I went to a Cesar Millan seminar today.

ORIGINAL: corvus
I certainly worked very hard for my little slip of paper and I've never been so proud of myself as when it was given to me. By no means did I mean to belittle a tertiary education.

Neither did I.  And I'm sorry to those who took it that way.  But I never belittled the college degree.  Of course I know it's a lot of hard work to earn a degree.  My point was that I think it's unfair to belittle the person who doesn't have a college degree.  They are often much more intelligent and successful than people that do have college degrees.  That's all I was saying.   

particularly with animal behavior-- I agree hands-on learning is essential. But you NEED that background of book learning before you can really apply that hands-on learning properly.  There is a huge body of science on behavioral modification. If you don't study this information, you are likely to mis-interpret your daily experiences and develop flawed hands-on techniques. CM clearly hasn't a clue about this body of science. He'd never be able to train a chicken or a cat.

>>So, even though he has been successful with some dogs, with others he has been an abject failure,<<
 
So, TRUE experts, in your mind, Anne, never experience a failure?

True experts do fail.  But, they don't continue to repeat the errors ad infinitum.  They learn, and apply what they have learned to their body of knowledge.
I don't think CM would have very good luck training an animal that he couldn't put his hands on.   Killer whales - good luck with them on a pinch collar...
The real question is *what is the person communicating to the animal*?
Is it fear (yup, fear works, unfortunately), or is it learning?  Learning works, too, and more reliably, when you consider that it doesn't tend to produce an animal that doesn't try new things (essential if you want a dog that does tricks, agility, etc. really well).  Force trained dogs are often afraid to move - which masquerades as "obedience" and "perfection", but it doesn't produce the stellar performances of dogs who are happy and engaged in their work, and who have trusting relationships with their humans.  Benevolence does *not* equate to permissiveness.

"She has a good website, too. Flyingdogpress"
 
I like it and found her behavioral series booklets to be absolute gems. That's why I'd love to see one of her seminars.

I find it handy to think of this issue like human education, because after all we're still talking about teaching and learning here, just in a trans-species capacity (full disclosure: I'm a teacher by training and still in the field of educational research).
 
Would you want someone teaching your kid who had no credentials? Would you want them to do just "what seems right to them" or would you want them to base their teaching practice on science? Dog training and behavioral science is, like teaching and medicine and law, something that you need both a solid basis in research along with real-world experience. Veer too much on either side of the equation and it doesn't work that well. I've seen teachers with a lot of experience in the classroom but very little acutal study of the science of learning do what would seem to the layperson to be the right thing, but if they'd studied the research more they'd know that's actually really not the thing to do. On the other hand, there's also people in the field of education (they tend to not last as classroom teachers that long) who have a tremendous amount of academic experience but very little in the way of practical knowledge. These folks tend to drive practicing teachers nuts because they like to make pronouncements that don't take into account the realities of the modern classroom.
 
I wouldn't trust any trainer or behaviorist who was lacking in either the research end of things or the practical end of things. Teaching is both an art and a science.

I agree hands-on learning is essential. But you NEED that background of book learning before you can really apply that hands-on learning properly.  There is a huge body of science on behavioral modification. If you don't study this information, you are likely to mis-interpret your daily experiences and develop flawed hands-on techniques. CM clearly hasn't a clue about this body of science. He'd never be able to train a chicken or a cat.

So how did these books and classes come about? Someone who studied other books - or someone sho studied the animals themselves? ALL learning is based on observation. Some people use other's observations (books) while others use their own. The best use both!

CM may not have gotten a degree or certification in dog training, but that doesn't mean he's unqualified to do what he does. He mentions many books written by behaviorists that he found very influential in his learning. There is a long list of suggested reading at the end of his book - many written by "real" behaviorists. There are many fabulous horse trainers out there that have no university degrees, but hold clinics attended by thousands (like Buck Brenneman or John Lyons) and have revolutionized horse training. I guess since they can't train a whale they're techniques are worthless?

I'm tired of people judging CM based totally on his "qualifications" or lack thereof. And I still can't understand where he gets this "yank and crank" reputation. He is much more "holistic" than many university trained behaviorists who suggest prozac before exercise! I guess people only see what they want to see. Some people only see alpha rolls and leash corrections - while I see a well rounded approach of exercise, disclipline and affection all carried out with a calm and assertive attitude.

I still treat train my dog for tricks and obedience behaviors, but Cesars mantra of "calm and assertive" did WAY more for training my dog to heel beside me than gimmicky halters and pounds of food rewards.

I have only seen a couple of CM's programs from start to finish.  The programs I saw were rather mundane and what he did with the dogs seemed rather harmless.  It involved hissing at a yorkie and telling an owner of a young dalmaiton that the dog needed more exercise.  I have a good relationship with my dogs, so I didn't really get much out of the shows; nor did I implement anything I saw.  I have seen shorter segments on-line that caused me to think somebody trying that at home is going to get their face ripped off.  Now, I know it said "Don't try this at home" but we're also talking about people who think a young dalmation should be satisified with a walk around the block twice a day.  I am not inspired with confidience that John Q Publick will abide by that warning.  I also find more and more people I greatly respect coming out against CM's techniques. 
 
Here's Animal Humane's press release on CM.  I just got this today.  (I don't go looking for CM stuff, but it seems to find its way to my inbox.)
 
[linkhttp://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_news_releases_dog_whisperer]http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_news_releases_dog_whisperer[/link]

It's interesting that we're now expecting a training source to be scientific and have creds yet, any person without a DVM from this country can write a book about feeding raw and everyone's just crazy gung-ho to feed. Why? Because you can't trust the creds of the people here, Dr. Remillard is a Science Diet puppet, etc, etc.
 
I could write a book about raw. As long as I quote the other popular sources and re-issue the same rhetoric, I could have a best seller, without any nutritionist-type of education, certainly none accredited in this country.
 
Yet, if someone with more education, experience and creds than anyone else in the pop market of dog nutrition comes out against raw, and anyone with even a fraction of the education, say a "simple" DVM, also speak against raw, well, they're just wrong, their education is fiat, etc.
 
My contribution was not to cause a heated debate. Nor do I use everything that CM does. But his show does make me think. I am JQP, with a habit of reading more than one source. And we certainly each have the right to our opinion.

ORIGINAL: ron2

Why? Because you can't trust the creds of the people here, Dr. Remillard is a Science Diet puppet, etc, etc.

That's true, but one of the reasons why I got into animal behaviour in the first place is because it's pretty much just knowledge for knowledge's sake. Well, for wild animals, anyway. I'm still relatively new to the game and I don't have any experience with people that study domestic animal behaviour, but I like to think that one of the nice things about behaviourists is that not many people want to pay them off. Correct me if you have good reason to think otherwise, but for the most part there aren't many products that will carry more weight if endorsed by a behaviourist than a vet. At least, I've never seen anything advertised as behaviourist recommended.

Anyway, that's kinda off topic. I agree with mudpuppy that it's essential to get the right balance of scientific background theory and real life experience. Can acres of experience make up for a lack of scientific backgound? I think it depends on the person. I believe some people have a knack that seems magical. Watching Kelly Marks work with horses is awe inspiring. She says it's easy and not magic at all, but she knows just what to do at just the right moment. I don't think you can teach that almost sixth sense towards animals. Ultimately, it comes down to us to judge on a case-to-case basis how much weight we should give to these people. We really need to read as many sources as possible and develop a rounded view of things.

There are many fabulous horse trainers out there that have no university degrees, but hold clinics attended by thousands (like Buck Brenneman or John Lyons) and have revolutionized horse training.

 
actually, I classify these folks in the same category as CM: they over-simplify ideas the majority of knowledgable horse folks have been using for decades (or discarded decades ago), and market them to the really clueless public.  A slick package, very entertaining presentations, and no real substance to their message. 

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

and no real substance to their message. 

 
No substance except success.

The one thing I have learned with folks who train using only positive methods believe that is the ONLY method that works without traumatizing the dog.  I use both with my dog and he is wonderfully trained and never been traumatized by a good pop at the leash during training.  I have never seen Cesar do anything that people keep saying is harsh, not once and I watch him often – read his book and watched his video.  I have also read many positive books including many mentioned on this site and others and came away with good information that I FELT was reasonable.  The clicker, I think is useless but the people who use them think it#%92s the only way.  My two behaviorists both educated and experienced in dog training for many years found a happy medium between positive and negative.  Those who are not open to positive have a slogan too…    
 
The dog and the owner are key and training should be designed for there own circumstances, not all positive works for all dogs and all negative does not work for all dogs either, especially aggressive dogs.  But there is a need for both, in different situations.

I use both with my dog and he is wonderfully trained and never been traumatized by a good pop at the leash during training.

 
one dog, though; you're lucky your dog happened to respond ok to the training method you chose. Many dogs respond aggressively or shut down if corrected-- and you don't know for sure how your dog will react until you do it. A single mis-timed or overly harsh correction can permanently traumatize some dogs. Often the owners don't even notice they've shut down their dog, because shut down dogs are often considered to be well-behaved and obedient.
 
I do believe corrections are occasionally effective-- I don't dismiss them out of hand. But they shouldn't be used lightly as an everyday training tool. Most often all they do is temporarily suppress behavior. All behavior. The dog has learned nothing.

I don't understand how a well-behaved and obdient dog who is that way from training with leash corrections can be some how effected without a owner knowing.  Are you saying they are now fearful of their owner?