Talk:Alpha roll

Accuracy Dispute and Reprise of Alpha Roll

Because of the show The Dog Whisperer, I have seen video evidence (remember, video editing can do a lot of things; but it can't create magic, or something out of nothing) of Cesar Millan performing this technique on very aggressive dogs, in many different scenarios, to an effective and safe degree. I'm not sure if it is exactly the Alpha roll; but it does seem very similar; although I have seen Cesar perform it on dogs having them both lay down on their BACKS and also, on their SIDES.

In one case, I witnessed Cesar Millan staring down a dog from his own pack after it has attempted to attack another dog. Cesar Millan, without even touching the dog, and standing more than 10 ft. away, had gotten the dog to perform an "Alpha Roll" ON ITSELF VOLUNTARILLY, as a punishment (the dog probably had experienced Cesar doing the alpha roll before; and understood what Cesar wanted).

Because of this series (actually, it started in 2003); and many many incidents I have witnessed showing the roll being performed unedited, I will place an ACCURACY DISPUTE tag on this article, since the technique looks VERY effective and somewhat safe. Before removing the tag; please state why you want to remove it. Also, I will add this little bit of information (below) into the article; in light of the recent footage;

[i]"Recent video footage of behaviourists performing the Alpha roll has been shot and have proven the technique to not only be very effective, but also can be used in a safe manner, if done correctly. The evidence is scattered all over the National Geographic series, The Dog Whisperer, where dog behaviourist Cesar Millan personally rehabillitates problematic dogs, often aggressive ones, with obssesive behaviors. Much of the episodes show Cesar Millan performing this technique on dogs, often times when the dog has attacked or is about to attack another dog; although it is only used on very aggressive dogs as a punishment, Cesar uses it often in the show. It should be noted that the technique is safe only when performed correctly and at the right time. In one episode, Cesar Millan was able to have a dog from his own pack in his Dog Psychology Center perform the Alpha roll on itself voluntarilly, as a punishment. In this scenario, a member of his own pack attempted to attack another dog. As a punishment, Millan, without touching the dog, and standing over ten feet away, stared the dog down into submission; the dog performed the Alpha roll on itself as a punishment and a show of submission."[/i]

Added 5/8/2006 by egoebelbecker:

The very fact that the dog rolled on its own is an excellent example why the Alpha Roll is an incorrect procedure. The subordinate dog offers this behavior to display submission, or more accurately, appeasement. This was misunderstood by early wolf pack observers, since in the wild the dominant wolf is usually standing over the subordinate when it is offered. Forcing the dog into this position does not necessarily make him submissive or appeasing, or at least not in the same way he would be when offering the position.

The alpha roll can work, only because one is literally bullying the dog into submission. Some dogs will simply submit and move on, others will become more aggressive and still others will psychologically shut down. Either way it never works for the reason that the originators indicated. Even they have, as documented in the article, disavowed the procedure. Wolves don't physically bully each other.

Moreover, dogs are not wolves any more than we are chimpanzees!

It is difficult to find a truly authoritative source on the 'net regarding this. The roll has been disputed by many reputable sources though, such as Dr. Ian Dunbar, Frank Beach and Pam Donaldson.

Here is one citation. Another on the bottom of the page.

Another, but it is very similar to the first.

I think you do have a point there, when you say that the dog offering to lay down after having attacked another dog to appease Millan is effective; whereas forcing it (alpha roll) is completely different matter. However, it seems as though Millan has used this technique often (on extreme case dogs of course; this is a television show, so most dogs who appear are very problematic -- including Millans own dog pack), or, has used the technique on that same dog before, which gave the dog the idea that it was a form of punishment. I myself find his explanation of the alpha-roll kind of fishy; the whole "being used in the wild" observation doesn't seem likely to me; I have, however, seen Millan attempt this technique various times throughout both seasons of the show (yes, on extreme cases; because the show is ABOUT extreme cases), and it's been effective from what I saw. Just the other day, I observed an episode where two bulldogs (?) were fighting each other; Millan held both of them, and forced them down into the Alpha roll -- dogs calmed down immediately; and were laying down next to each other, calmly. Also, this time it wasn't on the sides; the dogs were both layed down on their backs.

I'm not sure if this is true or not, but it could be that Millan was able to sink it into the dogs that he was a particularly dominant individual; if you see his episodes where he DOES perform the alpha-roll; he often has already made it clear to the dog that he "means business"; EVERYTHING he does, from the point he MEETS the dog, to the point where he finally performs the alpha-roll is to show that he is the dominant one over the dog -- I think it would be fair to say that, if a complete stranger (or amateur) was to perform the roll on a dog; the dog would probably disagree with it.

Yes, but, do dogs physically bully each other or force each other down (since you've made the statement that they are no longer wolves)? Again, I often feel that Millan's explanations for why he does things often sound fishy to me -- however, I don't deny that they work, as I've seen multiple times them being used (in extreme cases); sometimes the dogs are laid on their sides; sometimes laid on their backs. Actually, I believe, and you may disagree with this, but I believe that the behaviour DOES NOT need to necessarilly have been produced in the wild or acted out in the wild, for it to work; in other words, the alpha roll does not necessarilly have to be down in the wild, for it to work; you do, however, need to understand how the dog mind works -- of course, if it happens in the wild, that would be great -- but it is not a necessity. The technique does not necessarilly immitate what happens in the wild, but, still applied to dogs in that it is a technique which comes from the whole dominant-philosophy (it stems from the idea that dogs are dominant species). You don't often see elephants in the wild balancing on one foot; but it is still achieved in circus acts. (As an aside: Elephants go berzerk in the circus not because of frustration, but because of the excess adrenaline and testosterone which comes up annually (or was it monthly?) 67.164.209.137 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

ADDED 5/9/2006:

As stated on the TV show "The Dog Whisperer", the techniques shown should not be used unless you consult a dog behavior expert. I strongly disagree that Mr. Milan demonstrates an Alpha Roll. He continually says "calm submissive" and I have never seen him forcefully put a dog on it's back. He does put dogs on their sides, a completely different experience for the dog. The editing shows snips of his working with extreme cases and it is not made clear that your dog at home probably doesn't need such extreme treatment. In the latest episodes I was pleased to see him in a sidebar with several dogs giving them affection and talking about how important it is to give your dog affection. It would be easy for someone to misinterpret his techniques and cause real psychological harm to their pet. This show is not intended to be a course on dog training. It's entertainment. You can't see it on TV and do it yourself at home. Again, this is clearly stated many times during the program. I strongly disagree with the first person on this page and wonder about that person's knowledge of dogs. (I also wonder what Mr. Milan would say if he were to view this page.) Srpdxor 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen it. He does it while being calm and submissive. Most often, he lays them on their sides; but, I have also seen him lay them on their backs -- he doesn't seem to really make a difference between the two. In the second season (2006), the episode starring the verterin-football player and his two aggressive bulldogs(?), you will see Millan performing this technique on BOTH dogs, on their backs, immediately after or during a fight -- it should be made clear that it was an extreme case, and also that, Millan has established his dominance over the dogs long before hand -- he understood their mentallity. Why do you state that putting the dogs in it's side or back as a different experience; how do you know for sure it's a different experience (do you have an article I can look to?) As you said; the show itself already tells the audience to "not perform these techniques at home" -- I realize, and most people who read THIS article (this article has tons of warnings against the technique) that it could only be used on extreme-cases. So I agree with you that most dogs do not need the alpha roll -- the article and show has made this clear.

I believe I know which episode you speak of. In another episode, Millan speaks to a woman and tells her that you do not necessarilly have to show affection; but that they can "feel" you are pleased; he says that there needs no physical affection. Tell you the truth, in my observation of both seasons, I've noticed him to rarely show affection; and, warns that it must only be shown at the correct time. It's important; but I've always felt it was more important to show your disagreement with the dog's unwanted behaviours (the affection part comes in you being pleased; and the dog knowing it).

Well, I agree with you; the show constantly puts up a warning. I'm not saying every technique can be used; and of course, the alpha roll should be used only in extreme cases. Obviously, some techniques you see on the show can be used on a dog! The warning is to avoid legal issues; and also, to avoid confusion. I never said that the alpha roll should be used often -- I said that it was in fact more effective than this article (or researchers) claim it to be, as evidence of video segments depicting Millan in the act. 67.164.209.137 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

STRONG EXCEPTION TO THIS STATEMENT AS NOT TRUE: "In one episode, Cesar Millan was able to have a dog from his own pack in his Dog Psychology Center perform the Alpha roll on itself voluntarilly, as a punishment. In this scenario, a member of his own pack attempted to attack another dog. As a punishment, Millan, without touching the dog, and standing over ten feet away, stared the dog down into submission; the dog performed the Alpha roll on itself as a punishment and a show of submission." Srpdxor 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As the user before you stated, the dog offered to lay down, as a sign of submission (the person argued that forcing the alpha-roll on a dog is a different matter). I feel that the dog wouldn't have known to lay down, it it was not put in this position forcefully by Millan in the first place; in which case, the dog understood it was a form of punishment -- which may have led the dog to do it "automatically" this time around. 67.164.209.137 21:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of Alternatives to alpha roll

I think the dialogue in this talk page shows that there is clearly not consensus among professional trainers regarding the use of this technique. If there is the hint of any consensus, it would be that professional trainers and behaviorists find some concept of the alpha roll to be a relevant technique given the right set of circumstances. However, in its current state, the entry very poorly defines what exactly an alpha roll is, particularly in relation to similar submission techniques, such as those Mr. Millan demonstrates on his show.

Regardless, I find the Alternatives to alpha roll section to be way off base in terms of neutrality, factual basis and general good sense. The article suggests that only the most extreme cases warrant an alpha roll, then suggests alternatives that are in no way appropriate for immediate extreme behavior. If a handler was working with a dog exhibiting that extreme behavior, the suggested alternatives would be potentially harmful, both to the dog and to the handler. This section should have legitimate alternatives or be removed outright.

By the way, this article also does not accurately define what an alpha roll is in any meaningful context, which has caused the debate to stray from what it is. What Cesar Millan does, for example, is generally not an alpha roll as originally defined, but is a similar submissive technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.45.136 (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with this criticism. There have been no responses since July 2008. Would anyone object if I deleted the section? --Thesoxlost (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The state of this article

Because of the Wikipedia policy/guideline, I feel someone could and should revert my edits on the page; back to it's original state. While I believe that the alpha-roll is effective, and I had added those parts into the article; I would rather have the guideline not violated. So can someone remove my edits on the article (bits and pieces of why the Alpha-Roll is effective).

My reasoning for this is simple; the guideline from Wikipedia is not to include what is TRUTH or fact in their articles, but to have what is considered to be the truth, based on consensus. When the world was often believed to be flat, except for 1 person, Wikipedia would have STATED that the world is flat -- not because it's true, but because it was generally believed to be so. There is no real way to prove other theories; so it goes by consensus.

The consensus on the alpha roll seems to be that it is ineffective; also, the only minority who believes it to be effective is me, and maybe Cesar Millan (maybe a few others); probably not noteworthy enough to be included in the article; although I could be wrong.

So the right thing to do is: erase what I wrote from the article about the roll being "effective"; and, have me prove to people that it IS effective (well, Cesar Millan could do this) (also, this shouldn't be too hard, as there is video evidence); and, when there are enough people who believe my point of view; it would warrant this other viewpoint to be included in the article. But right now, not enough people believe the roll is effective. So let's go by consensus. 67.164.209.137 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

65.138.9.89 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Definition of Alpha Roll65.138.9.89 06:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC) I think it's fine to put in a definition of the ALPHA ROLL, but it should be done accurately, as in past tense. State that it is a technique that was once used due to misinterpretations. With the advance of technology (video cameras, toasters and seatbelts to name a few) as well as wolf parks and wolf hybrid parks, we are able to see on camera when the action is in slow motion that there actually is no such thing as an alpha roll. Canines just move really fast and it's easy to get the wrong impression of what they are doing. That's why filming is so invaluable. You could also state that there are still trainers who use this outmoded method and it may seem like it works to subdue an aggressive dog but so does a gun. You might want also want to put in a disclaimer. I'd hate to see an 8 year old try to subdue a 140 pound Rottweiler after it read the definition here. I'm not sure how you classify things but I would put alpha rolls right next to 8 track tapes.

Yeah, well, a gun would be dangerous to the community as well. Oh wait, you mean, firing the weapon at a dog? Oh yeah, that would definately work. Trouble is getting the dog to get up again after that. But seriously, what do you mean by that? If a gun is effective, then I would use it -- problem is, it might cause psychological trauma. Or, it may not work at all; the gun may simply act as an aggressor -- sort of like how they use guns to get horses on a race-track to move forward; this gun might even be an activator. But this is speculation. From what I've seen based on video-evidence; Millan has performed the alpha roll without an injury to himself -- the dogs will just calm down; I don't see any negative side effects.

Why don't you go and watch a video of clip Millan performing the alpha-roll? You may change your mind. It doesn't have to happen in the wild for it to be effective; dogs still view it as a showing of dominance, which is what they listen to. 24.23.51.27 20:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what else is "effective" in getting animals or people to obey you? Almost any other kind of violence or life threatening force. Like the previous commenter said, (and this point seemed to fly wildly over your head) "You could also state that there are still trainers who use this outmoded method and it may seem like it works to subdue an aggressive dog but so does a gun." Nobody is debating that more often than not, it scares a dog into anxiety and fear of you and makes it submit to you, at least temporarily. This page is such a trainwreck it makes my head hurt, at least the article is alright.76.185.121.215 07:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Case for Alpha roll

I agree, the alpha roll should be used in rare and serious cases; and only as a punishment. The article also states that it needs to be used in combination with positive-reinforcement (in the context of the book). What do they mean? What type of positive-reinforcement?

The article states:

It is now known that by nature, a dog will only forcibly flip another animal onto his back during a serious fight where the intent may be to kill the opponent (this should not to be confused with the behaviour when a dog rolls over on his own to show submission). So in other words, when you perform the alpha roll your dog will believe that you are trying to kill him. Many dogs, not only dominant or aggressive ones, will instincively try to defend themselves, which can be very dangerous or even fatal to the trainer.

The part that irritates me is the part that states that by performing the alpha roll; the dog will think you are trying to kill it. Correllation does not prove causation. I don't like the way the article states this as a fact. Based on video evidence, and I keep poitning back to this; I have seen Millan perform this technique numerous times on serious-case dogs, and the dogs do not look like they are under stress; they seem more focused on the other dog they are trying to kill than Cesar who is doing the alpha-roll. Visibly, I do not see that the dogs believe that Cesar is trying to kill them.

The article also states that as a result of the alpha-roll, dogs may develop psychological disorders, which lead to fear-biting and submissing urination; or, the alpha-roll could even increase aggressive behaviour. It's as if the original writer of this article was so worried about the reader's safety, that s/he decided to throw in as much negative-effects s/he could think of; where do all these extreme negative-effects come from? I haven't seen any of these negative effects. And again, I haven't seen ANYTHING like this when Millan performs the technique. It's one thing to warn the reader against using this technique; but another to completely lose all faith in the reader and throw in some side-effects which are unfounded.

In the article, it is stated that the alpha roll can also damage the relationship between the trainer and the dog. Yet, in another article, I have read that dogs remain extremely faithful to their owners. There is one experiment mentioned that the dog remained loyal and faithful to it's owner even when the owner was torturing it (removing one of it's eyes I believe). I'm not comparing the alpha-roll to torture; but the fact that the article is so concern about "damaging" a relationship seems unlikely, especially if it's a technique like the alpha-roll; and nothing as harsh as torture.

The article reads:

The name alpha roll is itself a misnomer as top wolf experts, such as David Mech, no longer use the term when describing the behavior of wild wolves.

It's like the article is trying to say that wolf-experts have seen the alpha-roll being performed, but choose not to call it the alpha-roll. Later on in the same paragraph, the article contradicts itself by stating that the alpha-roll has never been performed.

From the article:

If the alpha roll appears to have any positive effect, it is usually due to the fear it instills in the dog rather than establishing true dominance. An animal controlled by fear can become anxious, emotionally unstable, and unpredictable. The dog will learn that using violence is acceptable behaviour and may attack people or animals he perceives as being weak when you are not around.

This paragraph basically told me that everything that I have seen in the "Dog Whisperer" is a lie. Millan is very weary (sp?) of a dog's emotions; he oftens states that dogs should not be aggressive OR fearful; he tries to stabilize them and have them be balanced. One statement the article makes really irritated me; that the "dog will learn that using violence is acceptable". So, are dogs children, or are they dogs?

In the Alternatives to Alpha Roll section; the article provides other techniques to establish dominance over the dog. I feel these techniques are good, and very useful. However, They won't work on extreme/severe cases! Which is why something like the alpha-roll is used by some behaviourists. A true alternative to the alpha-roll should be a technique that corrects severe aggressive behaviour; when the dog's mind has escalated to a certain point -- so where is the alternative to that? How do you tell a dog it isn't okat to attack something else?

This is why so many dogs are put down or are considered to be put down by Vets, dog trainers, and/or dog behaviourists; because when a dog reaches this level of severity; all they know how to do is recommend the dog be put down. Because their techniques won't work in this severe-cases. And so they claim that the dog could "never be saved". Either put them down, or lock them up. It has been proven that this should never (or maybe extremely rarely; as in the dog is too old to learn) have to happen; as Millan only works with these extreme-case dogs. VIDEO evidence has shown that these numerous dogs, who have been recommended by so called "dog behaviourists" to be put down, can actually be saved; if down properly. I have seen many dogs on the show where vets, trainers, or behaviourists recommend they be put down because they are an "impossible case". Cesar Millan proved that the dogs were not a lost cause. 24.23.51.27 21:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've not been very active recently but I did start the article and feel I should respond to this. I will try to do more on this over the next few weeks but let me start by saying that, as the original article stated, the alpha roll is where the dog handler forces the dog on its back. It is specifically NOT the same, as when the dog rolls over on its own accord to show submission. I think some of the recent edits to the article fail to make that distinction and this is something that should be clarified. Other than that, thanks for the constructive feedback and work on this article. I will try to put some attention here as soon as I have a little time! TH 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks TH. I would also like to point out that Cesar Millan's own book (it says so in the Cesar Millan wikipedia entry) says Cesar Millan performs the alpha roll; and he actually promotes it's use; as long as it's used at the right time, and very carefully. 24.23.51.27 22:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The references to Millan should be removed as they present a non-scientific bias to this article

I would like to see references to Cesar Millan removed or changed, as they greatly decrease the factual basis and neutrality of the article on the alpha roll. Millan is not a trained and certified behaviorist and is one of the few, albeit the most popular, of dog handlers still using this outdated and disproven technique. If this untrained and unqualified "behaviorist's" view is presented I think there should be several counter-arguments presented from qualified animal behaviorists such as Ian Dunbar, Patricia McConnell, Karen Pryor, Stanley Coren, etc. Qualified behaviorists unilaterally agree that the alpha roll is a mistaken idea based on a misinterpretation of voluntarily submissive displays and should never, under any circumstances - especially in the cases of dangerously aggressive dogs - be used. Omahajones 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)omahajones

• Are you implying that any of the contemporary forms this article has held are scientific? Wikipedia is not a scientific tool, it is a communication tool. The purpose is to present all significant points of view - Pro, Con, scientific, ethical, emotional, etc. - so that the READER can formulate their OWN opinion on any given topic. Witholding a high-profile POV that has consistent video documentation because it doesn't support the general theory is not concensus, it is censorship. "Consensus" as it applys to Wikipedia comes into play when the community needs to determine wether Wikipedia policy is being followed or broken, not when trying to decide which POV is the right one to present to the reader. All defensible POVs are to be presented - always - so that there is not a positive or negative preference for one or another demonstrated in the article: hence Neutral Point Of View. --MuséeRouge 22:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

i disagree

I disagree that the "Alfa Roll" or as i call it the "submission roll" is bad for your dog. I am a dog trainer and i dont usual teach this technique to my clients. But I don believe if used and done correctly it can be a very effective way of earning respect,trust and leadership in your dog. In my case i have a 5 month old German Shepard that has a unusual amount of aggression when i put in a submission roll it wasnt for punishment for any certain behavior. I wanted her to learn that im in control of every situation and she can trust me. When she rolls and submits it is true that she is exposing all her vital organs to me and when shes done she has relized that shes still alive i didnt hurt her and its ok to let me be in control. It has built trust between us she lets me take the lead and trusts me to make the decisions in evey situation. Now dont get me wrong i dont do this everyday i taught her what it is and now i rarely do it. I use this only as a emergency such as if she is being agressive with a new friend in the house or with another dog on the street and is not letting me control the situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.14.49.73 (talk) 05:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

You're a professional dog trainer and you "dont usual teach" the "alfa roll" to your clients? I "don believe" it..76.185.121.215 07:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

This article would benefit from more professionalism

Obviously, this is a controversial topic, but this article is one of the least neutral I've seen. Many of the major points have no citations. If I find relevant facts, I will communicate them here in a neutral fashion. I hope others will do the same so that this and related articles will be more useful for others. Rowdymouse 19:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

There are many biased terms, and the entire article seems written by someone with a decidedly anti-<the subject> lean. Please, whoever chooses to correct these mistakes, be more professional and encyclopedic in nature.

I completely agree. This article is in a very sorry state. It reads like a treatise against the technique. I'm going to do some major fixing up, cleaning, and referencing to this thing as soon as I get the time. This will be a work in progress and I certainly invite advice and commentary as I get going on it. Sperril 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have fixed the references for the disputed facts and removed the NPOV tag. However, the fact that the article can be perceived to have an anti-<the-subject> lean as the original commentator said, I think is merely a reflection of the general consensus that the alpha roll is a bad thing indeed in most circumstances - and I'm not talking WP consensus only, just take the time to read some of the referenced articles, it generally gets a bashing all round from all but a small but vocal minority and no scientific backing. TH 12:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles I've ever read. I came here hoping to learn more information about the alpha roll, and all I'm reading is a bunch of information claiming that it should never be used, but with no support for that claim. The reason people keep referencing video of cesar milan doing this is because its the only evidence we have. I would like more professionalism here, some information from actual dog trainers with situations when they use it, or why they don't use it.24.12.229.163 (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not profess TRUTH, rather it offers pertinent INFORMATION.

Please, let us separate the effectiveness debate from the editing debate. Yes, it is appropriate to discuss the effectiveness of the technique, but it is HIGHLY inappropriate to allow that discussion to in any way influence what information makes it into the official article. The article is merely a vehicle for the various pieces of information surrounding the alpha roll (or any other article's topic) to get air time in front of the public. It is the READER who then decides which pieces of information they feel are better supported.

I repeat, it is not the intent of Wikipedia to dictate what is true and what is not true then force the reader to believe it (that would be WikiFascism.org, over on the other side of town). Caveats can be placed on points of view that are not widely supported while still providing that point of view to the reader for their own consideration. For example, one might state:

"While many professional animal trainers - including John Doe - oppose the methodology behind the Alpha Roll [insert citation here that verifys support for POV #1], certain others - such as Jane Doe - feel that the technique can be used safely and effectively [insert citation here that verifys support for POV #2]"

This way the reader gets to see ALL points of view and decide for themselves which ones they prefer.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to share information - any information that is significant to the topic - because it is through the sharing of information that we empower the community. --MuséeRouge 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TV Shows for Entertainment Are Not Good Sources of Information

The problem with referencing Cesar Milan's TV show is that it is an edited compilation of material chosen for the maximum entertainment value. This is not the same thing as attending a seminar on aggressive dogs and learning the system of techniques used, that may result in an alpha roll as a last resort. What we don't see on the 30-minute TV show is if Cesar has tried other methods before resorting to his extreme methods, which are controversial in the dog world. We also don't see what the editors would call "bloopers" - the times when the alpha roll resulted in dangerous bites or near bites to Cesar and his clients. (I have seen him show a bite from a Yorkie, but I have not seen him show a bite from a German Shepherd or a Pit Bull - I'll admit I don't watch the show often, but I think he bullies the little dogs more because of the entertainment value.) Even the Crocodile Hunter had bloopers, which were later aired for entertainment value. Just because someone does something on TV does not mean it's wise for you to do at home.

I actively train and compete with my dog and I don't know anyone who actively trains their dog who "admires" Cesar. I have heard grudgingly that sometimes his methods have to be used with the worst of dogs, but every person who I have talked to agrees that it's an irresponsible show, teaching advanced difficult methods to amateurs. The show seems to have great entertainment value for people who are "thinking about" training their dogs, and if it furthers their exploration, maybe it's not all bad. But if someone gets bit and then puts their dog down, because they saw something on TV that freaked out their dog and made it defend itself, then shame on Cesar.

Now that I have disclosed my personal view, I think what is missing in this article is more references from both sides. If a scientific, animal behaviorist or professionally certified trainer, who has published widely available books, teaches the pros of an alpha roll, then it should be included. If such a reference does not exist (I don't know of any currently in print), then I think this antiquated move, scientifically, deserves to be treated about as neutrally as topics like rape and incest. Some things in the world are bad, and if there is no scientific evidence that something is of benefit, then why are we to cushion that? On the flip side, many published animal behaviorists have warned against using the alpha roll, including the author of the book originally espousing it - in 1976 - and they should be referenced in the article, not just here on the discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.29.135 (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientifically!

"If a scientific, animal behaviorist or professionally certified trainer, who has published widely available books, teaches the pros of an alpha roll, then it should be included. If such a reference does not exist (I don't know of any currently in print), then I think this antiquated move, scientifically"

I am a scientist (a chemist, actually), and I hate how people pull out the 'Science' word whenever they want to "get it RIGHT, doggone it!" As though science has all the answers. Well honestly we can set up a scientific experiment. We can get someone to learn all the different techniques, and then try them on 10,000 different behaviour problem dogs and we can get statistical data for which ones work and which ones don't. UNLESS -working- is not the criteria we wish to apply. AH, that is the problem of science, the goal of the experiment is set by the experimenter - the inescapable human aspect. At any rate, I would like to see our impartial expert, the "animal behaviorist or professionally certified trainer" take a group of pit bulls, rottweilers, german shepherd dogs, and the various mixes that often arrive in animal shelters, especially including aggressive dogs, and take 30+ on a walk at the same time. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Until the 'expert' who downplays the 'Alpha Roll' technique can achieve all the same excellent results without it in the toolbox as with it in the toolbox, then that person is not being impartial or, to abuse the word, 'scientific'. Samalander (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cesar Millan's Large Pack

Here are a couple statements that I affirm as true:

• Dogs discipline other dogs in the pack.
• Horses discipline other horses in the herd.
• A dog with its tail sticking straight out behind it is in neither a frightened nor an agressive state of mind.
• The dogs in Cesar's pack, according to their body language, are just at ease as he says they are.
• Dogs are not wolves, and vice versa.
• Humans are not chimpanzees, and vice versa.
• The statement that Cesar's techniques can result in bad behaviour is something of an empty argument, as he is starting with bad behaviour.

There are also a couple problems in the article:

"While techniques like the alpha roll appear to fix behavior problems in dogs on television, it is possible that the technique merely suppresses or interrupts a behavior. Suppressing or interrupting a behavior is not the same as changing behavior."

Since behaviour is empirical fact, (physical action not psychological guesswork), preventing a behaviour from occurring is the same as getting rid of the behaviour. If an individual wishes to state that certain techniques to remove a behaviour leaves psychological tailings, (which is the only sensible way to read the quoted sentence) then the proof is upon that person making the statement, for pretty much all psychology is inferred from empirical behaviour. (i.e. a clinical diagnosis is always based upon symptoms, which are evidence.) If one removes all the empirical evidence how can one claim that no psychology effect has been made symmetrically? This claim is totally unsubstantiated.

"Train, train, and train some more. No matter how many dogs you have trained in the past, enrolling in a group class exposes the dog to an increasing level of distractions, where they learn to look to you for direction. That is the mark of a real leader."

The assumption here is that in a class "they learn to look to you for direction." The real-life problem is that someone only enrolls in a class if their dog is already ignoring them. Obedience classes aren't about how to develop new word associations so that your dog knows what a new word means, obedience classes are because your dog doesn't care what you say. Get a group of humans together with a group of out of control dogs and you're going to somehow magically make things better? This statement is correct in the regard that "enrolling in a group class exposes the dog to an increasing level of distractions" since dog classes are full of mis-behaving dogs and poor role-models. This statement is contradictory, for it only makes sense to expose an animal to distractions after initial training has taken place. Samalander (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"Dogs are not wolves, and vice versa. Humans are not chimpanzees, and vice versa." It think it is time to put an end to this over-stated rhetoric... of course dogs are not wolves, or we would not have two separate words for them. But Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) and Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are different species with about 6 million years of evolution separating them, and that's all aside from the fact that humans obviously are a bit unique amongst all the animals. Dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) and wolves (Canis lupus) on the other hand are the same species and have only about at most 15,000 years of evolution separating them. They are genetically very difficult to distinguish, to the point that it is impossible to determine by genetic analysis what percentage wolf a descendant of a hybrid is.

In other words, a dog is a lot more like a wolf than a human is like a chimpanzee. 189.105.112.194 (talk) 11:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Save the drama for your momma

If this is a technique then let the article describe it. After reading the article I suggest renaming, the article "bad, bad, bad, no, no, no, Don't use the alpha roll, that is bad. Seriously though the whole article is the opinions of those who disagree with the technique. It is fine if you don't like something, but don't hijack a article on wiki to force your personal agenda. Obviously some people use the technique, let them describe it, let them explain why they use it. Then people can read it and those who disagree can get upset and go pet their dogs. I personally hate WWE. I think profession wrestling is mistake, but I don't use wiki to voice my opinion. Anyways, either write the article from the view of those who use the technique or delete the article all together.Mantion (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree! Especially with statements such as "most dog behavior experts agree that the alpha roll is out-dated." huh? Have dogs somehow evolved since the 60's and 70's? They certainly haven't. Neither have effective training methods. I think the dog owner's view of his role, responsibility and his relationship with the dog, as well as training methods vary regionally. In the SW OK, all of the trainers in town insisted on a prong collar and a leather leash. Now that i'm in Central CA, those would get me reported to the SPCA for hurting my dog and a cow. Dog owner's are more commonly referred to as "dogs' human companions." The point is the article should be written so as to explain the topic, not theorize nor opine. --72.47.85.92 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)