AKA: A Comprehensive Argument as to Why I Hate Cesar Millan:
Every one of Cesar Millan’s clients and fans has two things in common: they love their dogs and they don’t know the first thing about training them. An untrained dog in a household can be a burden and a pain, or even dangerous, depending on the dog. It’s only natural for these people to want to seek help for their problems so they can live in harmony with their pets. But Cesar himself poses an even greater danger to these unsuspecting clients and fans: bad training advice. Cesar Millan and his faulty theories are a danger to dogs and the public and should not be endorsed by a company – National Geographic – whose reputation is based on integrity and scientific fact.
It’s also only natural that these clients, with no training or knowledge of dog behavior would trust a dog-training TV program aired by National Geographic , a long-standing company with an impeccable reputation that few people bother to question But the problem with trusting blindly, is that even National Geographic makes mistakes sometimes. Such is the case when they decided to endorse Cesar Millan AKA The Dog Whisperer.
There are many reasons why his show would be appealing to those unfamiliar with animal behavior as a science. He’s charismatic, he exudes confidence, he always knows just what to do in any hairy situation, and most importantly, he solves problems quickly – which is exactly what fans and owners who don’t want to take the time and effort to train their dogs in the first place want – a quick fix. To the untrained eye, Cesar’s TV program might seem like a doggy miracle hour – out-of-control dogs with atrocious behavior problems turn into loving, obedient pets, all in the course of an hour. Clients are stunned! How on Earth does he do it?!
Anyone with a trained eye can tell you: he cheats.
Cesar Millan preaches a theory based on dominance and submission. He even creates his own language to describe problems dogs can have: Red zone dogs: aggressive dogs. Calm-assertive: what a good owner should be. Calm-submissive: what a good dog should be. In his book, he explains that there are two types of aggression in dogs: dominance aggressions, coming from dogs who are “natural leaders” and not being dominated by their owners properly and therefore become aggressive in an attempt to make up for their owner’s lack of leadership. The other aggression he describes is fear aggressions: in which fearful dogs behave aggressively as a means to repel things that they dislike – and for both of these problems, he offers the same solution: dominance.
He claims that most problem dogs simply don’t respect their owners enough and don’t receive proper discipline. He denounces people that anthropomorphize their dogs and shower them with affection, telling them they have it wrong. They do, but the problem is that, according to the current science of animal behavior, Cesar has it wrong too. This conjecture is supported the vast majority of experts in the field, many of whom are happy to help illustrate why:
The majority of Millan’s theories stem from research done on wolves “in the wild.” The problem with this is that for the majority of the last hundred years, up until 1975 (the year wolves gained endangered species protection from the government) it’s been difficult if not nearly impossible to find a wild wolf pack due to extensive efforts to eradicate the species. In an article featured by the Canadian Journal of Zoology, David Mech writes, “Most research on the social dynamics of wolf packs, however, has been conducted on wolves in captivity. These captive packs were usually composed of an assortment of wolves from various sources placed together and allowed to breed at will,” (Mech, 2). This meshing of random unrelated individuals created a very different social dynamic than those found in wolves in the wild; specifically concerning the occurrence of fights for dominance.
Adult wolves placed in a precarious social situation, will fight with each other, for control of food and resources, and – supposedly – rank in the pack, the strongest, most ferocious animals coming out on top. This is where the concept of an “alpha” wolf stemmed from, and what dominance trainers in the field today fall back upon when asked for a scientific basis for their methods. The problem with this is the fact that wolves in the wild do not form packs in this manner. Mech writes: “Rather than viewing a wolf pack as a group of animals organized with a “top dog” that fought its way to the top, or a male-female pair of such aggressive wolves, science has come to understand that most wolf packs are merely family groups formed exactly the same way as human families are formed,” (Mech). According to David Mech, who is the founder of the International Wolf Center, has studied wolves for 50 years, and has published several books on the topic, these family groups do not compete for dominance. The parents become the leaders of these groups, the pups following the parents naturally and learning from them. In other words, there are rarely, if ever, fights for dominance amongst wild wolves inhabiting the same pack. To base a dog training theory on this faulty concept of wolf behavior is bad science, yielding inaccurate and ineffective results.
The second problem with the wolf pack theory of dominance is outlined by Wendy van Kerkhove in her study on the social behavior of dogs: “It is further assumed that what is true for wolves also is true for dogs; it follows, therefore, that if a stable social hierarchy is established among the dogs in a family home, peace and tranquility will prevail” (Kerkhove, 280).
Unfortunately, as hundreds of years of evolution can tell us, dogs are not wolves. Nor does their behavior emulate that of their wild ancestors in any comparable way. This is because the dog is a domesticated animal – one we, as humans, have created for our own benefit and along the way, we have shaped them behave not like wolves, but exactly as we wish them to. If we want a companion to help us herd sheep, there is a breed for that. If we want a dog to bring back prey during a hunt, there is a breed for that. If we want a dog that will hunt rats underground, there is also a breed for that. We have even created breeds for cosmetic reasons – we’ve all seen a few purse dogs in our lifetimes. Thus, these hundreds of years of unnatural selection and selective breeding have resulted in a species that behaves very differently than its ancestral predecessors. As Alexandra Semyonova explains in her study of the social organization of dogs: “it seems reasonable to propose that the behavior of wolves and domestic dogs may differ as much as the behavior of chimpanzees and humans do” (Semyonova, 2) So if a dog is not a wolf, then why is Cesar Millan insisting upon treating them like they are? With better, more effective methods available, selecting this type of faulty methodology is nothing short of blatant irresponsibility. It is the job and obligation of the leading stars in any scientific field to promote the most recent and best supported science.
The uses of terms such as dominance and submission have a detrimental effect upon the general public and its view of how to behave towards dogs. Cesar further perpetuates this misconception by not only using them to explain dog behavior, but implements this faulty viewpoint into his training theory. What results is a lot of confusion for the dogs, potential danger for the owners, and a giant headache for behaviorists.
See, dogs are more like vending machines than wolves – you put the money in and if you push the right buttons a candy bar pops out. Their cognitive make-up consists of input and output: “If I do this, this will happen.” They learn through classical and operant conditioning – learning by association. In this sense, they are very much like human babies. Where they differ is in the ability to use reason. A dog does not have complex motivations for its actions It only knows “safe” behaviors – things that will not get them punished. And “unsafe” behaviors – things that they associate with punishment. A dog doesn’t understand why two things are associated, it only cares that they are. They learn best through operant conditioning, pairing a desired behavior with a subsequent reward. With this method, it is possible to train a dog to do practically anything through reward and repetition. This is about motivation. You wouldn’t go to work if you didn’t receive a paycheck, would you? And you’d probably work harder if you thought it might get you a Christmas bonus, right? Why should dogs be expected to work for free?
However, Cesar doesn’t use this method when he’s trying to “rehabilitate” dogs. He uses aversive tactics such as corrections when a dog fails to do what is asked for him (regardless of whether or not the dog understands what was asked) or techniques such as flooding or restraint to keep the dog in check. This isn’t behavior modification. This is behavior suppression. The dog will continue to engage in the undesired behavior when the owner isn’t around. The only difference is that the dog has now learned that acting in a specific way in the presence of the owner is “unsafe.”
Watch an episode of the Dog Whisperer and you’re likely to see examples of this supposed rehabilitation. It involves choking dogs out with their leashes when they react undesirably; it involves forcing a dog to confront objects or situations they’re desperately afraid of (a technique called flooding); it involves exercising a dog to the point of exhaustion so they simply do not have the energy to react negatively; it involves “alpha rolls” – a move in which he will flip a dog onto its back and pin it down belly up until the dog stops struggling. His reasoning behind this particular move is that this is what wolves do in the wild to assert authority. What he fails to inform the owners of is that wild wolves offer this behavior voluntarily, they aren’t forcibly pinned down. He also fails to realize or mention that the only time a true alpha roll occurs in the wild is when one wolf intends to kill the other. So an alpha roll for a dog involves being delivered a serious threat of intent to harm and a healthy dose of piss-your-pants terror. Not exactly the best way to build the dog’s confidence.
These aren’t training tactics, they are enforced submission; and from the viewpoint of the dog, they are terrifying to the point of being traumatic and damaging psychologically – further impounding the dog’s behavioral problems. Worst of all, they don’t work. None of these things will ever make a dog decide on its own to stop behaving the way it has learned to behave. In order to modify dog behavior, a new, more acceptable method of behavior must be taught. That cannot be done by manhandling one’s dog and forcing unpleasant things upon it. It involves real actual teaching, slowly and step by step. They must also be provided with a motivation to alter their current behavior. This is different for every dog, but common motivators are food and toys. If there is no motivation, no practical reason for the dog to perform the desired behavior, then training becomes less effective if not rendered entirely void. While aversive techniques may work in some instances for a short period of time, since the behavior has only been suppressed and not altered, it will not take long for the dog to revert to its old habits.
Cesar also fails to address the fact that all aggression in dogs stems from fear. There is no such thing as a dominant aggressive dog. Dogs behave aggressively as an outward manifestation of their lack of confidence. If dogs aren’t given guidance and direction and taught that things they fear will not hurt them, they will react aggressively whenever they are confronted by their object of fear and their threshold for stress is surpassed. Dogs react badly to other dogs because of past trauma, or because they misinterpret the body signals of the other dog, or because of simple fear of the unknown – some owners do not take seriously the task of dog-on-dog socialization in the critical early stages of life. Those that do not socialize their dog set them up to fail by marking all other dogs as something unfamiliar and therefore potentially “unsafe.” Dogs react aggressively towards people for similar reasons, with a lot more emphasis placed on misinterpreting our body language. Dogs are also highly superstitious concerning their associations and learning, thus, it becomes very easy for an unwitting owner to attempt to punish a dog for a bad behavior and for the dog to associate that punishment with something other than the owner intended. For example, slamming a door in the face of a dog attempting to run out of it might not achieve the desired result of causing the dog to fear running through the doorway. The dog may, instead, generalize its fear to include all doors, and not the actual act of running through the doorway – thus the behavior fails to be addressed or corrected and now, additionally, the owner’s dog is deathly afraid of doors. This is an incredibly easy mistake to make, even with the best trainers because timing an action and a consequence (positive or negative) is incredibly tricky and takes considerable practice. But the underlying, unspoken problem with this method in general is the use of fear or aversive techniques to insure behavior.
This means the dog is only doing things because it is forced to, or because it is afraid not to. And since we all agree that people seeking professional training advice do so because they love their dogs and would rather modify the dog’s behavior than give it up, we can assume that these people do not wish to inflict harm or undue stress upon their beloved pets.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what they’re doing when they turn to Cesar. Aversive and abusive techniques are Cesar’s specialty, though that’s not how he explains it on the show, that’s the magic of him having created his own language, it’s not abuse, it’s “dominance!” It sounds better that way, but only for us; certainly not for the dog. By taking advantage of his clients’ obvious lack of knowledge concerning behavior, he tricks them into believing he is solving their problems. And because they see him as an authority figure – he must know what he’s talking about, he’s on National Geographic channel, after all – these owners are more than happy to stand back and applaud as Cesar abuses their dogs to force them to behave in a way the owner finds acceptable. These people thank Cesar for his invaluable help when all he is doing is instilling in these peoples’ beloved fur-babies something called learned helplessness.
Learned helplessness is what occurs when a creature has decided that there is nothing it can do to help its situation and stops trying. It is a heartbreaking condition of abuse and defeat. In the legal system, we apply this term to the condition seen in long-term victims of domestic abuse and there are no positive connotations associated with the term. So do people really want a trainer that uses the same types of methods an abusive husband uses to dominate his wife anywhere near their pets? It wouldn’t seem so, but that is the seductive influence of Cesar Millan. He uses techniques that scare and hurt peoples’ pets right in front of their eyes and they still view him as a miracle worker.
He’s not. What he is is a fraud. If it weren’t for the blanketing effect of the unwavering endorsement of the trusted scientific authority National Geographic and the effect of social psychology, pet owners would see his harmful actions and not give him the time of day. But because National Geographic and Cesar himself portray Cesar as a trained professional, he is seen by the average viewer with no prior knowledge to be an excellent authority, and thus, they do not question him when he pins a person’s dog down despite the fact that the dog is writhing in fear and that in the long term, this traumatic action will have no positive effect.
So if Cesar’s methods are baseless, the public is left to wonder why National Geographic continues to endorse his show. The reason, sadly, is the same reason all other terrible shows are on the air: publicity and profit. Cesar makes a formidable amount of money from his clients, his books, and his show; and National Geographic gets to share the profits from that last source. They also gain viewership. However, that’s about all they gain. Why they would choose to stain their impeccable reputation by backing junk science is a mystery. In a response letter written by Andrew Luescher – a veterinary behaviorist whom National Geographic requested review Cesar’s show before it went on the air – begs the question: “The show repeatedly cautions the viewers not to attempt these techniques at home. What then is the purpose of this show? I think we have to be realistic: people will try these techniques at home, much to the detriment of their pets,” (Luescher, 1) he goes on to denounce the training methods utilized in the episodes and ends with a plea not to air the show: “My colleagues and I and innumerable leaders in the dog training community have worked now for decades to eliminate such cruel, ineffective (in terms of true cure) and inappropriate techniques,” (Lueshcer, 1). Indeed, Cesar’s methods seem to be causing quite a fuss among reputable dog trainers. Lueshcer is not alone. Among trainers an outcry can be heard – these people do not wish to be represented by Cesar, or his primitive, ineffectual training techniques. Nor do these professionals wish for his personal philosophy to be available to the public – a domain where faulty information can do significant damage in the hands of well-intending pet owners who don’t know enough to sort the good advice from bad advice.
Letters of denouncement of Cesar have poured in from many dog training professionals – Ian Dunbar, Karen Pryor, Pat Miller, Dr. Nicholas Dodman, and Dr. Suzanne Hetts – all long-standing and highly respected individuals in the field of animal behavior and dog training. They have all written to National Geographic with their concerns. Even organizations are weighing in. In a letter to the makers of flea control products that endorsed Millan, The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior states:”The American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB), the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB) and the Society of Veterinary Behavior Technicians (SVBT) have uniformly spoken out against the punishment-based techniques employed by Mr. Millan on his television show “The Dog Whisperer” (Meyer, et al., 1). With such strong letters and voices pouring in from so many sources, it seems impossible that National Geographic could so unceremoniously ignore and suppress this information. And yet, they continue to endorse Cesar and stand behind him and his show. This has become an issue of increasing concern for those who have dedicated their lives to this field and work every day to counteract the methods that Cesar teaches to his clients.
American Humane, too denounces the Dog Whisperer: “As a forerunner in the movement towards humane dog training, we find the excessively rough handling of animals on the show and inhumane training methods to be potentially harmful for the animals and the people on the show,” said the letter’s author, Bill Torgerson, DVM, MBA, who is vice president of Animal Protection Services for American Humane. “It also does a disservice to all the show’s viewers by espousing an inaccurate message about what constitutes effective training and appropriate treatment of animals” (Blauvelt, 1). This excerpt is typical of the letters National Geographic has received on the subject. In fact, it is difficult if not impossible to find a professional opinion of Cesar that does not include some sort of warning against imitating his actions in any situation. Most, in fact, warn that to do so could result in a dangerous situation for either the pets or the owners and may result in injury.
It’s pretty much unanimous across the board – Cesar’s way is not the way. There are very few – if any – professional trainers worth their salt who support or utilize his methods. But this cannot be said for the general public, who don’t have the benefit of years of training and experience available to help them spot the deception. This discretion should have been caught by National Geographic. They should have made the responsible choice not to further perpetuate punitive techniques that cause more harm than good. Obviously, National Geographic was made clearly aware of this discrepancy between methods deemed acceptable and what is presented in the show. And yet they decided to consciously ignore the advice they requested from multiple reputable sources, since the show was aired and remains on television to this day. National Geographic still owes the nation an explanation as to why they are ignoring good science in favor of sensationalism. But that is a question the entire dog training community is waiting for an answer to; in the meantime, it is the unsuspecting viewers and especially their pets that will continue to suffer.
Works Cited
Blauvelt, R. “Dog Whisperer Training Approach More Harmful Than Helpful.” Companion Animal News. Fall 2006. 23; 3, pages 1-2. Print.
Kerkhove, Wendy van. “A Fresh Look at the Wolf-Pack Theory of Companion Animal Dog Social Behavior” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science; 2004, Vol. 7 Issue 4, p279-285, 7p.
Luescher, Andrew. “Letter to National Geographic Concerning ‘The Dog Whisperer.’” Weblog Entry. Urban Dawgs. Accessed on Novermber 6, 2010. (http://www.urbandawgs.com/luescher_millan.html)
Mech, L. David. “Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs.” Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1196-1203. Jamestown, ND. 1999.
Mech, L. David. “Whatever Happened to the Term Alpha Wolf?” Weblog Entry. 4 Paws Univeristy. Accessed on October 16, 2010. (http://4pawsu.com/alphawolf.pdf)
Meyer, E. Kathryn; Ciribassi, John; Sueda, Kari; Krause, Karen; Morgan, Kelly; Parthasarathy, Valli; Yin, Sophia; Bergman, Laurie.” AVSAB Letter the Merial.” June 10, 2009.
Semyonova, A. “The social organization of the domestic dog; a longitudinal study of domestic canine behavior and the ontogeny of domestic canine social systems.” The Carriage House Foundation, The Hague, 2003. 38 Pages. Print.
Everyone should read this. The dominance theory is dead, stop referring to it in any sort of training situation.
“All puppies are blank slates.” “If you do everything right with your puppy, you’ll have a great adult dog.” “If dogs have behavioral issues, we should blame the handle end of the leash.”
These are common misconceptions I hear as a trainer, and they make me so very sad. Behavior is a combination of nature and nurture, and if we could just take a moment to look logically at these myths, we would see just how silly they are.
Photo by Tavallai
Genetics influence behavior. This is part of the reason we have breeds: if you want a dog to work your sheep, you’re going to choose a Border Collie, not a Brittany Spaniel. Even though the two dogs have the same basic size and shape, one is more likely to have the instinctive motor patterns to do the work than the other. Getting a Border Collie whose parents successfully work sheep further increases the likelihood of your dog having the necessary genetic ability to be a great sheepherder.
In the 1970’s, Murphree and colleagues began to study the difference between normal and fearful lines of Pointers. In cross-fostering experiments, puppies from fearful parents were raised by normal mothers. These puppies still turned out fearful, in spite of proper socialization and a confident role model.
Interestingly, puppies from normal parents who were raised by fearful mothers also turned out fearful. Environment also influences behavior, and the best genetics in the world can’t create the perfect dog without a supportive upbringing.
If we believe that the way a dog is raised is solely responsible for his adult behavior, how can the tremendous success of the Pit Bulls from Michael Vick’s kennel and many other fighting operations be explained? With their neglectful and abusive upbringing, we would expect these dogs to be vicious and unsalvageable. Yet many of them have gone on to become wonderful pets. Some compete in agility or work as certified therapy dogs. Many Pit Bull enthusiasts are adamant that it’s all in how the dogs are raised, yet the success of many former fighting dogs tells us that it’s more than just that. These amazing, resilient dogs also have to have a sound genetic basis to explain their ability to overcome adversity.
On the other end of the spectrum, many of my clients have done everything right, yet continue to struggle with anxiety or aggression issues in their dogs. Certain lines of Golden Retrievers are known for severe resource guarding issues that often show up even in tiny puppies. Most of my German Shepherd behavioral consults occur when these dogs hit 12-18 months and growl at or bite a stranger. Miniature Australian Shepherds are likely to come to me due to extreme fear issues at 6-10 months of age. Terrier owners often call me when their dog hits social maturity and begins fighting with housemate dogs. While these traits may be common in my area, trainers in other areas of the country report completely different issues in the same breeds due to different lines of dogs with different genetic potentials living and being bred near them. I also see hundreds of friendly, stable, solid Goldens, German Shepherds, mini Aussies, and terriers in our Beginning Obedience and Puppy Kindergarten classes.
The truth is that dogs are born with a certain genetic potential that will influence which behavioral traits they display. This could include a dog’s sociability towards people, dogs, or other animals; their level of boldness or fearfulness; their likelihood to display anxious or compulsive behaviors; whether they are calm and confident or nervous and neurotic; and many other behavioral factors.
Let’s look at one trait to make this more clear. We know that dogs born from fearful parents are more likely to be fearful and that dogs with bold parents are more likely to be bold. There is a behavioral continuum, with boldness on one end and fearfulness on the other. Here’s what that spectrum would look like. A dog on the left end of the spectrum would be incredibly fearful, while a dog on the right end would be exceedingly confident. Most dogs wind up somewhere in the middle, and dogs on both ends of the spectrum present challenges for their owners.
A dog with bold parents is born with the potential to be quite bold. He is physically capable of bold behavior. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that he will become a bold dog. If his experiences as a puppy and young adult are very limited or if he has negative, scary experiences, he may develop into a fearful adult due to environmental influence. His genetic potential gave him the ability to be bold, but his environment did not nurture that ability.
On the other hand, consider a dog who is born from fearful parents. This dog does not have the genetic potential to be bold. Even given an incredibly supportive and nurturing environment as a puppy and young adult, this dog will always be somewhat fearful because the physical ability to be bold is just not there.
These dogs may present identically when we look at their behavior, in spite of the very different levels of dedication their owners had to socializing and supporting their puppies. However, the genetically bold dog may make a lot of progress with appropriate behavioral interventions, while the genetically fearful dog makes little or none. This has nothing to do with the skill level of each dog’s owner, but rather with the raw material each dog started with. (This is also, by the way, why ethical trainers do not make guarantees: without knowing what genetic package a dog starts with, there’s no way to know how much progress that dog can make until we try.)
Do you see how very unfair statements about how “it’s all in how they’re raised” are to committed, wonderful dog owners who have dogs with more difficult baselines? Just because your dog flew through a behavior mod program doesn’t mean every dog can or will, and assuming that it’s all because of the owner is unrealistic and downright cruel. I regularly work with wonderful people who do the best they can with difficult dogs, and that adage about walking a mile in someone’s shoes is applicable to their situation. As if living with and training a more difficult dog weren’t enough, these people are often subjected to comments and insinuations that if they were just a better handler, a better trainer, or a better leader, their dog would be perfectly fine. This is untrue and incredibly hurtful, and it needs to stop.
A fantastic diagram of lots of the facial expressions of stress we talk about here a lot! Found on Facebook.
I think it’s important to take context and breed into account when you try to interpret canine body language?
Lio and many other greyhounds chatter their teeth when they’re happy or excited. I’ve only hear Lio chatter his teeth when he’s anticipating a treat or when I come home after being away for awhile. He gets puffy cheeks when he’s sleepy being his breathing slows down and his facial muscles are relaxed. Also, apparently some greyhounds grin when they’re happy? I’ve only ever seen Lio grin before a snap or lunge though so I only associate it with negative feelings when it comes to him.
Yes, greyhounds are huge weirdos! breed and context are important. This is a nice graphic though and I wish it had been posted at the shelter I worked at for the more inexperienced volunteers and staff. Might’ve prevented some issues.
The “clown mouth” is kind of standard for bully breeds as well. I have mixed feelings on graphics like these. On one hand they are a nice guide for taking care around a stray dog or a dog in a stressful situation, but on the other hand I hate it when people try to use them to look at photos of people’s pets and accuse them of being stressed. Context is very important, as well as taking into account breed traits. E.g. when Rudy is out in the yard and his ears are alert, he’s just being alert. However if I was approaching a strange dog and they had that expression, I’d be cautious and not go right up to and handle.
This also applies to basenjis. Ears back/flat is a sign of “OMFG, I’M SO HAPPY!” And ears alert…that’s just what it is. They’re alert of their surroundings. And the brows furrowed, that’s just normal. LOVE their wrinkles. :3
We’ve pretty much decided that the best way to tell of Cora in enjoying pets is to assume that the more nervous she looks, the better. She’ll side whale eye while licking her lips and if you stop petting her she will MUG YOU for more pets.
Kaeda does the SAME THING. She’ll do the tongue flick. If I stop, she looks at me and sometimes will even paw me to continue! hahaha
Also with German Shepherds their ears go back and loose and I’ve heard it called “Happy Seal Head” and it means they’re happy to see you, and it’s quite different from the ears pinned back thing.
Like, this looks like an all-round bad situation, right?
Context is everything. He was actually ecstatic to meet a person he lived with who he hadn’t seen yet that day but met on the driveway on our way out, but canine body language is one of the hardest things to read because every dog and breed is so different.
Even hackles can be mildly unreliable, though I wouldn’t fuck with a strange do with hackles up from shoulder to tail.
I guess you should get to know your own dog, and don’t tangle with a strange dog displaying any potential stress signals, regardless of whether they’re actually stress signals or not.
Okay, so this is a thread of commentary I want to talk about, because as a professional in the field it makes me want to tear my hair out.
This infographic isn’t misleading – it’s very, very basic, and it’s very, very accurate. This is posted for the new people who really have no visual context to even start from about what behaviors can indicate stress. I guess I shouldn’t have posted this without more context – because, as you said, context is the important thing. All behavior must be taken in context to be understood at all. As a professional, working with brand new clients, this is an infographic I would give them because it tells them where to start looking
What is important when looking at stress behavior is that that behavior is looked for in terms of change. A naturally prick-eared dog isn’t necessarily stressed if his ears are up – but if they prick hard forwards, stiffly, that’s stress. A wrinkly dog having soft folds of skin isn’t unusual, but he still might be stressed if they suddenly get super tense and deep and are simultaneous with other signs of stress or overall body tension. You can’t discount a signal by saying ‘oh well my dog’s body already does that so obviously he’s fine all the time this isn’t a valid signal’. Canine body language is canine body languge, and it can be subtle or different depending on the dog, but there’s not an animal out there that just “speaks a different language”.
If you have a dog for whom some of these aren’t stress signals, and you know that, great. At the same time, for every person I work with who know that their dog isn’t stressed, I have three more who say “Oh, Fluffy does this all the time but he’s fine!” and then I come in for a consult and Fluffy is stressed out of his eyeballs. So if your dog is displaying stress signals “a lot, but he’s fine” – maybe you should try to figure out why. Maybe it’s just that as much as Fluffy likes being pet by you, he’s nervous when you loom over him or touch his face. So then you could just change your posture or pet his flank instead, and you’d have solved the problem and made your dog more comfortable.
The thing that really, really bothers me about this is the fact that you’ve got people discounting very scary signals like ‘whale eye’ because they ‘see them all the time’. That tells me right there that the person commenting doesn’t know how to accurately identify the behavior that the term describes, which leads to a very slippery slope of ignoring signals when dogs are being pushed too far because since they’re ‘common’ people just ignore it. ‘Whale eye’ is is a super serious stiff, terrified look out of the corner of the eye while trying to move as far away from the object of the gaze – it’s not that thing that happens when your dog looks at you sideways. I’ve talked about this before, but what’s important to quantify is that it’s considered almost as serious as snapping/snarling in the behavioral evaluations I’m part of. If it happens “all the time” you’re just straight up incorrect. That’s. So. Dangerous. If you can’t call behavior accurately when you’re talking about concepts that drastically important, don’t use those phrases – because that gets people hurt, or dogs put down. (Same thing with the ‘did you see teeth’ or did your dog ‘snap’ at that other dog dichotomy I talk about a lot. Accuracy is important).
When people start assuming that their dog’s stress signals aren’t indicative of even minor moments of stress in an other positive situation, that gets bad quickly. You get really reactive dogs somethings who have learned that their people will ignore any small stress signals and that they have to snap or growl to get the human to listen, because we’ve learned to discount and write off their polite body language of ‘I’m not comfortable”. This is also where you get the idea that toy dogs should get shaking all the time, having seal ears, lip licking constantly… guess what? That’s not normal. People ignore stress signals in small dogs because we’ve decided as a culture we can, and the dogs eventually just give up and deal with being towed into every situations and manhandled… but they’re still showing signs of stress the whole time.
So yes, this infographic is basic, and requires context as does everything involving behavior, which I stress a lot .It’s also the best one out there I’ve seen because it effectively isolates the specific, subtle signs of stress everyone ignores. It’s the type of thing we get asked for a lot – visuals to help out the less dog savvy folk. So please, don’t chew it to shreds and be nasty because you’re sure that your dog doesn’t do that (trust me, he does) or because what you’ve learned on the internet has told you it’s okay to want to find wiggle room in behavioral assessments where it’s not accurate or appropriate to have it. That sort of commentary being propagated is literally why I have a job – fixing it.
A couple of comments based on discussions I’ve seen:
“Clown face” is different than the wide mouthed common bully face in its tension. You’re looking for lip tension and stiff wrinkles, combined with a spatulate and/or stiff tongue. Bullies will often do a similar happy or overheated face but it’s much more soft and floppy.
Dogs chattering in response to prey is still a stress response. The problem is that stress is always assumed to equate to negative things, when sometimes it’s a sign of arousal. (Eustress is a thing – stress can be good or bad, it’s just often more commonly thought of as a negative). A greyhound chattering at a squirrel is in a state of stress, especially if he’s restrained and knows he can’t go after it. Is he miserable? No. But it does tell you he’s aroused and distracted and more likely to react instead of focus on the handler.
I have not read a single paper that does anything but debunk the concept of canines smiling like primates, nor have a met a single professional or academic in ethology or canine science who believes it is anything but a layman’ misinterpretation. Smiling is a human behavior, and the lip movements we use are singularly primate. Dogs do not interpret lip tension and exposed teeth as affiliate in their own species-typical behavior, and therefore have no reason to display it as a referential behavior describing their own internal state. There is no level of behavioral mimicry from interacting with humans that would cause that. The smile behavior happens from stress, from random things, and from training – but not because the dog is happy. Canines do not smile like humans. QED
This is a totally anti-climactic video of my dogs lazy-playing with much teeth, a toy banana, and a stuffed orange.
Here’s a great example of why, when you’re seeing teeth, it’s super important to describe the behavior you’re looking at in details (if you’re asking for advice). This is soft, lazy, friendly play, but if you’re not paying a lot of attention or only seeing a glimpse of it out of context, it’s easy to go ‘*le gasp*, teeth!’ and totally misinterpret it – which is not good, if you then try to tell someone that your dog was baring his teeth at the other dog when they played and you’re worried about it.
Jeez, okay. Anthropomorphism at it’s finest. Let’s start by remembering that dogs can’t really experience guilt because they can’t connect the current state of reprimand with their past actions. (No, really).
Notice the dog starts the entire video with it’s ears back and face a little bit tense – probably uncertain of what’s going on, definitely a little unsure/uncomfortable about stuff. The guy intensifies his stare and the dog looks away and down (0:08) – a non-threat signal, because direct face-to-face interaction and eye contact is aggressive in dog language. By breaking away, the dog is trying to diffuse that.
The dog then climbs into his lap, and I’m honestly not sure why, but the body language is still very uncomfortable. Hunched body, possible erection, head directly to chest. This still looks like appeasement behavior, and maybe behavior that’s been rewarded before. Notice how he’s also keeping from facing the person with the camera – that’s probably part of the discomfort here, a camera being so close. Not sure what’s up with all the face-rubbing.
The dog then pulls back, and the guy holds onto his paws and stares him in the face- you can see his ears are still a little back. He holds the gaze a moment and then lip-licks and looks away to diffuse things. There’s lots of pawing behavior and lip-licking going on as he’s held away from the human, and then allowed to cuddle in again.
I’m not sure what’s going on, honestly, but it’s definitely not a ‘begging for forgiveness’ or anything to do with guilt. The dog seems uncomfortable and is either giving off odd appeasement signals or looking for tactile interactions with the human by crawling into his lap.
Unpopular opinion: Don’t take your dog (especially a bully breed) to the dog park. Just don’t.
I do not know a single professional trainer who willingly will take animals to a dog park, or who doesn’t cringe and go ‘ugh, dog parks’ when anyone brings them up. Why? Because dog parks are generally where a huge number of dogs develop fear and reactivity problems due to lack of management.
The problem with dog parks is the owners, honestly. Most dog owners are notoriously bad at reading their own dog’s body language or interpreting social behavior between dogs in the first place. Then, you have a dog park, where everyone assumes you can just let your dog run free and basically not have to pay attention to it. So you’ve got dogs of all temperaments, ages, sizes, and levels of polite manners running around unsupervised by their owners.
Dogs get bullied at dog parks. Dogs get attacked at dog parks. Reactive dogs, fearful dogs, dogs that play too rough and bully other dogs, dogs that steal toys and/or resource guard them – people just let them loose in big dog parks and assume the dogs will sort it out. A lot of owners talk to their friends or sit on their cell-phone and ignore how their dog is behaving and how other dogs are interacting with them, which drives responsible dog owners who actually try to manage their dog during a dog park visit absolutely nuts. You hear constant stories, as a trainer, of people who had to go break up fights or rescue their dog from a bully only to be told ‘oh, they were just playing, it’s fine’. I know dogs who have been traumatized by being attacked or bullied at dog parks by dogs for whom that environment was really not appropriate to be in.
So here’s why I say really, really don’t. You’ve got a bully breed, which means you’ve got an animal who (no matter how sweet), has to some degree a genetic disposition for dog reactivity and a low threshold for frustration. What that means is that you want to set him up for success by making sure you manage his experiences so he’s less likely to develop behavior problems. He’s also very young right now, which means he’s still learning polite dog manners and he’s also learning his boundaries and how to stand up for himself. While he’s out of his critical socialization period, experiences he has now are going to set up him for the rest of his life. – that’s not a dog you want to expose to the sheer potential for bad experiences at a dog park.
You can’t control who shows up to a dog park, and it’s impossible to get some irresponsible owners to be more responsible. People think dog parks are a place they don’t have to deal with their dog, and that’s that. So honestly, skip the dog park, and set up playdates with other dogs one-on-one or in a small group. That way you can make sure all the dogs have been introduced properly and that they play well together, and you can step in to mediate if you need to without having to worry about the other animal’s owner getting upset.
(Dog parks are also serious cesspools of parasites and disease, because people don’t tend to clean up after their pets or watch to see if dogs eat poop).
Rebageling because more people need to read this one.
After doing a bit of research and talking to a couple more knowledable people I’ve learned that Nic came from a horrible “wolfdog breeder” here in AL. They’re known for mistreating their animals as well as their customers. Nic’s mother is a very very low-content wolfdog with some Tamaskan in her history. I believe this is where he got some of his odd and somewhat wolfy traits. I think he’s too low to even consider him a low/no content wolfdog but it is in his recent history making the cause of some of his traits a bit mote clear.
He has a lot of emotional issues either from abuse from his previous owner or his terrible time as a pup there at that breeder. They were basically a puppy mill so I know he was not treated well there. Hopefully it’s not so ingrained in him that he won’t ever fully relax here with me. We’ll have to wait and see but I hope he comes around, even if it takes him a while.
If i may give you a piece of advice regarding dog behaviour. You may already know but dogs usually mirror the behavior of the “dominant” in a pack, in your case: you. The best way to have a relaxed dog is to be yourself extremely relaxed, especially in stressful situations. And to never pet the dog to reassure him, because petting is usually seen as a reward for a good behavior. You’d tell him"good boy, your stressed attitude is the right one". The best way to sooth a dog is to be calm. Well good luck with this amazing dog, I hope he’ll recover soon! (And don’t hesitate to see a professional dog trainer in whom you trust!)
Thank you, I appreciate your advice. I do agree with you that being calm around a dog is the best way to keep a dog calm and show him when it is okay to be calm vs. stressed, but the whole “pack dominance” idea does not apply to dogs(or wolves for that matter).
Dogs will not believe they are the “alpha”. That is an idea that doesn’t even apply to what we now know about wolves in the wild. Natural wild wolf packs don’t have ranks, they don’t consistently compete with each other to take over the pack and be the so called “alpha”. This only applies to artificially composed packs, i.a. in zoos, where there are no natural leaders. Instead, in wild packs, there is a natural pack composition: a lone male wolf joins up with a lone female wolf, they mate and then this breeding pair automatically becomes the “leading” pair of their pack, which is basically just a family – comparable to human families.
When talking about dogs: “Dominance” is the most misunderstood word used to describe dog behavior. It stems from research on captive wolves published in the ’60s and ’70s. While the information may be accurate for the artificial grouping of wolves in captivity, its application to wild wolves and the domesticated dog is outdated.
Despite new research, the concept that wolves and their close relative, the dog, vie for dominance within a pack simply won’t go away. With the notion that an animal is in constant pursuit of obtaining the top position, any aggressive behavior can be misinterpreted as “dominance”. As a result, it makes sense that well-meaning pet owners accept physical force as a way to discipline an animal behaving in a “dominant” manner. After all, that’s what wolves do, right?
Actually, no, not at all! Most of the time, wolf packs are made up of a breeding male and female, and their offspring. They are related, intact animals that use ritualistic displays to communicate and avoid aggression. If there was constant fighting among the pack, there would be no energy to hunt nor motivation to work as a team. Dogs evolved from a wolf-like ancestor to fill a different niche than their wild counterparts. They learned to scavenge and live alongside humans, not compete.
Sorry for spewing so much information, lol. I hope it didn’t come off as rude, that was not my intent in any way, shape, or form. The whole “dominance theory” is just a big pet peeve of mine and I like to throw out facts about it when I can. There are many better ways to train your dog and many resources out there that aren’t built around that theory.
I wanted to share this info on this blog as well. I have shared it before but I like to bring up the dominance theory when I can.
That dog is straight up big enough to bite that kid’s head off his shoulders and his parents let him smack the dog in the face to make a cute video for the internet.
This is where “It happened completely out of nowhere we were so shocked!” begins. They’re lucky this animal has as much restraint as it does.
that dog looks so fucking shocked now, and it’ll probably have less patience the next time it happens. what the fuck is wrong with some people.
I could do this to any of my dogs and they wouldn’t bite me.. because they’re trained.. someone should know their dog well enough to know if they’d bite their child. this isn’t abuse, it’s a kid waving his hand and the dog moving.
Kids don’t train dogs, much less very small kids like this one. A good percentage of dog bites come from dogs the victim knew. A good percentage of dog bite victims are children. Because children are at eye level with many dogs, bites on children are therefore usually more severe and disfiguring.
Children as young as this one don’t speak dog. When your dog growls at you to back off, you understand. A screaming happy toddler though? Will happily throw himself on a dog that’s trying to get away from him. Dogs that can play easily and comfortably with an adult don’t always know how to handle children. If children were the same as any other adult, there wouldn’t be any dogs in the shelter that “need to go to a home with older kids” or breeds who “aren’t good with kids.”
Because little kids are loud, uncoordinated, overly trusting and have no concept of personal space. You can teach your kid to deal nicely with animals, or the animals will teach them. Animals usually teach through CORRECTIVE BITING AND SCRATCHING. But when Muffles the bulldog bites a kid in the face, and the kid needs stitches and has a permanent scar, it doesn’t matter that it wasn’t Muffle’s fault.
My dad’s little dog is very polite and well mannered, and she will “play bite” with the adults in the house and do all manner of tricks and loves everyone. But when a toddler comes into the house? She can’t deal. She growls. She threatens. She tries to escape while the toddler keeps trying to get in her face. I can trust the dog not to bite ME, but I can’t trust the dog not to bite in self defense when a little kid invades her personal space.
A dog this big could very easily do serious lasting damage to this kid without even trying. And yet his caretakers think it’s funny to let the kid walk over to a resting dog and start smacking it in the face?
That’s not training. That’s dumb luck. You don’t train the dog not to defend itself. You train the KID to be nice to his pets, starting by not letting him smack them over the face because you think it’s a funny video.
I’m not disagreeing with any of your points I’m just pointing out that the dog was not hit and he did not snap.. that’s it. I understand that dogs can bite, I know that if I pissed off my little dog enough he’d bite, but the freak out right now is over something that didn’t even happen. please everyone teach your kids to not be little shits to dogs because no one plays nice all the time. I wouldn’t ever let a small child near two of my dogs (one is too rough when she plays, and the little one is grouchy), but if I was planning on having a family I’d own a family dog.
The kid makes contact with him at least once, and while it may not have been hard, it doesn’t matter how soft we think it happened, it matters what the dog think happened, and mouthiness like that, even in play, can be dangerous to a tiny tot.
The dog didn’t snap, no, and they’re very lucky he didn’t. This individual dog may be a saint, but people see this, interpret it as “cute”, and may set themselves up for failure in turn because they expect their dog to just take it and be a good family dog. Nobody asked the dog first, is the problem!
The spreading of videos like this normalizes poor kid and animal training. And in a world where dog bites are in the top ten reasons for a child emergency room visit, and dog bites have gone up considerably in the last few decades, it sort of becomes unreasonable to allow it to continue and just assume it will be ok because “hes a good dog.”
I ain’t saying a kid can’t have a dog, but I am saying the kid should know how to speak dog and not get all up in the wheelhouse of an animal that is essentially a wolf.
PiraticOctopus 