jo
Novice Poster
Posts: 0
|
Post by jo on Apr 7, 2008 9:27:37 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2008 13:20:00 GMT 1
|
|
newimage
Olympic Poster
Olympic Poster
My best friend Milly, RIP my angel xxxxx
Posts: 677
|
Post by newimage on Apr 7, 2008 13:49:21 GMT 1
I don't think we will all agree on the various trainers and training methods that are shown to us via the tv, books and demos, but for me, anyone who can help dogs, horses, cats or whatever animal to live a happier life alongside the human owners, without causing the animal pain, distress or show violence, then they are worth learning from. How about the methods used by Victoria Stillwell - It's Me or The Dog? She uses vocal commands and/or alarms to deter the dog and uses treats for rewards. Cesar Milan uses body language, similar to Monty - adrenaline down, learning up. Dog Borstal use the dogs natural abilities to help find the balance in the dog's training, i.e. sniffing, agility. They are all very different but all non-violent. At then end of the day, who is actually been trained? It's not the animals is it, it's us human owners/handlers who have domesticated these wonderfully intelligent creatures but still haven't learned to listen to their language! The animals are the clever ones, we feed them, take care of them, love them and clean up after them, so how can we be seen as pack leaders or dominant leaders when we are their slaves?! I apologise if I offend anyone but I do believe Cesar Milan, like Monty with horses, is an exceptional handler of dogs who has a great understanding of how a dog's mind works. Monty has even proved you can join-up with deer through watching and learning from the deer themselves. That speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by lucycaspar on Apr 7, 2008 17:06:17 GMT 1
Hi all, wasn't going to comment on this however can't sit on my hands any longer! Having watched The Dog Whisperer and looked on in disbelief as he cornered a highly sound sensitive dog (I can't remember if he held the dog down so I shall give him the benefit of the doubt and say he didn't but that dog couldn't have gotten away if it tried.) and proceeded to flood it. I find it hard to believe that he is working using sound proven ideas and theories. I think I even saw him produce a choke chain with another dog...I thought that type of punishment went out with Barbara Woodhouse. Anyway all is in the eye of the beholder I believe, personally I find him irresponsible and would send him packing if tried to 'rehabilitate' my dog using such outdated and potentially violent techniques. I would try watching his programme with the sound down, it puts a whole different light on what you are seeing happen. Get rid of the rhetoric and watch what is happening and judge for yourself. See if you believe that what he is saying actually matches what is going on.
|
|
jo
Novice Poster
Posts: 0
|
Post by jo on Apr 7, 2008 17:41:12 GMT 1
well lucycasper, if you turned down the sound you wouldn't hear the commentary which clearly mentions Cesar doesn't advocate the use of certain collars - he uses a cheap piece of cord for restraint should he need it. He uses what the owners have been using on their dog (their choice not his) if that is what they present him with.
If you didn't slam him but checked out just what he is all about you may be pleasantly surprised. I know when I first watched his programmes I was sceptical - that he must have used a shock collar, or done something to the dog previous out of camera shot. But if you stay with it, keep watching the series, read up on him, you get to see some pretty amazing stuff shown in realtime with the camera showing elapsed time it takes for him to calm an excitable aggressive dog for instance. I don't believe he has a bad bone in his body, the care and rehab he puts the dog through is such a lovely thing to see, like the Newfie who wouldn't eat normally. That was just so interesting to watch how he helped that dog!
Francis - I'm not sure that he mentions Wolf pack behaviour, more like DOG pack behaviour, of which he has his pack of 30 - 40 at any one time at his purpose built rehab base. When you see him moving amongst and reading them, taking an unbalanced dog into his pack and using them to help him rehabilitate an unsound dog you have to realise he is doing what is best for the dog. They all look very happy, no fighting, aggression, a dogs body language doesn't lie does it?!!!
|
|
|
Post by lucycaspar on Apr 7, 2008 19:13:51 GMT 1
Very happy to be proven wrong feebster! I apologise if the choke chain comment was unfair and untrue. However I stand by opinion that his techniques are not as gentle as he believes they are. I also do think he is genuine in his beliefs and not for a second do I think that he would intentionally cause any animal any suffering whatsoever but that doesnt necessarily mean that those beliefs or intentions are grounded in firm facts or truth. When I watched him restraining a dog and flooding it. It seemed like a potentionally dangerous situation to me both emotionally for the dog. Flooding only has a 50% success rate and can make a situation worse. he also put himself in a situation where the dog could have turned to fight rather than freeze. With his experience he could probably assess the likelyhood of this happening and make a considered choice. The less experienced dog owner watching the programme deciding to 'have a go' may not be so lucky. The dangers inherent in this technique were not explained at all. I will give him another go and watch a few episodes and hopefully be proven wrong.
|
|
jo
Novice Poster
Posts: 0
|
Post by jo on Apr 7, 2008 20:39:37 GMT 1
"The dangers inherent in this technique were not explained at all"
ooo yes lucycasper they always put a caveat at the bottom of the screen - something along the lines of
"do not attempt any of these techniques, consult a professional" (words very similar, have been away can't remember precisely!!?)
what was the flooding episode? What breed of dog? I love the one with the Vizsla who is scaredy cat in the city after living so peacefully and quietly. He's very nervous in the city and freezes or bolts - well, after letting him run along (by roller blading with him!) to drain excess energy and allowing him to run (move forward with the brain!) he shows how simply elevating his tail gives him the confidence and self esteem! So simple! He then goes on to devize holding up the tail slightely with the end of the lead handle so the dog is moving along with tail 'up' and hey presto that little dog just got braver!!
Seems tail position is very meaningful to the dog...when he dominates a dog who is not accepting submission, he won't allow the tail to tuck under. Tuck under is fearful and in order for the brain to not be fearful he takes the tail out from between the back legs, therefore insisting the dogs brain accepts submission not fear/avoidance.
I'm intrigued by what he does. His book is worth the read too?
|
|
|
Post by lucycaspar on Apr 8, 2008 9:31:46 GMT 1
Hi feebster,
It was a terrier type I think who went into a barking 'frenzy' at the sound of a toaster. He had the dog in the corner of the kitchen and 'pinged' the toaster lots of times in close proximity to the dog.
I'll make sure I watch him, is he on tonight? usually on sky 3 isn't he?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 10:12:58 GMT 1
Lots of thinking about flooding going on in my little head, here.
It's actually quite an emotive word, isn't it? Flooding brings visions of drowning and destruction, and doesn't have any positive associations (sorry, another of my big thinks at the moment is how words subconciously affect our perception). If we called the process of getting an animal to face his fears so that we can dispell them something else, let's pick a word, say softening, would it feel any better? I don't know, that's just a muse, but it may well do.
I didn't see that particular episode, lucycaspar, so can't comment on it. I have, though, seen him work with other dogs to break through fear barriers and, on the face of it, you could see the experience as traumatic. However, there is also an argument that getting it over and done with, rather than allowing the dog to continue fearing the sound/object/whatever, is actually kinder as long as it is done well. Yet another of my bits of learning curve is the fear caused by anticipation, rather than the event itself. Flossie, my new rescue, showed all the signs of fear at being caught. However, when I stripped out all the anticipation and just got on and did it, she was fine. I didn't use flooding in the strict sense of the word but did "force" her to face up to her fears so that she could discover that it wasn't that bad after all. Now she's learning to be a normal pony. If you had taken extracts of me working with her at the beginning and showed them to someone without a full explanation of what I was doing and why, in a 12 minute TV segment, I'm sure lots of people would have been horrified because, I admit, for some brief moments she did look really scared. But then the choice was that for those brief moments (a couple of minutes total) or her shaking in a corner each time I walked past, 4 or 5 times a day, and not being able to turn her out without a 15 minute fearful catching ritual.
So, is it the way someone works or what we are shown/see on the telly that is the issue? I don't know, but it's something to ask ourselves when we're watching. Equally, it can be the other way around, of course, that we only see the good bits. It all depends on the editing as well as our perception, doesn't it?
ETA: I was starting to wonder whether I should ever have started this thread, but it does go to show how much you can learn from watching another trainer, even of another species, whether you love or loath him!
|
|
|
Post by lucycaspar on Apr 8, 2008 11:50:47 GMT 1
Hi LizP,
I do agree that there is a lot to be said for how these types of programmes are edited at times. Having watched it's me or the dog and seeing the somewhat 'miraculous' transformations and thought hang on a minute there's a whole chunk of training that they've decided not to show or missed out.
I do have a problem with the concept of pushing an animal to face it's fear. I think the line between acceptance of being unable to esacpe a fearful stimulus and no longer being afraid gets very blurred. Which is why I feel that if you are trying to de-sensitise an animal to a fearful stimulus the steps should be very small and the potential for the animal to become scared kept to an absolute minimum. This way you increase the potential for learning and have more opportunity to build positive associations. yes you need to stretch comfort zones but you don't need to blow them away!
I wasn't trying to use the term flooding emotively but as the term for the type of learning that I believe I saw going on. So apologies for that. It took me ages to get out of thinking that punishment always involved beating and physical pain!
It is very interesting though following on from that how two people can see the same thing and get two very different feelings about what has happened.
|
|
|
Post by rj on Apr 8, 2008 15:11:17 GMT 1
I was a bit uncomfortable when Monty made a mare absolutely terrified by shaking the old placcybag on a stick at her (last demo at Keysoe) and no, I wouldn't have done it, but I don't have his skill or knowledge. But he showed how after that, the horse was allowed to calm down then faced with a much lower manifestation of its fear (bag tied up tight) which she then coped with and progressed onwards from there to the original stimilus which no longer provoked that dreadful instant reaction.
I am a believer in getting over unpleasant things as quickly as possible. I do not think a smack (for child or animal) is unacceptable if it is done at the time of the unwanted behaviour, is no more than it needs to be, and it is successful in stopping the behaviour. It is instant, and to my mind preferable to hours of explanation pleading asking etc etc.
Dogs understand instant action and retribution, because as Cesar says, they live in the now. They learn quickly and repetition is not usually needed.
So as well as seeing different things in watching the same programme, I guess we'll be coming at it from a different place too.
That's called life, and makes it all so fascinating!
|
|
|
Post by Garry on Apr 8, 2008 16:10:08 GMT 1
I think the reason Monty shows the demo horses the big scary bags first off, is to let the audience know that the horse is actually scared. This comes from people over the years saying that the demo horses have been worked with previously. I would guess that he wouldn't start off that way, when working with a horse at home.
(sorry gone off topic a bit)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 17:01:55 GMT 1
I'm sorry, going further off topic here, but I've just witnessed a benefit to the "let's get this over and done with" method. When Flossie arrive a week ago, you couldn't go near her with a stick of any description (I made the mistake of offering her a willow branch to chew on - where did my pony go.... ). Because she has now spent a few days facing up to scary things, today she decided she could be brave. I was moving some stuff around, including a long thin white pole. She went to fly off, stopped, thought about it and stayed. I stood still to see what would happen and, to my amazement, she decided to come and get that one over and done with too. She walked up very carefully, touched it with her nose and walked off again. I then walked up to her, touched her nose with it, and walked off again. I promise you, a few days ago that would not have happened. I really cannot think that this reaction can be other than her increased confidence that she now knows she can face this stuff and it won't hurt. Having said all that, I think where we are agreeing, lucycaspar, is in the degree of restraint used. You have to use some, and maybe quite a lot to start with, otherwise you'd never make the breakthrough, but that has to be followed immediately by reducing the force so that the animal is given the choice to stay. The key is setting it up so that your choice - to stay - is easier than running away. Sorry, way off topic but just so interesting I couldn't help myself.
|
|
|
Post by maggiesmum on Apr 8, 2008 23:40:21 GMT 1
I have to say that I like Cesar Millan, lots of pet dog trainers (mine included!) don't like him as they think he's too harsh, but he's not a dog trainer, he's a psycologist/behaviourist and he rehabilitates rather than trains. I have an 'adolescent, boisterous english bull terrier' and watching the dog whisperer and adopting lots of his methods has made a huge difference to our lives. He could have easily turned into a 'red-zone' dog, we turned to a dog trainer first and got some improvement but they really didn't know what to do when it all kicked off. Bull terriers are fine till something happens and the red mist decends, its then that you realise that they don't have an 'off' switch!!! Maybe some of the things he does do seem harsh, but we're not there feeling the 'energy'. He promotes responsible dog ownership, and his exercise, dicipline, affection rule is basic but often overlooked, it never ceases to amaze me how many people don't feel the need to walk their dogs everyday!?!?!? Its the same as horse trainers really, we don't always like all the methods on offer but these people are encouraging owners to try and understand why the behaviour is happening and to find a better way of dealing with it, and that has to be a good thing.
|
|
pd
Grand Prix Poster
Posts: 1,367
|
Post by pd on Apr 10, 2008 14:42:19 GMT 1
I'm transfixed by Cesar's methods, so far I've not seen anything about his approach that I don't like. I'd certainly have him before Victoria Stillwell. I love the way he reacts to the minutest bits of body language the dogs display and changes their disposition before "problems" develop. Enchanting. Even the vicious dogs that he puts down and holds down, its traumatic to watch, but they come to no physical harm and don't have to be put down for their behaviour in the long term. Great.
|
|