Cesar Milan with a territory ( agressive) GSD - Page 2

Yes , he's never been bitten , just nipped .. and he doesn't know shit about dogs , nor has he met a Truly aggressive dog.

Aside from the entertainment bit. And I don't have intention of critizing Caesar .. but ... we don't see what the dog does or will do within a different setting , with different dogs and with different people ... that is ... different circumstances. I think , Shawnicus and other posters might also have had these thoughts . So , I let the editorial I just made , ended for now.

But for newbies .... there is a big lesson [ or lessons !!] to be kept in mind.

One lesson :
Quite often a problem situation comes to me involving an owner and their canine. The inexperienced [ and very sadly , sometimes I have seen with the experienced !!] some one asks me " Why does my dogs do that [ meaning behave like that] ".
My comment to them is : " He does that ..... simply because he can ! " In that video , the dog acted that way , foremost because literally and figuratively he could !
Sometimes , there is no beating around the bush , sort to speak Sometimes you have to just be right out with something and forget diplomacy or hurting people's feelings [ and foget about TV show acting ] . So... good thing I wasn't in Caesar's place because my first comment to the woman : Why is not this dog at all times on a leash , when you knew what this dog is capable of ? !!. I would have put [ her responsibility ] right to her ! Freedom , as with other things with dogs and children ..... are ' PRIVLEGDES ' that are 'EARNED' .

Centurian, I really admire your posts, but this one....!!

A dog should be on a leash at all time, because his owner is incapable of training it? There's no other option?

Freedom is a privilege earned by the adults, and it's THEIR responsibility to coach their children (and dogs) to learn how to earn it.

Cesar Milan was able to make a lot of people aware that their " beloved pets" need training and manners instead of love, peace, and doggie cakes.
I don't like some of his methods, but for sure he was able to help a lot of dogs.

So much for the "never been bit" theory....

 

Susie

But to Shawnicus, that just counts as a 'nip' - because to be 'bitten', one must have your arm chewed half off. SMH.
(Bit of a contrast to the mess the dog in the video left of the sister's thigh ...)

@Centurian, I'd support your position, the first thing I thought when the video got underway was: "Why doesn't the daft cow keep the dog(s) on lead whenever the sister & bro-in-law are about ?".
Realistically, Swarnendo, that owner wasn't teaching her dogs what it takes to have priveleges, she wasn't teaching them anythng.

Swarnendu , In short - YES ! [ I don't know if you are baiting me , anyway this reply is for those that are new to the dog world so that they understand ] because what I sw on the video I have seen often enough .

Let's forget about the diminuative word ' train' ! The following is why when I work with people ! I avoid the word train !!!! Also , I tell people that working with dogs is not rocket science - it is no different in respects than teaching a child, except the dog doesn't have the mental capacity of a child. In essencephilosophically , it is very analogous to raising a child. Children and dogs first in life should be taught rules , manners , respect [ for other animals as well as people ] . A category of the rules : you do not harm another human or animal unless you are under threat of injury or death. Neither do you verbally or physically abuse the former. Swarnedu- you disagree on this point ? We don't train , rather we properly teach making sure that the lesson [ here a rule] is well undertstood and , once understood enforced. That simple. Do you agree on that point ? Until that time ... the parent does what needs to do so that it's child , when it is thier presence , does not harm himself /herself or any other. This is just common sense .

A canine that not only is ready , willing and able to bite, but has already bitten ... whether the owner or someone else failed to properly teach that canine , can't simply have the opportunity to bite someone again . That simple. I wrote leash butI thought I heard caesar reference the muzzle as a leash when he first put it on the dog. I thought without reviewing the video he quickly stated that. If he didn't , then the principle is the same. He did not let the have freedom , or a chance to bite him. FYI , before he used the tennis racket, he informally temperament tested that dog having a good notionthat he would be able to fend him off. Personally , at the first meeting Caesar had with the dog, I saw what I thought was insecurity in that dog . The dog is not a brave dog.Any way , I think everyone would agree that the dog undertook responsibility onto himself in a situation and I say because he felt uncomfortable [stressed]. I see more than territorial behavior invovlement here. And I think that was proven because you see later the dog having learned coping skills with Caesar.

Not only was a muzzle employed as a controlling device, meaning ,that even Caesar did not give freedom to the dog but also,the owner could use a long line as a controlling device instead of letting the dog run hog wild uncontrollably. This [ one out of other instruments] does not give the dog freedom to do whatever it chooses to do i.e. serious harm to a human. But it does allowcontrolled opportunity to run , to investigate , to explore , to sniff etc. etc . The dog is under control ! I think no one would argue the point that a dog willing to bite and willing to do serious harm should ever ever be let loose without restraint and controlin order to have the chance to bite again.That is Owner Responsibility . So , would you let a 4 year old , cross the street by itself uncontrolled , rather than keep that 4 year old beside you holding your hand... at least until the day come that child learned and "EARNED " and "PROVED ITSELF ' ? Or would you say that holding back the freedom until the child is responsible is cruel ? If you think not , then why would this be so different than a less intelligent creature ? It is our rsponsibility to do the thinking for the dog , as it is with a child.- again THAT SIMPLE.

Centurian, I said I admire your posts. Don't know whether I have already earned a reputation of being a baiter, or it's the reputation of PDB forums itself, but I'd assume it's the second. So, I'd prefer to submit my views and move on.

Nobody should have a problem if you use the word "Teach" instead of "Train", because there's no problem understanding what you meant. But, there's a HUGE difference between controlling a dog and keeping a dog always on a leash.

We control/contain EVEN our perfectly well-behaved dogs (and kids) almost all the time, don't we? What % of that is achieved with a leash?

I repeat, it's OUR responsibility to train (teach/coach) our dogs (and children) to earn the privilege of freedom. If we are incapable of doing that, we shouldn't have the privilege of having dogs (or children).

It's THAT simple, and I KNOW that you agree with me.

I do agree with your point -- quite often , when someone calls me for a puppy , by the time I finish my conversation with them , they are convinced that they should not own a GS. Many people ought not have any pet , let alone a dog. Unfortunately , also true , many people are unworthy to have children ... and to add to your point... the number of child abuse cases speaks for itself.

My previous post's intention waste to alert novices and to wake some people up that own dogs because I can't tell you the number of times I have come across people that feel that their dogs should run literally and figuratively scott free.

I once gave a private lesson at hiome to a lady whose dilema was that her dog jumped up on the kitchen counter. I stated that she should place a leash on the puppy and let him drag it in the house so that she would have the oportunity to prevent and teach the dog not to jump on the counter. She replied : " Oh no , my husband wn't allow that because he thinks the dog's should be free ". My comment back was ... ' if 'you' allow and permit that behavior , then I can't help you ". Of course we could set the dog up to decide not to jump- but that was not the point. Her attitude and her role was the point. And I could have cleaned up thr counter jumping only to seethe dog take control resulting in another issue.

Sawrn.. this is not directed to you ... but for the general readers :

There is a difference abstractly between training and teaching : And without offense to any sport or person I write this .. I have done Sch with intensity through the years. But that Sch Obedience is a prime example : In that sport the dog hardly has to think in Obedience. As anyone that has trained Sch : The dog and I can do the routine with our eyes shut. Every single step , every single movement is absolutely the same time after time. It is an absolute ' trained' [ conditioned ] pattern . And there is nothing wrong with that, actually I use that to my advantage in the sport ! However the sport it is what it is ! Condition training a dog to perform in a pattern is not the same as 'teaching' . Training / Conditioning is not entirely* the same as Teaching .   Teaching has the attribute that the dog THINKS and in perfroming a task has learned concepts mentally that allows it to make decisions . When I performed my Sch 1 Obedience for a Judge he came to me and stated perfect , excellent and I replied to him this was the first time this dog ever did a "J" obedience pattern and walked through a crowd- the dog never ever , not once did the  heeling routine patttern.   Not that I am an excellent handler , but the point I make is that Teaching the dog To Heel  was not conceptually the same as " Training the dog  heeling '. Heel meant conceptually to heelwith me no matter how I moved .. right , left, backwards , forward , sideways moving , turning in circles, or simply being static. Didn't matter what I did , even if i went into an elevator ... the dog conceptually understood heel ! I did not train an exercise . I taught the dog to think about what I was doing and what was required of it at all times. 

 [Scent discrimimination is a selective decision making process too it is taught not trained/conditioned] . Heeling with you ,with no pattern requires the dog to be thinking as it heels with you. He never knows where the next turn or stop will be but he KNOWS where he should be. There is a big , a big difference in the mental processes in the dog's mind IMOp between training and teaching. Training [ conditioning as an automatic reflex or redsponse**] an exercise is one thing teaching a concept is another thing. Condition as I wrote is creating an automatic* response* when a stimulus is given , [ a cue , a word , a non-verbal signal ]. Teaching has the element that the dog can think conceptually it's way through prior to and during a performance.

SO - what is the difference between a dog leaving a treat in your hand under it's nose alone and asking the dog to leave a Schutzhund sleeve alone ? If you ' train ' the dog ' to out ' a sleeve that is what the dog learns .. and that is what you get.. a dog that 'outs' a sleeve. If you teach the dog a concept mentally then leaving the sleeve alone is NO DIFFERENT than telling the dog to leave the food in your hand alone. So in my teaching at a young age I make it in the dog's interest to leave the food in my hand alone... then later this concept is transferred to a Sch sleeve - really there is no differnece. once i teach this concept , I know that later in my mind the out haxs larready been taught. . This is another illustration of training vs teaching. Teaching a dog to out is really not suc h a big deal if you teach concepts.. not the notion of having to command a dog. I tried to explain as best I can .. dogs are not robots ... To be condition or programmed to do, is not the same type of learning that requires teaching via a conceptual thought process . again this is written for novices - something o decide for one self about how you interact with your dog and the responsibility that you take or not take in teaching your dog.