question about Cesar Milan

It's imperative to understand how different training methods work if you're a behaviourist, and it's imperative to know why dog's behave they way they do so you can influence that behaviour if you're a trainer.

See my point? It's the same vital knowledge for trainer and behaviourist

 
That is a good point and presents something of an impasse, too. It was defined on this forum, earlier, that a true animal behaviorist is usually one of those people with a DVM, a doctorate in animal psychology, etc. If that is the case, a trainer couldn't not call themselves a behaviorist, no matter how much they read, because they lack that piece of paper, or two. For example, Spiritdog could not call herself a behaviorist because she doesn't have the post-doctorate degrees and the medical degree, even though, by several people's estimation, she is an excellent trainer and does possess behavioral knowledge. CM calls himself a dog behavior specialist. I don't know if there's a difference in creds and it was suggested that the term was simply slippery semantics. In any case, it was stated that CM couldn't be a behaviorist because he also lacked the post-graduate degrees and medical license.
 
But I do agree that some essential behavioral knowledge is why a trainer will do what they do to train. It is imperative. Which leads us back to the debate over appelations. Can CM be considered a dog behaviorist, though he doesn't describe himself that way, without the academic creds? He has done as much reading as anyone else can. He has worked with dogs, usually in packs, from the time he could first walk.

Random thoughts:
 
First off:  dogs are not wolves,,, so wolf behavior does not translate.
 
Second:  dog behavior and communication with respect who gets access and controls a situation (between dogs) is incredibly subtle and most people have no clue what happened between the dogs and when it happened.
 
Third:  If you change behavior in a dog, then you are a trainer.  You may not call yourself such, but in the sense of a strict definition you are one.
 
Fourth:  CM is quite gifted and talented,  he makes a positive contribution to the lives on many dogs.  He is charismatic and obviously marketable with respect to television.  Reality,  most folks will encounter considerable difficulty maintaining the behavior changes unless there are considerable environmental supports to cue the new approach.  Animals regardless of species revert to default (previous behavior) if new behaviors do not receive adequate feedback and monitoring.
 
Fifth:  The use of punishment based consequences may be the result of the fact people can man handle dogs.  If you truly want to establish a behavior that will reliably occur in multiple locations under distraction (novelty) then positive consequences (those that increase the likelihood of behavior not inhibit behavior) will be more effective.
 
Sixth:  It takes more skill and knowledge to adequately use applied behavior analysis to establish or maintain behavior that it does to manage behavior with tight leashes etc.
 
As to the feel that dogs should obey out of a subservient relationship,  consider what Ted Turner says about training wild animals in a captive situation.  Positive reinforcement techniques are the only method available to establish reliable behaviors in captive animals, because there is no baseball bat in the world big enough to make a killer whale do something it does not want to do.
 
Consider,,,, it may be the reason we use punishment strategies is because we can, not because we should ( to establish behaviors; not even talking about punishment to stop something dangerous)

Whoops! Edited because I thought I was posting in a total other thread.
 
signed,
some ASPCA person (seriously, what's that about?)

some ASPCA person (seriously, what's that about?)

 
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that poster was referring to an article written by the American Humane Society (which is NOT the ASPCA) that bashed CM.   I could be wrong, but I am guessing. 
 
I still don't know what that means because I for one don't like to lump people in a  clump.   

Clearly many believe im here to start some type of war between ppl but i want you all to get this straight, I just believe that anyway human way of changing the dogs behavior or training is really acceptable to me.        For those of you that want to know what aspca means its this: (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ) and if you really want to nick pick my thoughts go right ahead you all have the right to do so.

I thought this post was about ceasar millan and what he brings to the dog world.   I truely enjoy watching and learning from this guy.       I would rather listen to someone like ceasar who actually understands, makes observations and deals with dogs then some guys whose got a diploma from reading a book.     I think that what ceasar does is wonderful and im just trying to make you all see that just because he does it differently than you, it doesnt mean he is wrong!       I keep an open mind when i read books about dogs, and i am just glad there are so many ppl with different ideas and guess what, they all work!!!!     

Im not here to poke fun at anyone or start some sort of fight because you thought i offended you, I simply am stating that everyone is entitled to use what ever they want to help adjust their dogs.   As long as it works and its humane, then why change.
 
 

You have to understand though that a lot of people really fundamentally disagree with you. And not just people who have only learned from books (though everyone does realize that PhD programs in animal behavior and ethology to require extensive field work, in which the student observes and works with animals for years, right?). People who criticize Cesar Millan and have advanced degrees in animal behavior are't just sitting in offices having never touched a dog in their lives. Most of them have been practicing dog behaviorists and trainers for years, sometimes decades, working with and observing dogs every single day. They disagree.
 
This is an academic subject, people disagree. If everyone agreed on stuff like this, the meetings I go to every week (I'm a researcher in a psychology department) wouldn't be nearly as long and frustrating!

Clearly many believe im here to start some type of war between ppl but i want you all to get this straight, I just believe that anyway human way of changing the dogs behavior or training is really acceptable to me. For those of you that want to know what aspca means its this: (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals )

 
I don't think you are here to start a war.  The question was in regards to your comment about "some ASPCA person".  That makes it sound like you are in some way stereotyping people that support the ASPCA, or that people who work for the ASPCA have some agenda against Cesar.  That's all.  We know what ASPCA means, that's why I wanted to clarify that the anti-Cesar article floating around out there was from the American Humane Society, not the ASPCA as they are two different organizations. 
 
Some people like Cesar and some people don't.  It's that simple.  I happen to love Cesar, but I still am very open to many other methods of dog training/behavior.

ORIGINAL: ron2

It's imperative to understand how different training methods work if you're a behaviourist, and it's imperative to know why dog's behave they way they do so you can influence that behaviour if you're a trainer.

See my point? It's the same vital knowledge for trainer and behaviourist

That is a good point and presents something of an impasse, too. It was defined on this forum, earlier, that a true animal behaviorist is usually one of those people with a DVM, a doctorate in animal psychology, etc. If that is the case, a trainer couldn't not call themselves a behaviorist, no matter how much they read, because they lack that piece of paper, or two. For example, Spiritdog could not call herself a behaviorist because she doesn't have the post-doctorate degrees and the medical degree, even though, by several people's estimation, she is an excellent trainer and does possess behavioral knowledge. CM calls himself a dog behavior specialist. I don't know if there's a difference in creds and it was suggested that the term was simply slippery semantics. In any case, it was stated that CM couldn't be a behaviorist because he also lacked the post-graduate degrees and medical license.

But I do agree that some essential behavioral knowledge is why a trainer will do what they do to train. It is imperative. Which leads us back to the debate over appelations. Can CM be considered a dog behaviorist, though he doesn't describe himself that way, without the academic creds? He has done as much reading as anyone else can. He has worked with dogs, usually in packs, from the time he could first walk.

I think your explanation is fine.  When I deal with people, I say I'm a trainer, and that I have studied dog behavior.  I will do private behavioral consultations (as a trainer who has some behavioral knowledge), but I refer clients to behaviorists when the situation warrants.

hysromora, BTW, no one needs to tell me, or most of the posters here, what ASPCA stands for [8|].  What I question is what you meant by ASPCA *type*.  Frankly, I found that statement had a derogatory tone that I didn't care for. 

Dear People:
 
Im very surprised to see many of you still focused on the "ASPCA" comment i made and for that im sorry, truely I am, from the bottom of my heart.      I had believed that all of you were very intelligent and knowledgable people capable of looking for the main ideas of posts.    My post was about:   1. Ceasar Millan and how i like his style     2.  I also said that i think all styles work.   3.   I also like to treat dogs as dogs and i dont believe a little tug on the collar requires any one to call on the ASPCA or humane society.   4.   I really enjoy reading and learning about dogs.   5.  all styles of teaching dogs are good as long as its there in no real cruelty ( tugging gently is not cruelty LOL!!!)
 
 
You have decided that because I dont agree with your way of thinking that i must be put in my place and my question to you would be, why?     So I said "ASPCA Type"!!!     I'm a person and quite frankly im tired of trying to be politically correct in these situations.      There are some things However that i will never say in private or public because I am still a relatively nice,honest human.    
 
I wished to talk about ceasar millan when I saw a few ppl bashing on him so i tried to come to his aid by stating a few facts.    OH NO!!  How dare i come online and side with that man (Sarcasm LOL)!!    I like him no doubt but i also like any other method of dog training or dog behavior because they all work.     Did I ever once call out anyone out in particular or nick pick their post because i didnt like what they said?   NO!!    And yet here again I am, dissappointed becase some ppl just cant get past that "ASPCA type" remark LOL.    
 
Im here to disscuss DOGS and Ceasar Millan so that is what I intend to do!    If you wish to pursue this then go ahead but i would much rather tallk about Mr Millan, dont you?

Dont over react ppl its just a way to get the dog to calm down and in no way is it hurting it. When an inmate in prison goes wild and starts hitting what do you think the guards do, give him a piece of beef jerky and tell him to calm down lol. NO!!! The guards put him down until he can be restrained and calms down. What Ceasar does is something that need to be done. Are there other ways of doing it? Yes, and you are welcome to do them but just because you dont like his way doesnt mean its wrong, its just different and i now way does it hurt the animal.

Quote by hydromora
OK, I'm probably way off here so this is more of a question than a statement, and maybe I read this wrong.....but, I was always under the impression that jail guards, police officers, bouncers etc use force only to take control of an immediate situation...they are not solving the problem...these officers are just using force to force the person into submission.  I've seen more bar room brawls than I care to discuss and even after the police have put the offender on the ground if they loose grip I've seen the bad guy jump right back up and try to fight again or fight the officer.  Then they push him down again and put cuffs on etc.  They don't get a submissive response with all....and violence begot violence.  They are just taking care of the surface problem of the person...not whats going on underneath with all the anger.  That takes a skilled professional who understands human behavior etc....something like  a force based dog trainer who can only achieve results with force and dominance compared to a animal behaviorist who understands what makes the dog tick and helps the dog and owner to deal with the issue. 

Just to add, I've seen some really great officers, guards etc (I have friends on the force and friends who work as gaurds) who are really good with people and have talked some people down from an aggressive state.  They achieve more with talking in a kind manner than the gaurds/police who used force...it takes a very special person who understands others to do so...not just some cowboy with a gun and a loud voice who throws their macho ways around. 

So, for my way of thinking people who have to use force to control a situation are just bullies and never gain true respect.  People who can motivate another with actions and speak in a positive manner are respected and bring out the best in others.[] That to me is what positive training is all about.

This is what I see my animal behaviorist do, she helped me save my last resort Rottweiler with positive training only...no pinning, no leash jerks etc.  The training she helped me with has lasted many years as it "improved" my dogs behavior......not confused the heck out of my dog as I've seen other dogs that have been force trained.   My Rottie is a wonderful member of my current group of of dogs...and my animal behaviorist is 1000 times better than Cesar any day of the wee, plus she has been working with dogs longer...and more exercise for dogs is not a Cesar idea...that's been around since I was a kid about 35 years ago ....but, then that's just my opinion as I've seen first hand how many dogs she has saved.  And positive training is more than bribing with treats....it's about counter conditioning and helping the dog use desired actions to deal with situations.  I'm not a trainer, just an observer so I could be wrong.    

This is what I see my animal behaviorist do, she helped me save my last resort Rottweiler with positive training only...no pinning, no leash jerks etc.  The training she helped me with has lasted many years as it "improved" my dogs behavior......not confused the heck out of my dog as I've seen other dogs that have been force trained.   My Rottie is a wonderful member of my current group of of dogs...and my animal behaviorist is 1000 times better than Cesar any day of the wee, plus she has been working with dogs longer...and more exercise for dogs is not a Cesar idea...that's been around since I was a kid about 35 years ago ....but, then that's just my opinion as I've seen first hand how many dogs she has saved.  And positive training is more than bribing with treats....it's about counter conditioning and helping the dog use desired actions to deal with situations.  I'm not a trainer, just an observer so I could be wrong.    

 
 
Thanks Cally for your point of view and i will agree on some points you have aswell.    Could I ask who your animal behaviorist is because she sounds like a good person to know.    Has she written anybooks that i might be interested in.
 
Btw the comment about the inmate was just to prove that sometimes placing an animal down isnt cruel, i believe its normal behavior that dogs understand but again its just my opinion and you know what they say about opinions lol.

ORIGINAL: hydromora
I had believed that all of you were very intelligent and knowledgable people capable of looking for the main ideas of posts.   

This is an online forum! [sm=rofl.gif]

ORIGINAL: mrv

Random thoughts:

First off:  dogs are not wolves,,, so wolf behavior does not translate.

Second:  dog behavior and communication with respect who gets access and controls a situation (between dogs) is incredibly subtle and most people have no clue what happened between the dogs and when it happened.

Third:  If you change behavior in a dog, then you are a trainer.  You may not call yourself such, but in the sense of a strict definition you are one.

Fourth:  CM is quite gifted and talented,  he makes a positive contribution to the lives on many dogs.  He is charismatic and obviously marketable with respect to television.  Reality,  most folks will encounter considerable difficulty maintaining the behavior changes unless there are considerable environmental supports to cue the new approach.  Animals regardless of species revert to default (previous behavior) if new behaviors do not receive adequate feedback and monitoring.

Fifth:  The use of punishment based consequences may be the result of the fact people can man handle dogs.  If you truly want to establish a behavior that will reliably occur in multiple locations under distraction (novelty) then positive consequences (those that increase the likelihood of behavior not inhibit behavior) will be more effective.

Sixth:  It takes more skill and knowledge to adequately use applied behavior analysis to establish or maintain behavior that it does to manage behavior with tight leashes etc.

As to the feel that dogs should obey out of a subservient relationship,  consider what Ted Turner says about training wild animals in a captive situation.  Positive reinforcement techniques are the only method available to establish reliable behaviors in captive animals, because there is no baseball bat in the world big enough to make a killer whale do something it does not want to do.

Consider,,,, it may be the reason we use punishment strategies is because we can, not because we should ( to establish behaviors; not even talking about punishment to stop something dangerous)

[]  Not so random - right on the money.  If dogs outweighed us by a few hundred pounds, we wouldn't be able to "put them down" or tug on their leashes to make them comply.  So, my question is always, why do we think we need to do that now???  If zoo personnel can train a gorilla (they do outweigh us) to present their genitalia at the bars of the cage for an examination, and if marine mammal trainers can train whales and dolphins to move about as directed, then why on earth can't we train dogs (who are social and cooperative by nature anyway) without physical restraint?  The simple answer is that we can, but our human desire to "show em who's boss" gets in the way of simple leadership and consistency.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

If dogs outweighed us by a few hundred pounds, we wouldn't be able to "put them down" or tug on their leashes to make them comply.  So, my question is always, why do we think we need to do that now???  If zoo personnel can train a gorilla (they do outweigh us) to present their genitalia at the bars of the cage for an examination, and if marine mammal trainers can train whales and dolphins to move about as directed, then why on earth can't we train dogs (who are social and cooperative by nature anyway) without physical restraint?  The simple answer is that we can, but our human desire to "show em who's boss" gets in the way of simple leadership and consistency.

 
Well of course you can teach a dog to bring a ball just as you can teach a dolphin to jump out of the water, no question about it, but of course you dont have whales, dolphins or gorillas living in the same place that you, they are not in your living room and walking around your house, if a gorilla could live with you in your house maybe he would be opening the fridge and finish everything inside in less than an hour
 
They live in cages and pools, if the gorilla chews the things inside we dont care at all, if a gorilla chews your TV stand then you would be having a problem, if you give a gorilla the chances and liberty that the people give to their dogs then for sure we would be having gorilla behaviorists, jaguar behaviorists, elephant behaviorists, etc.
 
Let's pretend that sa girl is able to have a silver back gorilla living with her, i bet you $100 that erson would be ending calling a "gorilla behaviorist" and the calling would be like this:
 
Girl: Hello? gorilla behaviorist?
GB: Yes?
Girl: I have a problem with my gorilla
GB: Can you give me more details?
Girl: Well is a little bit embarrasing
GB: I know gorillas and how they behave, dont worry
Girl: Ok well i had my gorilla for the past 6 months and....
GB: yes?
Girl: Well he thinks he is the leader
GB: Ok yes, thats what silver backs do, they can feel they are the leader in the group
Girl: Well now he thinks i'm his female and the worse part is that my "special time of the month" is coming
GB: UPS! I'll be there in 5 minutes
 
See what i mean? we dont have problems with those animals because they are inside a cage and we are not really part of their family, if they consider us part of their family the situation would be different, we would be dealing with more psychological aspects of their life like in the gorilla call example, animals inside a cage know the humans are their only way to get food, take that animal ouside the cage where they can find their own food and they wont care if you are a human or an insect
 
Have you seen the movie "Gorillas in the mist"? that is a really good example of a person trying to be part of a gorilla family
 
If we were having our dogs 24/7 inside a cage from the day they are born just like any other wild animal i dont think we would be needing to do anything because they dont know any better, now since household dogs have "tasted" the freedom of walking around the house, the comfort of a human bed, the flavor of human food, etc then we "affect" their minds showing that if there is no discipline, boundries and limitations they could live an even "better" life (sleeping in human beds, eating better food and do whatever they want) 
 
A good example are the tigers, once they taste the flavor of human flesh then they only look for humans to eat, any other flesh is not as better as the human one, same with dogs, when you give them a pice of leftovers like a piece of steak that you could not finish then the dog will be begging everytime you eat because the dog food is nothing next to a steak
 
So if any wild animal could live with us we would be having the same problems that we have with dogs but some of them would not think twice before "discipline" us instead
 
 

I think a professional marine mammal handler would disagree with your assessment that behavior is not important with captive animals, only dogs. There's a story in Don't Shoot the Dog about a dolphin who had decided to very dangerously push around a handler when she was in the tank. They used positive methods to deal with this very dangerous behavior. Likewise a lot of the training that goes on in zoos is not for "tricks" but to allow the handlers to safely interact with the animals, give them their health checks, maintain their enclosures, do close-proximity research. The handles of these animals are very, very close to them. Just because they don't live in houses doesn't mean this isn't the case.
 
Besides, I don't think anyone is arguing that dogs shouldn't have rules. I actually got into it with my parents last night (who do not now nor have they ever in their entire lives had dogs) because they have just discovered CM and think he's the bees knees and when I tried to explain why I don't like him their argument was "Well, people don't train their dogs enough, so he's good." And see, I agree with the first half of that statement: people in the aggregate do not do enough work with their dogs and do not follow through on house rules with them and the dogs walk all over them.  Agreed on all points.
 
You'll get no argument from me that because dogs do what works, if behaving atrociously works for them to get what they want, they'll keep on doing it. That is not rocket science! But you can change the structure of your household and how you manage and train your dogs without ever uttering the word "dominance." Just stop giving the dogs what they want unless they do what you want. Works the same with kids, no? Yet we don't claim that a kid who's whining because whining has always worked to get a piece of candy is trying to be "dominant" or "alpha". He's just doing what he's been trained to do: whining=candy.
 
I also won't argue that dogs don't get enough exercise generally and most would do a whole lot better if they got more of that, and also more mental stimulation. Again, same as kids, pretty much.
 
I just feel that CM takes these basic and pervasive problems (over-permissiveness and lack of exercise and stimulation) and goes way over-board with the solutions. It's like putting a thumbtack into a corkboard with a sledgehammer.