Why do people object to the Monks of New Skete puppy training?

[Anonymous]

Didn't want to hijack the puppy naming thread but two people mentioned not to read them. Curious as to why? I know that their book about training older dogs does use some physical methods and many people object to that. However, I just finished reading MNS's "The Art of Raising a Puppy" as well as the book "How to Raise a Puppy You Can Live With", and they seem very very similar in their approach. Curious what it is about the Monks' approach to raising and training a young puppy is problematic since I might be overlooking something.

[Anonymous]

This link does a good job explaining peoples' frustrations and the potential dangers of the philosophy:

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html

Fast-forward several years to 1978 and the emergence of the Monks of New Skete as the new model for dog training, asserting a philosophy that “understanding is the key to communication, compassion, and communion” with your dog. Sounds great, yes? The Monks were considered cutting edge at the time – but contrary to their benevolent image, they were in fact responsible for the widespread popularization of the “Alpha-Wolf Roll-Over” (now shortened to the alpha roll). Reviewing the early observations of captive wolves, the Monks concluded that the alpha roll is a useful tool for demonstrating one’s authority over a dog. Unfortunately, this is a complete and utter misinterpretation of the submissive roll-over that is voluntarily offered by less assertive dogs, not forcibly commanded by stronger ones.

The Monks also advocated the frequent use of other physical punishments such as the scruff shake (grab both sides of the dog’s face and shake, lifting the dog off the ground) and cuffing under the dog’s chin with an open hand several times, hard enough to cause the dog to yelp.

While professing that “training dogs is about building a relationship that is based on respect and love and understanding,” even their most recent book, Divine Canine: The Monks’ Way to a Happy, Obedient Dog (2007), is still heavy on outdated, erroneous dominance theory. Immediately following their suggestion that “a kindly, gentle look tells the dog she is loved and accepted,” they say “But it is just as vital to communicate a stern reaction to bad behavior. A piercing, sustained stare into a dog’s eyes tells her who’s in charge; it establishes the proper hierarchy of dominance between person and pet.” (It’s also a great way to unwittingly elicit a strong aggressive response if you choose the wrong dog as the subject for your piercing, sustained stare.)

Despite the strong emergence of positive reinforcement-based training in the last 20 years, the Monks don’t seem to have grasped that the “respect” part needs to go both ways for a truly compassionate communion with your dog. Perhaps one of these days . .

Punishing a dog will sometimes work. It will sometimes break the dog, it will sometimes illicit a dangerous response. Positive reinforcement will never create a dangerous dog.

[Anonymous]

*elicit

[Anonymous]

I bought their book at a garage sale several years ago. The things that bothered me about it were, as stated previously, the emphasis on physical punishment, particularly punishing the dog for running off and not coming when called. I have a beagle. It's in their breeding to roam and run after prey. It's what they were bred for. If I were to punish my dog every time she didn't come when I called her, it would have the effect of her never coming to me. Ever. And hitting dogs is like hitting children. They learn absolutely nothing.

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks. Maybe I just glossed over the physical parts. I heard that was the case in their other book, but didn't really see that in the Art of Raising a Puppy. Regardless, would never use physical discipline with my dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bought their book at a garage sale several years ago. The things that bothered me about it were, as stated previously, the emphasis on physical punishment, particularly punishing the dog for running off and not coming when called. I have a beagle. It's in their breeding to roam and run after prey. It's what they were bred for. If I were to punish my dog every time she didn't come when I called her, it would have the effect of her never coming to me. Ever. And hitting dogs is like hitting children. They learn absolutely nothing.

Not to mention, if a dog runs off and you catch them or they come to, they think you're punishing them for being with you/coming to you is bad.

We use positive reinforcement with our dogs. Occasionally a verbal correction (I say mmm-mmm or if it's really serious hey-hey!) The only times I'm physical with them is if they lay on my pillow or put their paws onto my lap while I'm sitting at the table or desk (I'll scoot them over).

The littler one is a jumper (think Tigger - it's like that!) and from time to time he's jumped up while I've turned around and I've accidentally elbowed him in the face - but that's not intentional. I would never intentionally hit a dog. We've had him for a month and the jumping has been getting better mostly by stepping into his space when he does it and otherwise ignoring it completely.

Both are rescues and one is also a fearful and anxious dog. She's improved a lot in the past year thanks to time, training, and socialization but if I had used negative methods with her or hit her I can't imagine how bad that could have turned out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This link does a good job explaining peoples' frustrations and the potential dangers of the philosophy:

http://www.whole-dog-journal.com/issues/14_12/features/Alpha-Dogs_20416-1.html

Fast-forward several years to 1978 and the emergence of the Monks of New Skete as the new model for dog training, asserting a philosophy that “understanding is the key to communication, compassion, and communion” with your dog. Sounds great, yes? The Monks were considered cutting edge at the time – but contrary to their benevolent image, they were in fact responsible for the widespread popularization of the “Alpha-Wolf Roll-Over” (now shortened to the alpha roll). Reviewing the early observations of captive wolves, the Monks concluded that the alpha roll is a useful tool for demonstrating one’s authority over a dog. Unfortunately, this is a complete and utter misinterpretation of the submissive roll-over that is voluntarily offered by less assertive dogs, not forcibly commanded by stronger ones.

The Monks also advocated the frequent use of other physical punishments such as the scruff shake (grab both sides of the dog’s face and shake, lifting the dog off the ground) and cuffing under the dog’s chin with an open hand several times, hard enough to cause the dog to yelp.

While professing that “training dogs is about building a relationship that is based on respect and love and understanding,” even their most recent book, Divine Canine: The Monks’ Way to a Happy, Obedient Dog (2007), is still heavy on outdated, erroneous dominance theory. Immediately following their suggestion that “a kindly, gentle look tells the dog she is loved and accepted,” they say “But it is just as vital to communicate a stern reaction to bad behavior. A piercing, sustained stare into a dog’s eyes tells her who’s in charge; it establishes the proper hierarchy of dominance between person and pet.” (It’s also a great way to unwittingly elicit a strong aggressive response if you choose the wrong dog as the subject for your piercing, sustained stare.)

Despite the strong emergence of positive reinforcement-based training in the last 20 years, the Monks don’t seem to have grasped that the “respect” part needs to go both ways for a truly compassionate communion with your dog. Perhaps one of these days . .

Punishing a dog will sometimes work. It will sometimes break the dog, it will sometimes illicit a dangerous response. Positive reinforcement will never create a dangerous dog.

I disagree. We have a highly anxious large rescue that we spent years trying to train with positive reinforcement only. It didn't work when she was reacting to something out of anxiety (new person coming into our house, dogs taking aggressive posture towards her). Her emotions overruled any bribe - and trust me we tried everything and spent a lot of time and money on it. We finally tried a trainer who also uses negative reinforcement and I finally feel that I can be in full control of my dog. It's tough, but she's learned how to keep her focus on me vs reacting because the punishment (vs the bribe) got threw to her.

Its not fun to train this way and its certainly not the first approach I'd use, but for adult dogs with engrained before, trying positive only won't necessarily be effective enough to get them under control

[Anonymous]

I'm the beagle owner and we don't use positive reinforcement only. But we still don't hit our dogs, ever.

We use a combination of positive reinforcement (for any increment of behavior we want that we get) and Cesar Milan-style pack leader expectations. It really works well for us.

We used Dave Schmucker, Sidewalk Dog Training, who was actually recommended to us on this forum. He was great.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I think all dogs are different--both in terms of personality and life experience.

[Anonymous]

David Schmucker is terrific. We used him too. Made such a difference!