You either don’t comprehend the studies, have been reading garbage, or sinply chose to make things up as you go along (just like Milan). Confrontational methods ‘can create agression of used incorrectly’? Confrontational methods are almost always incorrect in their use and almost always cause an increase in reactivity. Also, where did you read that R+ training with rewards is used to calm aggression? True aggression can never be cured by R+ training alone.

To continue: Very few owners have the formal training and knowledge to use desensitivity and counter-conditioning methods to help a truly aggressive dog. What are you talking about? Who advises to reward a dog for aggressive behavior?

What is hypothetical research? I have never heard of such a thing. Also, the example of the ‘hypothetical research’ you give is out of left field and doesn’t relate whatsoever to using R+ methods to train dogs. Also, what the hell is ‘calm, assertive’ mean? Try getting away from the Cesar videos and go study animal ethology for 6-7 years, then come back and we can talk further.

Unfortunately, credentials mean very little. 7 years of biased thinking is still biased thinking. Often times people use metaphors to explain concepts, I apologize if this was overly sophisticated. It was to point out that the study by design documented the results of uninformed dog owners. You (and others) choose to take the results to support unsubstantiated blanket statements. I am still interested in any additional relevant research, if you have any to provide.

I agree very few uniformed dog owners will use effective techniques to change a dog’s behavior, particularly aggression. I have spoken with several trainers who say only R+ should be used. At least you have started using comments like “almost”, rather than your previous knee jerk absolutist statements of before. It is concerning you did not bother to inform yourself what specific techniques I was for or against before your rant. Enjoy your career, I will enjoy my objective unbiased thinking.

I’m still bothered by this. keeg, you actually admit that you don’t know what the hell Cesar means when he teaches his theories. Calm assertive body language is a cornerstone of his method. How can you criticize something you don’t understand and call it science? It is actually bias. In more rigorous fields, scientists will insist important experimental results are repeated and confirmed independently before fully accepting them. This is science.

Science is not a vague reference to a single article with limited relevance to your hypothesis. Your hypothesis is clear: Science shows that everything Cesar teaches is wrong. aka “nothing to offer”, zero. I have already shown your premise false, so spending the next 7 years searching for data showing everything he says is false will be waste of time. Remember, I only criticized Dunbar’s tone of voice. Dunbar and Cesar may both be wrong at times. My argument is that you definitely are.

You disclosed your thinking when you stated you stood in the ‘middle ground’ between science and the junk of Milan — it was then that I concluded your comments were worthless.

So, credentials mean very little, eh? I’ve been told that a few times in my life, but only by people who didn’t have any credentials. Am I surprised?

Cesar has only one valuable lesson: provide as much exercise to your dog as the dog can tolerate. The rest of his chant is junk. I never asserted a ‘premise’ or ‘hypothesis.’ Using words like that does not confer credibility to your comments.