Victoria Stilwell or Cesar Millan: Who would you call?
Thought I'd post this for those who haven't seen it on FB yet.
Cesar is winning
http://www.helium.com/debates/192868-victoria-stilwell-or-cesar-millan-who-would-you-call/side_by_side ~
Cesar is winning
http://www.helium.com/debates/192868-victoria-stilwell-or-cesar-millan-who-would-you-call/side_by_side ~
Comments
Stilwell
59% 774 votes
Millan
41% 547 votes
Total: 1321 votes
Stillwell: 61%
Milan: 39%
Jesse
I'm happy to see Stilwell is ahead now.
----
---
Last night she was losing by 100. ~
I refuse to let Millan win! ~
To my knowledge he is not an officially recognized or certified behaviorist by ABS, unless something has changed and he has gone to undergrad or graduate school while doing the show.
Snf
He's a "dog psychic." He'll read your dog's mind.
You're right. I'd be more inclined to call the psychics then Cesar. ~
http://www.cafepress.com/OldSchoolDog.442407016#
It's all I can do not to scream when someone suggests I need Cesar Millan when I'm discussing behavior issues with my dogs.
Based on what happened to Jonbee the Jindo mix, I would say Cesar's results are actually very poor. Jonbee, if you might recall, appeared in one of the early episodes of season 2 and was probably the first of the sensationalist episodes whereby the producers filmed Cesar go head to head against "red zone" dogs. Putting aside criticisms of Cesar's methodology, I'll point out that his "good result" did not last to a happily ever after ending for the dog. After the television owners said on tape that they would keep him, they still ended up with problems and gave the dog up to Second Chance at Love Rescue. Last I checked the website, the dog is still looking for a home despite his celebrity status and his "rehabilitation."
Cesar doesn't use the choke chain as a marker but as a restraint.
Kevin we have been reading and using information from Board Certified Veterinary Behaviorists for years. They are veterinarians, scientists, who do documented studies on animal behavior. Before making a comment like that, just take some time and read information that is available to you and really take it in and analyze it before rejecting it and using methods that seem like the easier and quicker fix. And btw, they appear this way because they are EDITED to look this way on TV. There's also nothing wrong with giving your dog "too much affection" (unless it's trying to hug and kiss and smother a sleeping Kai), that's what they are there for, to be your companion, your hunting buddy, your hiking buddy. They are your friend, and they want you to treat them the way they treat you.
http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=77&Itemid=353
http://www.dacvb.org/
Check out these links, really read them, read some books they recommend, then tell me Ceaser's "quick fixes" still make sense to you.
I have seen Mr. Millan's methods ruin dogs. We have a trainer here where I live who calls himself RI's Dog Whisperer. He follows Cesars methods to the letter. He has donated his services to a number of shelters here. I have watched him drag terrified dogs from their kennels, and alpha roll dogs. For the record, EVERY SINGLE DOG he has "helped" was put down with the shelters stating that they were far worse now than before this man came to them.
>> If this is true (and perhaps others feel this way too) I hope it is me that you are laughing at as I have a pretty thick skin. We are all just trying to do the best we can for our dogs and our situation, no need to laugh at any of us.
----
A study from Penn Vet that shows that aversive techniques lead to bad behavior. (The full version, likely requires library/university access is at Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 117, Issues 1-2, February 2009, Pages 47-54). Some of the criticism leveled at Stillwell and others seems to boil down to labeling them as hippy pseudo-psychologists, so I'd point out that this comes from highly respected vets / researchers at one of the better Veterinary Schools in the country. (Granted, I'm a Penn alum, so likely biased).
Abstract:
Prior to seeking the counsel of a veterinary behaviorist many dog owners have attempted behavior modification techniques suggested by a variety of sources. Recommendations often include aversive training techniques which may provoke fearful or defensively aggressive behavior. The purpose of this study was to assess the behavioral effects and safety risks of techniques used historically by owners of dogs with behavior problems.
A 30-item survey of previous interventions was included in a behavioral questionnaire distributed to all dog owners making appointments at a referral behavior service over a 1-year period. For each intervention applied, owners were asked to indicate whether there was a positive, negative, or lack of effect on the dog's behavior, and whether aggressive behavior was seen in association with the method used. Owners were also asked to indicate the source of each recommendation. One-hundred-and-forty surveys were completed. The most frequently listed recommendation sources were “self” and “trainers”. Several confrontational methods such as “hit or kick dog for undesirable behavior” (43%), “growl at dog” (41%), “physically force the release of an item from a dog's mouth” (39%), “alpha roll” (31%), “stare at or stare [dog] down” (30%), “dominance down” (29%), and “grab dog by jowls and shake” (26%) elicited an aggressive response from at least a quarter of the dogs on which they were attempted. Dogs presenting for aggression to familiar people were more likely to respond aggressively to the confrontational techniques “alpha roll” and yelling “no” compared to dogs with other presenting complaints (P < 0.001). In conclusion, confrontational methods applied by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive responses in many cases. It is thus important for primary care veterinarians to advise owners about risks associated with such training methods and provide guidance and resources for safe management of behavior problems.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, confrontational or aversive behavioral interventions applied by dog owners before their pets were presented for a behavior consultation were associated with aggressive responses in many cases. Owners of dogs aggressive to family members are especially at risk for injury—and their pets at risk of relinquishment or euthanasia—when certain aversive methods are used. Ultimately, reward-based training is less stressful or painful for the dog, and, hence, safer for the owner. It is important for primary care veterinarians to advise owners about risks associated with aversive training methods, despite their prevalence in the popular media, and to provide resources for safe and effective management of behavior problems.
1. Introduction
Dog owners presenting their pets to veterinarians for behavior problems have often attempted a variety of training methods prior to their visit. Because many owners do not initially seek advice from veterinarians with regard to their pets’ behavior problems (Lord et al., 2008 L.K. Lord, L. Reider, M.E. Herron and K. Graszak, Assessment of health and behavior for animals one week and one month post adoption from three shelters in the metropolitan Detroit area, J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 233 (11) (2008), pp. 1715–1722. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)Lord et al., 2008), they are likely to have relied on “lay” resources for information and advice on behavior modification techniques. Many interventions involve confrontational, ‘positive punishment’ i.e., punishment using an aversive stimulus, such as pain, to decrease unwanted behavior, which can be threatening and fear-provoking in animals, sometimes leading to defensively aggressive behavior and putting owners who use them at risk of injury ([Mertens, 2002] and [Mills, 2002]). Owner safety is, thus, an important consideration in the management of canine behavior problems.
Previous studies have evaluated dogs’ responses to different obedience training methods. In one report, dogs that were trained using rewards (‘positive reinforcement’) for desirable behavior had a significantly better response to obedience tasks compared to dogs trained primarily with punishment (Hiby et al., 2004). Another found that dogs that were trained using only positive reinforcement were less likely to develop future behavior problems, while others that had been trained using punishment were more likely to develop fear-related responses (Blackwell et al., 2007). While these studies have compared the effectiveness of and stress response resulting from different training techniques, no study has evaluated owner safety in using such methods or reported the recommending source.
The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency of use, the recommending source, and the owner-reported effect on canine behavior of interventions that owners of dogs with undesired behaviors had used on their dogs. This study also aimed to report aggressive responses from the dogs subsequent to the use of aversive and non-aversive interventions.
4. Discussion
Owners attempted a variety of behavioral interventions, many of which elicited an aggressive response, with their dogs prior to their appointment with a referral Behavior Service. As we expected, the highest frequency of aggression occurred in response to aversive interventions, whether direct or indirect. In contrast, reward-based training elicited aggression in very few dogs, regardless of presenting complaint.
Although dogs who are historically aggressive to familiar people might respond aggressively to any intervention, whether or not aversive, owners of such dogs in our study were at greater risk of injury when attempting the “alpha roll” and “yelling no”. The aggressive response to the “alpha roll” was not surprising as dogs will roll onto their backs as a means of threat avoidance or social appeasement, and may progress to defensive aggression if the threat persists, as it would when an owner continues to manipulate the dog (Shepherd, 2002). Such interactions present a substantial risk for owners who seek advice regarding the management of aggressive behavior; punishment may increase fear and arousal, particularly in an already-defensive dog, and perhaps teach the dog to bite without warning (Landsberg et al., 2003). Studies have shown that most dog bites to humans are inflicted by familiar dogs as opposed to stray dogs, making it even more crucial for owners to properly handle their own pets ([Berzon and DeHoff, 1974] and [Moss and Wright, 1987]).
The use of such confrontational and punitive training methods has been presented and popularized in books, on the internet, and on television ([Ross and McKinney, 1996], [Monks of New Skete, 2002], Millan et al., 2004 Millan, C., Emery, S.P., Sumner, K.B., 2004. MPH Entertainment (Firm), Screen Media Films (Firm). Dog Whisperer with Cesar Milan: The Complete First Season.[Millan et al., 2004], [Millan and Peltier, 2007] and [Millan, 2008]). Their common use may have grown from the premise that canine misbehavior or aggression is rooted in social dominance (to the owner), or, conversely, to a lack of assertiveness or dominance by the owner. Advocates of such theories suggest that owners need to establish themselves as the “alpha” or “pack leader”, using physical manipulations and intimidation in order to do so, thereby forcing the dog into a subordinate attitude.
While the use of confrontational training methods to subdue hypothetical dominance is commonplace, the current scientific literature suggests, instead, that canine aggression and other behavior problems are not a result of dominant behavior or lack of the owner's “alpha” status, but rather a result of fear (self-defense) or underlying anxiety problems, important for an understanding of the motivation and treatment of aggression ([Guy et al., 2001a], [Guy et al., 2001b], [Mertens, 2002] and [Luescher and Reisner, 2008]). Techniques such as forcing a dog down by the collar or by pushing on its neck and back—as, for example, in the “dominance down”—are associated with increased physiological stress (Beerda et al., 1998). Frightened animals are often self-defensively aggressive; it would not be unexpected, then, that dogs respond aggressively to such provocative handling.
The use of electric collars is controversial ([Polsky, 1994] and [Cheetam, 2003]). Shock collars were used infrequently in our study; however, use of shock might have contributed, indirectly, to aggression in other contexts. For example, dogs in one study that were shocked inconsistently and those who were shocked as a result of incorrect obedience response were at higher risk for increased stress than were dogs shocked for approaching a specific, easily identifiable and avoidable object (Schalke et al., 2007). In another study, dogs who were shocked via remote control for obedience training showed an elevated stress response which persisted in the presence of the owner even outside the context of training (Schilder and van der Borg, 2004). These studies suggest that using remotely activated shock is likely to increase stress and fear of owners, and may put dogs at risk for compromised welfare and defensive aggression.
Sources of recommendations for the interventions evaluated in this study were varied. Owners listed “self” or “trainers” as the most frequent sources for all but three interventions (Table 2). Assuming that the average pet owner lacks training in behavior modification and management of aggression, it may, therefore, be dangerous for them to be handling such problems without professional help. It was not surprising to find that trainers were the source for many recommendations. As reported in a recent survey, owners of dogs with behavior problems are likely to consult trainers rather than veterinarians (Lord et al., 2008). This lack of veterinary intervention is problematic as the lack of standardized oversight of many training programs has resulted in a range of competence and ethical practice of behavior modification and owners may be at risk of receiving unsafe advice.
The recommendation made most by veterinarians was use of a muzzle, which may be attributable to the fact that most of the dogs in this population presented for aggression, and most veterinarians will muzzle biting dogs for safety during an examination. We did not differentiate or specify how the muzzle was used; in-clinic muzzling may have led to over-reporting of its use, as veterinarians may not have specifically recommended a muzzle for training outside the veterinary clinic.
Television was the most frequently reported source for the “schhhtt” sound correction and abruptly “jabbing the dog in the neck”, both of which have been demonstrated on a popular dog training program (Millan et al., 2004). Because respondents were not asked to provide the names of specific television sources, it was assumed by the authors that owners listing television as the source for the two training techniques were referring to this popular show, although only one owner cited it specifically. Both techniques are potentially provocative and, therefore, may trigger defensive aggression.
Owners felt that most of the listed interventions had a positive or lack of effect on their dogs’ behavior. It was not specified in the survey, however, whether the effect referred to the dog's reaction to intervention, or to the behavior problem itself. Contrary to expectations, not all owners reporting an aggressive response to a particular intervention felt that the training method had a “negative” effect on their dog's behavior. For example, “hitting or kicking” led to the highest frequency of aggression for owners who attempted it (43%), yet only 35% of owners reported a negative effect.
Because of the risk of heightened fear of the owner as a result of their use, leash corrections are not typically recommended by positive-reinforcement-based trainers and behaviorists (Mills, 2002). However, in our study, 63% of owners who used leash corrections felt they had a positive effect. It is possible that the correction temporarily inhibited reactive or other undesirable behaviors, thus appearing that the behavior had improved and that the technique had had a positive effect. While it may be effective as a momentary interruption, correction or punishment alone does not selectively reinforce desirable behavior and is an inefficient way to train an animal to perform a specific behavior (Mills, 2002). In addition, owners may not have recognized non-aggressive fearful responses to the correction and may have felt the technique was, indeed, helpful in that particular context.
There were several limitations in our study. First, the dog owners surveyed were recruited from a population of owners making appointments at a referral behavior clinic; in many cases, the behavior problems were significant. The frequency of aggressive responses and effectiveness of training methods might have been different if we had sampled a general population of dog owners. Next, the survey did not request a temporal description of these interventions and many of them may have been applied well before the presenting behavior problems occurred. It is, therefore, difficult for us to determine whether owners attempted specific interventions to alter aggressive behavior or whether aggression developed as a result of their use. It is also possible that owners misinterpreted the meaning of the “effect” section of the survey. The terms “positive”, “negative”, and “no effect” are subjective, and judging a technique's effectiveness based on theses options may not be accurate. Next, owners’ self-reporting may have led to recall bias and/or poor answer reliability. For example, each owner may have remembered the outcomes of various treatment techniques differently and some owners may have felt reluctant to admit to a veterinary professional that they used physically aversive methods on their dogs. Finally, the retrospective nature of the survey prevented the possibility for direct comparison of safety and efficacy between aversive and non-aversive techniques. It would, however, be unethical to put dog owners at risk for injury for a randomized, prospective comparison between the two categories. This study is the first of its kind to investigate several commonly used behavioral interventions and the potential for aggression as a result of their use. A larger scale study with a more general population of dogs would be the next step towards evaluating the effects of the various behavioral modification techniques and their associated risks.