Dog Park Drama

My friend is a dog trainer and the reason why she dislikes Caesar is because he says he's tapping the dog, but actually is giving the dog a hard kick to the stomach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP6Oi-q0ruM

I don't know why Cesar Milan's getting so much hate. From my perspective his kind of training is really about the energy that you project when dealing with a dog. You have to be serious about your corrections or they're not going to work. And a correction can simply be a sound or a word, it doesn't mean hitting your dog. My dog responds to correction words only when I'm serious about it; she can feel the energy behind my voice. It's just like dealing with kids, you can say, "Wash your hands and set the table" halfheartedly and be ignored, or you can say the same thing in a strong, clear voice with no-nonsense energy behind it and they will hop to and do what you've asked. There's a difference between being feared and being respected, and being a strong leader and setting boundaries will earn respect from your dogs and they will be glad to know that you're in charge.

I agree. Those that hate Cesar Milan-I'm not going to say how you should feel about the topic, you are entitled to your opinions the same as I'm entitled to mine. I can't argue with his results.

Corrections for my dog are a noise and a touch...not a hit, not a slap...not screaming. Both of them respond well to it and they're not afraid.

I do appreciate all the feedback and I don't think I'll be taking my pups to the dog park again...I wouldn't want the negative experiences to impact their approach to other dogs. On a lighter note, I'm looking at possibly entering my pup in a beginner/puppy dog show next month. A way for her to meet pups her own age

It's not hatred, it's the result of years of soul searching and experimenting and believing in Caesar Millan, then having all that demolished by someone who actually knew what she was talking about, and taking a two year hiatus from my career to see if I could work with dogs. When I really asked myself the hard questions, it turned out that I believed in punishment because it seemed easier and felt satisfying.

My conclusion is that Cesar's way is as much based on human models of social aggression as it is on just making **** up. It's about 50-50. What practicing all these "dominance" and "energy projecting" behaviors does is make humans feel empowered. It is the dog training equivalent of the crash diet that seems to work at first, and yet even though it fails the person practicing it will continue to support it. "Claw" hand, "tsss", and all that crap are just ways of bullying a dog.

What's really annoying about relying on punishments, is that the behaviors don't transfer to other handlers unless the dog thinks the new handler will dispense the pain. Further, punishments can only decrease behaviors, so this really, really rests on the shaky foundation that the dog will behave perfectly once all bad habits are "broken". Only positive reinforcement (rewards work great!) can teach complex behaviors, because negative reinforcement doesn't do well at teaching new things.


People asking "wtf will a clicker do" in such and such a situation, IMO, exhibit lack of imagination and dedication and owe it to their dogs to take a lesson or two with a pro, or a class (agility or whatever, not necessarily obedience). If you used your clicker ahead of time and taught your dog some skills, he or she would not be the one causing the problem. Too busy playing silly games to get treats, pets, a favorite toy, or whatever you choose as a reward.


Ever see a working dog with a shock collar? Go to the airport, watch a police dog, or a military dog. Guess how many punishments those dogs get in order to teach them complex behaviors? Count the rewards they get in a one hour period, and you'll get an idea that you can't bully your way into teaching a dog something hard. You have to earn it the hard way, like building a better body.


Been through it all with this punishing BS, and seen fake "results" that wear off over time, over and over again.

We bred dogs (Salukis and Clumber spaniels) for many years. We were very successful in showing, finished multiple champions, sold internationally, had a waiting list for puppies. I am a firm believer in getting puppies from show breeders. NOT from puppy mills or ANY breeder who is breeding "pet" quality (i.e., inferior by show standards) dogs. My Springers are now 11 years old. Neither was bred because they are farm dogs, not show quality. When they are gone we will need to get another dog. All of my dogs have been registered purebreds. I won't even consider a rescue dog, a mixed breed mutt, or some generic canine from the pound.. Why? Because what I want is very specific; a show quality Clumber spaniel , either sex, NOT spayed or neutered as those cannot be shown, of Clussex and/or Raycroft bloodlines. Nothing else. ( I miss the show ring. I met great dogs and good people and had a lot of fun.)
Please don't bother telling me how many shelter dogs need homes or they would be put to sleep, I don't care, and please don't confuse quality show breeders with market puppy mills.

Not sure if that was directed at me - I clearly stated I am not against breeding. I have similar views although I am into working dogs.

We bred dogs (Salukis and Clumber spaniels) for many years. We were very successful in showing, finished multiple champions, sold internationally, had a waiting list for puppies. I am a firm believer in getting puppies from show breeders. NOT from puppy mills or ANY breeder who is breeding "pet" quality (i.e., inferior by show standards) dogs. My Springers are now 11 years old. Neither was bred because they are farm dogs, not show quality. When they are gone we will need to get another dog. All of my dogs have been registered purebreds. I won't even consider a rescue dog, a mixed breed mutt, or some generic canine from the pound.. Why? Because what I want is very specific; a show quality Clumber spaniel , either sex, NOT spayed or neutered as those cannot be shown, of Clussex and/or Raycroft bloodlines. Nothing else. ( I miss the show ring. I met great dogs and good people and had a lot of fun.)
Please don't bother telling me how many shelter dogs need homes or they would be put to sleep, I don't care, and please don't confuse quality show breeders with market puppy mills.

This is a serious question (I'm not trying to be ugly or start a fight). What is the purpose of ONLY buying a puppy from a "show quality" breeder...if you have no intention of showing or breeding?

All of my dogs are purebred & registered, and my Chessie comes from, as I stated earlier, from multi-champion field(mostly) and show lineages. My Dogue is a rare enough breed that they pretty much ALL come from "champion" lines (there just aren't that many breeders, so...). I get purebreds because, well, I like certain breeds of dogs. That being said, I am NOT a hunter, so my Chessie doesn't hunt. She was gun-shy anyway, which made her perfect for a companion dog, and not a hunter. My Dogue has no knights or horses to bring down, so she's pretty useless as well. All 3 are spayed.

The way you stated that, it makes it seem like the only people you think should have dogs are people who SHOW dogs. What about all the show-quality breedings that result in non-show-quality dogs? Just because they are "show" breeders, doesn't make their dogs perfect.....you should know that.

If you're just defending your desire to get a purebred, I get that. I've gotten flack for "paying" for my dogs as well (especially the Dogue...not cheap).

Hmm...I didn't mean it quite that way. The people who breed for show produce puppies that aren't up to show quality, that's where my farm dog springer spaniels came from. I sold purebred show-descended dogs as pets if people didn't want to show. These dogs' lineage, temperaments, and health were known and guaranteed, not the case with shelter/rescue dogs, all too often. I mean people shouldn't patronize puppy mill breeders.

Gotcha. And I agree.

Well, I'll have to admit I made an emotional appeal. "Bullying" is a moral judgement. "Punishment" is simply a kind of negative reinforcement. Using morality is in some ways unfair and confusing, because dogs can't have morals.

The problem with positive training with rewards is that it requires imagination, perseverance, timing, education, and other important elements from the trainer. It's as daunting as lifestyle change to lose weight, and the results come when you've built all these small victories. On the other hand, a dog who has learned a game through rewards is going to play that game for the rest of her life, and the more she plays it the more she will want to play it.

Honestly, after those two years off working with people's dogs, I stopped believing I had this special gift for reading their minds. That was just Cesar interpreting their body language using shaky science, and flattering me so I want to watch his show. He might use punishments on the dogs, but with his true audience, people, he uses rewards to get the behavior he wants. He's not an idiot, just a charlatan. Cesar will punish a dog, and when it's sitting there frozen in fear will proudly announce the dog is calm-submissive. But I see a nervous dog!



If you want to get educated, it's just like getting fit. There is science that can help you, and there's a whole lotta broscience that survives in spite of itself, not because it's helpful. From a scientific perspective, dominance theory is simply not applicable to human-dog relationships, and doesn't apply in a pack of wolves the way Cesar implies. You need to throw out the whole concept of dominance and submission. Your time is much better spent pondering new and creative ways to reward a dog without spoiling supper.

The work can be tedious on more challenging animals. A thousand reps of making a sound and giving a reward is a lot of work! If a new behavior has lots of layers to it, you need to build each layer. But the payoff is huge! Once a behavior is learned this way, the dog will enjoy doing it (which you can surmise by observing the desire to "do it again"), and usually the handler learns a thing or two about herself or himself.

In that instant I would have interceded by blocking and potentially pulling the other dog away from my dog. I have been known to pull other dogs off of him when they get to aggressive. When I take my dog to the park, I do not socialize with other people. I watch my dog which is a 17 mo Saint Bernard mix especially since I only got him from the shelter 6 months ago. He has gone through puppy training and "play" class through a local dog center. He is still learning to play so he is unsure most of the time what the other dogs are wanting when they come over to him but he is getting better. I also get questioned alot because I will not allow him to enter the park until he has calmed down enough to listen to me for a sit and stay outside of the entrance which can take upwards to 20 minutes to achieve. My previous dog, a mastiff mix, was trained the same way and never got into any fights but would actually protect the puppies and littler dogs from mainly the aggressive dogs that were unaltered. Consistence is the key. My dog is learning what is acceptable but I am always focused on him because I am responsible for him whether it is to help him learn how to play, to correct a behavior, or to remove him from a potentially bad situation. If only more owners would realize that a properly trained dog is so much more rewarding than just owning a pet!