An Alternative to Cesar Millan?
By Jo • Dec 31st, 2007 • Category: Ask Jo's Training Tips and AdviceCesar Millan, Dog Whisperer: An Alternative Approach
copyright © 2007 Jo Jacques
Cesar Millan and his television show have become very popular among the dog-owning public. Millan seems to have been made for the screen, with a charisma that makes some folks call him the ‘Dr.Phil of Dogs’. However, there IS a disclaimer at the beginning of his show, warning those at home not to try the same methods – have you ever wondered why?
“To call his operation a psychology center is a total paradox,” says veterinary behaviorist Nicholas Dodman, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Tufts University’s Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine and author of “Dogs Behaving Badly”. “I think, like a bullfighter, he understands how to approach and work around a dog, but thereafter he stops. He doesn’t understand separation anxiety. I doubt he knows what obsessive-compulsive behavior is. Basically, with a smile, he’s going to war with these dogs. Imagine if there was a new Dr. Phil for children, and he said, ‘If your kid is playing too many video games, get a big paddle and whack him on the head.’ People would be incensed!”
Millan’s methods rely on a theory built around short-term studies of captive wolf packs in the 1940’s – the Alpha/Dominance theory. There were a lot of serious flaws in that theory. First of all, it drew all of its information about behavior from a very small portion of wolf life – then basically took this tiny portion as gospel. A lot of the behaviors and rituals were wildly misinterpreted, and for some reason, the researchers decided that that these rituals and behaviors were totally valid across species (i.e. dog-dog and dog-human). But, as Dr. Ian Dunbar, veterinarian and author, states, “Saying ‘I want to learn how to interact with my dog so I’ll learn from the wolves’ makes about as much sense as saying, ‘I want to improve my parenting — let’s see how the chimps do it!’ ”
Fast-forward – researchers at Yale and UC Berkeley spent 30 years observing dog packs and their hierarchy. This research showed something very different: mainly, ‘alpha’ does NOT have anything to do with physical dominance – it has to do with control of resources, and does not include physical displays of strength. Let’s take the so-called ‘alpha roll’ – which, by the way, is not a forced thing among either dogs or wolves. A lower ranking dog may roll over an show his belly as a sign of submission; but, in a wolf pack, a forced roll is only done to another animal if the intent is to kill it. Guess how that makes our dogs feel when we try an alpha roll? Now, guess how many people have ended up in the emergency room with multiple bites to their faces after attempting one too many alpha rolls…
So what are the alternatives to traditional training methods? According to recent research on the efficacy of various dog training methods, positive reinforcement-based training results in faster learning, and longer retention of learned behaviors (without the need for ‘retraining’ on a regular basis) than either traditional force-based methods OR a combination of traditional and reinforcement-based. Plus, it strengthens the bond you have with your dog. You really can’t argue with statistics like that!
Many people are under the impression that ‘positive’ means ‘permissive’ when it comes to positive reinforcement training – it doesn’t. A good positive-reinforcement trainer uses two portions of the learning quadrant: positive reinforcement – when you reward the dog for doing what you like, in order to increase the chance of the behavior repeating and negative punishment – when you take away a good thing, usually your attention or the chance for a reward, in order to reduce the chance of a behavior happening. A positive reinforcement trainer isn’t just a ‘cookie pusher’ either – while they may use food rewards in order to train a particular behavior, they quickly phase out the food in favor of using ‘life rewards’ – physical things that the dog wants, like going outside, or being allowed to jump up on the sofa. In this way, you are acting as a benevolent leader – someone who controls the resources, which helps keep order and harmony in your ‘pack’. This combination of gentle leadership and reinforcement of wanted behaviors engages you and your dog in a training experience that’s fun for BOTH and helps to cement good behaviors on a daily basis with your dog.
This seems like a rather short-sighted take on Caesar Millan, and doesn’t offer any real information that I can see. First I would imagine Caesar’s disclaimer is due to the fact that we live in a society with a zeal for litigation. Second there are many things on TV that shouldn’t be mimicked by people who aren’t experts, and your ominous allusion comes off as a cheap shot. I’ve noticed similar disclaimers on shows like “Emergency Vets” ; does that mean their is something sinister behind veterinary medicine?
The veterinarians quoted don’t seem like they have any first hand experience with Millan’s methods, and are just going on their presumptions regarding Alpha-dominance theory; which by the way seems a more appropriate basis for canine behavior given the fact that the studies were done on captive animals. Are we trying to pretend that our dogs are not captive?
Also, very little of what Caesar does could be classified as “physical dominance”, and is in fact resource control, which is exactly what your Yale researchers espouse. The positive folks seem to be anti-touch in any manner when anyone who has objectively observed dogs interact can see that touch is a vital part canine communication.
I would agree that it’s very difficult to argue with the statistics offered in paragraph five, particularly seeing as you didn’t give any. You cited generalities with no sources.
I think that Millan ‘gets it’, where a lot of “positive” trainers are more interested in how their interactions with dogs make them, and their paying customers, feel than they are with what their dog’s get from the experience. After all, I’m sure the Yale researchers saw very little unbalance during their study of dogs packs, and yet unbalance rife throughout the companion dog community because people want to smother their dogs with unconditional love.
Overall, I think very few of the negatives you have cited are applicable to Caesar Millan’s actual methods. It seems like more of a sweeping gathering of generalizations aimed at a popular figurehead.
Dogman,
Many vets actually do have first-hand experience with Milan’s methods; some vets were contacted by NG to view and comment on the show before it went on the air, as well as after the litigation concerning the dog psychology center. The only off shoot of this was the disclaimer; these vets, as well as other veterinary behaviorists, applied behaviorists and behavioral trainers around the country are now ‘cleaning up’ after Millan’s methods.
Millan does use physical dominance. Watch his body language, and don’t forget how he physically will hold a dog to the floor until it stops struggling and trying to bite him — what is that if not a physical dominance move?
Folks who use the science of behavior in order to train — ‘positive folks’ as you call them — are not anti-touch. On the contrary, we are very PRO touch, but not in the way that CM uses touch. We do not use touch as a means to suppress behavior or to mold a dog into position. If we used touch as a means to get a behavior, that touch may become part of the cue for the dog — not bad unless the dog is across the street and you really can’t reach him (unless you have Go-Go-Gadjet arms, which I don’t, unfortunately!). And, if one uses touch for supressing a behavior, you run the risk of the dog becoming very wary of your hands — not a good thing at all. So, how do us ‘positive folk’ use touch? We use touch as a reward, which is what it should be.
Resource control — at its best — also includes management of the environment in order to give a dog a chance to be successful rather than unsuccessful, and this type of resource control is used by us ‘positive folks’ all the time. We ARE interested in the what the dog gets from the experience — to us, that’s what it’s all about. We want a happy working relationship, not one were the dog feels it HAS to do something or else suffer the consequences. It’s all about teaching a dog to make the right choice in order to get what it wants, as when the wrong choice is made it gets nothing — that’s true control of resources.
As for the sources in paragraph 5, here you go (you will need a PubMed account or access to a college library in order to read, however):
Hilby, E.F., Rooney, N.J., & Bradshaw, J.W.S. (2004). Dog training methods: Their use, effectiveness
and interaction with behaviour and welfare. Animal Welfare,13, 63-69
Jones, A.C. & Josephs, R.A. (2005). Are we dog’s best friend? Predicting canine cortisol. Current
Issues and Research in Veterinary Behavioral Medicine. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press,
194-197
Reisner, I.R. (2003). Differential diagnosis and management of human-directed aggression in dogs.
The Veterinary Clinic Small Animal Practice, 33, 303-320
As well, The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) recently released a position statement on training, which received some press from AAHA (American Animal Hospital Association–looked to as the “gold
standard” for quality veterinary care):
http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/aahatknt/issues/2008-01-23.html#0
Dogman
Ceasar Milan’s show is darn right scary. As a dog trainer I have clients thinking this must be the way to do it.
NO! We are on the same wave length and do not want our students ruining a bond and relationship and ending up with a fearful and aggressive dog. There shouldn’t have to be disclaimers if the teaching is kind and humane.