We live in a society where obesity in children AND dogs is at epedemic levels. A huge percentage of children and dogs are suffering serious health problems, musculaskeletal problems and shortened lives because they don't get enough exercise. Doctors and vets go to great lengths to educate people about this problem and to encourage more healthy habits.

Yet it would seem that on discussion forums everywhere (not just Dogsey) people are handing out advice that flies in the face of current thinking. Call me a cynic, but I can't help but feel that people protest too much - could it be that these people are desparately trying to justify to themselves the fact that they aren't exercising their dogs adequately?

Firstly lets examine the notion that too much exercise will lead to injuries later in life. What is the mechanism for this - are the joints worn out by overuse perhaps? Absolutely not! The best thing you can do for joints (canine and human) is "move them every way every day".

Setting aside genetic problems for now, in simple terms joints are damaged as a result of the muscles failing to support them adequately. The most common cause of damaged joints is excess body fat and poor muscle tone. The most common cause of excess body fat and poor muscle tone is insufficient exercise. This is in both people and dogs.

So if your dog isn't already extremely well conditioned and lean the most important step you can take to keep him free from pain and enjoying a long and healthy life is to *give him more exercise*.

So where does this idea that exercise is bad for you come from? We hear people saying this when referring to both people and dogs. And why do the government spend millions of pounds educating the public to get more exercise if it's such a risky business?

Lets look again at the reason that joints are damaged - because the muscles fail to support them adequately. Lets assume that both you and your dog are somewhat portly and up until now your idea of exercise is a gently stroll. You are taking a very positive step towards longer life and better health if you both start to run instead of walking. However, as you have so much excess fat and weak little muscles with no endurance your joints aren't supported and the very act of running puts you at some risk. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't run. It just means that you start on a program of gradual improvement. For people taking up jogging/running the suggestion is to walk a little, run a little. Gradually you spend more time running and less time walking as your muscles (including your heart) strengthen. The same applies to dogs. If you are able to run fast enough to give your dog a good enough workout for his current fitness levels then running with him will be good enough. If not you have to consider letting your dog run alone (will he do it? can he do it safely?) or else find a way to get yourself up to his level (e.g. use a bike, a skateboard, a scooter or roller blades). Just common sense really - and using your imagination to find ways to give your dog what it needs.

But what about all the stories of sporting dogs suffering injuries? These are dogs that have been engaging in sport for some time. Why are they getting injured? The main reason is failure to condition the dogs for their sport/work. Anyone that's been involved in sport themselves will have heard the expression "Get fit for your sport - don't do your sport to get fit". If you don't specifically work on conditioning for that sport you are asking for trouble. Very many agility dogs that are at the top of their game aren't adequately conditioned for their sport. A dog that only does agility is very likely to develop muscle imbalances that can lead to serious joint problems. Doing a sport as a way of getting fit is better than doing nothing. But if you don't do things properly and work hard on conditioning you are at risk of injury - if not now then later in life.

The group of athletes (both canine and human) that are at least risk of injury are those that work very hard on conditioning and place safety and long term benefits over winning and short term glory. Dogs in this category can run for miles with less risk of injury and joint damage than your average pooch has getting out of bed in the morning! This is the goal if you want your dog to have a long, happy and healthy life. There's a very good article here that gives guidelines on how to go about achiving this (if you really care about your dog's welfare then don't skip over this link - please do read as it has some very good advice):

https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0A...eGh4OGM1&hl=en

One bit I do think is relevent to quote is this :

Variety is the key - again in both humans and dogs. The more activities the better!

do you antis think for one minute, that american pca, and other animal orgs, plus sky tv and the media, would all stand back and let the coverage of his progs be shown uninterrupted, and why isnt it on the news and in the newspapers???? they would make a mint headlining the supposed cruelty, i watch cm most days, i dont see what you all see, but there again, im openminded, i dont force my opinions on others, everyone is entitled to their opinion, i think it would be boring if everyone agreed all the time, and i enjoy a friendly argument, as long as it doesnt get nasty, so please can we not get nasty, and keep the thread open? and bear in mind that the dogs featured on the progs, are ones that everything else has failed for, and the owners are ASKING cm for help as a last resort.

or the ones that get most viewers?

Ermm with the excepton of Sky I think they all have, try having a google next time! The reason he doesn't get taken off air? He makes good television and keeps the ratings up.

Calling people 'antis' doesn't really help your cause in keeping the thread on track either. Less labels please.

As for the other comment re; exercise I don't think anyone's said exercise is bad for dogs, but you can certainly over exercise.

I think it's almost certainly the case the the Dog Whisperer Show airs the programs that show the methods working.

But how is that different from anyone else?

Most of us have attended modern, positive rewards based training classes (the approach given as a better and kinder alternative to CM's methods). Most of the dogs that go to these classes leave the clubs with the problems they started with. Dogs that have been trained since pups using these methods frequently go on to develop serious problems - sometimes problems that lead to rehoming and euthanasia. Do the fans of positive, rewards based training methods publicise this fact? Or course not. And why should they. Do they blame problems on user error? Of course, and why shouldn't they?

Many people will argue that the dog whisper show does not demonstrate methods working. They claim that they aren't working at all and really making matters worse. If that's what they think you can't really argue with them. They are entitled to their opinions. But by the same token many people will argue that the rewards based training promoted by so many on this thread is complete pants. It doesn't work for most dogs. You can't really argue with them because it's their opinion based upon their experiences and observations.

It really comes down to finding what works for you and your dog.

That's not true. They edit the show to give the illusion that his methods worked. In the long term many of his famous cases are total failures - I've already mentioned the Jonbee, but there are many others.

Others (Good Dog! with Dr. Stanley Coren for example) don't lie to their audience that all it takes is energy and for them to use the secret and everything will be fine.

While we have many studies demonstrating a link between aggressive action and aggressive behaviour, no correlation (that I know) exists linking + methods with aggression.

I would also argue that what he does is in direct opposition of the whispering tradition


His own episode guide book verifies this fact.

i think, of the whole, that is true. but they dont just show ones that work. i saw one where he worked with two dogs and at the end when he did the update, he said one of them bit someone so had to get PTS.

what happened to jonbee??

?? As far as I know people go to training classes to learn how to train the basics or to socalise puppies
If you have a problem with your dog you dont go to a training class to fix it - you get a behaviourist in - or at least you talk to the trainer outwith class and devise a training programme for you and your dog

Training classes with a number of dogs there, unless they are a specific class to solve a problem are NOT classes for fixing problems

You seem to be expecting a magic training method where if you have a dog with agression problems or something will be solved by teaching it to sit or walk to heel

If you have a problem with your dog you have to work on that problem - positive training classes should hopefully help teach you how to think and figure out how to train your dog - but you have to either use your own brain to continue training other things after the class or you have to get one to one help taylored for you and your dog

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet and are desperate to disscredit positive training - fair nuff if thats how you feel but positive training has been used to sucessfully train just about every warm bloodied species in the plannet - clicker training has been sucessfully used on everything from mice to killer whales - and is also showing good success on human babies and training gymnasts

If you are having trouble understanding how to adapt positive training to real life examples I would be more than happy to meet up and see if I could help you, it is such a great fun way to train that keeps both your dog and your own mind fit and adaptable.

I agree. There is a big difference between dealing with problem behaviour (and taking steps to avoid problem behaviour developing) and learning to teach basic tricks and socialise a puppy.

Not at all. I don't expect to get everything I need from a single 'magic' training method. And I certainly don't think behavoral problems will be solved by teaching the dog tricks. If you want expertise in dealing with behaviour you consult a behaviourist. If you want expertiese in training you constult a trainer. I take input from both - and that's the way it should be in my opinion.

If you have a problem teaching your dog a command, behaviour or trick then I agree that you have to apply a bit of common sense and imagination to the basic ideas that you're taught in class. And perhaps even use techniques from other people or methods if they work better in your specific situation. Be open minded and imaginative.

But if you have a behavioural problem I don't think you should try and figure it out yourself. Far better to consult a behaviourist.

Not at all. I'm just trying to counter the unreasonable critisisms that some level at CM and point out that identical critisisms can be made of any method if someone "has a bee in their bonnet" (to use your very apt term). I use positive training with my dogs with great success. But I'm aware that it is just one aspect of raising a good canine citizen. It's not the bee-all-and-end-all that some make it out to be. A lot of the criticisms of CM can also be leveled at those that teach positive training classes (as outlined above). I'm being objective and unbiased. I see value in both CM's techniques AND in positive training techniques. I see weakness and shortcomings in both. Each have their place.

Sure, but as you pointed out, if you have a behavioural problem (or want to better understand dog behaviour) you go to a behaviourist - not a clicker trainer.

You mean real life examples such as aggression? (the type of thing that CM deals with) Or trick training? (the type of thing taught at a very basic level in your average dog training class teaching positive methods?)