It’s official. The “Dog Whisperer” TV show uses outdated, inhumane dog training methods. I’m so happy to have found out that it’s not just me, or the many, many dog trainers that I know – in Seattle and around the world – that think the Dog Whisperer show has done more harm than good.
Everyone has been so afraid to say anything possibly libelous, but it’s just the truth, and we need to stop hurting these dogs.The American Humane Association, founded in 1887, officially announced late last summer that they found the techniques on the “Dog Whisperer” inhumane, and stated that the National Geographic Channel should take Cesar Millan’s show off of the air as soon as possible.Here’s an exerpt from the AHA’s September 2006 press release:”The training tactics featured on Cesar Millan’s ‘Dog Whisperer’ program are inhumane, outdated and improper, according to a letter sent yesterday to the National Geographic Channel by American Humane, the oldest national organization protecting children and animals.”
Another excerpt about the “Dog Whisperer” TV show: “It also does a disservice to all the show’s viewers by espousing an inaccurate message about what constitutes effective training and appropriate treatment of animals.”Visit the American Humane Association website for the full text of their press release about Cesar Millan’s Dog Whisperer show, including how he has asphyxiated dogs while pinning them. He’s also used shock collars on the show, without mentioning it to the viewers. In one such episode, the dog redirected and bit the owner, it was so freaked out from the pain.I just talked with a client from my Growly Dogs class in Seattle, who said that his wife was bitten while pinning her dog, as she had seen Cesar do on the show. I’ve seen episodes where he was bitten, himself.
That problem of redirection is part of what caused trainers in the last few decades to look for alternatives and evolve beyond the use of corporeal punishment. And it’s certainly part of the reason for the statement on the show, to the effect of “Don’t try this at home.”I also have an article on Side Effects of Punishment-Centric Dog Training. Or click here for my training philosophy.Related articles:
- Beyond the Dominance Paradigm, by Patricia McConnell, Ph.D. (“The next time someone tries to seduce you with bad science by saying that “ethology justifies using force to control your dog,” don’t hesitate to challenge them.”)
- The Dog Whisperer Controversy, by Lisa Mullinax, CPDT – lovely details.
- He Ought to Call Himself the Dog Screamer by Steve Dale
UPDATE: On January 9th, 2009, I went to look for the full text on the website of the American Humane Association. It was missing! (They have since told me they deleted it because they thought it was “old news” and have said they’ll be putting it back up).I’ll reprint it here, as I did manage to find it in Google’s cache.
‘Dog Whisperer’ Training Approach More Harmful Than HelpfulDenver (September 6, 2006)The training tactics featured on Cesar Millan’s “Dog Whisperer” program are inhumane, outdated and improper, according to a letter sent yesterday to the National Geographic Channel by American Humane, the oldest national organization protecting children and animals.
In the letter, American Humane, which works to raise public awareness about responsible pet ownership and reduce the euthanasia of unwanted pets, expressed dismay over the “numerous inhumane training techniques” advocated by Cesar Millan on “Dog Whisperer.”
Several instances of cruel and dangerous treatment — promoted by Millan as acceptable training methods — were documented by American Humane, including one in which a dog was partially asphyxiated in an episode. In this instance, the fractious dog was pinned to the ground by its neck after first being “hung” by a collar incrementally tightened by Millan. Millan’s goal — of subduing a fractious animal — was accomplished by partially cutting off the blood supply to its brain.
The letter requests that National Geographic stop airing the program immediately and issue a statement explaining that the tactics featured on the program are inhumane, and it encourages National Geographic to begin developing programming that sets a positive example by featuring proper, humane animal training. In its letter, American Humane said: “We believe that achieving the goal of improving the way people interact with their pets would be far more successful and beneficial for the National Geographic Channel if it ceased sending the contradictory message that violent treatment of animals is acceptable.”“As a forerunner in the movement towards humane dog training, we find the excessively rough handling of animals on the show and inhumane training methods to be potentially harmful for the animals and the people on the show,” said the letter’s author, Bill Torgerson, DVM, MBA, who is vice president of Animal Protection Services for American Humane. “It also does a disservice to all the show’s viewers by espousing an inaccurate message about what constitutes effective training and appropriate treatment of animals.”Torgerson noted that the safety of a woman and her German shepherd were jeopardized in one episode by the use of an electric shock collar, which forced the tormented dog to redirect its aggression at its owner, biting her arm. “Furthermore, the television audience was never told that Mr. Millan was attempting to modify the dog’s behavior by causing pain with the shock collar,” he said.
For more information about humane training techniques, please visit click here.About the American Humane AssociationFounded in 1877, the American Humane Association is the oldest national organization dedicated to protecting both children and animals. Through a network of child and animal protection agencies and individuals, American Humane develops policies, legislation, curricula and training programs to protect children and animals from abuse, neglect and exploitation. The nonprofit membership organization, headquartered in Denver, raises awareness about The Link® between animal abuse and other forms of violence, as well as the benefits derived from the human-animal bond. American Humane’s regional office in Los Angeles is the authority behind the “No Animals Were Harmed”® End Credit Disclaimer on film and TV productions, and American Humane’s office in Washington is an advocate for child and animal protection at the federal and state levels. American Humane meets the strong, comprehensive standards of the Better Business Bureau’s Wise Giving Alliance and has been awarded the Independent Charities of America “Best In America” Seal of Approval. Visit www.americanhumane.org to learn more.Here’s the cache version of the Dog Whisperer press release:
Related articles on our site:
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
 RSS feed
|
[
December 20th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Cesar has deal with some quite aggressive dogs on Dog Whisperer.
You say and others say “outdated techniques”. Show us the better way. Otherwise your just criticizing, for whatever reason.
December 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Lovely question. The “better way” is what I do all the time. I specialize in dog aggression and rehabilitate dogs using counter-conditioning, desensitization, positive reinforcement training, and management. I also use an approach called Constructional Aggression Treatment, which consists of teaching dogs better responses to give in the presence of triggers. So instead of aggression, we reinforce head turns, ground sniffs, look aways, etc. The main reinforcement that the dog is looking for is for the trigger to go away. You don’t need to leash pop or yell or anything for the dog to change tactics. You do have to arrange things carefully and use the big human brain we all have. But it’s possible to retrain without pain, fear, or force. I choose that way because it works, it teaches dogs to enjoy the former trigger instead of just avoiding it, and because matches my life philosophy.
Click here for a video about the CAT technique: http://www.tawzerdogvideos.com/JesusRosalesRuiz-KellieSnider.htm
There are many, many books on using Counter-Conditioning and Desensitization for treating fear and aggression. One such book is on my site: https://ahimsadogtraining.com/store/proddetail.php?prod=MCH-0012 (Help for Your Fearful Dog). One good video is from Kathy Sdao – see the Cujo Meets Pavlov workshop video.
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
From the Forum: “Thank you for this post, Grisha. I have had a number of intelligent, well-meaning acquaintances who love their dogs ask me about the DW and I’ve had a hard time responding.” More responses in the Ahimsa dog forum.
July 5th, 2008 at 5:34 am
Interestingly enough, he has 12 million hits to his website and has helped thousands of people. Read his books. He doesn’t use shock collars, that’s nonsense. I wonder if there is a little envy regarding the immigrant that got famous, weathly and his own TV show in your industry. Seems like a case of try to knock off the person at the top of the mountain. Maybe I can get some publicity and website traffic if I talk about Cesar Millan, the most famous trainer in the world.
July 8th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
The *only* reason that I wrote this article is because I want people out there, even the ones who don’t live in Seattle, near me, to know that the dog training techniques they see on TV should not be repeated at home. It is not for my own publicity, and it’s not out of jealousy. Nor is it because of racism. One of my favorite trainers, who I already mentioned above, even, is from Mexico. His name is Jesus Rosales-Ruiz and he does an excellent job of working with dog aggression and does research on effective techniques. Jesus is also educated, meaning that he has learned to be more than a trainer doing what “feels right” or “seems to work” with the dogs, and has moved beyond leash corrections to more effective and humane techniques. You can check out Dr. Ruiz at http://www.clickertraining.com/node/32
I respect good dog training ideas, from whatever source. Please open your mind to the idea that I can train without force because it works and I feel it’s the right thing to do. If you had a broken wrist and your doctor cut off your arm at the elbow, you’d definitely not have a broken wrist problem any more, but you might think that what the doctor did was too much, and unnecessary. That’s what LIMA (Least Invasive, Minimally Aversive) trainers feel about traditional, correction-based dog training.
The mere fact that Cesar Millan is popular does not mean he’s right or that his techniques should be considered humane. Any well-promoted person can get a lot of hits. I’m sure that, if Adolf Hitler had a website, he’d get a lot of hits, too. The opponent to your favorite presidential candidate also gets a lot of hits during his campaign. Does that mean he’s right?
I’ve seen a shock collar used on the Dog Whisperer show, and the fact that you haven’t seen it doesn’t make my observation “nonsense”. A dog trainer friend of mind recorded it to show to those trainers in the small group who didn’t know who Cesar Millan was. You see the German Shepherd suddenly yelp, out of nowhere, when Cesar Millan puts his hand in his pocket, and once during the show, the remote did come out, and you can see it in his hand, just before he corrects the dog verbally and the dog responds with too much fear for a simple verbal correction. He doesn’t use shock collars every time, but I believe he did use it on at least one show. On most of the other shows, he doesn’t use shock, but Cesar Millan continually seems to use fear or pain to put the dog into a “submissive” state. Try “fearful”.
The whole idea that you have to be Alpha over your dog is such a self-fulfilling prophecy and isn’t based in fact. But I digress.
I’ve since seen many episodes of the Dog Whisperer, and the modern dog training world would consider most of the techniques old-school and unnecessary. I feel that putting a choke chain on a dog, setting the dog up to fail, and popping on the leash when the dog does something wrong is barbaric and leads to all kinds of trouble. I also saw him “hang” a dog – lift up on the leash and wait for the dog to stop struggling, when the blocked-off airway finally caused the dog to almost pass out. That’s the kind of inhumane “dog training” incident that the American Humane Association was especially worried about.
Pinning the dog to the ground also seemed to be something used a lot on the Dog Whisperer show – and I can think of few other ways to put a human into so much risk as to tell them to pin a reactive dog to the ground. It’s risky and not necessary. In the best case scenario, pinning dogs makes the dog better toward the most scary person, but then the bad behavior shows up toward others – usually children & wives, in my experience.
I know he wants these dogs to succeed. I just wish that he’d see that there is another, better way to train dogs and yes, even rehabilitate aggression.
Finally, I’d like to look at your argument versus mine. I have never said that Cesar Millan was a bad person. I’m discussing *techniques*. Your argument is based on the idea that I am racist, jealous, and self-serving. Can you see the difference? Could we stick to the facts?
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
It would be very naieve of any of us to believe that the TV station would air Milan’s failures. We are only allowed to see his successes. I have been a staunch opponent of harsh methods for more than two decades in this business — dating back to when everyone was jerking on chokechains. In the training of pointing-breed dogs for the field, especially, the abuse was rampant back then. And in that field, as well as in Milan’s work, we heard only about the successes. For example, you would hear (“Name of Trainer” has finished X number of champions with his methods.) Usually, the number was paltry when compared with the number of dogs that he ruined. (I say “he” because all field trainers were male in the field in those days.) Wouldn’t it be interesting to see the “outtakes” from the “Whisperer’s” show — the stuff they don’t dare put on the air?
October 30th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Perfect proof that the unknowing public has absolutely no idea what ends up on the cutting room floor. The Dog Whisperer does in fact use shock collars and there is video of him using them to prove it.
November 7th, 2008 at 1:19 am
The newspaper, St. Louis Today, did a feature on the controversial Dog Whisperer show. The link is at http://tinyurl.com/sltoday
From the article:
**What about concerns that children, some barely able to read those warnings, may still follow Millan’s instructions, or that people have been hurt attempting replicate his often intimidating methods of dog training? Credible organizations that have expressed concerns about the “Cesar Way” include the American Humane Association and International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants.**
**One criticism is that Millan’s methods and philosophy were contemporary back when Whitney was writing, taking dog training back decades toward intimidation over contemporary learning theory. One example is how Millan compares dogs to wolves and how owners must assert themselves as the dominant pack leaders in their homes.**
November 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Great article! Thanks for sharing. I like the part where he pretends to be educated on current methods. I grant you, his methods do seem to be becoming slightly more modern and less violent, but his core philosophy just isn’t backed up by reality!
“I read every single (dog training) book; it’s always good to be in a surrender state and stay open to everything,” Millan says. Yet, he fails to come up with the name of even a single contemporary dog trainer whose work has influenced him, or the name of a recent book he’s read.
(snip)
Dr. John Ciribassi, a veterinary behaviorist based in the Chicago area and immediate past president of the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, said, “The reality is that the pack explanation, the need to fight for dominance (in a home) is an arcane theory. The idea of dominance and need for it implies the need to, in fact, dominate our dogs. There is a need to communicate and to motivate but not to dominate. (Millan) uses the word ‘leader’ (for the owner); perhaps the word ‘teacher’ is better.”
December 27th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I’ve been in education for 20 plus years and in that time I have seen all sorts of educational methods come and go. I can say one thing for sure “modern” is NOT always better. I, and a large number of educators believe we ruined a whole generation by being more concerned with the students “self-esteem” than their education. Students are all different and respond to different approaches.
I suspect the same is for animals. I deal with my four dogs very differently, because they respond to different approaches. One thing they all have in common is the need for security. They need to know someone is in charge and will take care of things. As for the shock collar business, if that’s what it takes to get a dogs attention, then so be it. If a butt whooping is what a kid needs, give it. I got them and I well deserved them. I am not an abusive person because of it. I do not beat my dogs and I’ve paddled 3 students in my whole career.
Personally, I have found that letting consequences do the teaching is a very affective approach, whether dealing with humans or dogs.
Another thing, the best way to communicate with another species is to speak their language. Understanding the dynamics of their social structure and forms of communication allows for them to understand the messages you want to send. I think we need to remain open to all forms of training for our pets and use whatever method is best for them to keep safe and happy and secure.
Now if someone could help me with my cats. Any suggestions about feline friends?A
December 30th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Methinks thou dost protest too much. Anyone who has watched dogs interact with each other knows there is a pack mentality and that one has to be the pack leader or alpha. I see the criticism reference the use of choke chains and shock collars with no mention of the proper use for them. I am by no means a professional trainer, but I was training my own dogs long before I ever heard of Cesar Millan. A professional trainer surely knows how to use these tools. Having said that, I do know that a choke chain does not hurt any dog when used properly as a split second correction. A dog owner does have to be the pack leader or Alpha no matter what any human thinks. People can become as educated and opinonated as they want, but thousands of years of instinct is not going to go away because someone disagrees and thinks there is a better way.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:18 am
SC – I would agree that “modern” is not always better. But I would also say that “we’ve always done it this way” is an even worse reason to stick to something.
If you were training with positive reinforcement, the same methods would work with your feline friends, pretty much. That’s why Learning Theory rocks. It works for all animals.
One thing to keep in mind, is that the positive punishment (pain, aversives, etc.) work better on primates than on canines. That means that your impression that punishment is a good idea is still based on the idea that dogs are just furry people. We also REALLY love our hierarchies, much more so than dogs.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:21 am
Mike – I’m sorry, but I have to disagree, as does the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.
If you have to prove your dominance to your dog via force, you’ve already missed the boat. Dogs do what works. They don’t have to be avoiding pain or pressure to learn. They do things because they want something (food, toys, outside, increased distance). That *thing* is rewarding behavior you don’t like. If you make stuff that they want contingent upon behavior you like, the problem will be solved.
I just wrote a post about ASVAB’s excellent position statement on the Dominance Theory.
I’ll quote two bits of it here:
“The AVSAB recommends that veterinarians not refer clients to trainers or behavior consultants who coach and advocate dominance hierarchy theory and the subsequent confrontational training that follows from it.”
“The AVSAB recommends that veterinarians identify and refer clients only to trainers and behavior consultants who understand the principles of learning theory and who focus on reinforcing desirable behaviors and removing the reinforcement for undesirable behaviors.”
January 30th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
I’d like to comment on the concepts of hierarchy, rank, alpha status, dominance and related topics. But first, I’d like to provide some background so everyone will know the basis for what I would like to share.
I hold an MS degree in leadership studies with emphasis on non-verbal communication. And I have completed about 2/3 of a doctoral-degree program in leadership and my dissertation is also on a specific aspect of non-verbal communication. In the area of dog-human relations, I have been working for more than 20 years on a comparative analysis of the signalling systems of dogs and wolves and their relevance in the communications between domesticated dogs and humans.
I maintain that the dog/human bond works because dogs (supposedly the lesser of the two species) do a better job at adapting to humans than humans even try to do with their dogs. If humans were better students of dogs’ own communication signals (body language and vocalizations) and their meaning, I believe we humans could be far more successful in raising our dogs. Dogs communicate the way dogs communicate: They always have and they always will. Humans, on the other hand, could establish more positive relationships with their dogs if they were more adaptable in communicating with them by using approximations of dogs’ own signals
My work (still in progress) has received support of noted authorities in this field over two decades, including Dr. J.P. Scott, Dr. David Mech, and others. Dr. Scott even contributed to the text and helped edit it. Richard Lore , Ph.D., Professor of Psychology/Vice Chairman of Graduate Studies (retired), School of Psychology, Rutgers University has written: “Mr. Rafe is a leading authority on canine behavior. He also understands the literature in two relevant areas of experimental psychology: animal learning and behavior modification. I know of no other person who can describe arcane psychological principles as clearly.”
As for the various concepts — hierarchy, rank, alpha status, dominance, etc. –the trend has been to criticize and oppose these terms. While some of the positions taken appear to be justified on the surface, closer examination reveals the flaws or shortcomings in such arguments. Initially, most of the controversy centered around the term “dominance” because it has become misconstrued by many to refer to so-called “alpha rolls” and similarly misunderstood transactions — largely among wolves. Over time, the misunderstanding and opposition has spread to where “alpha” itself has come to be perceived as a negative concept. As that developed, people began to speak out even against the concepts of “rank” and “hierarchies” — and even to the concept of “pack.”
Yet, to trace the problem backward, countless species — even humans — arrange themselves into “packs.” In essence, a “pack” is merely a gathering of canids (and some others) into a singularly grouping. The concept applies equally to such gatherings as flocks, and gaggles, and herds, and troupes, and schools, and numerous others. So properly applied (!) pack theory is a valid concept: Only its misuse taints it. As for “hierarchies,” with the exception of (mostly) anti-social or asocial, cold-blooded species, most animals arrange themselves into groupings. And all have leaders of some sort. Sometimes the leader is visibly active, sometimes it is not. Sometimes, it is aggressive, sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is constant, sometimes it is not. But there is a leader.
Rank? We need only to look at human organization charts for evidence. As for anthropomorphizing — that is done commonly in textbooks because we see the behavior of other species through human perceptions, not necessarily the way the animals experience them. Nonetheless, even among animals, close study reveals arrangements according to influence, physical strength, control over valued resources, and so on. And as “rank” goes, so does the concept of “hierarchies.” No, they may not be constant or static: And yes, they can be changing or flexible. But they do exist.
Indeed, the overwhelming majority of books written on canine behavior, by people who hold doctorates in science and veterinary medicine who are acknowledged authorities on canine behavior all address the validity of these concepts — when they are used appropriately. With the exception of a few, such as Dr. Ray Coppinger, they acknowledge that dogs arrange themselves into packs and hierarchies, and that dominance is a valid issue (again using the term correctly). In that regard, domesticated dogs are similar to their ancestral wolves with whom their genetic profile is identical within a few percentage points.
It should be noted that Coppinger’s doctoral degree is in biology and his master’s is in philosophy. He does not hold a degree of any kind in psychology or veterinary science. His main experience in dogs is with sled dogs and assistance dogs. He might understand canine behavior-modification techniques but that, alone, doesn’t qualify him to make the kinds of unsupported statements he and his wife make about rank and status in their book.
I have read the book thoroughly and recently did a content analysis on an interview published at: http://www.workingdogweb.com/Coppinger.htm . (As additional background, I teach graduate-school courses in research methods.) After analyzing the interview, I wrote to Coppinger saying that several of his statements appear to challenge much of what has been written in respected journals by learned members of this field. I also noted that he didn’t provide any documented sources for his specific opinions and added that my field is behavior-based communication (human and canine) and that I would be interested in the source of the statements I raised in an attachment to that email message. It has been over three weeks now since that was sent and I have not received even an acknowledgement.
I’ll try to comment on the “Dog Whisperer” and “chokechains” in a separate message.
Cordially –
Stephen
STEPHEN RAFE
Author, researcher
Adjunct professor, graduate studies-research methods
http://www.starfire-rapport.com
January 30th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Hi Stephen,
Unfortunately, as I know you would agree, the concept of Pack has turned into this idea that you must be the pushiest creature in the group in order to keep dogs from taking over the home. I looked at your site and agree with you 100% that we need to “put an end to harsh, punishment-based training.”
Back to packs…the current meaning of “pack” in everyday English doesn’t quite represent what a “pack” really is – a family. A wolf pack, for example is usually the breeding pair and their offspring. As families can be different, so can packs. It’s such a loaded term (usually used by punishment-centric folks in the dog-training world) that I find that it turns my stomach a bit just to write it.
L. David Mech is a senior research scientist for the U.S. Geological Survey and founder and vice chair of the International Wolf Center. He has studied wolves for 50 years and has published several books and many articles about them. Here’s what he has to say about the term, “alpha,” with regard to wolves.
He writes, in Whatever Happened to the Term ALPHA Wolf? “Rather than viewing a wolf pack as a group of animals organized with a “top dog” that fought its way to the top, or a male-female pair of such aggressive wolves, science has come to understand that most wolf packs are merely family groups formed exactly the same way as human families are formed.”
The highest ranking female in a wolf pack isn’t the “alpha” because she fought her way there. She’s just the mom. A pack consists of the breeding pair and their offspring – the ones that have yet to go off on their own to breed.
He writes that proper term is not “alpha” wolf, but the breeding male or female, or simply, the parents. “The issue is not merely one of semantics or political correctness. It is one of biological correctness such that the term we use for breeding wolves accurately captures the biological and social role of the animals rather than perpetuate a faulty view.”
L. David Mech is a senior research scientist for the U.S. Geological Survey and founder and vice chair of the International Wolf Center. He has studied wolves for 50 years and has published several books and many articles about them.
He says it takes 20 years for the public Zeitgeist to catch up to science, and concludes, “Hopefully it will take fewer than 20 years for the media and the public to fully adopt the correct terminology and thus to once and for all end the outmoded view of the wolf pack as an aggressive assortment of wolves consistently competing with each other to take over the pack.”
That said, if you throw together several wolves that don’t know each other, you will get this kind of fighting. But it’s not the state that they evolved to live in, but rather an artificial, stressful state. We do not need to emulate that kind of stress in our homes, but rather, just be good parents. (Keeping in mind the need of the furry kids can be different than the 2-legs).
January 31st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Hi Grisha –
I agree, it’s not the terms that give us the problem: It’s their use of them to describe harsh, cruel methods. Over 25 years ago, I faced considerable odds when I started trying to put an end to such methods in the training of bird-dogs for hunting and field-trial competition.
Being totally new to the game at that time and being totally candid with you here, at first I even tried some of the methods that “pros” were insisting that I use. Back then, it was common for trainers to shout “JERK THE LEAD” — usually with the dogs on chokechains or even spike collars. The ones I tried included chokechains as punishers (instead of using them for negative reinforcement which had been the original intent that had gone wrong) and shock collars as punishers (same story, only now people had a way to RUIN their dogs electronically and at a distance). Having already had six semesters or more of courses in psychology, behavior, and learning theory, I quickly figured out that punishment failed more that it succeded, and that when it “seemed” to work, it was usually something else (positive training) that deserved the credit, or that the dog managed to figure out, on its own, what the trainer was incapable of teaching it.
I soon wrote the Starfire pamphlet on the proper use of the chokechain to at least educate die-hard users that there was a better way (escape/avoidance training followed by positive reinforcement). Then I sought out Dr. Daniel Tortora and — at his side –studied everything he knew about using variable-intensity, electronic collars for negative reinforcement. (Tortora opposed harsh punishment, by the way.) Quickly thereafter, I wrote an entire manual on how to use these devices without ruining dogs. I did so because, again, I knew I couldn’t stop the die-hard users — I could only hope to change the way they used these devices.
In fact, I have spent most of the past quarter century trying to educate owners and trainers. I have even worked with some who have done incredibly ignorant things to their dogs although they, themselves, held masters’ and doctoral degrees. (E.g. One, a physician, had been locking his dog in a closet for defacating on the floor!) Another, with a MS in sociology, called himself a professional trainer but he was whipping his dogs from side to side or in front with an actual buggy whip to teach them not to move. A spike collar prevented them from backing up.)
So training owners, not dogs, soon became my focus. In fact, I used to go to sportsmens’ shows and do evaluations and demonstrations with any dog they brought me. I stopped bringing my own — positively trained — dogs for demos right after the first show I attended because someone had said I succeeded because I only used my own “trick dogs.” At one show, Garvey Winegar, award-winning, outdoor feature writer for the Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch wrote: “I’ve seen this guy handle dogs. Strange dogs. Dogs that were almost basket cases. He’s amazing.”
The dogs were actually easy: The owners were the problem. And that convinced me that knowing how to train a dog was not enough. Owner education is what it’s all about. But that has to begin with the educators. Far too many people call themselves “dog trainers” and have little or no idea of the foundations for what they are trying to teach others to do. Nor do they understand how the essential principles of how _humans_ learn best, let along how _dogs_ learn best.
So I shudder when I hear terms being bandied about and misused by people who haven’t taken the time to learn their true meanings and use them correctly. I don’t think one needs an advanced degree to make a difference: However, everyone who takes on the responsibility of owner education should first make certain they, themselves, thoroughly understand what they intend to teach. The various associations that have sprung up in recent years are making a sincere effort and making a difference. However, it would probably be a service to every dog owner if all the various “certifications” were united into one standard. And far more could be done to let the millions of owners who do not compete their dogs know about the availability of professional trainers who meet that standard. (The Animal Behavior Society has such a standard and I was once a member. However, pack theory prevailed () in this doctorate-preferred organization and I was pressured into not renewing my membership. I think they, too, do themselves a disservice: They could have set themselves up as THE place for all would-be trainers to get their requisite education.
Instead, we have people teaching people to do things they, themselves, picked up along the way — often from people who also picked up the idea from someone else. And, as a result, valid concepts and terms get changed and distorted, their true meanings get lost, and dogs pay the price.
As a serious student of canid behavior, I have known David Mech and have followed his work for more than a quarter century. We have corresponded many times over the years. In fact, I contacted him after his 1999 paper, “Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs,” was published. My goal was to keep my own ongoing study current and accurate.
In that paper, he wrote: “The prevailing view of a wolf (Canis Lupus) pack is that of a group of individuals every vying for dominance but held in check by the ‘alpha’ pair, the alpha male and the alpha female. Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however, has been conducted on non-natural assortments of captive wolves.” He added: “Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps.”
I told him that I believed the strength of that analogy with humans is challengeable on the basis of deprivation alone (food, exercise, etc.), but that I felt the fundamental concept was acceptable. Specifically, a pack of wolves in the wild differs from a pack of wolves that has been artificially assembled in a loosely confined situation. I added that his view provided considerable justification for stating that our domesticated dogs more closely approximate the _unnatural_ pack situation in their familial situation with humans and other animals. He had no problem with that.
Nonetheless, I recognize that such terms as “dominance” may have become so tainted that we have to look elsewhere for a better explanation of the dog-human relationship. My own master’s degree and doctoral studies made it rather obvious to me that the answer is “leadership.” That concept, leadership skills, as domesticated dogs display and use them, may help us move away from the concepts of “dominance” and “subordinance” for describing dogs’ hierarchical interactions. The concept of a “leader” and “follower” relationship is reflected in the work of wolf ethologists although not addressed specifically in the research. In terms of our relationships with domesticated dogs, this concept — leadership — becomes increasingly attractive.
By differentiating between the terms “lead” and “dominate,” we are able to point out that an owner’s ability to _dominate_ his or her dog may have very little to do with success in resolving most behaviors owners call problematical. As we know, many people who have tried what is called an “Alpha Roll” or “Alpha Takedown” — clearly the humans’ misguided attempt at _dominance_ — have been bitten by their dogs. However, leadership skills — as dogs display and use them — are another story. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, even the terms, dominance and submissiveness, may be inappropriate for describing dogs’ interactions when they are sorting out pack status or “pecking order.”
This opens the door for us to discover that dogs act like dogs when they communicate with each other, and that their transactions are still quite consistent with those of their ancestral wolves. This awareness creates the opportunity to pay closer attention to Scott and Fuller in “Animal Behavior,” Second Edition Revised, p. 120 who pointed out: “We found that we could identify more than sixty different behavior patterns in the dog and that almost all of these could be found in similar forms in wild wolves.” (Those behaviors are categorized in Scott and Fuller’s book, “Dog Behavior” [p. 63-65].) Now, it becomes a simple step, no longer a leap of faith, to say that:
a) since dogs send and receive signals like dogs when they are among other dogs, then
b) dogs act like dogs even when they are among people. Therefore,
c) The more closely humans’ signals resemble those of dogs, the more likely their dogs are to respond accordingly.
Come to think of it, that is so logical that we don’t need to look much further. Whether dogs’ leadership behaviors compare with the same in wolves becomes a moot point. One example I have used in demonstrations has owners close their hand but point the index finger out and then “waggle” it like a dog’s tail. High for bold/confident; low for submissive. When they do this facing their dogs, it’s amazing how many dogs sniff under the finger. Why” Dogs rely heavily on olfaction and the area under the tail contains anal glands. The scent they release varies depending upon the stimulus — “old” theory (which was based on human-oriented findings) to the contrary.
Yet, when I’ve explained, demonstrated, and proven this to be the case, I have still had participants say that dogs don’t interpret human approximations of their own signals as having the same meaning as they would have if coming from other dogs. And, here’s the rub, some of the same people have been advocates at yawning at their dogs to “calm” them — although Rugaas’ concept was based upon an incorrect translation of “calm” and my own 2.5 year study on yawning is about to demonstrate that “all yawning is the physiological manifestation of the processing of conflict between two competing stimuli” — and some of the top authorities in the field have contributed to the study.
So much to do; so little time. I have to rush off to teach the fourth week of a graduate-school course in research methods where my students are almost entirely international and speak English as a second language.
Stephen
STEPHEN RAFE
January 31st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Hi All –
Concerning the Dog Whisperer,” I know how television constructs programs, having at one time been the President of The Exective Television Workshop in New York City. With that in mind, I caution all of us to be aware of the selection and editing process — two activities that can make or break an ongoing program. First, we only see the successes: We should ask about the failures. Second, we see only the things that have worked: We should ask about the “outtakes” — the mistakes or mishaps that end up on “the cutting room floor” — meaning that they were simply edited out.
As for his perceptions of the “Alpha” concept, they are somewhat correct within limits, but they are also somewhat incorrect in both interpretation and application.
As far as his use of “hissing” — sharp, harsh sounds gain attention. I theorize that the dog’s brain may associate the sound with a snake and thus cause the dog to be more cautious and, perhaps, more receptive to instruction that will keep it “safe.” Only a theory.
Stephen
STEPHEN RAFE
March 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Dear Stephen Rafe,
I’ve loved reading your postings on here regarding your research into dog behavior. But I find myself still saying, “huh?” What does all that mean to the average person–the person who watches The Dog Whisperer or the competing show, It’s Me or the Dog (on Animal Planet)?
I don’t mean to sound rude, but I don’t have time to get a PhD in animal behavior to understand what all your research means. I think it’s great that you are doing it as it can help the general public. But just how, exactly, can I use your information? Are you saying that Cesar Millan’s way of dog training is wrong? Or that people are just misunderstanding the meaning of the terms he is using, such as “pack leader,” or “dominance/submissive?” Perhaps he’s just not using the right terms himself? For example, he constantly talks about an owner’s “energy,” which sounds a lot like ESP or some other pseudo-science. But maybe what he really means is an owner’s “non-verbal signals” and people don’t understand that?
There is so much debate by self proclaimed dog trainers on both sides of the argument, that it’s impossible for an average person like me to determine what method is right for my dog. This is especially true when it seems to make perfect sense to us. I’ve seen dogs give each other little ‘pecks’ to (seemingly) correct behavior or get each other’s attention. So, it seems logical to me when Cesar gives a dog a little ‘pinch’ to stop them from overly focusing on something. However, I’ve never seen one dog give another dog an electric shock. Yet Cesar has been reported to use a shock collar. That doesn’t sound logical to me. The big pack of dogs he keeps at his home seems very happy and well adjusted. Wouldn’t that mean he’s doing a good job? And yet, as you pointed out, we don’t see what’s on the cutting room floor. So, I’m left confused.
Should I be following Cesar’s method or no?
March 6th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I find my self reading these posts and I must say… Where do you get off critizing someone else’s success? Ceaser isn’t a ‘GOD’, nor are you. Your methods work in some situations, and so does his. Sure they only show the successful cases.. why wouldn’t they? It makes perfect sense from a business stand point. Would you show your failures on national television? This seems to me as a pure case of someone trying to get their 15mins of spot light.
People need to stop being so damn soft. Its people like you that are causing this world to go to shit in a hand basket. Everyone wants to love everyone, and give anyone and everyone a second chance. Grow some balls and put your dog in its place. If its being bad, let it know. Don’t beat it. Even I don’t believe hitting or beating a dog into submission is right.
March 6th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
All the pros and cons presented can be confusing – especially since many are framed in science (or at least it sounds like science.)
There are abstracts and overviews that are available that might help you out. The following link might present an interesting take on the matter. Researchers in Pennsylvania spent a year interviewing dog owners, asking questions about techniques used and various results. There appears to be a correlation between aversive training and aggression directed toward owners.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090217141540.htm
March 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Thanks, Yvette!
Steve, I’m not criticizing success. I’m criticizing “training” that uses unnecessary force and the out-dated paradigm that dogs misbehave out of a quest for dominance.
I only allowed your misogynist, ignorant, insulting comment because I think it’s a lovely display of what kind of people support training via punishment. I think it’s a sad bit of hypocrisy that people who will hurt a dog with a jerk on a choke chain think that they’re better than the people who hit with their own hands. Yes, you leave out the social piece of the punishment, but the pain is the same.
I’m turning comments off for this post now, because I’ve got dogs to train!