Letter to National Geographic Channel
Marina Kviker
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
15438 CPO Way
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
May 22, 2008
David Beal
President, National Geographic Entertainment
National Geographic Society
1145 17th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-4688
Dear David Beal:
The National Geographic Channel, perceived as a "family channel", enters millions of homes per week not just in the United States, but worldwide. In the mission statement of your website it is mentioned that National Geographic strives to "inspire audiences through new media"; through innovative television shows and magazines, National Geographic has "traveled the Earth, sharing its amazing stories with each new generation" since 1888.
One of the National Geographic channel's most popular programs, "The Dog Whisperer" first aired on September 13, 2004, despite the protests of veterinarians, trainers, behaviorists, and other experts who received episodes of the show prior to its airing. While the show demonstrates that behavior can be changed, the methods used are known to create or increase aggressive behaviors.
In my proposal I will not only suggest a far more productive way for National Geographic to educate its viewers on the safe techniques of human-animal interaction but also correct Mr. Millan's outdated techniques. The alternative methods should win the approval of world-renowned trainers and behaviorists and ensure that the information National Geographic presents to its many viewers will be both effective and efficient in animal behavior modification.
With the techniques I will present, there is an expectation of success with no need to expose the dog to harm or discomfort. On my own behalf, that of my dogs and the sixty five million other dogs in the United States I thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that we can work together to properly educate your viewers on safe and proper methods of dog handling.
Sincerely,
Marina Kviker
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
15438 CPO Way
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
May 22, 2008
David Beal
President, National Geographic Entertainment
National Geographic Society
1145 17th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20036-4688
Dear David Beal:
The National Geographic Channel, perceived as a "family channel", enters millions of homes per week not just in the United States, but worldwide. In the mission statement of your website it is mentioned that National Geographic strives to "inspire audiences through new media"; through innovative television shows and magazines, National Geographic has "traveled the Earth, sharing its amazing stories with each new generation" since 1888.
One of the National Geographic channel's most popular programs, "The Dog Whisperer" first aired on September 13, 2004, despite the protests of veterinarians, trainers, behaviorists, and other experts who received episodes of the show prior to its airing. While the show demonstrates that behavior can be changed, the methods used are known to create or increase aggressive behaviors.
In my proposal I will not only suggest a far more productive way for National Geographic to educate its viewers on the safe techniques of human-animal interaction but also correct Mr. Millan's outdated techniques. The alternative methods should win the approval of world-renowned trainers and behaviorists and ensure that the information National Geographic presents to its many viewers will be both effective and efficient in animal behavior modification.
With the techniques I will present, there is an expectation of success with no need to expose the dog to harm or discomfort. On my own behalf, that of my dogs and the sixty five million other dogs in the United States I thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that we can work together to properly educate your viewers on safe and proper methods of dog handling.
Sincerely,
Marina Kviker
Take Control: The Non-Violent Approach to Topics in Canine Ethology
A paper by Marina Kviker of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
This is the text-only version. Go to http://www.doglinks.co.nz/training/Cesar_Millan/index.htm for the fully-illustrated paper.
Abstract
After World War II, the punishment-based training techniques of the K9 unit were incorporated into dog obedience schools throughout the United States. When the dogs that were exposed to the methods developed behavioral issues, the aversive techniques were escalated and fused with the alpha/dominance theories that originated from flawed wolf-pack studies done in the 1940s.
The techniques quickly caught on with the general dog-owning public. When research was done on dog behavior to see how dogs responded to different types of training methods, even though it was found that dogs show the greatest progress through positive, reward-based training, punishment-based training continued to dominate training circles.
Today, although the paradigm advocates that dogs require benevolent leadership without force, the aversive, punishment-based trainer Cesar Millan "The Dog Whisperer" has become the face of dog training in the United States. This proposal combines positive-based methods with techniques that world-renowned behaviorists use in basic obedience and behavior modification of dogs with serious cases of aggression.
Also included in the proposal is a detailed history of the alpha-dominance theory of dog training and its flaws along with developments in research that describe how to effectively communicate with and work with dogs. The plan gives information on how Cesar Millan can rehabilitate dogs more effectively by using scientifically proven behavior modification techniques without causing the dog harm or discomfort in the process of training.
Table of Contents
Abstract
Introduction
Literature review
History
Developments in Research
Calming Signals
Modifying Behavior
Alternative Approach to Aggression
Paradigm on Dog Training and Behavior
Model of Success: Victoria Stillwell
Proposed Plan
Budget
Discussion
INTRODUCTION
Aggression is the most serious issue that occurs in the domesticated dog because it can result in injury and death for not only the human or animal that a given dog aggresses against but also for the dog itself. Unfortunately it also makes up the majority of the content that "The Dog Whisperer" deals with. Aggression may affect over 20% of the 65 million dogs that currently reside as pets in the United States (Derr, 2006). When dealing with not only aggression but virtually any other issue, Cesar Millan bases his strategies on two techniques: flooding and positive punishment. Both techniques can be dangerous for both dog and handler, especially if the handler is inexperienced and incapable as the majority of dog owners are. Most dog owners lack the physical strength that Cesar uses to force uncooperative dogs to submit (i.e. forcing a dog with a fear of other dogs into an enclosure with a group of dogs).
In flooding, an animal is exposed to a high intensity stimulus that causes a fear or aggression reaction from it. The animal is prevented from escaping the situation until it completely stops reacting. Flooding is not advised by animal behaviorists because of the risk that, if it is used inappropriately, it can cause severe damage not only physically, but also to the psyche of the animal. It should be used only as a last resort and executed as humanely as possible. Most of the time that flooding is used it is a major scare and discomfort to the animal. It can cause harmful long term effects and in some cases can actually make the fear/aggression issue in the animal even stronger.
The image below comes directly from an episode of "The Dog Whisperer". The small dog wearing a pink collar was undersocialized and was uncomfortable around other dogs. Cesar chose to modify her behavior with the flooding technique: leading her directly into his established dog-pack.
positive punishment
The act of positively punishing a dog involves the addition of an aversive stimulus or correction as a response from the handler to an action of a dog. Positive punishment is an inappropriate treatment for the majority of aggressive dogs (or any type of anxiety, for that matter) and although it can temporarily remove an undesired behavior, it won't permanently solve a problem that the trainer is trying to correct.
Positive punishment
The image here shows a dog being positively punished with a choke chain. The handler gives the dog a leash correction to force him into sitting. He shows discomfort by lifting his paw, tightening up his posture, squinting, and pulling his lips back (Rugaas, 2005). Many dogs have suffered injuries such as collapsed tracheas as a result of leash corrections that were given inappropriately (4pawsU, 2008).
According to the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior, choke chains can cause damage to the trachea, increase intraocular pressure, cause tracheal collapse, lead to temporary airway obstruction, and cause nerve damage. The AVSAB also states that "the risk of damage is greater when the choke chain sits high on the dog's neck" (AVSAB, 2007).
Regarding flooding and positive punishment, the first episode of "The Dog Whisperer" that was aired comes to mind. Millan was working with Kane, a Great Dane with a fear of shiny floors. Millan first took the dog out for a run to get some of his energy out and then ran straight into the kitchen (with a shiny floor). In order to force the frightened dog to follow his lead, Millan "high collared" Kane which involves fitting a collar on the neck "up to the dog's ears with the intention to cause pain by "putting the collar in this nerve rich, muscle poor area of great sensitivity" (Clothier, 1988).
High collaring a dog simply makes it easier to force it to follow by inflicting pain into the neck. Kane's reaction was that of extreme stress, fear, and excessive drooling that was captured by the cameraman. At the end of the session, Kane was lifted up and placed back onto the floor panting, drooling and with ears back - all of the signs of a stressed and frightened animal (Scott, 2004).
Kane displays heavy drooling Cesar drags the terrified dog across the linoleum floor The high collar technique
a) Kane displays heavy drooling b) Cesar drags the terrified dog across the linoleum floor c) The high collar technique
Millan uses fear, intimidation, strenuous exercise, and force to get the dogs he deals with to comply, claiming that he is acting as the "alpha" or dominant pack member. According to Millan, the "alpha" leader of the pack gets to that position by exerting his power over the lower, subordinate members of the pack through force and physical domination - an idea developed from flawed studies of wolf packs to be discussed later. Millan's method of choice for a dog with a dominance issue is called an "alpha rollover", meant to force the dog to exhibit what he calls "calm submission".
An alpha roll is performed by forcing the dog onto its back, exposing his stomach and vital organs, and holding it down until it submits. Although this method can force a softer dog to submit, a more aggressive dog is more than likely to fight back and injure its aggressor whether he or she is an animal professional or an average dog owner without the adequate strength to perform such a procedure. It is not uncommon for a person performing the technique to get bitten in the face, ultimately ending up in euthanasia for the dog (Buitrago, 2004).
Owners have been encouraged to alpha-roll their dogs in the past because the belief was that they could be used as a form of correction, to establish leadership, to show the dog the owner was dominant, and to punish inappropriate behavior. However, there is no peer-reviewed literature that claims that the alpha-roll works for any of those uses. There is absolutely no learning situation in which a trainer should want a dog responding with fear and lack of motion (APDT, 2001). Those who work with wolves and wolf hybrids learned long ago that these animals bite and maul when being force-handled by humans. If training methods are to be based from wolf behavior and wolves display aggressive responses to aversive and forceful methods from people, by default, these methods should also result in aggressive responses from dogs (4pawsU, 2008).
Calm submission or "learned helplessness" is a psychological state of passiveness achieved after some form of inescapable punishment, telling a dog that it has lost control over the situation (Fraser, 2007). It was first observed in studies of dogs subjected to constant and inescapable electric shock causing them to eventually completely stop reacting to the pain. Three groups of dogs were included: escape trained, controlled with restraint and no way to escape, and the control group. The first two groups were given continuous electric shocks but the dogs in the first group were given opportunity to escape if they offered a desired response.
The dogs in the second group were not given any chance to avoid being shocked. The dogs in the third group received no escape-training. In the next step of the project, all three groups of dogs were given the chance to jump over a hurdle to avoid being shocked.
The first group was able to learn to jump the hurdle to avoid the shock but the second group (the group that was given no opportunity to escape shock in the first step) had a lot of trouble figuring out how to avoid the shock. They instead reacted by displaying reactions of pain and then finally giving up and lying down. What the study found was that inescapable shock had a severe negative effect on learning after it was administered.
The researcher found that "both a traumatic experience as well as removing the subjects control over their environment are necessary ingredients" in achieving learned helplessness (Kesling, 2008). Cesar has occasionally used electric or "shock" collars to treat aggression and other issues in dogs that he worked with. In one of the more severe cases, a German Shepherd he was working with was wearing an electric collar (the audience was actually unaware) and ended up biting his owner on the arm as a result of shocks administered by Cesar which is a form of redirected aggression.
Cesar Millan's forced alpha rolls of aggressive large dogs may seem impressive to the viewers but throughout the program, there are constant messages cautioning the public not to use the methods at home. This begs to ask what the point of the show is in the first place. It's obvious that if a channel as influential as National Geographic broadcasts training techniques for problem dogs which seem to work that the general public will be inclined to try the methods.
According to dog trainer Lisa Mullinax, CPDT of 4Paws University (a dog training school), "at least half of the households we visit watch the show regularly and have attempted the methods on the show without success or with negative results" (4PawsU, 2008). The image below is an example of a technique that requires a great amount of strength on the handler's behalf. It is a technique called "stringing up" in which the handler lifts the dog off the ground by a choke chain. Such a technique could cause severe damage to the dog's trachea. Ironically, in this episode, prior to the dog being strung up, the dog had shown no signs of aggression and instead had been sending Cesar stress signals in attempts to avoid interactions with him all-together.
The image here displays a dog that showed severe stress signs throughout the entire episode. She refused food that was offered, an avoidance behavior which is a sign of severe psychological stress
The image here displays a dog that showed severe stress signs throughout the entire episode. She refused food that was offered, an avoidance behavior which is a sign of severe psychological stress (4pawsU, 2008).
..signs of stressDogs on the show constantly display signs of stress and some even resort to biting Cesar himself or their owners. The dogs give constant subtle signs that they are uncomfortable or scared and these signs are ignored by Cesar who doesn't know how to read them.
The dog is forced to resort to aggression. Some of these signs include yawning, increased respiration, low or backward ear posturing, licking of the muzzle, low tail and body posture, and slow movements (Rugaas, 2005).
Several factors cause the dogs to stress including the training methods, Cesar's behavior and avoidance of the stress signals, inappropriate use of equipment (choke chains, prong collars, electric collars, etc.), and in cases of flooding, there are high demands placed on an unstable dog. A dog that is stressed to the point of aggression or complete shutdown of reaction is unable to learn anything and whatever undesired behavior was being targeted can no longer be modified.
In his book "Cesar's Way", he gives advice to readers such as "wake up on your terms, not his, don't allow possessiveness over toys and food, and don't allow out of control barking" but he never gives owners any actual techniques to use in order to accomplish these tasks (Millan, 2006).
Millan relies on an old-fashioned, out of date theory of dominance, stating that "to dogs, there are only two positions in a relationship: leader and follower, dominant and submissive" (Millan, 2006). His methods come out of a theory that was based on captive wolf pack studies in the 1940's, also called the Alpha/Dominance theory. His approach focuses on waiting for a dog to do something wrong and reacting to it with leash corrections, alpha-rolls, and other aversive methods - this means the dog is being given an opportunity to perform the unwanted behavior and he is following the dog's lead instead of the other way around.
He addresses and "modifies" behavior problems in terms of dominance and submission and constantly uses alpha-rolls as part of his dominant ritual. Alpha rolls are considered to be a "dangerous practice based on faulty interpretation of wolf behavior" that is no longer used by trainers who use techniques that come from the science of ethology (Peltier, 2008). Although Millan continually advocates "calm assertive energy", any effective and long-term progress in modifying a behavior requires a more complex strategy than just asserting dominance over a dog. Millan's attempts to physically dominate a dog, even if the dog does have a dominance issue, are counterproductive to what he is trying to achieve: the alpha position.
LITERATURE REVIEW
HISTORY
The concept of "Alpha/Dominance" came from wolf pack studies that were lead by Rudolph Schenkel in 1947. These were short-term studies done on unrelated wolves in captive packs that were brought together in artificial groups. There were three major flaws in the studies, one of which resulted in the dominance model that Millan bases his techniques on.
First, the studies were short term, and they were focused on mostly hunting. It is unreliable to draw conclusions about the behavior of even wild wolves (which would have been a more reliable source to begin with) from captive wolf life.
Second, Schenkel was unaware that he was observing ritualistic displays and misinterpreted them heavily. This is where the majority of dominance model theories stem from. An example of a ritualistic behavior that was misinterpreted was in fact the alpha-roll. Schenkel observed the behavior and assumed that it was the higher ranking (alpha) wolf that forced the subordinate onto his back to exert dominance (Schenkel, 1947).
More recent studies on wild wolves have actually proven that this is "an appeasement ritual instigated by the subordinate" (Alexander, 2001) - the subordinate wolf offers his muzzle to the higher ranking one who then pins it followed by a voluntary rollover by the subordinate who presents his stomach. There is no physical force. A wolf would flip another wolf against his will only if he was intending to kill it. With this in mind, "what does a forced alpha roll do to the psyche of our dogs?" (Dunbar, 1989) Lastly, Schenkel and his team made tertiary extrapolations from the findings about dominant and physical control - first from wolf to dog, then dog to dog, then dog to human.
Another study on captive wolves was carried out in 1975 by Dr. Eric Zimen. In one of his findings, he noted a violent interaction between two female wolves and later two males. He made the assumption that this was a dominance struggle over the alpha position in the pack. From this assumption came the idea that "with respect to rank, the higher a wolf ranks in the pack, the greater [his] display of aggression" (Kerkhove, 2004). However, we now know that the majority of conflicts in wolf packs are "resolved through a repertoire of no contact body language" such as vocalizations (Kerkhove, 2004).
DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH
Since the 1940s, other studies have been done to disprove the former misguided studies which were the first of their kind. Dr. Frank Beach led a 30 year long study on a dog pack at Yale and UC Berkley. 19 years of this study were devoted entirely to the social behavior of the dog pack. The findings of this study disproved the extrapolations made in the 1940s and 1975. It was found that young puppies have a "puppy license" to do most anything and their often rude behavior is ignored by the other dogs.
This license is revoked at four months. At this time, the older/middle ranked dogs teach them to offer the appropriate appeasement behaviors - the top ranked dogs ignore this. There is absolutely no physical domination involved in their behavior. Only a very small minority of alphas achieve their status through force and "those who do are quickly deposed" (Alexander, 2001).
The majority are confident in their positions and don't quarrel. Only middle ranked dogs constantly quarrel amongst themselves and this is because they're insecure in their positions. Low ranking dogs don't quarrel at all because they know they would lose. They know their position and they accept it. Dogs have a system of calming signals (to be discussed later) that are used in social interactions as a source of communication to prevent conflict causing social interactions to run smoothly.
From this study came the concept that "Alpha" does not mean physically dominant - it means "in control of resources". From the findings of this study, "many alpha dogs are too small or physically frail to physically dominate; they've earned the right to control valued resources" (Alexander, 2001). In domestic dogs, hierarchy is not created by physical domination and it isn't strictly linear.
The hierarchy is made and maintained by psychological control without force, explicitly through the control of resources (food, valued resting spots, etc.). The lower ranking dogs actively offer appeasement behaviors to maintain the peace (Dunbar, 1989). What can we as human beings learn from this study about our own interactions with our pet dogs? First of all, training a dog is the equivalent of revoking a puppy license (Alexander, 2001).
Using physical force will actually reduce your rank in the eyes of your dog because only middle-ranked animals that are insecure in their positions are reduced to attempts at physical domination. Any punishment that would be delivered from one dog to another is quick and lacking any type of emotion. The human versions of punishment are almost always full of emotion, especially if the handler reacts to something like a valuable chewed up object, and therefore can only be read by the dog as "evidence of our mental instability; not exactly what one looks for in a leader" (4pawsU, 2008). How can an owner be alpha in the eyes of his or her dog? This is done by controlling the access to what the dog wants.
Another study was performed by L. David Mech in 1999 who observed the natural behavior of wolves in the wild. This study contradicted the majority of beliefs that stemmed from the 1940s with respect to dominance hierarchies. In his findings, a typical wolf pack consisted of a mother, father, and several generations of offspring and the "adults in these packs guided the behavior of the offspring" (Mech, 1999). A natural order was based on age. Mech actually noted in his findings that in his 13 years of observation, he saw no dominance contests. The behavior of wolves in the wild was significantly different from that of those in captivity.
In 1975, Alan Beck and William H. Nesbitt performed studies on feral dogs. Both of their studies showed that feral dogs do not live in socially structured packs as wolves do, but in unstructured group associations. Most of the feral dog packs grew from the recruitment of stray companion dogs.
The studies noted that the behavior of these dogs was loose, varying, and extremely unstructured as compared to wolves that had tight, constant, and highly structured packs. In these studies, social dominance was defined with respect to "repeated conflicts between conspecifics over a scarce resource" (Kerkhove, 2004). In these conflicts, the same animal always gained the access to a resource.
Other observations of feral dogs have shown they do have ritual displays of dominance and submission but it is the submissive displays that keep peace in the packs, not the dominant displays (4pawsU, 2008). All of the work that has been done with the social structures of wolf packs brings about a subject too complicated and incomplete to make any sort of reliable model for understanding domestic dog behavior. If even feral dogs don't have the same social rituals or behaviors of wild wolves, how appropriate would a wolf model (regardless whether captive or wild) be for understanding domesticated dog behavior?
CALMING SIGNALS
Much like people talk to resolve conflicts, dog trainers are aware the dogs use calming signals to communicate with one another. They were first observed in studies of wolf packs and called cut-off signals. Wolves used them to cut off aggression within the packs. Dogs, however, use them in order to avoid confrontation, to discourage unwanted behavior in other dogs and people, and to calm themselves when they are nervous or scared. Often, they are so quick to display a calming signal that it can be difficult to catch by an untrained eye, but with practice, a handler can learn to identify them and use them to learn how to read the dog. Some of these signals include head turning, softening the eyes, turning away, licking the muzzle, yawning, and walking in a curve instead of a direct head-on approach (Rugaas, 2005). The following images show some examples of calming signals with descriptions of the context they fall into during dog interactions.
The dog raises his paw, perks up his ears, and postures backwards away from the man who leans overhim to signal that he isuncomfortable with the man's approach.
( Picture from RUSEPRC ) The dog on the left yawns, squints, and lifts his paw to show he is ncomfortable and the dog on the right turns his head away in response completely avoids eye contact(Picture from Rugaas, 2005) The two Shepherds react to the rude behavior of the black lab: the one on the top left corner licks his lips, and the one in the center (Picture from RUSEPRC)
a)The dog raises his paw, perks up his ears, and postures backwards away from the man who leans overhim to signal that he isuncomfortable with the man's approach. b) The dog on the left yawns, squints, and lifts his paw to show he is ncomfortable and the dog on the right turns his head away in response completely avoids eye contact c) The two Shepherds react to the rude behavior of the black lab: the one on the top left corner licks his lips, and the one in the center
All three dogs avoid eye contact to avoid confrontation The Pit Bill softens her eyes and curves her body in response to the Shepherd's approach. The dog turns his head away to show that he is uncomfortable with being held close and with having his picture taken.
d) All three dogs avoid eye contact to avoid confrontation e) The Pit Bill softens her eyes and curves her body in response to the Shepherd's approach.
f) The dog turns his head away to show that he is uncomfortable with being held close and with having his picture taken.
MODIFYING BEHAVIOR
The majority of dogs that Cesar Millan deals with are in the "Red-Zone", meaning they are extremely imbalanced and dangerous. However impressive his methods in dealing with these dogs are, there are serious flaws in his technique. In season one, Millan dealt with a Red Zone American Pit Bull Terrier named Emily.
Millan led the dog head on toward another dog as she flailed at the end of the lead that was extremely tight around her neck, with Millan constantly applying more pressure and tightening up on the leash. Millan stated, "I provide this dominant ritual, it might look bad, but dogs practice this ritual of putting each other into the ground". From previous studies, we already know this is not true.
A dog will only force another dog into the ground if he were intending to kill it. If a dog does end up on its back with the "dominant" dog sniffing its genitalia to determine social rank and age of the subordinate, it's because the subordinate voluntarily offered this behavior. Direct head-on approaches are actually threatening to dogs.
Even polite dogs that have known each other for years will approach one another from the side, sometimes at a 90º angle, always avoiding direct eye contact (McConnell, 2002). Millan continued to let Emily exhaust herself, forcing her to walk parallel to the other dog. He "high-collared" Emily and forced her into an alpha roll until she could not breathe. At this point, she was too exhausted to keep flailing in attempts to get to the other dog.
Emily flails at the end of her lead while Cesar tries to regain parallel to the other dog. Cesar forces Emily to walk control by high-collaring her. Cesar alpha rolls Emily into submission after she has been exhausted.
a) Emily flails at the end of her lead while Cesar tries to regain parallel to the other dog. b) Cesar forces Emily to walk control by high-collaring her. c) Cesar alpha rolls Emily into submission after she has been exhausted.
When dealing with aggression in any dog, there are certain rules that must be taken into account.
First of all, behavior modification of any type takes time; it is not an automatic quick fix as the show often portrays it. With dogs, there is a "Law of Learning" that states "what is reinforced grows stronger with each reinforcement, what isn't reinforced will eventually extinguish" (Davis, 2000).
Every time that a dog is given any opportunity to stress over a stimulus, such as another dog, the unwanted behavior (aggression) is being reinforced. This is almost as though as if the dog is being taught that it's okay to be aggressive. From the dog's point of view, the aggressive display of behavior is effective because every time it is displayed, the other dog goes away, regardless of whether the two dogs are separated or the other dog is across the street going for a walk so in the dog's mind, "his behavior effectively prevented a serious conflict" (4pawsU, 2008).
Contrary to the beliefs of Cesar, on-leash aggression is not caused by a lack of exercise and does not require a dog to be run on a treadmill for hours to exhaust it. The Federal Animal Welfare Act labels treadmills as a means of forced exercise and states that animals on them must be constantly supervised to prevent injury (Animal Welfare Act, 1995).
Often, dogs that are exposed to constant aversive and painful corrections will learn to associate the corrections not with their own behavior but with their owner. A study done in 2003 on the effects of the use of the shock collar during training of German Shepherds revealed that dogs began to associate the pain they were feeling (observed by lowering of the body posture, lifting paws, tongue flicking, and vocalizations including squeals, yelps, and barks) with their handler instead of as a consequence of their own behavior. In the presence of their handlers the dogs reacted fearfully because they had learned to expect something aversive. The study demonstrated that shocked dogs experienced severe stress on the training grounds and in the presence of the handler (Schilder, 2004).
Clicker training is extremely helpful when trying to modify a behavior of a dog from an unwanted behavior to a behavior that the handler wants the dog to display. A clicker is a marker, a noise maker that is intended to tell the dog that he is doing something right, often followed by a secondary reinforcer that varies among dogs (treats, praise, toys, etc).
In this way, the dog doesn't need to be corrected for a wrong behavior because he is focused entirely on doing what is necessary in order to be rewarded. The last thing that a dog needs in a situation in which it becomes aggressive or afraid is to be corrected. Even with an ordinary dog owner in this situation, whenever the handler and his or her dog approach a stimulus known to stress the dog, the handler often unconsciously tightens up on the leash.
This body language reinforces the dog that the approaching stimulus is something it needs to be worried and stressed over. In fact, owners often cause great increases in inter-dog aggression by choking up on the leashes in order to control the already stressed dogs and hold them just out of reach of one another (Donaldson, 1997).
Physical corrections (leash pops, jerks, and jabs to the neck) that Millan often uses should not be used. Introducing more aggression to eliminate an aggressive behavior "rarely works and can make it worse - it is better to distract a dog and reward him by reinforcing the good behavior" (Davis, 2000).
It is extremely difficult to use punishment in order to correct aggression. Often, dogs that are subjected to constant corrections will become more aggressive in response. Punishment will only suppress the behavior in the moment, but every time the situation is renewed, the behavior comes back and increases with frequency. A temporary suppression of an undesired behavior is not the same thing as a changed behavior.
Giving a dog a leash correction to correct an unwanted behavior might work every time, but this is an indication that the dog is still repeating the behavior. The point of behavior modification isn't for the behavior to go away in the moment. Behavior modification has to ensure that the behavior itself changes so that the dog offers an alternative behavior in the presence of a stimulus such as looking at the owner instead of barking. Effective corrections completely terminate the unwanted behavior such that it never comes up again within 2-3 trials (4pawsU, 2008). It is true that corrections can sometimes be effective in the moment but it is far more effective to modify the behavior permanently by asking for an alternative response from the dog.
A study done at a dog shelter in 2007 worked on rehabilitating dog-aggressive shelter dogs to the approach of other dogs. They were exposed to "friendly, neutered stimulus dogs, progressing to friendly, intact dogs, then confident, neutered dogs and finally, confident intact dogs" during the course of the study (Orihel, 2007).
The undesired aggressive behavior was replaced with an alternative behavior where dogs were commanded to sit or make eye contact with the handler. Rewards were given for relaxed behavior and aggression was cut off by using a head-collar to direct the dog away from the stimulus. The study showed that systemic desensitization and reward-based training can reduce dog-dog aggression by preventing the dog from associating the approach of other dogs with a negative emotion and counter-conditioning allowed the dogs to have better coping mechanisms through alternative behaviors.
However, as with any training, continued treatment is needed to maintain the changes in behavior (Orihel, 2007). With dogs that repeatedly get into fights, the most useful way to modify the behavior is the shaping of the absence of fighting where the dog is rewarded for doing anything except aggressing towards the other dog. When the dog is positively reinforced instead of being punished, the dog learns that the approach of the other dog will increase the rewards and aggressive behavior will remove the reward (Donaldson, 1997).
Another study tested the efficacy of a remote-controlled positive-reinforcement training system for modifying unwanted behaviors exhibited by dogs when people arrive at the door. Dogs with a history of rude behavior were trained to run to a platform, lie down, and hold a stay for one minute while being presented with distractions such as knocking, doorbell ringing, and running people.
First, the dogs were taught to take food from the dispenser and then to associate the tone that the dispenser emitted with the food-reward. The dogs were then taught basic "targeting" - when the dog touched the target, food was dispensed. Afterwards, the dogs were taught to down-stay for 1 minute, to go to the platform and lie down on command, and then down-stay for 1 minute with distractions.
It was found that dogs could be trained to remain lying down in the platform in the presence of distractions that were associated with visitors to the home and also that the training would generalize to other handlers as well (Yin, 2007). This is important because while dogs are expert discriminators, they are usually poor generalizers (Donaldson, 1997). For dogs, learning a desired behavior in one setting with specific distractions and environmental stimuli will not always guarantee that this behavior will generalize to another setting that has different stimuli. Also, it was noted that because of the success rates of the experiment and the improvement in behavior, the training method was appropriate for use by owners in the home.
The picture depicts the remote-controlled device a) The picture depicts the remote-controlled device
The training process of getting a dog to go to the platform upon which the food is dispensed as a reward
b) The training process of getting a dog to go to the platform upon which the food is dispensed as a reward.
ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO AGGRESSION
A serious issue that deals with punishment for aggressive behavior (especially punishment done inappropriately) is that it suppresses the warning behaviors. Some dogs are said to attack "out of nowhere" or "without warning" because the behavior they previously displayed (growling, barking, etc) in order to avoid physical conflict were suppressed by the punishments given by the handler.
Because the dog is taught to suppress these important warning signals, it will instead resort to attacking. A study on canine dominance-related aggression (DA) showed that owners of dogs who displayed DA often said that their dogs often attacked "with no provocation or warning" after years of escalating aggressive behaviors at other dogs (growling, snapping, etc.).
However, upon observation, the researchers found that these dogs had been attempting to let their owners know they were uncomfortable by the lesser DA displays (growling, etc.) and the owners failed to respond. It was also found that these "unprovoked" attacks had in fact been provoked by the bitten person when he/she "ignorantly performed an excessively dominant action toward their pet" (Cameron, 1997).
Consider again, the American Pit Bull Terrier Emily: What would have been a far more effective and less unpleasant way to modify her aggressive behavior toward other dogs that wouldn't be a temporary fix but a long term solution, something that actually makes her anticipate the approach of another dog rather than fear and aggress toward it?
Millan used leash corrections (constant pops of the leash) resulting in a more stressed out and flailing dog and made the error of approaching the other dog head on. It is not a good idea to approach a fear/aggressive stimulus head on because it becomes difficult to gain the dog's attention (Rugaas, 2005).
Emily was not only overwhelmed with the fear/aggression stimulus, but also associated the pain from being strangled with the approach of the other dog. A better way to manage this situation is through a process called systemic desensitization in which, over time, an animal will become desensitized to a stimulus that it fears/aggresses against.
First, the stressing point of the dog needs to be established: At what point does Emily display the characteristics of a stressed/anxious dog, such as changes in breathing, whisker movement, head and eye movement, freezing, change in shape or expression in her eyes, lip movements, muscle tension/relaxation, and body posture (Rugaas, 2005)?
For example: at 50 feet, Emily perks her ears up, noticing the dog, slowly shifting ears backwards, at 45 feet, her body posture becomes stiff, at 30 feet, she begins to lick her lips and starts becoming oblivious to other things around her (squirrels, other people, etc), at 25 feet, her hackles go up and all of her focus is on the other dog, and finally, as the dog nears, her lips lift in a growl and she begins to lunge forward and aggress. If the first signs of stress appeared at fifty feet, the handler needs to begin further back, before Emily begins to react (Clothier, 1988).
A clicker is effective in this process along with some high-motivating treats. At approximately 60 feet away, her attention is acquired by click/treat method (she is taught that the click immediately precedes a reward). Even though at some point as the approaching dog nears, Emily might start refusing treats, it is important to reinforce the behavior that comes before this.
At 60 feet away, the handler requests her attention, making quick halts and giving a command for her to sit. She must be reinforced heavily for the first ten feet. This process is continued until the approaching dog is approximately 50 feet away (preceding obsessive behavior). At this point, the handler begins to make a wide arc by moving into Emily's space so that she is bound to give all her attention to the handler so she doesn't get stepped on.
This moment needs to be used to immediately reinforce her with a click/treat and the handler must keep quickly moving one step at a time into Emily's space. The open-bar concept is used: The handler keeps the treats coming continuously as long as the approaching dog is in view (Davis, 2002).
At some point, Emily might start to tune out the clicker and no longer care about the treats. This behavior must be ignored, not corrected, and the handler must keep circling into Emily's space to keep her attention on him. As the approaching dog nears, the circle is tightened and at this point, Emily is far too busy "sidestepping your movement into her space so she doesn't have time to stress and aggress posture toward the other dog" (Davis, 2002).
By the time the dog passes by Emily and the handler, she once again begins to gain interest in the treats and can be reinforced with a game or praise. The entire process shows Emily that giving the handler her full attention makes good things happen (treats) and ultimately sets her up to succeed. The message that this sends to Emily is that "when scary things come closer, good things begin to happen" (Davis, 2002). It is also important to note that the handler not push the dog too hard and not move onto the next step in the process until the dog is completely comfortable and relaxed at the previous step.
In systemic desensitization, the handler's job is to learn how to recognize stress signals that the dog is giving off at particular distances from the feared object. The handler must work to reinforce what he wants her to do and ignore what he doesn't want her to do. Even if the hackles go up, this must be ignored.
The handler must "make himself faster and more enticing than the approaching object, relax, and not tighten up on the leash" because that will only cause more stress for the dog (Davis, 2002). Physical pain must never be introduced to a dog that is already stressing. It becomes too easy for her to assume incorrectly where this pain is coming from. The handler must understand that the teaching of the dog never stops because new environmental stimuli will occur to bring out behaviors that have been temporarily suppressed by training.
In the eyes of the dog "only someone they respect has the right to control, direct, or inhibit another dog's behavior" (Clothier, 2005). If the handler is unable to control, direct, or inhibit the behavior, the dog will not see the handler as having a higher status and won't respect the handler. A dog will not have respect for a handler that exhausts it and then forces it to face its fears head on with no means of escape. Such a handler will never make progress with any dog.
The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants sent a note to National Geographic on October 27, 2006 with their concerns regarding the safety of children on The Dog Whisperer show. The letter stated that although the show does have a disclaimer telling the viewer not to try to perform the techniques that Cesar shows, young children will not understand this disclaimer and might attempt to try them.
Also, if the rating of the show does not state that children need to be supervised while watching the show (or that the show is inappropriate for children), then parents will not believe that they have to supervise them. The letter brings up two episodes in which children were instructed to participate in activities that could have caused them severe injuries had something gone wrong.
The first example was a child being told to ride his skateboard near a dog with a history of attacking skateboarders and the second was a child being told to lie down underneath an agility obstacle while a dog with a history of fear/aggression behavior towards children would jump over the child. The IAABC further stated that Cesar should consider instead employing behavior modification techniques that limit the use of aversives and emphasize positive reinforcement because these methods are less likely to trigger aggressive reactions from dogs. These methods are "effective, efficient, and are safer ways for both adults and children to modify animal behavior" (IAABC, 2006).
PARADIGM ON DOG TRAINING AND BEHAVIOR
Dogs need to be shown leadership and instructed on what behaviors are appropriate and they can be controlled without confrontational methods. Our control of dogs needs to be psychological and not physically dominant. The majority of physical corrections used by Millan are far "beyond the physical and mental capabilities of most owners - why advise novice owners to enter a physical contest they'll lose?" (Dunbar, 1989).
Instead, as Dr. Dunbar and his colleagues agree, there is a need for training methods that are not only effective but "in the abilities of average dog owners including women, children, and the elderly" (Dunbar, 1989). Instead of physically dominating a dog, the owner has to use his or her ability to control the surroundings and the resources in order to take control of the dog. By using "benign control of resources and deference for access", the owners gain the ability to manipulate the behavior of the dog (Horwitz, 2008).
Among aversive trainers such as Millan, there is a common misconception about clicker training and positive reinforcement: Clicker training doesn't use positive punishment, so there is no consequence for undesired behavior (Alexander, 2000). There are consequences but they don't include pain, fear, or any type of intimidation.
A principle of operant conditioning called extinction states that if a behavior isn't reinforced, it will eventually fade. This can be used as a consequence, for example, when trying to manage constant barking at passers-by: the dog is set up so that someone passes the house, the dog barks, and when the barking ceases, the silence is reinforced heavily. This teaches the dog that "it is more reinforcing to be quiet and barking extinguishes" (Alexander, 2000).
In aversive, punishment based training, punishing one behavior will not cause another desired behavior to replace it. There is a common practice among positive-based trainers called a "No-Free-Lunch" or "Nothing in life is free" program. In this concept, the dog is required to offer an alternative polite behavior in order to get a reward. The dog learns to "offer a deference behavior to get the desired good-stuff result" (Miller, 2008).
On the other hand, corrections are a form of punishment and are far less effective than asking for another behavior instead. Dogs that receive constant corrections learn to avoid bad things (and often their owners) instead of trying to figure out what behavior to offer to make good things happen. The avoidance of the bad thing or pain is often their only reinforcer.
Millan's methods do not take individual dog personality and behavior traits into account. Owners showing up on his show to get help for their dog are told that their dogs have dominance issues or that they are inadequate "pack leaders", heavily simplifying the issue of what is really wrong with the individual dog. Some problems that are constantly attributed to a dominance issue are biting/aggression, especially towards family members, pulling on leash, chewing the owner's possessions, jumping up to greet people, and going through doorways first (Donaldson, 1997).
Professional behaviorists know that "each dog is seen as an individual" and they have to understand "what motivates it, what frightens it, and what its talents and limitations are" (Derr, 2006). Millan's assumption that behavioral problems arise from a failure on the part of the owner to dominate is flawed. The majority of behavioral problems actually come from a failure of the owner to socialize his or her dog in the crucial stages of puppy-hood (Donaldson, 1996).
While constant socialization is necessary for dogs, it is even more crucial for puppies. In puppies, the socialization period is a limited period when they are less fearful and more likely to approach and investigate objects that older dogs would be more skeptical about. In dogs, this period ends when the puppy is 3-5 months of age. If puppies don't get enough exposure before the period ends, there is a greater risk of fear and aggression responses when the dog gets older. Socializing dogs "to women or six year-olds doesn't guarantee a generalization to men or two-year olds" because dogs do not generalize situations to different environmental pressures very well (Donaldson, 1997).
A study done to assess aggressive conflicts among dogs and the factors that affect these conflicts showed that dogs that lacked appropriate socialization in puppy-hood and later on in life had greater aggressive tendencies that often led to behavioral issues. The results of the study demonstrated that 44% of dogs that aggressed against other dogs were not very well socialized during the crucial period between 5 weeks and 5 months of age (Roll, 1997).
Another study done to assess the short term and long term benefits of puppy socialization programs showed that socialization programs can be used as a starting point to prevent behavioral issues in puppies and are "are effective in producing well trained dogs" (Seksel, 1998).
Although in the past it was thought that obedience training should be started in adolescence and adulthood, innovative minds such as Ian Dunbar have proven that dogs are receptive to training far earlier than that. Puppy socialization programs ensure that "sufficient social interaction occurs to produce well socialized" dogs (Seksel, 1998).
In the study, owners were given instructions on operant conditioning, positive reinforcement methods, information about prevention of potential behavioral problems, and aspects of rewards and punishments. The owners were also taught to "establish leadership over the dog without force" (Seksel, 1998).
MODEL OF SUCCESS
Victoria Stillwell is the host of the show "It's Me or the Dog" which is currently airing on Animal Planet. She incorporates positive, reward-based training methods and provides an effective means of communication between dogs and their owners. A large part of her success with working with dogs that have behavioral issues comes from the fact that unlike Cesar, Victoria spends a significant amount of time working with her clients and revisits them to ensure that they are making progress.
One extremely successful example came from an episode in which Victoria visited a family that had a 4 year old White German Shepherd named Ben. Ben had severe aggression issues towards family members and exhibited non-stop barking and blocking his owners' movements. He was protecting his most valuable resource - Lez, the father of the family, who would unknowingly reinforce the behavior by petting Ben and talking to him as he aggressed at the other family members in attempts of calming the dog down.
By reading his body language (when he aggressed, Ben was crouched with his head down) Victoria determine that Ben was not at all confident but instead defensive. After spending time observing Ben's behavior and how Ben interacted with the other members of the family, she set up a system of rules which the family would have to abide by. Lez, who was Ben's most valuable resource, would have to assume the number one position for Ben to control Ben's behavior and the other family members needed to play bigger parts in Ben's life.
First, she instructed them not to stare directly at or make direct eye contact with Ben. Direct eye contact is threatening to an already aggressive and stressed dog.
Second, they were instructed to never run near Ben. Dogs are predators and have high prey drives toward moving objects and people - chasing the members of the family is reinforcement within itself for Ben. Third, they were instructed not to yell at Ben and keep their voices down whenever he aggressed.
Because barking correlates with a juvenile behavior of dogs, it is doubtful that dogs perceive the yelling of their owners as displays of leadership - instead, yelling at a dog will only show the dog how little control over a situation the owner actually has. Lastly, Victoria instructed the family to use pacifying (calming) signals around Ben. They were told to turn their backs and fold their arms, look away, and move away slowly when Ben showed signs of aggression. In order for the family to actually start modifying Ben's behavior, Victoria told them to implement positive distraction techniques.
When Ben aggressed or attempted to block their movements, they were instructed to throw a treat on the floor to distract him and then move away slowly. Ben is distracted by the food and therefore displays no aggressive reactions. In this way, he begins to associate their movements with something positive.
Eventually, they will be able to move around without constantly throwing food on the floor and most importantly, without being aggressed against. Lez was instructed to leave the room whenever Ben displayed aggressive behavior in his presence. In this way, Ben would learn that his aggression causes the removal of the resource (Lez). The mother and the other family members were instructed to start feeding Ben. This would make him more likely to respond to them and raise their value in his eyes. Lastly, if Ben did try to attack while Lez was present, Lez would have to put himself in the way of the person being attacked and take control of Ben by saying "Ah-ah!" in a sharp voice to get his attention.
PLAN
The idea to have a show to educate the public on pet-dog behavior, training, and modification techniques was a huge step forward for National Geographic. However, the current information that is being broadcasted is counter-productive and inconsistent with years of research and development in the field of ethology. Three aspects need to be covered for leadership basics when dealing with problem canines:
* First, control of and access to resources. Humans have what motivates dogs (food, attention, toys, etc) and shouldn't dole it out for free. Make the dog work for his meal by having him sit politely while the bowl is placed on the floor.
* Second, the actions of the handler or trainer who leads a television show on dog training needs to be proactive. A handler needs to be able to detect a problem by reading the dog, determining how it feels in a given situation and reacting before the dog is able to. A problem with punishment-based methods is that they require the owner to react to an unwanted behavior by the dog. In this state, the dog is unable to learn and is allowed to continuously repeat the unwanted behavior putting the owner in a position of having to react to the behavior instead of taking control of the situation before it escalates into a problem. By being proactive, many unwanted behaviors are eliminated (and can be completely prevented). It takes time, not a fifteen minute appearance on television in which a handler exhausts a dog on a treadmill and overwhelms it with a stimulus it fears while merely watching it react.
* Lastly, the handler needs the ability to control, inhibit, and direct the behavior of others.
Punishment and corrections will not eliminate behavior. Both will at best suspend it briefly.
* For corrections to have any effect, they must be immediate and sufficiently aversive. Starting with small punishments, and gradually scaling up in force, desensitizes the dog to the punishment.
* If punishment is to be used, it can be made more effective by using a verbal warning that precedes a physical correction. This gives the dog a chance to avoid the corrections. If the handler decides that he or she wishes to completely forego corrections, No-Reward-Markers (NRM's) can be used. These serve as negative punishers to tell the dog he has lost a chance to be rewarded. Usually, they are sharp verbal corrections such as "Ah-ah!" and given in a high pitched voice.
In order to better work with problem dogs, there are a variety of techniques in positive, reward-based training methods that can be used. The most effective treatment for dogs that have on-leash aggression to other dogs (or whatever the stimulus may be), the only humane treatment is desensitization.
* The dog is exposed to the stimulus at a distance before the dog becomes reactive and at this point is taught an alternative desired behavior such as making eye contact with the handler.
* Gradually, through a schedule of reinforcement and ignorance (or an NRM) of undesired behavior, the stimulus and dog can be brought closer together. Each time the stimulus gets closer, the dog's appropriate behavior needs to be continually reinforced. The process gives the handler control over the situation rather than continuously having to react to the dog.
* The process requires that the dog relax and be receptive to the stimulus.
Below is an example of steps for a desensitization program for a resource-guarding dog (A form of obsessive aggression and growling/snapping behavior when an owner or another dog approaches a dog while he is eating or has a valued toy). This process is discussed in many dog training books including Jean Donaldson's " The Culture Clash ".
1. The owner starts by approaching the dog while he is occupied with a chew toy, making no direct eye-contact with the dog, and throwing a treat on the floor while passing by. This step is repeated continuously in different contexts (i.e. living room, kitchen, etc) until the dog stops growling at the owner's approach and looks up expectedly at the owner.
2. When the dog stops growling when the owner approaches and starts to look forward to the owner's approach, the treat is placed on the floor next to the dog instead of throwing it.
3. After step 2 is completed successfully with no aggressive behavior from the dog, the owner can begin to repeat step 2, except while placing the treat on the floor, the owner can pet the dog on his back and then get up and walk away.
4. After step 3 is completed successfully with no aggressive behavior, the owner can pet the dog on the head while placing the treat on the floor and then get up and walk away.
5. The next step is for the owner to simply touch (not take away) the toy while placing a treat on the floor and then walking away.
6. Lastly, after the dog fully tolerates the owner touching the toy, the owner can take the toy, give the treat, and give the toy back to the dog.
7. Each step should be repeated in different contexts until the dog displays no aggressive behavior. After the dog fully tolerates steps 1-6, the same procedure has to be repeated under different circumstances. For example, with other family members (by children if the dog is supervised), friends, and other people.
It is important that the owner not move onto the next step until the dog is fully comfortable at the previous step. For example, if the dog fails to tolerate the sixth step (picking up the toy), the owner needs to keep working on the fifth step, perhaps keeping his or her hand on the toy for longer and longer periods of time that the dog can tolerate.
Running a dog on a treadmill for several hours can feed the physical requirements of a dog but doesn't give the dog the mental stimulation that is sometimes more necessary than the physical, especially in the working breeds that were developed for work that requires mental and physical stimulation. This mental stimulation can be provided through dog sports such as agility, obedience, and herding. As long as the source of exercise includes both owner and dog involvement, there are far more enjoyable activities that they can participate in (Rally-O, tracking, lure coursing, etc) and clubs offering these activities are present in most communities.
A television program about dog training should heavily emphasize the importance of early socialization. An example of a successful socialization program lies in organizations such as Guiding Eyes for the Blind, Inc. that has a "Puppy Raising" program in which puppies are fostered and raised at homes of "Puppy Raisers" that keep them and expose them to situations such as shopping malls, traffic, movie theaters, and other circumstances in which a dog may be uncomfortable. When these puppies go back for their formal Dog Guide training, they have been exposed to situations that most puppies are never exposed to. The puppies are desensitized to these situations from a very young age and it is unfortunate that many owners fail to sufficiently socialize their dogs in similar ways. The goal of socialization programs in general is to ensure that the puppy or dog becomes completely comfortable in situations that it fears.
I strongly urge National Geographic to either remove Cesar Millan from the air or counter his techniques by bringing in a certified animal behaviorist or veterinary behaviorist who will have the ability and license to diagnose a dog with any possible condition that may be causing an unwanted behavior and modify that behavior without physical restraint or domination. A number of people immediately come to mind - Ian Dunbar, Suzanne Clothier (who is currently rewriting the entire training curriculum for The Guiding Eyes for the Blind), Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Karen Overall, Pamela Dennison, and many others.
BUDGET
For the National Geographic Channel to request that Cesar Millan incorporate reward-based training methods into his program and remove the aversive methods, it would cost $0. The benefits that dog owners would get from behavior modification methods that would be safe to use in the home cannot be given a price. It is also difficult to put a price on the life of a beloved pet that would be euthanized if the owner attempted a technique that the dog reacted to by severely injuring the owner.
DISCUSSION
An issue that often comes up for dog owners is that desensitization programs, especially in cases of severe aggression, can sometimes take months to perfect. In these extreme cases, the owners would need to practice the methods constantly, under different environmental pressures to ensure that the dog has a sufficient generalization, and perhaps have to hire a certified trainer to assist them.
Much of dog behavior is based on subtle signals that inexperienced owners can have problems identifying. This can cause a problem if the owner misreads his or her dog. However, with enough practice, and a solid history of effective communication between dog and owner, the owner will start becoming much more attentive to what his or her dog is feeling. Implementing a program in which dogs aren't exposed to violence as a training method and which enables owners to use the techniques that are broadcasted should not only reduce the incidence of dog bites but also allow owners to modify their dogs' behaviors at home.
Because the new program will heavily emphasize the importance of early socialization for puppies and continual socialization throughout the dog's life, the dog-dog related aggression should decrease rapidly throughout the dog-owning public viewing the show.
The generation of dogs that will be raised under the influence of positive-training techniques should have significantly less behavior issues than dogs raised with punitive and correction-based training. Because most owners get training advice from friends through word of mouth, when those who watch the show and implement the techniques advise their friends to do the same, eventually the majority of owners will be using the methods at home and behavioral problems will decline.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people who have advised me in the time that this proposal was being written. I would like to thank John Weick for his extensive assistance in the process as a professor and a mentor. Thanks to Diane Podolsky at The Cultured Canine, Alan Beck, Andrew Leuscher, Melissa Bain, Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Nicholas Dodman, Wendy van Kerhove, Ian Dunbar, Melissa Alexander, Pamela Dennison, Jesus Rosales Ruiz, 4-paws-University Dog Training School, and everyone at the Association of Pet Dog Trainers. I appreciate all the assistance you have all given me and I apologize if I left anyone out.
RESOURCES
4-Paws-University Dog Training School. On Dominance, On Leash Aggression,Punishment, The Dog Whisperer, Dominance Theory. Retrieved April 19, 2008 http://www.4pawsu.com
Alexander, M. (2001). The History and Misconception of Dominance Theory. Interview with Dr. Ian Dunbar on a study by Frank Beach. Clicker Solutions. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://www.clickersolutions .com/articles/2002b/aggression .htm
Alexander, M. (2000). Stopping Negative Behavior Positively. Clicker Solutions. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://www.clickersolutions .com/articles/2001c/stoppingneg ative.htm
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2007). Adverse Effects of Punishment. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.AVSABonline.org
American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior. (2007). Guidelines on the Use of Punishment for Dealing with Behavior Problems in Animals. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.AVSABonline.org
Association of Pet Dog Trainers. (2001). Assessing the Alpha Roll. http://www.apdt.com
Buitrago, P. CPDT, CTC. (2004, November). Debunking the Dominance Myth. Dog Nose News. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://dogpublic.com/articles/
Cameron, D.B. (1997). Canine dominance-associated aggression: concepts, incidence, and treatment in a private behavior practice. Applied Animal Behavior Science Retrieved on April 19, 2008 from http://www.elsevier.com
Clothier, S. (1988, August). "Training with the Prong Collar" AKC Gazette. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.flyingdogpress.com/
Clothier, S. (1988). Aggression Basics, Aggression and Some Reasons Behind It, Leadership Basics, Aggression: A Case History with Harry T., Handling On- Leash Aggression, Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.flyingdogpress.com/
Davis, D. (2002). Diffusing Aggression. Clicker Solutions. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://www.clickersolutions .com/articles/2002c/diffusingag gression.htm
Derr, M. (2006, August). "Pack of Lies". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27,2008 from http://nytimes.com/
Donaldson, J. (1997). The Culture Clash: A Revolutionary New Way to Understanding the Relationship Between Humans and Domestic Dogs
Dunbar, I. (1989). Social Hierarchies. Clicker Solutions. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://www.clickersolutions .com/articles/2001/hierarchies .htm/
Dunbar, I. (1989). The Macho Myth. Clicker Solutions. Retrieved February 26, 2008 from http://www.clickersolutions .com/articles/2001/macho.htm/
Federal Animal Welfare Act. (1990-1995). Retrieved April 30, 2008 from: http://www.animallaw.info /statutes/stusawa.htm
Fraser, S. (2007, January). "Ruff Treatment". Current Science v.92 no.10 p.8-9 .Retrieved February 25, 2008 from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com
Fritts, S. H., Mech, L.D. (1981, October). Dynamics, Movements, and Feeding Ecology of a Newly Protected Wolf Population in Northwestern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs no. 80 p.3-79
Horwitz, D. Changing the Owner-Pet Relationship. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.vin.com/VINDBPbu /SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000 /PR00470.htm
International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, October 27, 2006. IAABC Concerns Regarding Child Safety on National Geographic's Dog Whisperer show
Kerkhove, W.V. (2004). A Fresh Look at the Wolf-Pack Theory of Companion-Animal Dog Social Behavior. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science v.7 no.4 p.279- 285
Kesling, J. Learned Helplessness. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.responsibledog.net
McConnell, P. (2002). The Other End of the Leash: Why We Do What We Do Around Dogs
Mech, L.D. (1999) Alpha Status, Dominance, and Division of Labor in Wolf Packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology . Retrieved March 3, 2008 from http://www.mnforsustain.org/
Millan, C. (2006). Cesar's Way: The Natural, Everyday Guide to Understanding and Correcting Common Dog Problems
Miller, P. (2008, January). Forget Being the Dominant Leader of your Canine Pack. Your Dog v.14 no.1 p.3-5
Miller, P. (2008, February). Stop that Yelling! Corrections are Punishment. Your Dog v.13 no.2 p.3-5
Orihel, J.S., Fraser, D. (2007). A note on the effectiveness of behavioral rehabilitation for reducing inter-dog aggression in shelter dogs. Applied Animal Behavior Science. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.elsevier.com
Overall, K. Aggression: Treatment Options. Retrieved on April 19, 2008 from http://www.vin.com/VINDBPub /SearchPB/Proceedings/PR05000 /PR00380.htm
Peltier, M.J. Cesar's Way Review. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.marinij.com/homeandg arden/ci_4720342
Roll, A., Unshelm, J. (1997). Aggressive conflicts amongst dogs and factors affecting them. Retrieved on April 19, 2008 from http://www.elsevier.com
Rugaas, T. (2005). On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals
Schenkel, R. (1937). Expression Studies of Wolves. Behaviour p.81-129
Schilder, M.B.H., van der Borg, J.A.M. (2003). Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short and long term behavioral effects. Applied Animal Behavior Science. Retrieved on April 19, 2008 from http://www.elsevier.com
Seksel, K. Mazurski, E.J., Taylor, A. (1998). Puppy Socialization programs: short and long term behavioural effects. Retrieved on April 19, 2008 from http://www.elsevier.com
Scott, P. (2004). Canine Stress Signs. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.k9webs.com/patscott /stresssigns.htm
Yin, S., Fernandez, E.J., Pagan, S., Richardson, S.L., Snyder, G. (2007). Efficacy of a remote-controlled, positive-reinforcement, dog-training system for modifying problem behaviors exhibited when people arrive at the door. Applied Animal
Behavior Science. Retrieved April 19, 2008 from http://www.elsevier.com