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

ORIGINAL: DPU

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.

DPU, what I meant was that trainers seldom choose those types of dogs for themselves.  Liken it to the mechanic who can fix all the old beaters, but wants to drive a new car himself.
I don't see the conflict either.  I was not necessarily describing what I do, just what seems to happen generally.
Trainers are normally hired to help people with dogs they already own.  Seldom do they work with "iffy" dogs in shelters, unless they volunteer, or the shelter has a behavioral rehabilitation program.  And, while trainers often adopt dogs from shelters, they usually pick them based on attributes such as "can this dog do agility?" or "is this my next tracking dog?", rather than "this looks like a fear biter - I think I'll try to rehabilitate him".  Trainers often need stable, well adjusted dogs, since they sometimes need to assess another dog's reaction to a dog with good canine "language" skills.  You can't do that if your dog is exceptionally fearful, or aggressive.
Is that more clear?

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

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.

Actually, it's more than just exercise and energy.  As an example, dogs with high drive often need an acceptable outlet for it.  So, chasing a frisbee helps avoid having a dog that chases kids, because the outlet for herding/predatory drive is being met.  Frustrate that need and you end up with a dog that has no place to go but downhill in a hurry.

Right Anne, I was just making a generalization. It's much more indepth and the ASP has a corresponding Fixed Action Pattern. Like you said, high drive, outlet, less need just after the discharge.
 
I thought it was an interesting point to bring up. I know I was making connections in my mind and hoped that others could see that it's more than just training. Meeting the dogs physiological needs first to discharge the drive (whatever it may be) to ready the dog for the reception of new stimuli.

What I gather from the Lorenzian model, which was initial explained metaphorically with hydraulic mechanics is that the innate drive or action potential builds until it gets released. Exercising releases a lot of the energy built up. Otherwise, the energy will release in ways we'd not prefer. So, the importance of exercise goes beyond physical fitness or even practicing manners. The walk or exercise fulfills the needs of the dog at the innate level. Once drained of the pent up energy, the dog is generally more calm, to begin with and then, too, more apt to be trainable.
 
Even without a post-graduate degree, CM is wise to advocate a long walk as the first order of the day. See to the dog's needs, while working on manners, rank, etc. He may not express it in Lorenzian terms but most of the viewing audience might not understand if he started spouting fixed action potential. It's simpler and more effective to say, "walk your dog."
 

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

Right Anne, I was just making a generalization. It's much more indepth and the ASP has a corresponding Fixed Action Pattern. Like you said, high drive, outlet, less need just after the discharge.

I thought it was an interesting point to bring up. I know I was making connections in my mind and hoped that others could see that it's more than just training. Meeting the dogs physiological needs first to discharge the drive (whatever it may be) to ready the dog for the reception of new stimuli.

Absolutely, and I'm glad you did bring it up.  It's especially important for dogs whose situation prevents them from doing what they were bred to do, but still have a strong innate desire.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
 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.

You just can't help yourself from taking shots any chance you get at Cesar can you? I'd like to see where Cesar is "pounding his chest". Seams to me...that's your role. And I still can't help but wonder...just how much time you actually spend working with dogs each day. It seems to me more of your day is spent here pushing your agenda, and ruff shoting anyone who doesn't agree. The only people I see agreeing with you is...your fan club. I guess the rest just get trired of it and move on after awhile. Why admin didn't make you follow the rules in the Cesar section is beyond me, but hey...it's not my site.

It's especially important for dogs whose situation prevents them from doing what they were bred to do, but still have a strong innate desire.

 
This is why I think it so important to pick a family dog based on your lifestyle vs. size, breed, looks, etc.....Sooooo many people have Labs and Goldens which are both sporting breeds.  Then, they are either home alone all day or not exercised properly due to time constraints, lifestyle, etc....Then the Golden becomes destructive, hyper, and a general PIA to the humans resulting in frustration for all.  (I see this exact scenario with 2 of my friends, and that is what I'm speaking of, I am not making a blanket statement about Golden/Lab owners!)  Then comes the statement "I thought Goldens were supposed to be good family dogs...."  They ARE if they have an outlet for at least some of their drive and energy. 
 
If you can't walk your dog properly, have time for exercise, nor don't articularly want to do that, then I wouldn't recommend one of those breeds.  I just don't think people are 100% honest with themselves about their lifestyles and energy levels. 

If you can't walk your dog properly, have time for exercise, nor don't particularly want to do that, then I wouldn't recommend one of those breeds. I just don't think people are 100% honest with themselves about their lifestyles and energy levels.

 
And sometimes the dog is gotten as a status symbol. A way to "Keep up with the Jones" (sort of) or to teach the kids "responsibility".
 
One thing I think that ALL trainers have in common is that would advise any one asking them about "getting a dog" would point out the reasons NOT to get one (and all the reasons would be the same)

wise, I did not mention CM, nor was I referring to anyone in particular - why are you instigating?  I merely meant that there are a lot of so-called trainers whose big brag is that they work with the toughest, meanest dogs.  Here's a guy who also does that, but is modest and thoughtful while he does it.  My statement was meant as a kudo to Brian, and no more.  As to whether I think that CM does that, no, I don't.  Most members know that I often disagree with how he handles his cases, but I don't perceive him as a braggart.  He is, for the most part, a quiet man who is trying to do good stuff - and with whom I simply disagree quite a bit.  It isn't personal.

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

If you can't walk your dog properly, have time for exercise, nor don't particularly want to do that, then I wouldn't recommend one of those breeds. I just don't think people are 100% honest with themselves about their lifestyles and energy levels.

And sometimes the dog is gotten as a status symbol. A way to "Keep up with the Jones" (sort of) or to teach the kids "responsibility".

One thing I think that ALL trainers have in common is that would advise any one asking them about "getting a dog" would point out the reasons NOT to get one (and all the reasons would be the same)

Good point.  At our facility, the owner tried to offer a "before purchase or adoption consultation".  Big flop.  Apparently, no one wanted the advice. [:'(]

Anne, that doesn't surprise me one bit. Most people don't want to be told that they are making the wrong decision. They have it in their mind what they want and there's no convincing them otherwise. Heck, some probably don't even realize the real motivator, so it's easy for them to deny their intentions/motivations.
 
I deal with alot of people and their dogs on a daily basis. Most have NO training and are completely impossible to groom (I'm sure you know all about this [] ) without elevating my stress level to the MAX. It does take alot of patience to get the grooming done, but yet alot more to deal with the owner trying to convince them that this dog should have been aclimated to grooming while it was young or to get that dog some training. Usually the dogs I see that are the worst are the little TOY breeds (yorkies, malteese, shih tzu, etc), but YORKIES are by far the worst behaved dogs I work with. These people get them for "looks", spoil them rotten, don't get them ANY training, and make them incoragable in the process. Since they usually don't come in on a regular basis, they are usually a matted mess and there's NO brushing out a matted yorkie. Geeze, it's hard enough clipping it!
 
Now, I don't mean any offense to those here that have the above mentioned breeds, it's just been my experience. I honestly feel that most of the members are far more informed pet owners than most of the JQP that I deal with daily.
 
It would be a great thing to see trainers come together, regardless of their differences, as most are after the same things. To achieve a sound and happy compainion with a healthy home life with owners that understand WHY dogs act like dogs! I know that will probably never happen as the differences are TOO broad, but it would be wonderful []

They don't call 'em Yorkshire Terrors for nuthin' LOL.  (Fergie is really a good girl, and not typical.  She wanted me to tell you that! [])
But, I admit that I don't want to brush her, so 4F all over, except the head & tail (she was never docked). 

 

ORIGINAL: kennel_keeper

 or to teach the kids "responsibility".

My mother got my youngest brother a dog in an attempt to teach him responsibility. He was in his teens and still refusing to take responsibility for pretty much anything. For a little bit there, it looked like the dog was going to do it, but then he lost interest and started focusing on his own problems instead and left the dog untrained. My mother was totally prepared for this to happen, though. She cheerfully took over the care of the dog, having thought about the possibility that she'd have to do that when she decided to get the dog.

I think it was a good plan even if it didn't work, and owning pets can teach kids so many valuable lessons. I wasn't allowed my own dog until I'd proven myself with a caged bird, and I also had to show with our current dog how I would allocate my time to provide a puppy with the care it needed. Done right, giving a kid responsibility for a dog can be a wonderful, worthwhile experience.

You had a wise mom, though.  Many of the parents I see just buy the dog figuring the kid will take responsibility - all of it.  That just doesn't happen in most cases.  I tell parents right up front that it's their job to "model" responsible pet care for their kids, and to include the kids as much as possible, but not to get so carried away with the idea of it being the kid's responsibility that the dog ends up in a shelter, and the kid then learns an unwanted lesson - that pets are disposable.  I ask them what lessons they really want to teach the child, and is it worth a little inconvenience on their part to do it by  being the role model.  (All of this, of course, is done with humor, so they don't just quit on the spot LOL)

Conrad was a product of "get a dog for the kids because they'll take care of it". He wound up at the pound a few months later.
 
In general that is such a bad idea.
 
I wish pre-adoption counseling was more common. One of the shelters here has a class that if you attend it, you get $5 off the adoption. I tried to start a similar program at the shetler I volunteer at, but that shelter is so dysfunctional that the director has been heard actually uttering the words, "I hate volunteers." and so that never got off the ground. Still working on it though, bypassing administration and going straight to the hapless staff member charged with instituting Open Paw (yeah, good luck with that with an administration totally unsupportive of volunteer help!).