Newbie

It says before every episode not to try any of his techniques without the help of a professional.

I think he has some of the right ideas, but some are a bit extreme... All I watch the show for now is entertainment... I think that's all it should be taken as without the help of a trainer.

Hello there

I think the consensus among dog trainers and behaviorists is about this: CM has good marketing skills, he has a natural talent with people and dogs, but his methods are often times outdated and his theoretical underpinnings about as robust as the case for the ether-theory.

The show can be quite entertaining, but you should take care with his methods, and just forget about his 'explanations'.

Enjoy

I must have missed the disclaimer at the beginning - although some idiot would probably still try it out.
 
I thought that "dog whisperer" was like "horse whisperer" and when I think "horse whisperer" I think of Monty Roberts and his famous "join-up" - building a rapport with the animal by emulating his own language and developing a bond of trust and leadership BEFORE embarking on any training.  I didn't see CM go through any "join-up" process with the dogs first.  Our home grown "dog listener" Jan Fennell is more what I envision a "dog whisperer" to be.  I think that's why the show shocked me so much initially, because going by the title I presumed that the methods employed would be very peaceful, non confrontational and in tune with the dog's own language - which they are not.

ether-theory

 
Careful with your analogy, there. 20th century theoretical physics is based on math that was developed in support of the ether theory and plenty of contradictions abound. And all of their theories are based on one set of theories that the original person suspected might eventually turn out to be wrong. I know my response was OT but now you're in my neck of the woods.[]

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I must have missed the disclaimer at the beginning - although some idiot would probably still try it out.

I thought that "dog whisperer" was like "horse whisperer" and when I think "horse whisperer" I think of Monty Roberts and his famous "join-up" - building a rapport with the animal by emulating his own language and developing a bond of trust and leadership BEFORE embarking on any training.  I didn't see CM go through any "join-up" process with the dogs first.  Our home grown "dog listener" Jan Fennell is more what I envision a "dog whisperer" to be.  I think that's why the show shocked me so much initially, because going by the title I presumed that the methods employed would be very peaceful, non confrontational and in tune with the dog's own language - which they are not.

 
I would clissified as "idiots" to those people that dont see farther away from what they are just watching on TV, to those people that after 5 years of having a bad beheaved dog they think that doing one thing like that will automatically make them "alpha"
 
An "alpha" can claim anything he wants at any moment, food, toys, etc. is not like "ok even when i'm alpha i cant return now to eat if i want to"
 
I would not recommend any body to do that because since they are not experienced then they can bring some emotions at the moment of doing the excersice and that would be dangerous, he is the expert, he can do it but first the owners have to spend some time taking the leadership of the pack 
 
"building a rapport with the animal by emulating his own language and developing a bond of trust and leadership BEFORE embarking on any training." Actually he does that all the time, take them to a walk first to bond with the dog and then he starts with the training, you can see that in old episodes, they dont show it anymore maybe for lack of time but is not like he stopped doing it, which can be a little bit wrong since people (like you for example) can think he does not if is the first time they watch the show
 
If you watch a stunt man jumping over a cliff and decide to do the stuff he did even after it says not to do it at home then you are not gonna blame that guy because you decided to do it anyways and got hurt in the process
 
I would recommend you to watch more episodes, i was not able to understand his hole philosophy after just watching a couple of them
 
I have try some of his methods (not as dangerous as that one but more mild) and they worked perfectly, even with my friends dogs, they are even speechless when i show them how to walk their dogs and make them stop having a bad behavior for a couple hours, of course that is because like i said, i see farther behind of what he is just showing on TV

I'm not sure about your theory that an alpha can claim any thing at any time - and even if he can doesn't mean he does, or that a human alpha should try to do this too.  You tell me of a nature programme you have seen where an alpha has walked away from the kill, then gone back to it after and I'll watch it and hold my hands up and say, OK I'm wrong.  I've a feeling you won't find one.  The only instance I can think of was where an interloper came and tried to take from the kill and after it has been chased away, one of the alpha pair walked up to the kill, pulled off a piece and ate it - it was almost ritualistic.  But an alpha doesn't stir things up in the pack as a way of proving a point.  If he wants something, different matter - but why would he walk away from the kill if he wan't satsfied?  That makes no sense.
I would never take anything off my dogs, ever - thats food, toys, chews, anything.  I have taught them to GIVE me items on request, but I would never put myself in a directly confrontational situation with any dog.  It is unnecessary, potentially dangerous and quite frankly, foolish.  There are other ways to establish and maintain strong leadership.
 
I don't think you take a dog out for a walk to build a rapport with him.  He reacts completely differently on a walk to how he does in his own environment, he is less relaxed and less responsive to your signals.  There is too much going on - smells sights sounds, other people, dogs, traffic etc.  There are too may variables.  Invariably the owner is also less comfortable and this is a vital factor.
 
I'm not blaming the guy for the idiots who would try out replicate his methods without the assistance of a trainer.  I am dubious about the fact that recommends his own methods to run-of-the-mill pet owners who often own extremely volatile and potentially dangerous dogs.  You wouldn;t watch a stunt guy leaping off a cliff and copy him, unless you had a serious problem.  But some people will watch a show about dog behaviour as a way of learning more about their pet - you have done so yourself with no ill effects.  Someone a little less experienced (but by no means stupid) may get it a little wrong, or not realise how dangerous it could be and over reach themselves, try the wrong thing.  I think it needs to be highlighted a bit more how dangerous some of the techniques could be if done incorrectly, and not just a disclaimer at the beginning - heck I missed it!
 
I watched him walk into someones yard where the dog was loose with a slip lead.  It was made quite clear that he'd never met the dog before and the dog did NOT like strangers.  The owner was waiting outside and was clearly genuinely fearful what was going to happen - she was sure he would get bitten.  He didn't.  He kept approaching the dog while the dog was backing away.  Eventually the dog was in a corner and couldn't go any further.  He was speaking kindly and softly to the dog and from a short distance managed to get the loop over its head like a lasso.  My jaw nearly hit the floor - not at what he had achieved, but at the way that he did it, which was directly confrontational, directly contrary to the dogs own language, very dangerous and completely unnecessary.  Then he took it out for a walk. 
 
I don;t agree with that way of building a "rapport".  Now, if that were me, I would want the dog to approach me, willingly, without fear.  Partly because in theory, I was always under the impression that a senior pack member doesn't approach the lower pack members, but I could be wrong about that.  But I wouldn't back him into a corner and deny him the option of flight - it stresses the dog and increases the chances of being bitten, all needlessly.
 
I think you were right about the stuntman - that's all this guy is.  It's all "Look how terribly behaved/aggressive this dog is - now look what I can do!"  Like Steve Irwin (RIP) "This is the most poisonous snake in the world - so I'm gonna poke it with a stick!"  The show is entertainment, pure and simple.  It's not informative. 

To the last poster- there are times when you NEED to take something from a dog (sharp items, dangerous items, possible bad food items).  All dogs should be taught to tolerate something being removed from their mouths.  What if your dog gets a bone stuck in its throat or teeth - how do you handle that?
 
On occassion a very assertive/aggressive dog needs to know that humans are in charge - and going into a yard and putting a lead on a dog of that type will do that.
Would I do it?  Don't think so, but might.  I have been training dogs for 30 years and if I felt I could handle the situation - well who knows.
 
If CM's shows were about the run of the mill dog who pulls on the lead, won't come when you call it, etc., it wouldn't be watched by so many.  There is a lot of  "theater" there, but also a lot of common sense regarding handling dogs.
 
I recent worked with an Old English Bulldogge that was a pistol!  She was dog aggressive, a car chaser, hit the windows in the home trying to get out, etc.  After many weeks of working with the dog, I called a breeder of them and asked for her input.  She strongly suggested lying the dog on its side as a means of letting the dog know who is in charge.  I don't consider this  an alpha roll (having the dog on its back with you standing/kneeling over it) as dogs do to each other.  CM often uses this technique on difficult dogs - and I agree with it.  I also use treats and positive
motivation ... I use what I need to get the job done.
 
d

An "alpha" does not go back to prove anything because wild packs are balanced already and they have clear who the alpha is, in the show situation the dog was over protective of the food chasing his own tail like if the tail was going to steal the food, this excersice make the dog not to be over protective and eat when the owner decided when to "share" the food, it helped to work on that fixation
 
Let's say that my little niece was eating chocolate and a big chunk drops to the floor, my dog goes and grab it, i know chocolate is bad for dogs stomachs, i have to take it away from him if i dont want him to get sick, so i "claim" it as mine
 
Another example, i'm playing ball with 2 dogs, one of them is over protective of it and when it has the chance keeps the ball for himself and refuses to give it back to continue playing with both dogs, i have to claim that ball as mine to keep playing, if you have fear or are not confident enough (like maybe you would since you never take anything from a dog to avoid get bitten) then probably you are gonna get bitten, dogs dont listen to fearful or unconfident leaders, you are almost gonna be saying "i know you can bite me if i take it away from you" and the dog will sense he has the power of keeping the ball but if you go with an attitude of "this is my ball and i need it back" then that "vibe" you are sending it will be sensed by the dog and he will feel you are confient enough to do so and give it back
 
I also think they should highlight that some of those techniques are dangerous instead of just saying "dont do this with out a professional"
 
The episode of chasing a dog to put a leash on him is a good example of what kind of attitude you need to have, if he chases with an attitude of Hitler then for sure the dog will attack him, but if he has a "Ghandi attitude" like i'm sure he had at that moment then the dog sense he is not gonna hurt him, still is nervous enough to not realizing that but untill he is trapped between Cesar and the wall
 
"I don't think you take a dog out for a walk to build a rapport with him.  He reacts completely differently on a walk to how he does in his own environment, he is less relaxed and less responsive to your signals.  There is too much going on - smells sights sounds, other people, dogs, traffic etc.  There are too may variables.  Invariably the owner is also less comfortable and this is a vital factor."
 
It builds one but only in the way HE walks the dog, he does not let the dog to be distracted by all those variables, he teaches the dog how to be focus on the walk, when he is walking the dog there is not traffic, other dogs, people, etc if the dog pays attention to them Cesar makes sure to return the dog's attention to the walk, that way the dog focus himself on doing excersice and is just paying attention to Cesar and the walk, it does not matter if the dog is balistic at one moment, if the owner keeps being calm and the dog will "feed" himself from that energy and everything will go back to normal, if the owner is the one "feeding" from the dogs attitude then lets wait for the 2 of them to start sniffing trees []
 
Like i said, watch more shows, if you like it then good, if you dont then thats fine, it depends on every person, i personally dont depend on +R to rehabilitate behavior because i feel treats are not the solution in some situations as other people think, if you do then you are not the only one, everybody is free to choose the best technique they think is better for them but dont have an opinion after watching only 2 episodes that show a technique []

In reply to gilbyd - Taking a stuck item out of a dogs mouth is COMPLETELY idfferent to claiming back an item the dog would rather retain so that is irrelevant.  Sure walking in the yard and forcing the dog to accept the lead and close proximity of a complete stranger appeared to get the job done - but at what cost?  And why use that method when a) it is so potentially dangerous and b) there are safer and kinder methods available?  I do not agree with rolling or pinning any dog, whether it be the alpha roll or lying them on their side.  To me that speaks of imposing your will on the animal rather than building a bond of trust and respect and having him fall into line beneath you willingly and naturally - spiritdogs quote springs to mind here!  I strongly believe the VAST majority of animals are capable of doing this.  

In reply to espencer - Speaking personally, if my niece dropped a piece of chocolate on the floor its a reasonably safe bet my dogs wouldn't grab for it - its a neat trick to teach a dog to back away from things you drop in front of them and that's what mine are taught to do.  It's a conditioned response and I doubt they even think about it anymore.  Collies seem to respond well to this.  I believe that's what training is for - to help them live in harmony with us by teaching them these kind of signals so you never have to come into direct conflict.

But if the dog DID grab it, I'd say "Leave" and he would drop it into my hand.  Again, when playing: generally speaking none are possessive over the toy because I am a key part in the game, the toy belongs to me and it is natural for them to want to return it to me.  But if one was, I'd call him and say Leave - simple.  All my dogs are taught from a very young age to do this with a wide variety of items, starting with low-value items and working up until I'm sure they will give me anything if asked.  I never TAKE anything away from them.  I am not scared of getting bitten.  I just don't see the point in putting yourself in a confrontational scenario with a dog because I don't believe it achieves anything.  I don't believe in pushing a dog to his limits and risking he will bite - not because I'm afraid but because the dog can then quickly learn how effective biting can be and use it in other situations.  Ultimately, there is a very good chance he will be PTS.

If a dog hasn't been taught "Leave" or "give" then praise, encouragement and the lure of a higher value item usually encourages them to let go.  Attitude is everything - if you go in there thinking "Right I'm Alpha, I am going to have that no matter what" the dog will pick up on it.  Some will give way to that strong personality, others wont.  If they are sure you want what they have and are going to take it off them no matter what they of course they are more likely to guard it.  Again, spiritdogs signature quote springs to mind!  Once the item has been safely retrieved, the next step is to keep forbidden items out of reach while they undergo the training. 

Ref the walk - its good practise to keep the dog focused on you, remain calm and "leaderlike" and the dog will come to respect this and follow suit.  Sure, no argument there.  It is simply my opinion that it's EASIER for the dog and his owner to achieve this in their home and when they are confident, step out into the wider world.  You don't send a 5yr old kid to school on his first day and expect him to do fractions is my thinking here.  Why make things hard for yourself?  Why set yourself up for failure?  Sure CM manages to achieve the "walk" with apparent ease straight away, because he is very very good at what he does - but its not his dog or his problem.

By R+ do you mean positive reinforcement?  I could take that to mean any of a few things, it's so wide open.  If you mean what I think you mean then I prefer it.  It's generally just as if not more effective and even better its hard to misuse.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I'm a bit of a newbie with this guy, only seen a couple of his shows and I can't work out whether I like him or not!  His compassion and knowledge of dogs is very obvious but I would definately class him as an "expert" and wouldn't recommend his methods to any run of the mill pet owner. 

The thing that shocked me the most was the "alpha roll" which I thought went out with rubbing a dogs nose in his mess and the rolled up paper.  That disturbed me a bit.  No, A LOT! 

At first I thought he was a compassionate and gentle guy.  But then he "claimed" a dogs' food bowl after it had been put down for the dog, a directly confrontational action, potentially extremely dangerous - and he was recommending it to relatively inexperienced run of the mill pet owners.  I couldn't believe my eyes.  I just kept thinking, someone watching this is going to think Oh THATS what you do and do it and get bitten and it won't be the dog's fault.

At first I thought he was an advocate of remembering the dogs roots in the wild and applying this in the home.  But the food bowl thing seems to be completely contrary to this philosophy.  Sure in the wild there is an order at feeding time - but when someone walks away from the "kill" they signal theyre done and they don;t return afterwards to make a point about leadership - or am I missing a trick here? 

In short completely confused about CMs whole philosophy - anyone here know more about his methods that can put me straight?  Has anyone else applied any of his advice to their own situations and what happened?

Well, the way I see it is, using whatever you get out of "The dog whisperer" instead of consulting a professional would be like substituting therapy with watching Dr. Phil or somethign along those lines; using msnbc instead of an investment advisor; or watching Judge Judy instead of consulting an attorney. At the end of the day, however good advice you get out of it, it shouldn't be your ONLY source. The top priority for a show to stay on the air is to be entertaining, everything else comes second, so in this case you REALLY have to ask yourself, what if anything was sacrificed for entertainment sakes?

Was there some boring prep work that didn't make it to the air done before the "interesting part"; was there some other way of doing things, just not as impressive therefore not suitable for tv that could've been used?; was there a case in which nothing could be done therefore didn't make the cut?

If a dog knows how to leave then no body ever would have to claim anything, since some dogs dont know that command (like maybe 70% of the dogs out there) then you would have to "claim" something the dog has, i have taken stuff out of dogs mouth, remove them from the collar from places i dont want them to be and i dont think i'm pushing a dog to his limits, is all about the energy you project, if you are calm the dog wont fear that you are gonna hurt him, he knows you wont and then he will feel he does not have to be agressive back
 
"You don't send a 5yr old kid to school on his first day and expect him to do fractions is my thinking here.  Why make things hard for yourself?  Why set yourself up for failure?"
 
Dogs move on and learn faster than a human, walking with a dog wont make the things harder or set you for failure, actually is the other way, is in their genes to walk with a pack and have a leader while doing it, my friends dogs are of course not mine but after i take them out for a walk they listen to me more that to their own owners, the walk helps me to set between the 3 of us who is the leader and if you really know how then it wont take more than 5 minutes to walk a dog just like CM does in his TV show, he teaches the people in the show how to do it
 
So everything depends on the person, i think CM techniques are more effective than +R but people like Anne (spiritdogs) think the opposite, i'm sure both methods work just fine, using both tecniques in the right way will make the dog do what we want him to do, is just matter of preference, you can say those techniques are confrontational and i can say +R is more like bribing a dog, you can say that if you really are good with dogs you dont need "force" and i can say that if you really are good with dogs you dont need treats, so is like that example of a glass with water, you can see it half full or half empty, is different with every person
 
You can use half of CM tecniques and half of +R, or like me 90% behaviorist and 10% +R, what it works for you may not work for me and viceversa []
 

In reply to eley - Like I said, I see this guy as being more of a "stunt behaviourist" than anything else, and far from using it as your only source of info re. dog bhvr and training, I'd say don't use it as a source at all!  At best his methods are best left to professionals and they sometimes appear to be contradictory and at worst they could be positively dangerous.
 
That's my thinking almost exactly - I guess it boils down to what you find entertaining.  I'd really like to see a programme where some of that boring "prep" was included, and where sometimes the method failed, or wasn't even used because it wasn't right for that individual - and look at why.  I'd find that brilliant viewing, really interesting because I am fascinated by the topic of behaviour and psychology.  The programme seems to follow pretty much the same pattern as most other programmes on problem dogs (here's a very bad dog, here's the expert, "You are doing it wrong", here's same dog some time later, much improved) and I think I was expecting something more which is partly why I was a bit disappointed.
 
Edited to add - in reply to espencer re the walk - you are wrong.  It is NOT natural for a dog to "walk out" with his pack unless they are either hunting or searching for new territory.  Packs do not overlap in the wild and therefore it is not natural for a pack to encounter another pack when out walking.  So this IS a big challenge for the dog and his owner who is just coming to grips with a new philosophy and new way of communicating with his dog.  At home they both feel safe, secure, comfortable and relaxed and there are few distractions. 
 
Some people have a very strong personality that a great many dogs naturally give way to - perhaps you are one of those people and this is the "energy" that you are talking about.  Exuding an air of calm, assured leadership has an astounding effect on the dog, but not every dog owner is capable of doing this in every situation right from the off.  It doesn't come as naturally for some as it does for others.  And when I say "some" it's a big "some" because that is (IMO) the major reason why there are so many problem dogs out there.  It's a bl**dy big "some" because I see sooooo many people out and about walking their dogs who clearly do not have this kind of control over the animals in their care.  Yet their dog is fine at home when nothing much is going on - it is when someone intrudes on the den, when they leave the security of the den and when there is contest over resources that problems surface. 
 
With ref to the R+ debate - IMO there is no need to use force to use any dog to do what you want and, as a dog lover it's alien to me that anyone who loves their dog should even want to.  Isn't there a saying "a good trainer can make the animal do what he wants - but the great trainer can make the animal want to do it"?  First and foremost, whatever training method you employ I believe every dog needs someone he sees as his leader, protector, benefactor and guide (you might say Alpha) and this is the key in having any animal respond willingly to you.  But, in choosing between R+ and R- to actually teach signals (like Sit or Come) I'd take R+ any day of the week because it does not involve pain, fear or force.  I don't understand why anyone who loves animals would choose to use PF&F if there was an alternative.  R+ encompasses only positive things the dog enjoys, so he learns to truly love his work and its evident in the way he responds.  Plus, he is not scared of experimenting and trying new things because he has not been corrected for his mistakes and as such research has proven that such dogs (and people!) are actually brighter and learn faster than those taught using punitive methods.  The latter often hesitate to try things for fear of correction (this affects the synapses and neuron processes in the brain, basically, if you don't use it, you lose it)  So that's why its the choice for me.

Is clear that you choose +R techniques way before start watching CM and i have a feeling that you started this thread to prove your point (against CM) instead of trying to learn something new, i thought i could help you to understand better CM techniques but that was not your goal from the beginning  when you came here anyway
 
I had this kind of dicussions with Anne and other members before, you see +R one way and i see it in different way, my techniques work for me, your techniques work for you and we can leave it like that, you have the right to choose the one you like, just like christians and jews, democrats and republicans, etc

ORIGINAL: espencer

Is clear that you choose +R techniques way before start watching CM
 

 
I don't understand what you;re saying there - I don't see what +R have to do with CM?  If you are referring to the fact that CM uses negative reinforcement, yes that is something I'm not comfortable with but I dont see that as the issue on discussion.  The techniques I questioned were the ones alledgedly based on the wolf pack but that appeared to be either based on outdated research or needlessly risky or both.  Or do you mean that I would rather use +R than a "dog whispering" technique?  Because if so you would be very wrong.
 
Assuming that "dog whispering" is about learning the dogs own language, seeing the world through his eyes, remembering his roots, treating him as a dog and providing him with good, strong consistent leadership, that's the approach I use every time - just a little differently to CM.  I advocate this approach very very strongly, so much so that I think every owner should learn it.  Every single last owner, without exception. But not to the point where they take risks with the animal.
 
DW and a conventional method (possibly +R  but not neceassrily) sit side by side, you need to have both otherwise you have a dog that will recall and sit but doesn;t know his place in the pack or a dog that knows his place in the pack but doesn't know recall.  So it certainly isn't a case of "choosing" between +R and "dog whispering".  Whether you use +R or some other method, like a check chain, is a seperate issue, it is up to the individual and is fairly irrelevant.  It wasn't mentioned in my OP. 
 
Of course I posted to learn something new, which I did - and through debate I learned a bit more.  I actually originally posted out of curiosity to learn more about CMs methods, and, mostly thanks to your posts I think I have done, although if anything you have put me off him a wee bit.  I also wanted to know whether the show WOULD actually prompt anyone to try any of the techniques shown (apparently despite a disclaimer) and I've learned the answer to that too - you said you had tried some of his techniques yourself.  Which could be worrying as there is bound to be someone out there not as successful as yourself who thought they knew well enough to carry it off. 
 
I haven't got anything "against" CM.  I've said he's compassionate, gentle, knowledgeable, and an expert.  I've expressed that I'm dubious about the confrontational nature of his techniques and the fact that he recommends them to people far less experienced than himself as well a bit surprised that the show doesn't highlight the dangers more clearly.  Most importantly, going back to OP (gone COMPLETELY OT on this thread) I've expressed confusion over his philosophy - I thought that he was an advocate of remembering the dogs roots (the wolf) and applying the principals to build a bond with the dog, but many of his techniques are directly contrary to that - so does he model his techniques on the wolf pack or not?????  If I was having a pop at the guy, that would be it right there - not that I prefer "+R" or any other kind of training, but that he keeps referring back to the wolf pack and yet many things he practises seem to go against such instincts - see me refs to the walk, claiming the food bowl etc.  These are what I was on here to discuss but these issues appear to have fallen by the wayside and we've got "+R" from somewhere......