GO!

Ceaser or Victoria?

This is a place to gain some understanding of dog behavior and to assist people in training their dogs and dealing with common behavior problems, regardless of the method(s) used. This can cover the spectrum from non-aversive to traditional methods of dog training. There are many ways to train a dog. Please avoid aggressive responses, and counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice. Please refrain from submitting posts that promote off-topic discussions. Keep in mind that you may be receiving advice from other dog owners and lovers... not professionals. If you have a major problem, always seek the advice of a trainer or behaviorist!

Topic closed to new posts.
(Page 1 of 7: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  
Sassy

~Hyper yet as- smart as can be~-
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 11:02am PST 
I am sure everyone's been asked this question but I was on YouTube watching both Ceaser and Victoria. I have my own opinion but I want to see some other peoples first.

1. Who do you like more and why.
2. Why don't you like the other?
3. And, in your experience how has the two types of training worked for you?
[notify]


Member Since
12/24/2012
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 11:38am PST 
I'll just say that I prefer Victoria. I don't care how she dresses, by the way. I don't know why people keep bringing that up...

Each show has it's own drama. Victoria's drama is aimed at the owners and she works with, and not against, the dogs. But this is television. I strongly suspect that the drama towards the owners is staged to create some action for the show because when you work with the dogs instead of against them, it makes for some pretty boring tv since everything is fluid and conflict free.

Cesar is just the opposite. Even if the drama directed at the dogs is staged, how do we know that dogs have the capacity to understand this? I don't approve of using bullying methods to enforce a state of learned helplessness and universal suppression. That's just not what I want for a dog. It also makes little sense. Suppressing the symptom behaviors without touching on the CAUSE for them is like slapping a bandaid on a festering wound and hoping for the best.

Yes, he has some good advice. Being calm is instrumental. Providing direction is good, so is exercise (though not over exercising because the animal develops stamina and you have to keep providing more and more exercise, who wants to go on 5 mile walks every day?). Not being wishy washy is good advice too. But we've heard all this before. Millan isn't the first person to have said this stuff, although he is perhaps the most famous to have said it so I guess that's good.

I'm a professional animal trainer. I don't just work with dogs. I work with parrots, large farm animals, cats, hermit crabs even, all different species in addition to dogs. Many of these animals are either too large and dangerous to use force on or are just too small. Therefore, across the board, I strive to not use coercion at all when I train any animal. I want a wiling participant who has a good time learning. You'd be surprised at the results when you have a willing participate. It's not all "cookie tossing" either. First off, it's positive reinforcement, not continuous reinforcement. You phase out food to intermittent use to have the animal playing the odds. And food is just the tip of the iceberg. There are endless possibilities for positive reinforcers. Conditioned secondary reinforcers, Premack Principal, toys, etc.

I train mostly rescue animals, many with severe behavioral issues, some pets, and working service dogs. What is called a "red zone dog" is nothing special to a professional animal trainer. We get them day in and day out. It's not advisable to tease the animals into a frenzy either to make them seem more out of control than they really are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9H3_gaQqZI

I don't even want clients to demonstrate to me the dog being out of control. There's no need to push a dog to that and then having to bring them back from it. Slowly raising criteria goes a long way to fixing the problems at hand. Counter conditioning and systematic desensitization usually play a large role in the fix. The goal shouldn't be to set the animal up for failure so then you have no choice left but to issue corrections, usually of the harsh variety.

For training to have a chance at being effective, it makes sense to avoid drama with either the dog OR the human. But then again, I don't have television show. I don't have to worry about ratings. Just success with my clients and their animals.
[notify]
Bellatrix

Crazy Ball'O Fur
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 11:50am PST 
1. Who do you like more and why: Victoria, her methods work much better, and are much much much much much kinder in my opinion

2. Why don't you like the other: There is no need to ever use harsh methods when you can get better results with positive methods. Pulling a dog off the floor by it's collar and cutting off it's airway, using shock collars which made the dog bite it's owner, hitting dogs, making dogs bite, getting in a dogs rightful space when eating (How you would like it if I was breathing down your neck every time you ate) All of that I despise and would never do to any dog, especially if they were highly aggressive. I've heard some really bad horror stories about people trying this stuff at home and getting bitten, not to mention the fact that it makes their dog worse, not better. For example with food aggression. Most dogs are food aggressive out of fear. When they lash out because someone gets near their food it's not because they are thinking "I'm dominate, my food!" They are thinking "Oh no, my food is going to be taken away and then I won't be able to eat!" So when Ceaser takes away their bowl, this is just confirming to them that is what will happen, though they won't be able to do anything about it anymore which causes mental issues.


3. And, in your experience how has the two types of training worked for you? Ceaser does not train he, in his words "Rehabilitates dogs" Meaning he doesn't do the whole sit, stay, down thing. However comparing dogs that were "Rehabilitated" By the two of them, just by watching the show I'd say Victoria both does a better job, and also does it in a nicer way. Plus the fact that Ceaser has no credentials meanwhile Victoria does. Kinda like having a teacher that has never gone to Collage teaching your kid.

Though of course credit has to be given where credit is due, he does get people to walk their dogs more, and get people to be clam when working with their dog, as these are both good things, though Victoria does the same, and also get people to change their food, and things along those lines.

Edited by author Sun Jan 13, '13 11:52am PST

[notify]

Shiver Me- Timbers- "Charlie"

My Little Dog, a- heartbeat at my- feet.<3
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 12:20pm PST 
1. Victoria. Hands down. She actually makes an effort with the people and the dogs to TRAIN the dogs and SHOW the dogs what's expected of them. I love that she uses positive reinforcement. I love that she helps the owners understand as best as she can. The fact that she's always got gifts for the owners(providing them with crates, or toy dispensing objects, or toys, heck, one time she even replaced a little girls bedding after a dog had used it as a toilet!) that will help them in rehabilitation and training with their dogs..

2. Because not only does Cesar BULLY dogs, but have you seen how intimidated his dogs are of him? I'm sorry, but I don't want that from my dogs. And I find his methods confusing to the dog. "Don't do this, but I'm not going to show you the appropriate response - I'll just stop bullying you if you stop doing ANYTHING." I don't think there is EVER a reason to pin a dog, ever. Nor do I believe that a 'bite' is needed. We are NOT dogs. Dogs know we're not dogs - they're not stupid.

Guest nailed it on the head. "I don't approve of using bullying methods to enforce a state of learned helplessness and universal suppression. That's just not what I want for a dog. It also makes little sense. Suppressing the symptom behaviors without touching on the CAUSE for them is like slapping a bandaid on a festering wound and hoping for the best."

3. Cesar's? Never. Ever. If I used it on half the aggressive or fearful dogs I've worked with, I would have several scars, not to mention dogs that would have taken FAR LONGER to work with, and likely would still be a bomb waiting to go off. Victoria's.. Well, I can't really call them HER methods, but the positive reinforcement she uses - it's the number one form of training that has ALWAYS worked for me, with every single dog. Sure, you have to adjust what the reward is per individual dog, you have to adjust timing, adjust methods slightly, etc, but ultimately, it's the only method I have been able to use that gets through to the dogs and makes the dogs WANT to work with me and learn. I don't want a dog that's intimidated by me and scared to cause a reaction. I want a dog that looks to me for direction, is eager to learn or please, and is happy and COMFORTABLE around me.
[notify]
Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 12:28pm PST 
I prefer Victoria as a model.

Although both have the plusses and minuses, and ultimately should be received as a tv show like anything else....not for learning about training, more for entertaining. That's where I think CM comes out a little ahead in some contexts as he stresses being calm (often a huge problem with those struggling with their dogs, making them almost enablers), the importance of exercise, looking at the dog as a being who has needs that must be met (interesting smells, socialization, etc.), and also stressing how the owner is culpable for their dog's problems. But then there's all that "other stuff" wink Victoria I think less gives much guidance in any generalized sense, rather works on the behavior at hand, but with no blueprint.

One would truly hope one is not watching these shows with a dysfunctional animal looking for "tips," in other words. One would hope that they would be using commonsense, i.e., talking to their vet and seeking a professional. Preferably a behaviorist.

Sooo.....when looking at actual problems, CM is far the less preferential. Detrimental. If someone is bent on not following proper protocol (i.e., working with a professional), they are much better off musing off Victoria. But in terms of the average owner or owner to be, CM does give lifestyle approaches that can help a pet parent have a happier dog....a steadier owner, more outside adventure, play time, consistency and so on.

Zak George I think was gads better than either. Still a lively entertainment show, but just about tricks. Therein showcasing how much dogs can learn, letting the OWNER train and seeing those results, and just staying far away from behavioral issues that really require counsel and a professional. There, I find no method is the best method universally. There, breed, the owner, the nature of the problem, the dynamics, environmental demands, etc. can all tilt the scales towards best approach. Whereas simply dogs learning, setting up the strategy, goal points and so on....the Zak George show....far more universal.

Then again, his show didn't take wink laugh out loud If these shows aren't sensationalistic, they don't get the ratings desired and off they go.

Funny, horse people aren't that way. If you want to do a two hour show with Geroge Morris taking about proper heel position.....they would be RIVETED laugh out loud Al Dunning, his manner is like slow gin. I remember seminars from forever ago, he's always been an educator, well worn pages in old horse magazines. There wasn't even cable tv back then. Now of course there is, lots of options to do shows, and he is a VETERAN educator, ideal for the format. Has always been personable, easy to connect with, through seminars is great at cramming very extensive and enlightened info into three sentences, or a whole theory beautifully demonstrated on one horse. He's a pro, it shows. Horse people typically are a lot more receptive. You are a beginner when you start with horses. Many horses you are not allowed near because they would be too much for you. Something like stallions or starting a baby....you spend many years gaining enough chops to even think about going there. And don't consider yourself emulating this trainer or that....but rather full respect, just a hungry student. So if someone named George Morris wants to do an hour on heel position, you shut up and listen. Because he is Geroge Morris. And you are not wink

I think the whole "pet training" thing has gone insane. Who calls themselves a trainer barely knows more than you do. Maybe less laugh out loud Very encouraging to DIY mentalities. I long for the days with a thickly imposing resume and someone whose skill intimidates and awes you. Then you shut up and listen. The way things are right now? That just ain't happening. I myself stick with the thick resumes and don't get lost in this new era, which is bringing such tremendous harm, IMO.

Edited by author Tue Jan 22, '13 4:35pm PST

Approved by forums moderator
Okami- Amaterasu

I shalst- pluck-eth ze- toy...
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 1:17pm PST 
Neither

Sure, I much more prefer Victoria if I had to pick, but she's still a tv host. She does help to disprove a lot of myths about dog behavior, but her show is still there just for entertainment sake and I wouldn't exactly grieve if both shows disappeared.

I prefer my fabulous local trainer that has been a tremendous help to both me and my dog.
[notify]
Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 1:50pm PST 
Ah, well that's different laugh out loud

And more complicated. It's not that black-and-white, either/or. Only for more extremist wings of training. Many people who may use corrections don't believe in dominance theory at all. Many people who train by motivation are not above employing certain approaches that include some negative consequence.

Some here....I guess shrug...have employed dominance theory, and some here surely are just straight positive (extending to no use of "no," etc.), but a lot here don't fall to either extreme.

But I will stop being a wise arse and try to answer your question.

It depends on the dog laugh out loud And on the moment. I could give you fantastic and disastrous stories of employing rewards or corrections.

I also think that it is not just a training approach, but a lifestyle approach. How well a dog is managed, fulfilled, having his needs met and his environment appropriate has as much to do with it.

It also depends on what training goals are. "Well behaved" and "well trained" can be highly interpretive.

In OTHER words......that's one big can of worms!
[notify]
Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M

I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 1:59pm PST 
I think this is the person struggling with the cat crazed husky. So in *THIS* case, I think the question is sincere wink
[notify]
Squ'mey

too old to eat- any more KD
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 2:10pm PST 
Thanks Tillersmile
Apologies to Sassy kissing
So, to answer your question, I use whatever works for a particular dog. I use a clicker for new behaviors. I use Eisenmann for educating. I use properly administered corrections for dogs that need them. But only if I know the dog understands what's required & is choosing not to do it.
[notify]
Koda

Born to run -- loves to sleep
 
 
Barked: Sun Jan 13, '13 3:15pm PST 
applause Yes I am dealing with the cat crazed husky. So you asked what I thought? I believe that positive works the beer and does get better results. But in the case of a dog who ignores you, my huskey Koda is a prime example, then to me being more dominant and showing him you have more authority is better.

It is kind of like a school bully. Eventually the school will get a person willing to step up and fight the bully in order to get him or her to story bullying. Most bullies would ignore any form of 'positive reinforcement' you throw at them.

In my experience dominance training a dog not to try to leap at another dog so they can say hi is going to fail. It will teach your dog to fear other dogs. Positive reinforcement teaches a dog not to be afraid and also makes them think for themselves.

Basically I think positive reinforcement is more applicable in every day life while dominance is more for the harder cases.
[notify]
(Page 1 of 7: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7