:thumbup:

Okay, I haven't watched the video yet, but I want to say something else about the supposed magic of Cesar's methods. Cesar does know how to restrain a dog and prevent a full-blown attack. So if a dog is struggling, Cesar is going to win that fight. I concede that it takes experience to know how to hold a dog in a way he can't get at you, but I don't think it's a special talent.

So let's consider the options a dog has when Cesar acts aggressively or provocatively towards a dog:
- the dog can give up/show submissive, calming signs, such as lying down.
- the dog can whine/cry in distress.
- the dog can get aggressive back, to no avail.
- the dog can totally flip out and struggle with everything it has to get away, to no avail.
- the dog can pretend to submit, and then after Cesar has left, it can start legal action against him.

Okay, so I made up the last point. I added it to demonstrate that while Cesar's dogs have done all of these things, eventually the dog will give up, if for no other reason than he is exhausted. Dogs lack capacity for deceit or foresight. What you see is what you get. I guess what I'm saying is I don't understand why it's so impressive that the dogs submit, because that is the only choice they have. If the dog immediately submits, it's credited to Cesar's amazing dog handling skills. If the dog cries, it is called manipulative, eventually it gives up, and it's credited to Cesar's amazing dog handling skills. If the dog gets aggressive, people take that as proof the dog is dangerous, eventually it gives up, and it's credited to Cesar's amazing dog handling skills... etc.

:thumbup:I agree

I can tell you in psychology, there are three major schools of thought, Behaviorism, Freudian or what is known as Psychoanalysis, and Humanistic psychology. The strict Freudians hate the Behaviorists and the Humanists, as does the strict Behaviorist, hate the other branches. A therapist, who only endorses one branch and shuns the others, is making a huge mistake; behavior modification works well, in certain circumstances, but talk therapy is needed in others. Dog training has long been dominated by only Behaviorism, because there was no way to psychoanalyze or develop a dogs " self-actualization." So Cesar comes along, and starts looking into the dog's psyche, and what, he believes, a dogs truly needs to be "self actualized", exercise, discipline, and affection, and this is a whole new way of thinking, when we start to look at the dog's needs. He is incorporating the two other branches of psychology, into his methods, and I can understand why this would infuriate behaviorists. While behaviorism was my specialty, I never discounted the other branches as being worthless, but I can tell you that most behaviorists do, even with human psychology, and when you are talking about animal psychology, I doubt if you will find any strict behaviorist who would endorse Cesar because Cesar doesn't just rely on just behaviorism.

You know I love you... but one thing I have noticed about this thread is that many links supporting contentions against Cesar have been posted, and they've been completely brushed off as biased, generally with no attention paid to the credentials - they're just assumed to be irrelevant. Some people have said that there are just as many experts supporting Cesar. I don't believe that to be the case, because his methods ARE old. Where are the experts in favor of Cesar? I don't see any links to those here. If there are experienced people heading veterinary medical boards and national rescues who support Cesar's methods, let's hear from them.

I don't agree with this. First, there have been huge breakthroughs in the use of medications to treat anxiety disorders and the like in animals. It's been recognized that animals can have OCD, and there is tons of observations and discussion at zoos about how to keep animals happy and engaged, because zoo animals often act in neurotic ways. Second, Victoria just had a veterinarian on her show to analyze one dog's extreme separation anxiety with another dog, and the vet talked about how dogs can experience grief and PTSD. Victoria talked about the evil chi described earlier as having experienced rejection and loss. Third, I see so many people saying about Cesar "dogs just need to know what you like and don't like." How is this psychology? Fourth, there is tons and tons and tons of research into animal emotions. Saying there isn't, or that all trainers are straight behaviorists, isn't true.

Finally, human psychology is a whole other ball of wax, greatly complicated by the fact that we are studying our own species, and a whole host of other factors.

Actually, I think many of us believe Cesar's methods, to be very new and innovative. I see Victoria's methods, as extremely old.

What is Cesar doing that's new? Discovering that animals need exercise? His training methods were used seventy years ago.

How can Victoria's methods be considered old when Karen Pryor was breaking ground with the clicker in the seventies? :confused:

These "expert" individuals attempting to discredit Cesar may have a tremendous amount of education, but I don't see the ability to clearly evaluate visuals that are presented to them. Case in fact -- if the video with the Husky is evidence of Cesar kicking a dog, then I have absolutely NO respect what so ever for any of their opinions and I don't need to delve any further.

I have trained horses and dogs (my personal dogs and horses that I have sold - so I guess that makes me a professional horse trainer) for over 20 years. I have worked with, and studied a plethora of trainers and training methods and have gleaned from each techniques that work for me. I have three Golden Rules when training that can never ever be broken. Any training technique that I can use that will help me reach a goal and allow me to follow the rules below I will try.

1) I cannot get hurt
2) The animal I am training cannot get hurt
3) The animal I am training must be more relaxed at the end of a training session than it was at the beginning (notice I said relaxed - not tired)

One last point here -- I sincerely appreciate training methods that teach the individual to think. Mercury, I wish you could come to the farm for one of our training sessions with the horses. I think you would truly be amazed and pleased with what you saw.

I saw the show in which you are speaking, but I'm against using medications to treat, until other methods have failed, and there was no training attempted, medication was the first choice. Also she didn't give the name of the medication, but said it would take several weeks to have an effect, and this means it was not a typical tranquilizer, but an antidepressant, and again, I don't think these should be given lightly, except as a last resort. The psychology she used was not in her training methods, but just to explain to the client how the dog felt. I think we've known for a long time animals have feeling of loss. Her training methods are strict behaviorism with food as the reward, and enticer, not that I'm against this, it's an easy way of training certain things.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, "Third, I see so many people saying about Cesar "dogs just need to know what you like and don't like." How is this psychology?" I have never made that statement, and I don't understand what it's in reference to, furthermore, I don't know what you mean by, "How is this psychology?".

You say, " Human psychology is a whole other ball of wax." When you study psychology, you aren't really studying humans; you are studying behavior in general. Freudian and Humanist psychology, of course, are thought to have applied only to humans, but I really like the idea, that some of these things can possibly be applied to animals. The experiments that produced the laws of behavior were made on animals, many different species, and humans as well. So, Behaviorism applies to all organisms. Comparative psychology studies the difference between species, but these differences are not in the rules of behavior, but what works as a reinforcer or cue. I think Cesar's newness is that he found a new reinforcer for dogs; food and praise that has long been thought as the only reinforcers for dogs, and Cesar believes that if you can make a dog be in this certain state of mind, that this would be the reinforcer. So this is really new, to me anyway.

I would love to see you train horses! :) I'm sure I would learn tons. Maybe I will be able to take you up on that sometime.

I guess my question for those of us who don't have farms, is where is the science behind Cesar's methods? What papers have been written, documenting the principles of Cesar's methods? What journals are they in? Who is trying to apply Cesar's techniques to other species? What conferences exist? Who is trying to extend Cesar's method further? Are people trying to precisely define the term "energy"?

Even if science gets it wrong the first couple dozen times, you have to keep trying and studying to progress. Otherwise, you just stay in the circus, beating elephants with sticks, because that's what your trainer taught you, and that's the way it's always been done.

Thing is that dog should not have been in that close anyway.
To train a dog you need it to be not under stress so that it can learn.
Out of the " zone" the dog been calm and paying attention to the handler and therefor no " BUMP" be needed, nor a choke.

When under stress how is your memory?
What do you remeber say after a car accident?
Usually not much niether does the dog.

JL

That's just it, you keep saying his methods are really old, but I've never heard of the state of mind thing before Cesar. No, I don't think there would be any research comparing his methods to other methods. Some of this will just be tested as it was in the old days, if something works people use it, and if it doesn't, they don't.

I saw the show in which you are speaking, but I'm against using medications to treat, until other methods have failed, and there was no training attempted, medication was the first choice. Also she didn't give the name of the medication, but said it would take several weeks to have an effect, and this means it was not a typical tranquilizer, but an antidepressant, and again, I don't think these should be given lightly, except as a last resort.

Well, that's a matter of opinion. How do you feel about antidepressants in humans? I happen to find it very interesting that many mood medications work just as well on animals as they do on humans. Whether it's good or bad it is a NEW area, not an old one.

The psychology she used was not in her training methods, but just to explain to the client how the dog felt. I think we've known for a long time animals have feeling of loss. Her training methods are strict behaviorism with food as the reward, and enticer, not that I'm against this, it's an easy way of training certain things.

People keep saying this, and I don't get it. Victoria uses sound aversion, body blocking, modeling, negative reinforcement, desensitization, all KINDS of things. She is not just always handing out treats. I would say her methods are behaviorism based, but that doesn't mean they are OLD - they are new applications based on earlier research. I would not call Victoria a "dog psychologist", but saying that a dog feels rejected by its owner is NOT behaviorism.

I'm not sure what you mean by this question, "Third, I see so many people saying about Cesar "dogs just need to know what you like and don't like." How is this psychology?" I have never made that statement, and I don't understand what it's in reference to, furthermore, I don't know what you mean by, "How is this psychology?".

Look through this thread and the Cesar thread, and you will see people saying these things. It is simplifying dogs into "Good/Bad" machines, not saying anything about their thoughts, reasoning abilities, instincts, emotions, or anything else.

You say, " Human psychology is a whole other ball of wax." When you study psychology, you aren't really studying humans; you are studying behavior in general. Freudian and Humanist psychology, of course, are thought to have applied only to humans, but I really like the idea, that some of these things can possibly be applied to animals. The experiments that produced the laws of behavior were made on animals, many different species, and humans as well. So, Behaviorism applies to all organisms. Comparative psychology studies the difference between species, but these differences are not in the rules of behavior, but what works as a reinforcer or cue. I think Cesar's newness is that he found a new reinforcer for dogs; food and praise that has long been thought as the only reinforcers for dogs, and Cesar believes that if you can make a dog be in this certain state of mind, that this would be the reinforcer. So this is really new, to me anyway.

You brought up different schools of psychology to compare schools of thought on training. I think this is a false analogy, because frankly, there is a much greater scientific basis in animal training, partly because it's easier to analyze a species that's not your own, and partly because we can do many experiments on observations with animals we can't do with humans. I would say the greatest advancements we've made in human learning recently have come from the animal world.

I'm not sure why Victoria's use of reinforcement is "old" and Cesar's is "new". Looking at Cesar's shows, I see a lot of submissive dogs, but I think that has nothing to do one way or the other with whether they are calm.

Cesar may use new words, but that doesn't make it a new technique, any more than if I taught students using repetition and called it, "brain wave sharpener."

I don't understand, if Cesar's methods are new, why would scientists not be thrilled to use his findings to move forward? Why doesn't he have researchers following him around, the way Pryor did? You can say, oh, science is biased, but surely SOME would be interested.

I like very much those principles of trainig those make for good learning.

Sadly burnt out, over tired dogs that one sees on the show are not relaxed. We have said this repeatedly read the body language. Look at Brendas work, look at turids work, look at Linda tellingtons stuff too. Relaxed does not look like what is seen on that show.

JL

The best of the best trainers know instinctively what to do. That is what sets them apart from those who have to have a "method". There isn't a method to training. You take each individual, evaluate them, spend some time getting to know them and then go from there. That is what trainers like Cesar do. They are able to "see" and "sense what most of can't -- similar to a composer hearing notes that a regular mortal can't or a blind person smelling things that a sighted person can't.

What I want to know is where were these "experts" when the dogs needed help? Cesar was there nudging a Husky in the butt to get his attention and having the same husky try to rip his face off.

I deleted the circus training/elephant paragraph because it didn't apply to my response.

Oh you forgot the new stuff for dog alhzieners and the new drugs for that.
Fact that old dogs loose life skills just like a human and are not to rule the world.
Oh yes and the stuff they are working with with sound and music to calm dogs.
The leg work around bio calm and composure as well as off lable use of prozac in dogs not only for PTSD.

Yes on PTSD got it here in the house.

JL

It is not instinct at all if it where then Ceaser understand what the dogs body is saying. He not even close in some cases.

As for the experts google seach will bring them. Most vet hoptials have them and If I can find one in the middle of no where so can you. DVM with behaviour or a PHD behaviourist is usually on staff.

As for the concept of higher levels of sence do to impairment of another.. not always true.

JL

I would agree with this -- however, that doesn't mean there aren't scientific principles behind what these trainers intuitively know, and we have been able to identify some of these. I mentioned the old way gypsies broke horses earlier as an example of that. I believe that Cesar has an excellent intuitive understanding of dog body language, but that doesn't make everything he says right. That's why science is important - instead of just following what the mystic says, we can progress, and get better, so you don't have to be brilliant to train your dog.

I'm not sure what you mean by "where were the experts" -- surely many of them are involved in rescue work (presumably, if they are with the ASPCA).

I'm afraid I would disagree with you on using drugs is a new idea, it really isn't. Again, I'm not against them, but I think they are overused; it is often easier and less expensive to give a drug, than give the time needed to treat the client. As I said before, she did not try any training before this. Talking the dog for a walk, and then removing the other dog from the house, may have worked initially.

I don't think the other areas of psychology can actually be scientifically tested; there are no laws for them. Behaviorism is much more black and white, and has facts, that can be scientifically tested. But just because something cannot be scientifically tested, does not mean it has no value. I'm sorry I'm not better at explaining myself, I don't mind if you disagree, but I can see by your response you don't seem to understand what I mean.

In a nutshell, do you understand, that instead of using food and praise as a reinforcer, Cesar has looked into dog's real needs? Freud believed that love of a person and love of work, were the two basic needs for humans. Other psychologist's added things like esteem and social acceptance etc to feel fulfilled. Cesar is the first one who comes along talks about a dog's fulfillment. This is what's new. He also describes a "certain state of mind" the calm submissive state, I believe he calls it, and the dog finds this reinforcing in itself, and so this is called an intrinsic reinforcer, and there are plenty of studies that will show intrinsic reinforcer are the best of all and cause the strongest learning. Not that other trainers are saying that a calm mind isn't important, but he shows how this acts as a reinforcer. I love also the way he doesn't talk that much; I think most animal trainer talk way too much. I know Joey learn so much faster when I give hand signals, and then when I use words.

I just want to add behaviorsm is working in every area of your life and with every thing you do. Cesar also uses behavorism there is no way not to use it.

I feel like we are splitting hairs here. Of course the CONCEPT of drugs isn't new, that doesn't mean anti-depressants and studies on their success in dogs isn't new. I'm befuddled here.

And of course some things can't be scientifically tested, but that area shrinks year by year.

I guess I just disagree with you on Cesar know what dogs "really need". To me, he says they are fulfilled by not behaving in ways that bother their owners. Just for the record, I don't think VS is a ground breaking trainer either - however, she has obviously stayed current on modern techniques. Again, I think if Cesar were truly innovative, scientists would be motivated to study what he was doing, because scientists want to understand things, even if they do not appear to analyzable with current methods. Animal researchers love watching horse whisperers and all kinds of people who have special bonds with animals.

Anyway, we are covering a lot of different things here, I just do not understand how someone could consider Cesar an innovative trainer compared to VS. I still don't. In terms of fulfillment, lots and lots of people since the beginning of dogs have talked about what "fulfills" them. That's why people take their pet border collies out to herd sheep on the weekends.

I cannot understand why it is so important to throw PHD behaviourists around. Most YTers are fully intelligent enough to watch, read, and evaluate the suitability of training techniques for themselves without having to be led by some stranger we know nothing about. Unfortunately many lack the confidence to try.

Each of us is (or should be) the best trainer for our own dogs. We all have the responsibility to learn what will work best for our situations and dogs. For me, I use a combination of ideas gleaned from a lifetime of working with animals. Although I do not agree that all of Cesar's techniques will work for me or my Yorkies, I have found many that do.

I don't really want to say too much here, because this thread seems to have left the idea of a discussion and become a pure argument. I really wish we could just share and respect opinions and viewpoints - none of this should be about proving who is right and who is wrong. Aren't we all here to just learn and broaden our knowledge and horizons?

I do have to say that I totally agree with Quicksilver's statement! I really don't think anything Cesar does is new. What I do believe is new is the focus on animals and animal training in the media. His focus and his approaches have been used for years, its just that the "general population" wasn't aware of them like it was. Dog training is "in". I think one could possibly make that statement about Stilwell too though in all technicality (hehehe) because there is so much out there that people have done since the dawn of time, its just all about how far and how fast that knowledge spreads.

I also think comparing Stilwell to Cesar is like comparing apples to oranges. Two completely different approaches, personally I'll take positive reinforcement any day. Why? Fear and submission can be incredibly helpful - but in non expert hands I think it can do more harm then good. Positive reinforcement can be an issue if you reinforce the wrong behavior, but you are never going to get a agressive or defensive response from trying it. Sometimes, one approach is more effective then another. I think the biggest issue with all of this is what so many people take this one idea and apply it with broad strokes to everything - and that never works.

Cesar's techniques may be valid in numerous situations - but I think they can be super hazardous when you put them in the hands of someone much less educated, like the common pet owner its marketed towards. So many people think that his methods are the gold cure for everything! Considering his methods that is such a dangerous concept and I think that is why you had so many people who disapprove of him. Not necessarily because his methods have no merit, but because the common pet owner he is marketed towards will never be able to use them properly and it has drastic results.

Who cares whether or not a trainer is innovative. :D What is important is that their methods are effective. My training rules (sorry I'm being redundant here) are

1) I cannot get hurt
2) My dog cannot get hurt
3) My dog must be more relaxed (I did not say tired although a "good tired" is ok here) at the end of the training session than at the beginning

We spend too much time evaluating trainers rather than specific training techniques. Cesar uses some fantastic training techniques, just as i am sure that VS does, and every other successful trainer. It would be far better for us to focus on specific training techniques that would work for us as individuals.

Finally!
 

FINALLY an intelligent post on the subject! :thumbup:

I think that is totally the biggest issue with Cesar. He works a lot with uneducated dog owners. I think a lot of the people who see him on tv just see that and try to turn it around and use it on their own dogs. They aren't educated enough to really realize what in fact they are doing and often just don't have the knowledge to know what they are doing. Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.

Perhaps if Cesar wasn't marketed the way he was and his advice and information wasn't taken the way I think a good portion of dog owners do (those who aren't quite as "obsessed" as we tend to be on here) there might not be so many negative reactions towards what Cesar does. I think most don't realize that his fear and dominance approach isn't the cure all for "everything". The media is great at spreading information, but so many people fail to realize how much its watered down and manipulated. Perhaps if Cesar never because the huge TV star that he is, none of the huge concerns and upset over his methods would really be present and all of this would be such a moot point.

Too many situations of his methods being used in situations where there are more viable options. Personally, from the storyline in the Bella clip someone posted earlier... I think that is one of the situations where another approach would have been a lot more productive - but that's just me. (Considering we're talking about a dog that was just left alone and tormented by other people and clearly had every reason to not trust anything or anyone. I think I would react the same way she did as well.)

Just wanted to add since I apparently totally forgot and in case it wasn't clear - ChattiesMom, I think you approach Cesar's methods in the way that it should be! An educated and openminded approach! :)

I'm glad someone was able to satisfy you on page 17. ;)