Understanding Dog Whispering
A bit of controversy has swirled as the term “Dog Whisperer” has been used by a number of dog trainers around the globe.
Although non-force animal training methods have been around for many decades, the term dog whisperer was popularized in the early 1990s, as an offshoot of horse whispering. (My book appeared in 1999). As a result, gone were the uses of choke, prong and shock collars & the aversive training methods of physical punishment…
…No longer were dogs treated with “tough love” by being hit, jerked, shocked and pinned to the ground. Frightened dogs were no longer physically forced into situations they were afraid of and all these were replaced with kindness and compassion.
As we use the term, dog whispering is more about educating ourselves about dogs and their behavior than it is about educating or training dogs, although that is certainly an important aspect. Non-force dog whispering helps us develop our empathy and our understanding, making us more humane and more human. As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “If peace is our goal, then our means must be peaceful.”
A: We are not affiliated with the National Geographic program called The Dog Whisperer. We do not promote nor advocate the methods demonstrated on that program.
Q: I’ve never seen Cesar Millan of National Geographic’s program,”The Dog Whisperer”, use inappropriate or violent techniques with animals – so why are you distancing yourself from him?
A: The methods demonstrated on the National Geographic TV program, The Dog Whisperer, include the use of choke collars, leash corrections, hitting, pinning to the ground, shocking, and so on.
Physical punishment and “flooding” are used in order to suppress a dog’s behavior. Physical punishment involves applying a physical aversive to reduce the probability of the behavior continuing. “Flooding” refers to physically forcing a dog into an overwhelming situation he or she is afraid of until the dog “shuts down” or the behavior is suppressed.
Using negative methods with fearful or aggressive dogs is actually dangerous (as demonstrated on the program) and unnecessary. They are certainly not very easy on the dogs. Most importantly, these methods are not the most effective in modifying problematic behaviors.
Behavioral science has shown that suppressing behavior, especially through physical force or the threat of force, is not an effective way to bring confidence to a fearful dog or calm an aggressive dog, it only suppresses that behavior (out of fear) in that particular situation.
Most of the physical-force methods demonstrated on this program are in contrast to the positive behavior modification programs used by professional trainers around the world, including the leading veterinary schools of behavior at University of Pennsylvania, Tufts University, Cornell, University of California at Davis, and many others. They have found negative training to be unsafe, unnecessary and ineffective in the long run. Thirty years ago I used most of the negative methods shown on the National Geographic program and became skilled in both positive and negative training. In the past 15 years, along with other professionals and the leading animal behavioral scientists at the institutions referenced above, I have abandoned negative training, finding it to be less effective and certainly not as kind as positive training. I believe positive training is easier and more effective with even the most aggressive or fearful dog, as well as being less stressful for the human.
I recommend that you interview trainers and find out the methods he or she uses before hiring him or her. I further recommend getting referrals and watching the trainer in action. Only then can you can make an informed decision and choose for yourself the methods you will ultimately use.
Q: Is it true that a person needs to be dominant in their relationship with their dog so he’ll obey them?
A: The definition of dominance is “who controls access.” Using physical force is not necessary to accomplish this. If a three-year-old child has her hand on the doorknob, she is dominant because she controls whether the dog goes in or out. If she is holding a ball, in the dog’s eyes, she is dominant because she controls access to the ball. So dominance doesn’t mean who is bigger or stronger …although that sometimes plays a part. It simply means setting up your environment so that you control access to things your dog wants and he has to look to you to get what he wants. You control the food, affection, toys, social freedom, climate control, and everything else in his universe. There is no negotiation. In effect, you are saying, “I’ll give you the world, but you’ve got to do something for me first.” When the dog figures this out, you simply ask the dog to do something before providing the reward, whether it be food, chasing a ball, going outside, etc.
For many years, concepts about hierarchy within the canine world led to the idea that one dog in the pack is the top ranking “alpha dog” and that that dog is dominant in all situations. In recent years this concept has been researched extensively by leading animal behaviorists who now consider it to be outmoded and simplistic. Still, the perception that dogs look up to the alpha in the pack as some sort of tyrannical dictator and that humans should take on this role has been perpetuated by the authors of many mainstream dog training books and trainers on television. They use this theory to teach you to mandate your authority as the physical-force leader of your dog’s pack—the boss, the head honcho, the big cheese, the numero uno. Woe to him if he doesn’t obey. Unfortunately, this outmoded idea has some trainers perpetuating the myth that humans should use physical displays with the family dog including physically forcing dogs to walk behind them, standing over them, pinning them to the ground, always entering a room first, and so on, supposedly to mimic the behaviors of packs in the wild. Well, none of these things actually exist in the wild except around food or procreation issues.
The most frequently repeated phrase by trainers who endorse this outdated “dominance” theory is. “You must always win when training your dog.” If you think about it, the phrase “you must always win” conveys that there is a competition going on. And a competition means there is a “win-lose” mentality. How can you and your dog become a behavioral team when you are caught up in an environment of having to compete and win at all costs?
Dogs are social animals but there is no “one dog rules all” pack mentality. L. David Mech, one of the world’s leading experts on the pack behavior of wild wolves, prefers to associate the term alpha with parenting. Parents understand the importance of protecting and educating their children. After all, the parenting role requires not just providing food, shelter, and clothing, but also setting boundaries. What you want the dog to do and the child to do is to take their cues about the appropriateness of their behavior from you and that is the context within which you guide and protect them. A child can’t just run out into the middle of the street or steal a toy from another child in the schoolyard without consequences. In the best of circumstances, the parent acts as a loving, nonviolent guardian; he is the source and provider of safety and comfort, and he educates the child through the use of examples, boundaries, and limits. In the same way, you must educate and act as a loving, nonviolent, benevolent guardian in your dog’s life.
Mech says: “In natural wolf packs, the alpha male or female are merely the breeding animals, the parents of the pack, and dominance contests with other wolves are rare, if they exist at all.”1 Mech continues, “Breeding wolves [only] provide leadership because offspring tend to follow their parents’ initiative …. The point here is not so much the terminology but what the terminology falsely implies: a rigid, force-based dominance hierarchy.”2 Mech’s research shows that, while breeding wolves provided the most leadership, wolves who had subordinate roles also provided leadership during travel. He says, “No “alpha” [emphasis mine] would suddenly run to the front of the pack and force the subordinate to get behind him.”3 The following excerpt is from the book Ain’t Misbehavin’ by John C. Wright, PH.D (2001)
“Well, I hate to admit this—since I was one of the handful of people trying to correctly understand and document real behavioral characteristics of dogs and cats in the 1970s—but we had it wrong.
The theory was that people should behave like members of the pack, and the animal needed to be controlled by its dominant member. So I was among those behaviorists gripping a young dog by the fur on its neck to hold the too-assertive pup down in a moment of discipline, just like the mother wolf was supposed to do. This technique turns out to be infrequent even for mommy wolves, and it is clearly not an appropriate method of instruction for a dog or cat owner. You won’t hear that from many gung-ho “alpha animal” trainers because the word hasn’t really gotten out yet. But now it’s time to move on to the next level of behavior training … our role is not to dominate, but to lead and enable pets in our household to fulfill their needs.
Over the last decade, this wolf-envy among dog owners has become the “in” theory, tossed around by everyone who could tune in a daily talk show. This concept became so popular in recent years that the phrase “alpha male” came to replace the earlier “macho man” as the trendiest concept in the social fabric of our culture. Unfortunately, thinking of our male dogs-or cats-as alpha animals can stir up a lot more trouble than the original behavior problem.”
According to Dr. Karen Overall, many animal behaviorists believe that although each member of a group works in his own self interest, that self interest manifests in shared responsibilities. It would be abnormal for one animal to constantly have to demonstrate through force that he was dominant. In reality, each situation in the group dynamic entails a collaborative effort. In the wild, these social interactions are dependent on what’s going on in the environment because success for the group is dependent on working together. Studies suggest the only situations that trigger an absolute rank hierarchy are around disasters or stressful situations relating to resources like food and sex (procreation).
So the question arises, why do some trainers seem to elicit almost miraculous results in getting dogs to do what they want through what they call “dominance” training. The truth is, it isn’t miraculous, nor is it related to dominance. The results are due to using physical force in order to suppress behaviors, which is done by using positive punishment and physically forcing fearful dogs into overwhelming situations until they “shut down,” which is called flooding, leading to, depending on the situation, behavioral suppression and learned helplessness. Calling this dominance training is simply incorrect and its practice can be dangerous for both dogs and humans, especially when aggression is involved. It’s pure abuse when used with fearful dogs.
Animals defer to one another to keep their group safe, strong, and healthy. If one individual threatens the group’s collaborative efforts by asserting himself in ways contrary to the group’s well being, he is thrown out. There are many examples of animal packs ousting members who tried to rule by brute force. Wolves have banished individuals who constantly used undue physical force to exert their authority. Monkeys also have been shown to attack and oust brutish members who