Things in common - B. Kilcommons vs. C. Milan

I have noticed with Clothier and McConnell that there are far more similarities that differences with CM. There is a lot of talk of reading body language and leadership with all three.

I think the main difference is their handling of aggression. While Clothier and MConnell teach more about avoidance of agressive behavior, Cesar tends to confront it head on. To me, Clothier and McConnell's techniques would be more appropriate for people with fear agressive dogs or who are not comfortable in handling dominance aggression. Cesar's techniques with dominance aggressive dogs seem to work well with dogs who use aggression because that behavior has worked for them in the past. Cesar is able to keep calm and assertive and physically stop the aggression the way another dog would.

Kilcommons tells you exactly what you are supposed to do and then shows you with pictures (sadly black and white). He also offers several different methods of training one command. He is a dog trainer and uses both positive and negative methods.  Like Milian, he also takes a no nonsense approach for establishing control of your dog.

I

Have any of you met Brian, or watched him up close and personal?  I can honestly say, even though we use different methods, I am very impressed by his leash handling ability and by his ability to remain calm and humane.  When you say he takes no nonsense, I would hate to have anyone think that means he is similar to some of the rough trainers out there.  He is a gentleman, and is a kind, if traditional, trainer.  His methods approach Barbara Woodhouse, his mentor, far more than they approach Cesar's, and he would tell you that himself most likely.  Barbara used voice very effectively with dogs, and so does Brian.  He doesn't shrink from working with aggressive dogs, yet you don't see him basically "pounding his chest" about how good he is at it.  Believe me, if he had a TV show, I'd be glued to the screen.  If you ever get an opportunity to go see him, do. 
BTW, to clear up any misconceptions, Suzanne Clothier has worked with some very dominant aggressive dogs.  She's not a pansy either. []

I would just like to add that no one should ever feel "comfortable" about handling severely aggressive dogs.  One should perhaps feel cautious, sad, prepared, but not comfortable.  Comfort gets you in lots of trouble with unpredictable dogs, some of whom display only the turn of a whisker before they go for your face.  There should be no room for machismo in the handling of a dangerous dog.  Confidence, perhaps, but never descending to cockiness.  That will get you bitten in a New York heartbeat. 
Many positive trainers also work with severely aggressive dogs.  You don't have to be of a particular training philosophy to be confronted with this problem.  I simply think that too many positive trainers are ridiculed because they may also be open to options such as medication, alternative therapies, and newer management techniques.  But, to say they are any less courageous or committed to helping dogs may be inaccurate.  Every trainer, no matter their methodology, should stick to training dogs within their experience and capability, and pass others on as referrals.  What they should never do is accept a client beyond their capabilities, and leave the dog and owner in worse shape after the consultation because of their inadequacy to handle the problem.  Also, the nature of your business has a lot to do with whether you accept such dogs.  A business that has hundreds of dogs coming in for pet training might be ill equipped in terms of space or capacity to set aside time for the training of one or two, or even ten severely aggressive dogs.  So, despite that trainer's ability, he or she may still refer the dog to a more appropriate facility for another reason.  If you have forty soccer moms with their Labs and Goldens coming in the door every night, they don't want to have to pass Cujo on the way in.  That's not an ability decision, it's a business decision.

by Spiritdogs this thread
Many positive trainers also work with severely aggressive dogs. You don't have to be of a particular training philosophy to be confronted with this problem. I simply think that too many positive trainers are ridiculed because they may also be open to options such as medication, alternative therapies, and newer management techniques. But, to say they are any less courageous or committed to helping dogs may be inaccurate. Every trainer, no matter their methodology, should stick to training dogs within their experience and capability, and pass others on as referrals. What they should never do is accept a client beyond their capabilities, and leave the dog and owner in worse shape after the consultation because of their inadequacy to handle the problem. Also, the nature of your business has a lot to do with whether you accept such dogs. A business that has hundreds of dogs coming in for pet training might be ill equipped in terms of space or capacity to set aside time for the training of one or two, or even ten severely aggressive dogs. So, despite that trainer's ability, he or she may still refer the dog to a more appropriate facility for another reason. If you have forty soccer moms with their Labs and Goldens coming in the door every night, they don't want to have to pass Cujo on the way in. That's not an ability decision, it's a business decision.

by Spiritdogs:  reference Ottowa Humane Society thread
I guess I just wonder who you think is willing to take all the supposedly rehabbed dogs?  Let me tell you that most people in the general public want a friendly dog, good with kids, can take to the dog park, and will lie quietly at their feet after dinner.  What some of them get from the wanna save them all shelters and rescues are the ones that shred their doorjambs from separation anxiety or growl when they touch their food bowls, or can't go to the corner of their street without barking and lunging, never mind to the dog park.  Trainers know better and don't want these dogs, and the general public can't manage them for the most part - how fair is it to JQP to saddle him with a dog that is dangerous, destructive, or a huge unexpected expense?  There are lots of "heroes" out there who haven't a clue what it really means to have a food aggressive dog until they have one.  So, sorry, unless the shelter is going to spend the time and money to completely rehab the dog *prior* to adoption, then it made the right decision.
From a legal standpoint, there's no question they had to do what they did or face a lawsuit later if the dog bit.

How do you reconcile the two quotes?  Is one your own personal business and ethical and moral philosphy versus the general situation?
The Denver Dumb Friends League told me they recently created a pilot program for the rehabbing of aggressive and problem behavior dogs.  They said it failed.   They are not giving up.  They told me they have another pilot program in the works.

I don't see a conflict.

As someone who has owned a dangerously aggressive dog, I completely understand why any business--profit or nonprofit--would want to limit their liability. Truly aggressive dogs are extremely dangerous and difficult to control, and it is the responsibility of each business (shelter or trainer) to make a rational decision about their own liability and the way they practice and move forward.

(Having worked with a vet, a behaviorist and a trainer who all specialize in aggressive dogs, I have one word: housecall. Not everyone can do it, it's really expensive to go from place to place as the businessperson instead of having customers come to you.)

What is your point, DPU? Are you seriously suggesting that because Anne made a suggestion that the only way an aggressive dog should ever be rehomed from a shelter is if that dog was completely "fixed" beforehand, that she therefore must require all trainers to handle aggressive dogs?

Even if she had that power, is that a good idea?

Have you ever taken responsibility for a dog that could literally kill a child in the blink of an eyelash?

Sometimes the audience just wants to ask a question for clarity, with no other alternative intentions.  I am a buyer of Trainer Services, I am a buyer of the behavior and training books.  Professional opinions are given here and books are recommended.  I make choices based on the information presented to me.  I saw a conflict between the statements of “Many positive trainers also work with severely aggressive dogs” and “Trainers know better and don't want these dogs”.  I recognize that behavioral problems come in different degrees and I am trying to understand the cutoff line and how that cutoff line is determined.

Every trainer, no matter their methodology, should stick to training dogs within their experience and capability

That's what I meant when I said
"To me, Clothier and McConnell's techniques would be more appropriate for people with fear agressive dogs or who are not comfortable in handling dominance aggression."
I know that I personally don't have the experience or knowledge to to be comfortable using Cesars methods with dominance aggressive dogs. If I had that type of dog I would try Clothier or McConnells techniques if I couldn't find or afford a trainer. But that, to me, does not make Cesar's techniques wrong. It makes them for experienced trainers.

The VAST majority of Cesar's techniques are body language based and can be used by anyone. He does not physically correct every dog for every little thing. He has told many owners that they are OVER correcting and has explained to them why other corrections like yelling don't work.

I am very impressed by his {Kilcommons} leash handling ability and by his ability to remain calm and humane.

Cesar's mantra is Calm and assertive. I don't deal with aggression with my dogs, but dumping the impatience and stress and having clear expectations of what I want when dealing with any naughtiness from my dogs (and kids!) has made the biggest difference in how all of them respond to me. I believe the calm and assertive attitude is FAR more important than any of his other techniques.

Sometimes the audience just wants to ask a question for clarity, with no other alternative intentions.  I am a buyer of Trainer Services, I am a buyer of the behavior and training books.  Professional opinions are given here and books are recommended.  I make choices based on the information presented to me.  I saw a conflict between the statements of “Many positive trainers also work with severely aggressive dogs” and “Trainers know better and don't want these dogs”.  I recognize that behavioral problems come in different degrees and I am trying to understand the cutoff line and how that cutoff line is determined.

I see what you're saying. I think it has a lot to do with logistics, though, and not ethics, which is what you are suggesting in both of your posts. My experience with this is limited--I am speaking as one person who used the services of people who specialize in aggression. It was expensive, and that makes sense. They had to come to me, and probably needed different insurance as well as more and specialized training.

More than seeing this as a cutoff line, I would maybe look at it as a specialized service that some people want to invest in offering, while others don't or can't.

I've noticed Brian also stress, like Cesar the importance of the proper amount of exercise for a dog with issues. In every case I read in his book it was "up the exercise' "a tired dog is a good dog". This simple thing gets overlooked by TONS of people. As evidenced by the amount of fat dogs out there!

Fisher6000:  Thank you for your response and the politeness in your tone.  I am an accountant so maybe “cut-off” has a different meaning to most.  I too have experience with the extreme dangerous aggressive dog and I know the responsible that goes with it and what is in the best interest of the dog and public.  I am not clear where the gray area starts and ends and if there are different training methods or authors that deals with different degrees of behavior, I want to be informed.  That is what this thread is suggesting to me.
 
It was not my intention to bring into my question the liability or insurance question.  I did not realize I did that until I saw your post.  That was a mistake on my part. 

I believe the calm and assertive attitude is FAR more important than any of his other techniques.

 
Hence, it's not the leash, it is the attitude.
 

That makes sense, DPU.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

I've noticed Brian also stress, like Cesar the importance of the proper amount of exercise for a dog with issues. In every case I read in his book it was "up the exercise' "a tired dog is a good dog". This simple thing gets overlooked by TONS of people. As evidenced by the amount of fat dogs out there!

 
I've been doing some studying (Lorenz) and according to him, all animals have what he called, Specific Action Potential (or action specific potential) and if an animal is denied a behavior long enough, the SAP (ASP) is greater. In other words, if a dog is denied exercise for a period of time, it's more likely to "act out", but, give them a chance to release their SAP (via exercise) and the desire goes down.
Now, I'm not as eloquent at explaining this as Lorenz, but I can see where this could have an impact on dogs that misbehave or have aggression issues. So perhaps, there is more to this exercise thing than just making a dog tired, it could possibly be to release the built up SAP.