Following up on my quest to villify Stillwell I ran across a letter she wrote rationalizing how she had one of the dogs on her show in 2006 killed because she didn’t know how to handle it. I don’t think this show aired in the US, just in the UK, possibly because the US network didn’t want to see the blowup that occurred when the show aired in the UK. I sure would like to see it to decide for myself, but my money’s on her evaluation being completely mistaken.

Have a cookie and read her explanation 🙂

I do not hold Victoria Stilwell up to be a paragon of virtue nor do I hold Cesar Millan up to be some kind of devil. There are many of Cesar Millan’s techniques that make sense and I have written about them. There are also many of Victoria’s methods that make sense and I will use those as well.

I have always pointed out that Victoria Stilwell uses aversive techniques with her clients and that ends up not working well most of the time. I would like to see someone who uses positive on dogs and positive on people – but perhaps that does not make for good t.v.

What I support is not Victoria, Cesar, or Brad. What I support are my dogs – and I will always try to learn as much as I can, so that I can always do what is best for them.

I have said this before and will say it again, just because there are some things we disagree with does not mean we have to reject the whole thing, and just because there are some things we agree with, does not mean we have to accept the whole thing. Evaluate it on a case by case basis – nobody is all good and nobody is all bad. 🙂

I have also written about medicating dogs –
Dog Medication – A Magic Pill for Dog Behavior Problems?

Later in the same episode she brought in a vet to lend the air of medical science to her desire to drug the people’s other dog, one that was suffering from a simple separation anxiety. Apparently if you don’t know how to fix a behavior but you can’t justify killing the dog Stillwell’s solution is to just drug it. Pathetic.

The sad thing is some people (shibashake) watch this woman and think she has a clue, and some percentage of those watching will hear her recommendations on the show and decide that they should kill Their little chihuahua or drug Their other dog because they saw the kind and gentle positivist recommend it on TV. Fans of Cesar Millan bemoan the incompetence of this self-righteous hypocrit and hope people now see her for what she really is — a fraud.

The whole episode was preceded by a snooty public-service-anouncement-style snippet where she sits in her living room and proclaims that dominance theory has been disproven by ‘recent scientific studies’ and that Her way, the Positive way, is The way to go. Well, I for one am ‘positive’ that the chihuahua did not need to be killed and the other dog did not need to be drugged. The empress has no clothes, and it’s an ugly picture indeed.

It sounds to me like we’re describing the same rose, only difference is that I’m cautioning about the thorns and you’re focusing on how beautiful the petals are. I’m always fascinated at how two people can see the world so differently, just like dogs, and that’s what makes the world so interesting.

When I do a body block, I see myself “winning” at that particular time. It’s not an environment of competition to me, I too want an environment of cooperation, but I view the body block as a temporary battle before I encourage cooperation. Maybe it’s a guy thing, I don’t know. I didn’t originate the point idea, but I do agree with it because I observe it in dogs. Take it up with Peggy O. Swagger, author of “Training the Hard to Train Dog” if you want to dispute it.

We certainly don’t want to humanize our dogs using human ideas like “revenge poop” or “he won’t outside poop because he hates me.” But I don’t think the notion of winning/losing is human, competition is everywhere in nature.

As for winning, losing, and privileges, those are very human notions, I feel. A danger of considering dog behavior in these terms is that it may cause some people (not you) to take what their dogs do personally. This is where things like vengeance poop, he chewed on my shoes because he hates me, he dug up my roses because he doesn’t love me anymore, he did it to take revenge on me for leaving him alone, he did it just to make me lose, etc. come from.

This may in turn cause anger, and/or inappropriate responses such as pushing a dog’s nose into his own poop.

As described above, with dogs, it is mainly all about behavior and shaping behavior. If we think about it as such, we are less likely to overlay human emotions onto our dog’s behaviors, and can better view things from their point of view. All we need to do is consistently communicate to our dogs what are inappropriate behaviors by taking away a resource and what are appropriate behaviors by giving them a resource.

As you say, all dogs *do need* rules, boundaries, and routines. This is not because we cannot let them win more points or more privileges, but because it is the best way to keep them safe, and give them a good quality of life in our very human world.

Even in our relationships with family and friends, I feel it is best to leave out winning, losing, and points. If my partner did the dishes tonight, and I didn’t, I suppose in a way I win and my partner loses. But, another way to view it is that my partner is doing something positive for me because he cares, and I should do something in return to show that I care. Rather than creating an environment of competition with winning, losing and points, what we frequently want to encourage is an environment of cooperation.

Anyway, this is just my opinion 🙂

I agree with you, I don’t see my relationship with my dog as a series of battles either. I don’t think he sees me as his adversary either, otherwise he would be trying to kill me instead of trying to please me. Lets be honest though, there are times when your dog wants something not in line with your better judgment. By stopping his behavior in its tracks, you are in effect “winning” a battle. You’re letting your dog know that you call the shots.

For example, if we’re out on a walk and I notice my dog fixating on a squirrel I either turn the other way or simply ignore his attempts (depending on where the squirrel is), keep my head up high and continue walking. Once he returns to my side I may decide to click and treat to let him know being by my side is a better alternative. If I allow him to pull me to the squirrel, then he wins and might quickly learn he can pull me anywhere he wants to go.

Another example is this – when we first got our dog we instituted a no couch and no bed rule. Every time he tried to get on we nudged him off. So there were times the dog would come and put just his head on the couch. At first we were like, “oh how cute, he wants us to pet his little head.” Before we knew it, he had his front paws on the furniture and was trying to get on. What started as a seemingly benign behavior, putting his head on the couch, was actually him seeing how far he could push his boundaries.

Perhaps battles is not the best term to describe it as. I think the book actually describes them as privileges. The author describes it as the dog assigning point values to these privileges. The more points he racks up, the more privileges he gets. Pretty soon the dog has full control over something. This is how dogs become food aggressive, possessive over toys, possessive over his favorite couch. What starts as cute, benign behavior which the owner allows because he is “nice”, can actually be the dog trying to set his own agenda.

It’s not all about how the owner sees their relationship with their dog. The owner has to be responsible and try to understand the world through their dog’s eyes. The way I see it, there are times when I do have to “win” a certain battle to ensure the safety and continuity of all involved. I don’t think my dog is ever too upset that I don’t cater to his every whim, in fact I think it calms him down to know that I am in charge of the situation.