their discomfort for granted because they take so much cr*p.


so there's hope for me yet, then :lol:


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> so there's hope for me yet, then :lol:


lol me too so :lol:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> so there's hope for me yet, then :lol:


:thumbup: definitely! :001_cool: if it's possible to train an amoeba or a planarium to solve a maze with a food-reward 
[and it has been done many times], humans *are* trainable - despite evidence to the contrary, 
in this very thread. :ihih: amoebae and planaria *have no brains* nor even a spinal-cord, yet they learn - 
even more, if we dice-up the educated planaria and feed them to uneducated planaria, *they become educated!* 
ethics gets in the way of a similar experiment on humans, as we would have to wait for the educated-humans to die 
a natural death, plus the educated-humans would have to avoid potentially-dangerous meds to prevent illness or an 
early-demise for their eventual consumers... 
but i strongly-suspect that merely eating an educated-human *does not* confer immediate education on the 
uneducated-eater --- after all, think of all the cannibals who ate various explorers, sailors, missionaries, and so on: 
why didn't the cannibals immediately learn the alien language, the operation of their ships, and how to read?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

leashedForLife said:


> amoebae and planaria *have no brains* nor even a spinal-cord, yet they learn -
> even more, if we dice-up the educated planaria and feed them to uneducated planaria, *they become educated!*
> ethics gets in the way of a similar experiment on humans...


*NewfsMum* thinks that i am kidding about cannibalistic learning.  actually, i'm not. 
this is a cached-copy of the 1965 manual by the researcher: http://tinyurl.com/5wkcv5v


----------



## AlexGSD (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:
Entire thread......

So......Does that mean there are some good places in Leicester to get dog training or not......?
:confused1:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

AlexGSD said:


> Quote:
> Entire thread......
> 
> So......Does that mean there are some good places in Leicester to get dog training or not......?
> :confused1:


Haven't you found anyone yet? I am sure you have managed on your own by now :lol:


----------



## AlexGSD (Dec 16, 2008)

newfiesmum said:


> Haven't you found anyone yet? I am sure you have managed on your own by now :lol:


I have yes....I have just found it very amusing to see how the thread developed when it really wasn't supposed to be a contentious subject.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

AlexGSD said:


> I have yes....I have just found it very amusing to see how the thread developed when it really wasn't supposed to be a contentious subject.


I'm afraid that's what happens when a certain person is mentioned - brings everyone's blood pressure up :lol:


----------



## leicesterspetnanny (Sep 12, 2012)

i have just set up a new dog training class in Leicester & also do one to one training for anyone thats interested, having worked at the RSPCA for 7 years i can also recommend other trainers that i have worked with. I am happy to help with any problems you may have with your dog 

Leicesterspetnanny


----------

