Why is The Dog Whisperer (Cesar Millan) So Dangerous?
Cesar Millan Confronting a Pitbull
First, do no harm
If you’re reading this blog, no doubt the title intrigued you, and I promise it’s not going to be click bait. I would never do that to you. While I am not here to vilify any particular individual, make no mistake, I AM going to mention and give examples of the most famous one by name, and I AM here to vilify methods that involve pain and intimidation in the name of “training.” Among my friends, I am known for speaking my mind, regardless of whom I may offend, if the cause warrants it…and this one does. If you’d like to see the full-length video on this topic, along with examples of what I’m talking about, check out my YouTube channel (linked in the footer of my website). These are not just my opinions, though. I’m going to give you scientific proof that what I say is true.
I’m a physician turned dog trainer, and it's my mission in life to make dogs smile. In medicine, we take an oath of ethics called the Hippocratic Oath, which states, among other things, “primum, non nocere.” In English, that means “first, do no harm.” We also don’t do anything that is not evidence-based, so this is how I have learned to operate in dog training, as well.
It hurts my heart to see dogs walking down the street on prong collars and “e” collars (we’ll talk about how I feel about euphemisms like that in a bit), with “dead eyes,” shut down and looking miserable. In fact, the reason I started my YouTube channel was to reach more people and make more dogs smile than I could 1:1.
Anyone can call themselves a dog trainer
So why am I writing this?
Because I’m disgusted by the endless stories and YouTube videos of dogs suffering at the hands of so-called “trainers” who hurt and intimidate them under the guise of teaching them. I’m tired of the misinformation, the ignorance, the lack of qualification needed to call themselves trainers. I’m tired of seeing the countless dogs who are subjected to this abuse, and whose guardians, not realizing the harm that’s being done, allow it to happen, or for those who send their dogs to board and train or "bootcamp" might not even realize it's happening. Then, if the dog dares to retaliate they are labeled as “aggressive” and possibly put down as a result.
Did you know that ANYONE can call themselves a dog trainer, start a business, make a website, and proclaim themselves an expert? There is currently NO regulation in this field, and, even if there were, how would it be enforced?
So why are Cesar Millan (The “Dog Whisperer”) and others who call themselves “balanced” trainers (which basically means…I’ll start out being nice, but if I don’t get what I want quickly enough, I’m gonna have to hurt you…”) so well known? Why do they have MILLIONS of views on YouTube? Why are they on TV? Does anyone even watch TV anymore? I’ll tell you why: sensationalism. Videos of “showdowns,” and “confrontations” are super click baity. Eliciting the “bad response” so it can be “corrected” puts not only the dog’s well being, but the physical safety of others at risk. And that’s dangerous. Cesar has no formal training in psychology or as a behaviorist, yet he refers to himself as one. He talks about pack position and dominance, spreading misinformation to the public. The dogs in his videos are not “cured,” they are intimidated and shut down. It’s important that you understand the difference. They are actually exercising great restraint by holding off as long as they do before finally giving the camera crew what it wants by attacking him. In a statement by the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior (AVSAB), "his methods include, but are not limited to: alpha rolls, kicks, leash tugs, hanging, pinning, use of choke chains, prongs and electronic collars." They specifically came out in a position statement saying that his techniques, which are based on dominance theory, can be harmful to dogs, causing them physician and psychological distress. The American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior has spoken out again his methods, stating “they are not only ineffective, but also potentially dangerous.” Additionally, it has been suggested that his techniques do not address the underlying cause of the dog’s behavior and may worsen the behavior over time.
Debunking pack theory and the concept of dominance/alpha
To understand more, we need to understand the conditions necessary for learning to occur, but, before we do that, it’s important to debunk pack theory and “dominance” theory for you…
First of all, wolves and dogs are NOT the same. Dogs self-domesticated from a now-extinct species of wolf between 19,000 and 32,000 years ago. In other words, a long time. Wolves are actually shy and less responsive to human body language than dogs are. So who started this whole alpha idea anyway?
It all started in 1947 when Rudolph Schenkel wrote “Expressions Studies on Wolves,” based on observing wolves in captivity. The wolves were forced to live together (kind of like MTV's The Real World), which is something that doesn't happen in the wild. In the paper, he wrote that wolves fight within a pack to gain dominance, and the winner is the “alpha wolf.” David Mech, founder of the International Wolf Center referred to the paper when writing his popular book “Wolf: The Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species,” in 1968 (published in 1970). Despite his numerous pleas to the publisher to stop publishing it, it’s still in print. Mech stated that we have learned more about wolves in the last forty years than in all of previous history and the idea of dominance/alpha has since been disproven.
The truth is, most wolves who lead packs achieve their position simply by mating and producing pups, which then become their pack. In other words they are merely breeders, or parents, and that’s all we call them today: the “breeding male,” “breeding female,” “male parent,” “female parent,” or the “adult male” or “adult female.”
By the same token, dominance is not a personality trait. It is situational, individual, and related to competing over a specific resource (e.g., food, a toy, etc.). Fighting usually only happens if the resource is of equal value to both individuals; otherwise there is deference.
So much for "pack theory" and being the “alpha” in your house. Training based on intimidation erodes trust and the bond between dogs and their guardians and can lead to negative outcomes like fear, anxiety, and aggression, which dogs then get blamed for. The bottom line is that your dog is not trying to take over the house (they can't afford the mortgage...)
You can't learn when you're afraid
The principles of learning hold true for ALL living organisms. People/children, dogs, rats, pigeons, and even goldfish. Check out my YouTube video for an amazing goldfish who does all sorts of tricks. Some people don’t like it when I compare dogs to human children, but they understand better when I do, so I’m going to…
If I were holding a cattle prod and I “asked” you to do something, you would no doubt do it, but would you be able to learn anything in a state of fear? Spoiler alert: the answer is no. Here’s what you WOULD learn: you would learn to be afraid of me, and possibly all people who look like me. You would learn that bad things happen when I’m around. You might wait for a time when I didn’t have the cattle prod and retaliate against me…or you might shut down. When you are afraid, your adrenaline is pumping, your heart rate goes up, your cortisol level goes up, and all this makes it impossible to think rationally; you can only REACT.
So…WHY do people allow so-called, self-proclaimed “dog trainers” to hurt and intimidate their dogs with “tools” like prong collars, shock collars, holding them up (“hanging” them) by choke chains? Would you allow your toddler’s preschool teacher to do such a thing? I hope the answer is no. And can we PLEASE stop referring to instruments that cause pain and intimidation (like prong collars, shock collars, electric fences, choke chains, etc.) as “tools.” The only thing worse than not owning up to what you’re doing is that you’re actually doing it…
Here’s the official position of the AVSAB (click on the links to the full statements): “We support the use of scientifically-based methods of training and behavior modification, and we promote interactions with animals based on compassion, respect, and scientific evidence. AVSAB supports the use of evidence-based medicine (using research-supported scientific evidence to make decisions about the care of individual patients) in designing behavior modification and training plans for animals. Current research in dog training supports changing the dog’s environment, and using positive reinforcement, as the most effective method for modifying a dog’s behavior. Punishment-based training methods may be advocated by those without an appreciation of the current status of science in dog training. Although such methods can be effective in the short term, science tells us they are likely to exacerbate an animal’s fear and actually increase aggression in the long run. When the problem behavior involves a negative reaction to another animal, attempting to elicit the bad behavior so it can be “corrected” is not only ineffective, it puts the target animal at risk of injury. Such training methods are unacceptable. Research in canine behavior is continually evolving through lab and field research trials. Behavior professionals continually further their knowledge of behavior in order to offer the best treatment plans to pet owners. AVSAB recommends you choose a trainer who understands and uses reward-based training, and who keeps abreast of developments in the field.”
“Survey studies have shown an association between the use of aversive training methods and long-term behavior problems including aggressive behavior towards people and other dogs, and anxiety-related behaviors such as avoidance and excitability. Survey studies cannot differentiate between causation and correlation, so possible explanations for this association include: 1) aversive training methods directly cause or contribute to the development of problem behaviors; or 2) owners of dogs with problem behaviors are more likely to use aversive training tools. Regardless of the explanation, this association shows that aversive training methods are not effective in eliminating problem behaviors: if they did, we would see the opposite trend of decreased behavior problems with increased use of aversive training. In contrast, dogs trained with reward-based methods have lower rates of behavior concerns compared with dogs trained with aversive methods.”
Several studies show the effect of aversive training persists beyond the time of training. After dogs learned a cue taught using aversive training methods, they continued to show stress-related behaviors when the cue was presented, suggesting the cue itself had become aversive.8 In 2020, de Castro et al found that dogs trained with aversive methods were more ‘pessimistic’ on average compared to dogs trained using reward-based methods.
Which kind of training is PROVEN to be the most effective?
Reward-based training methods have been shown to be more effective than aversive methods. Multiple survey studies have shown higher obedience in dogs trained with reward-based methods. Hiby et al (2004) found that obedience levels were highest for dogs trained exclusively with reward-based methods and lowest for dogs trained exclusively with aversive-based methods. Dogs trained with a combination of rewards and aversive-based methods (often referred to as ‘balanced’ in the dog training industry) produced lower obedience levels than reward-based but better than exclusively aversive-based training. Aversive training has been shown to impair dogs’ ability to learn new tasks.
Dogs are not here for our entertainment
Before I close, there’s something else I would like to get off my chest: It’s the notion that dogs are put on this earth to entertain us, or “emotionally support” us. Dogs have their own needs, desires, feelings, fears, likes and dislikes that are unique to them. It’s our OBLIGATION to understand them and meet those needs. They NEED to be dogs and do dog things. That includes chewing, licking, digging, sniffing, some barking, etc. We’re asking them to live in a human world, which is very unnatural for them. Imagine if tomorrow, you were sent to live with a troop of gorillas in the Virunga forest of Africa. The way of life and “rules” you’re used to don’t apply there. This is how it is for dogs who are asked to live in a human home. They don’t know the heirloom quilt your great grandmother knitted (and that you left out on the couch) is any different, or any more off limits than the chew toy you bought for them at Petco…until you TEACH them…and for God’s sake, put the quilt away.