Newbie

Hello there

One of the fundamental mistakes that CM makes with his 'explanations' is his referencing back to wolfpack behavior, something that seems to be eagerly picked up by some of his viewers. Let me try to add a few very brief comments to that.

Dogs are no wolves, just as little as bonobos are chimps. In the several thousand years since the lines have split, a plentitude of physical and behavioral changes between those two subspecies (mind you, the majority of zoologists considers them different species, I myself however do not) have accumulated, due to intense selection pressures by humans on the one hand, and the absence of a set of different, natural, selection pressures on the other. So, for instance, is the male dog the only known canid that does not help in any way in raising its pups, be it in a family environment, in feral or entirely wild living packs.

Dogs also do not have exclusive breeding rights, which constitutes the overwriting selective pressure-point leading to social stratification in wolves. As the circumstances have changed, dogs as a group do not have remotely as much of a need to socially stratify as do wolves. That does not mean that there are no status seeking dogs. It means that most dogs do not seek status, and their maladaptive behavior (what others might call 'acting out' one way or the other), as good we can tell, usually has its etiology in something else but dominance behaviors.

One last example I would like to point out is CMs contention, something you hear from a number of old-school dog trainers and behaviorists, that the alpha (ie the human handler) ought to eat first. Actual research (there are, to my knowledge, two studies on this topic) shows that this is precisely the false thing to do. Dogs that are regularly made to wait for their food until their human owners have eaten are, on average, more aggressive and are involved in more damaging attacks than dogs that are fed before the humans sit down to eat (just like dogs behind a fence will become more aggressive than dogs with some liberties). This, in conjunction with a mountain of other evidence, shows two things: 1. behavior around food bowls most of the time has nothing to do with alpha (very few wolves are nuts enough, outside the mating season, to attack the alpha, even over food, unless theyre close to starving; that youngsters sometimes try to steal a bit has probably more to do with their special status: youngsters also ignore pack borders for instance), and 2. frustration can be quite a distructive emotion.

The important thing to remember is this: status seeking is nowadays often not accepted as a valid explanation for problem behaviors, and the human emulation thereoff as a curative countermeasure even less so. Modern training focuses on teamwork. Your dog is a partner, not something to be subjugated. Around the food bowl, for instance, all the dog needs is trust in you. Good leaders rarely have to use force of any kind.

Have a great day

ORIGINAL: polymatheia
One last example I would like to point out is CMs contention, something you hear from a number of old-school dog trainers and behaviorists, that the alpha (ie the human handler) ought to eat first. Actual research (there are, to my knowledge, two studies on this topic) shows that this is precisely the false thing to do. Dogs that are regularly made to wait for their food until their human owners have eaten are, on average, more aggressive and are involved in more damaging attacks than dogs that are fed before the humans sit down to eat (just like dogs behind a fence will become more aggressive than dogs with some liberties).

 
I was wondering whether you have the references for these studies? I'd be interested in seeing how they approached this. The first thought that came to mind was that perhaps these findings are just due to the fact that owners with aggressive dogs are more likely to try this (in order to establish "leadership") than those without.

The first thought that came to mind was that perhaps these findings are just due to the fact that owners with aggressive dogs are more likely to try this (in order to establish "leadership") than those without

 
You raise good points. Chuff and Polymathia have some good points. And even though this section of the forum was meant to be for those who are supportive of CM, rather than those who wish to disprove him, which is what the rest of behavior and training in this forum can do, the pro-CM people have been rather mature in handling this discussion, IMO.
 
And so, for Polymathia and Chuffy, I would respond that while I support CM, I don't use most, if any, of his techniques. In fact, I break a number of his cardinal rules. Shadow eats before we do, usually. And, on a mushing team, it is standard behavior that a musher sees to it that the team eats before he does. Not that we mush, but there is a precedent, if I cared to defend myself, which I don't.
 
I find myself siding with some zoologists and see dogs and wolves as different species. I even think that dogs and wolves evolved from a common ancestor though the modern interpretation of the canid genome says that dogs evolved from gray wolves. But even as different species, they have similarities and differences. Example, neoteny is more present in dogs than wolves. It has been proven scientifically, in a peer-reviewed article that we discussed here a few months ago that in a string-pull solving problem, other primates did best, wolves could do okay, but dogs almost always look to a human for cues. It is better than most any species at understanding physical cues from a human, save another primate.
 
As for wolf fights happening sometimes, not every day, does not lessen the importance of the behavior and what it means for canids. I find the results of string-pull test do prove tentatively that a dog can look to a human as leader, and do so more readily than most other species. And any training method, be it CM or Clothier, pays respect to how a dog sees things and reacts to its environment, requiring a human to use dog-timing and dog-specific postures, such as not staring a strange dog in the eyes, stand with side to the dog, turn and ignore.
 
Where we differ is how much or little one method may explain the process or be appropos.
 
One of the most important things CM has ever said is, "It's not the equipment, it's the attitude." I use a walking harness, Shadow is my non-human companion, but I expect obedience and, while I don't punish, I don't reward until I get obedience.
 
I have used a scruff before. Shadow responds to it. But it is a matter of timing and application and I do agree that not everyone should try it. Any physical correction can be misapplied.
 
And not every dog requires a lot of physical correction. Dogs from the middle of a litter, tempermentally, often are the easiest to train. And some breeds are less independent than others.

We have to remember that what started this thread was Chuffy watching CM "claiming" a bowl of food from a dog that was extremly possesive to the point of chasing his own tail, yes, it was a dangerous excersice, especially if someone with no experience tries to do it, did it help? yes it did, the dog was not possesive over his food anymore (regardless if alphas do that or not), should people do it themselves, definitly not, the show was showing a professional doing it, just like the surgeries shows where you see a doctor doing one, they are just showing what they do, does not mean regular people should

Even when i think dogs have some "wolves attitudes" i think that CM does not talk a lot about wolves anyways, the mistake we have is that when somebody says the word "alpha" or "pack" we think almost always about wolves

Cesar has being studying and watching dog behavior over 25 years, i think that when he says "alpha behavior" he is talking about dogs and not wolves, and is not that he just watched them on TV, he was just sitting down and watching dogs behavior for hours and hours from his own pack and street dogs so maybe he has seen behaviors that we havent, if he says an alpha can "claim" what he wants at any moment then i'm sure he saw that behavior before and is not expeculating, but like they always say during the show: you should not do that without a professional and there is other techniques that you may rather do and make you feel more comfortable with

Wonderful - clarification at last!  I should just like to stress that I didn't post here to "disprove" any of CMs theories, but to find out more about his philosophy.  He appeared to refer back to the wolf pack a lot, yet a lot of his methods appeared  (to me) to be contradictory to the rules and expectations normally assigned within a pack, thus the confusion.  Now after much debate over what happens in a wolf pack and whether it is applicable in a training situation, I discover that CM's not talking about wolves at all - which explains a lot.
 
I also wondered if, despite the dangerous and the unnecessary nature of his techniques whether any of the general public would be tempted to copy this guy - that's been answered too.
 
I think that looking at wild canids can give us some vital clues in understanding our pet's behaviour and at times we can mimick the language well enough to build a rapport of trust and a basis of communication with the animal.  Sure they are different species - but they are still close genetically and often behaviourally too.  For instance, dogs have been domesticated much more recently than we stopped living in caves and saying Ug, yet we retain a great many of the instincts from those days, from feeding habits to courtship rituals. Dogs too, although they have lost a third of the brain size and undergone many physical and psychological changes, have retained a number of their key instincts and replicate many behaviour patterns seen in the wild.  There are ways we can use this to communicate with him - it might be like going to a foreign country and not knowing many words other than "Hello" "2 pints of beer please" "Thank you" and "Where is the toilet" - but its a way of connecting with him, building a rapport, gaining his trust and convincing him you're worth respecting and following.

A few here have mentioned that they see countless people, even in their training courses / dog centers using CM techniques and "tsst" (although I imagine such are misusing or using timing. Tsst is not magical, it is a marker and you could just as well use a smooching sound or a farting sound, for all that matters) and that they are either misusing it or it is resented that someone is using a CM technique in their doggy get-together that they feel contradicts their line of training.
 
CM is not the messiah but he is an easily visible access to some kind of dog training. He has some advantages that many trainers do not have. Having lived around dogs his entire life and studying them, he has developed an uncanny ability to read a dog and respond to it. That is, he acts like a dog.
 
But he has no certification, no college degree. And many are put off by his physical approach, even though there are plenty times he accomplishes the objective without touching the dog, such as "owning" the food bowl. The difference that I can see between his owning the food bowl and NILIF is that he doesn't pick the bowl up. So, it's okay for an NILIF practice to pick up the bowl, which is owning it, but it's not okay for CM to stand over the bowl and own, even though either method results in the dog becoming obedient and submissive before getting food. Alpha controls the resources, whether it's a fight or a primate with opposable thumbs physically holding the food.
 

ORIGINAL: ron2

A few here have mentioned that they see countless people, even in their training courses / dog centers using CM techniques and "tsst" (although I imagine such are misusing or using timing. Tsst is not magical, it is a marker and you could just as well use a smooching sound or a farting sound, for all that matters) and that they are either misusing it or it is resented that someone is using a CM technique in their doggy get-together that they feel contradicts their line of training.

CM is not the messiah but he is an easily visible access to some kind of dog training. He has some advantages that many trainers do not have. Having lived around dogs his entire life and studying them, he has developed an uncanny ability to read a dog and respond to it. That is, he acts like a dog.

But he has no certification, no college degree. And many are put off by his physical approach, even though there are plenty times he accomplishes the objective without touching the dog, such as "owning" the food bowl. The difference that I can see between his owning the food bowl and NILIF is that he doesn't pick the bowl up. So, it's okay for an NILIF practice to pick up the bowl, which is owning it, but it's not okay for CM to stand over the bowl and own, even though either method results in the dog becoming obedient and submissive before getting food. Alpha controls the resources, whether it's a fight or a primate with opposable thumbs physically holding the food.

 
Agree 100% []

The biggest John Q Public misuse of Cesar that I witness on a daily basis isn't really any particular technique or method, it's an attitude. It's the "If my dog is doing something wrong he's trying to be dominant over me and I must make him submit!" attitude. It makes people wonder strange things like, "Am I allowed to lay on the floor near my dog since being on your back is a sign of submission in dogs?" It makes people ask if their 10 week old puppy is being too dominant when he nips, and maybe they should alpha roll it. That is really by far my biggest issue with the public interpretation of what he does. Because almost every issue he treats in the dogs he sees he diagnoses as "dominance" everyone with a nipping puppy or unhousetrained yorkie also begins to scream "DOMINANCE!!!" every time their dog messes up.

Dogs make mistakes and dogs have a learning curve and we communicate what we want just awfully with them 95% of the time anyway. I just hate to see these sweet, confused dogs who are trying to communicate something get labeled "bad and dominant" all the time.

I do see people TSSTing weirdly (my parents, who don't have dogs, seem to have gotten the impression from the show that Cesar has researched this and that sound dogs inherently dislike, which is hogwash, and he never claims that, but that's the impression they've taken away and my dad is a college professor and PhD so they ain't dumb). And alpha-rolling totally inappropriately (if there is such a thing as doing it appropriately). And leash popping waaaay too much (again, assuming there's even an acceptable level of doing that). And disciplining other people's dogs The Cesar Way, which irritates the crap out of me (and is an awesome way to get bit by a strange dog). But that I think is not nearly as prevalent as the All Dogs Want to Rule The World And We Have to Constantly Put Them In Their Place attitude that most people seem to take from this show, whether that's intended or not.

the All Dogs Want to Rule The World And We Have to Constantly Put Them In Their Place attitude that most people seem to take from this show, whether that's intended or not.

Excellent point. I do agree that some people can come away with the wrong impression and I don't think there's a way to legislate away people's ability to misunderstand, regardless of their creds. A person can be smart in one way and ignorant in another. I doubt anyone can beat me on electrical theory but I don't know anything about brain surgery. You can have a PhD in Art History and not understand a dog. And, when some people watch CM's show, they're being entertained rather than really thinking about what he's doing. I can watch a stunt show where a guy jumps a motorcycle over helicopters, followed by an ad from a motorcycle company. That doesn't mean I'm going to buy a motorcycle and jump it over something.

But there are some people that probably would do just that. As comedian Ron White said, "You can't fix stupid." In the case of dog training, it really pays to research and seek a trainer in your area or a friend with well trained dogs to get ideas of what, or what not to do.

I agree, CM treats also fixations and fears, not all of them are dominance issues, sometimes maybe the dog only needed a body blocking excersice but people go all the way to the extreme to pin down the dog
 
I read the other day in this forum a lady that said he saw a guy in a park pinning down his dog and spreading her legs apart ONLY so other dog could get closer and sniff her, the guy said "this is what CM does and everybody should watch his show" which is totally wrong, first CM does NOT do that at the moment of 2 dogs meeting for the first time, and second, that is a clear example of people misrepresenting what they see on TV, "You can't fix stupid" is well said

I HATE THE "D-WORD"!!!!! It's been used and abused so often it really drives me mad.  It;s a rubbish word.
 
There are some dogs who are naturally dominant animals, but this does not mean they have a problem.  In fact, IME, the vast majority of dogs with a problem are NOT dominant, they are the furthest thing from it.  In nearly all cases they are reacting negatively because their owner is sending them confusing signals.  I really did think CM flashed the D-Word around a lot in his show and for some of it the D-word was inappropriate, but that's just my opinion.
 
Dogs do not want to own the world or take over your house- but they are sometimes given a "higher status" than they can cope with by their owners.  Or to put it another way, they are given too much freedom and not enough boundaries, they are treated as a furry human and not as a dog and the owner may be giving affection at key inappropraite times which is upsetting the dogs emotional state.  It doesnt mean the dog is "trying" to take over the house.  The dog isn't being dominant - it would be more accurate (though not much) to say his owners are being "submissive".  They are inadvertantly sending out the wrong signals to the dog and the problem can usually be rectified by adjusting their attitude and the way in which they communicate with the dog and dispense affection and WITHOUT scruffing, rolling, pinning, smacking, shouting at or staring out the dog or coming into direct conflict over resources.  There, rant over.
 
What is TSST???  I've definately missed something there.

Chuffy, it's apparent that while you are a newbie with regard to CM, you certainly are not a newbie when it comes to understanding dog behavior.  You have an excellent grasp of that, but I suspect that you will not get much agreement in this section of the forum, since it was created for those who have an interest in, and pretty much like, CM.
While he is charismatic, and good at marketing himself (probably thanks to Oprah Winfrey), I am not impressed by him, and apparently, neither are many other trainers and behaviorists who practice progressive and dog-friendly training and behavior modification techniques.  His "taking" of the food bowl is just one example of how his tactics could get an owner bitten, when it would be just as simple to give the person protocols on how to reduce food aggression systematically and safely.  Jean Donaldson's method works, but it certainly wouldn't make very good TV.  When you watch the tube, you are being given the info at an eight grade level, and in 3 second sound bytes so you won't get bored. [:'(]

I HATE THE "D-WORD

 
And yet you seemed so dominant when you screamed that.[]
 
Tssst is CM's sound for marking a correction.

In reply to ron2, I only have a problem with the D-word in relation to dog behaviour because it's flashed around so much and used to explain away every darned little thing - like the doctor telling you "it's probably a virus".  It's a cop out explanation and places the blame for the behaviour on the dog and his personality, rather than his handler's ignorance and mistakes.  However, I don't have a problem with being dominant myself []
 
Well I thought if I could understand the guys philosophy a bit better I'd be a fan of him to be honest, because of the term "whisperer".  I have such regard for the all-famed "horse whisperer" Monty Roberts.  So I thought I'd fit in here like a dream.  

I agree that not every dog tries to be dominant, how ever is in their genes that they need someone to be the "pack leader", if they feel the owners are not people to look up to (for many reasons like people not confident enough, nervous people, etc.) then somebody else needs to be the leader "for the good future" of the pack, some dogs dont step up to the plate so they feel the pack is not balanced and they are confuse, some other will but they were not meant to be leaders but they feel that if no body is stepping up they they are the only ones that can (even when they dont really want to) so they do a poor job setting "rules" for the "pack"; and there is others that are dominant in nature so with the minimal error from the owner they think they can do a better job
 
The owners ignorance sometimes makes the dog think that they are lousy "pack leaders" which can make the dog think if the situation stays like that the pack wont "survive"

Is just like getting in a new office with no supervisors or managers, sooner or later you (or someone else) will feel that someone need to step up to the plate to avoid the company to go broke, or if you have a supervisor that is really bad at it and you think you can do a better job to have a better business