People Magazine Article on CM

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

I think that there has been a growing movement of people who want to see NGC give equal time to those who are training with operant conditioning, versus physical coercion, which is part of what Cesar uses.  I think it was jones who posted that he pinned a puppy on a recent episode.  You would not find that done by someone who clicker trains, or uses mostly positive training.  I know that people have been emailing NGC, myself included, to also have positive training and behavioral techniques highlighted on the network.  I think that viewers can then choose one method or another for themselves. 
After all, Animal Planet had Uncle Matty, who is a traditional trainer, but also gave air time to Barking Mad.  I don't see why anyone would oppose another network choosing to provide another point of view besides CM.  If you are really interested in knowledge and learning about all training methods, and all behavioral modification methods, why would that be so awful?

Well, I guess there's a difference between good science/training/knowledge etc. and good entertainment. I've seen a lot of "barking mad" and "Good dog U", while I'm not starting a debate on whether they are better or worse as far as dog training/ behaviour is considered than "Dog Whisperer" I will say this much, they are not half as entertaining. The question here is what target audience is a show like this going for? the general public; dog lovers in particular; or people who are looking for actual knowldge and not just entertainment?. While all ofthe shows mentioned have a certain knowledge value, the entertainment value and the appeal to a broader audience is MUCH greater with CM than with the other two. So the question is, can any other trainer/behaviourist make things look as interesting to thegeneral public?

Think of it this way, lets talk about a hypothetical "law" show, where real law is discussed and dealt with. Anyone that has had to deal with a lawyer at one point or another KNOWS for a fact that it is nothing like what we see in "law and order", "the practice" or any other lawyer show. While those are ficticious characters and situations, unlike the ones on DW, the logic is the same: "entertainment value".

I think of the example of my dog, the behaviourist we consulted told us we have about year and a half to two years before my dodg is totally impervious to other dogs. In DW a problem like that would be solved in a matter of a few hours (not debating whether or not it would be a REAL solution). So, as viewers, NOT as people truly interested in dog behaviour, what would we rather see? Option one, 18 months of slooooooow babystep progress, that no matter how well edited and condensed, it would still be like watching paint dry, or, option 2, CM walks in, tells me about leadership, excercise disciplina and affection, puts my dog in his rehab center for 10 day and voila. So the desicion for the network people is EASY as pie: we could make a program that only appeals to a small group of people, or we can make one that not only appeals to JQP, but also to a subset of that same small group of people.

So, the beauty as far as the network is concerned here, is that Millan not only offers dog behaviour knowledge, he offers great entertainment.

I used to never miss Trish's show "Pet Line". It's been a long time since it was on. I did not find her advice to just constantly distract an animal to deal with behavior problems all that helpful, and she tended to use the same techniques with all of the animals. But she was so charming, you just couldn't help but love her.
 
She's come a long way since then, and I would like to see a program which shows everything she is doing now.

eley, I agree that the entertainment value is what drives the programming, but some would argue that stations like NGC, which have been highly respected in the past for the quality of their endeavors, should be held to a somewhat higher standard when it comes to content.  Not wanting to start any argument about what does constitute better content, either.  But, as a thinking individual, I'm tired of always pandering to the lowest common denominator.  I do realize that in TV, that pays more of the bills...

Edited to say: I was going off topic right now and i decided not to do it [] 

I think you are right about his ability to talk to people and make them feel comfortable, but don't you think there are other trainers and behaviorists that would be equally facile at doing that and be able to deal with the public and the TV audience in a similar way while presenting a differing point of view with regard to rehabbing a problem dog? 

 
There may well be...but if they want to be on TV...chances are they need to make a bit of effort,...whether that be high visibility clientele...or simply making a demo tape and shopping it.
 
They might have to do some soul selling and "pretty up" themselves, and perhaps "dumb down" their vocabulary, in order to do so...would they? If the big prize were potential stardom and the ability to reach MILLIONS of people?

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

eley, I agree that the entertainment value is what drives the programming, but some would argue that stations like NGC, which have been highly respected in the past for the quality of their endeavors, should be held to a somewhat higher standard when it comes to content.  Not wanting to start any argument about what does constitute better content, either.  But, as a thinking individual, I'm tired of always pandering to the lowest common denominator.  I do realize that in TV, that pays more of the bills...

Well, I'm in the film/tv business, and we have a saying "some is for the reel(portfolio), and some is for a meal". After the producers, agency people, network people, end client, legal people, janitor, doughnut guy, and who knows who else, is done making their adjustments, I'm proud of probably 1 out of every 15 projects when they are finished, the rest just pay the mortgage and the bills. Variety makes audiences the most incredibly demanding clients, and there is NO way to make everyone happy, simply none(trust me, I've tried).

I agree about NGC's reputation, but the higher standard that you talk about, from a standpoint OTHER than someone that disagrees with CM, has not been compromised. The only thing that one can blame NGC for, is not catering to other methodology's of the same thing.

NGC has some wild stuff...it's not all about science and high brow stuff. It is for entertainment in the main like many other channels. Their shows Taboo and Is It Real? come to mind. I see little scientific value in discussiing BIgfoot or UFO's....but hey, not everyone believes the way I do. So IMO...his show fits in fine.

ORIGINAL: Angelique

"Actual science" and learning theories are valid fields. Where it ceases to be "actual science" and where learning theory fails, is when you only pick out portions of what you like from the theory, dump the rest, and still want to call it "science".

There are four quadrants.

"Positive Only" or "Punishment Only" are man-made concepts, which exist nowhere in nature.

Also, learning theory as far as operant conditioning goes, is only part of the whole picture when you live with an animal (dog) as a family member.

In this situation, an understanding of the "social" and "behavioral" dynamics should also be incorporated for balance and the safety of all who come in contact with the dog. 

The commitment to "first do no harm" should apply not only to the dog you are working with, but to every living being which comes in contact with that dog.

The more controlled the environment (such as a dolphin tank) the more you may get away with using only two quadrants. Everything changes when we live with an animal as a family member, or when someone attempts to live with a dolphin (read John C. Lilly MD - Lilly on Dolphins).

I see training as only being one third of the whole. I see only using two of the four quadrants as reducing the training portion to only half of it's possible value.

JMHO

It's interesting to me that alot of opponents of clicker training point towards marine mammals and their very controlled environments as the only example.  While it's true that a marine mammal will never join us in our living rooms, or on our couches, the same cannot be said for birds.  Birds are quite popular pets, parrots andcockatoos are amongst some of the more popular ones that grace many homes.  These birds do quite well using the "clicker training" or +R .  Try to train a bird using -R or +P and you may end up requiring stitches, or possibly othopedic surgery. 

Parrots, in general, have been found to be "smarter" or have a higher intelligence quota than dogs and can be "taught" to perform many behaviors on cue.  And these same performing birds can and will share the homes of many of their trainers. 

I am interested to see this article, and will be looking forward to reading it.  There are many trainers out there, CM doesn't happen to be my favorite, even so, the techniques that he uses are ones I learned many many years ago and have since changed.  I do respect the fact that he has many people trying to establish some sort of balance with their family dogs.

Birds and dolphins are not dogs.
 
I've seen plenty of nasty bird behavior too. The training part is actually quite easy and positive reinforcement works beautifully. A man I know named Steve Layman has two falconry articles on Karen Pryor's site. He uses clicker training with great success in working with birds of prey.
 
The problems I've witnessed in a lot of exotic birds is in the "social" and "behavioral" area when people take them into their home and the bird "pair bonds" with one of the humans and becomes a jealous tyrant towards everyone else.
 
But, in responding to a post and mentioning this I am continuing in this off topic direction.
 
[]
 
 

(Although the ratings might go up if it was someone like Simon on American Idol, LOL)

Or, if they looked like Brad Pitt!  Does Brad train dogs?? []
 
I think it could only benefit dog owners immensely if there were multiple venues on TV for learning about dog training/behavior.  Regardless of methodology, let the viewer chose who they like/feel comfortable with and go from there.  I'd watch them all to broaden my horizons at the very least. 

ORIGINAL: Mastiff

(Although the ratings might go up if it was someone like Simon on American Idol, LOL)

Or, if they looked like Brad Pitt!  Does Brad train dogs?? []

I think it could only benefit dog owners immensely if there were multiple venues on TV for learning about dog training/behavior.  Regardless of methodology, let the viewer chose who they like/feel comfortable with and go from there.  I'd watch them all to broaden my horizons at the very least. 

I don't think Brad trains dogs.  Perhaps he couldn't train Jennifer, either, but maybe that's why he ended up with Angelina. [sm=rofl.gif]
At least People would continue to cover dog training if he did, though.
I can see it now.  They could call the show "Pitt Bull".  [sm=rotfl.gif]

I have wondered if CM is not so much about dog psychology as he is people psychology.

 Really, it is the people he needs to impress and please.  Not the dog.

Sometimes you can really see him trying to build up the confidence and self esteem of the owner.

Also the terminolgy that is used..dominate, calm and assertive, (pack) leader, discipline.

 These are psychological keywords for a go getter...one who has control of life and gets what they need no matter.  Not a loser who cannot even control their dog, let alone their lives.

If a person continously walks around telling themselves they are a "calm assertive pack leader", then they will eventually become that in their lives. Of course it will begin with the dog, then spread into other areas.

So, in that regard, if our dogs are subjected to our insecurities, (which implies submissiveness)  then  be subjected to the opposite end of the spectrum (dominance)...how is this balance?

 [] 


I agree Mastiff,

I'd watch it all. Anything from someone working with zoo animals so they can be handled safely, to marine mammal training, a clip on clicker training chickens at the Bob Bailey chicken ranch, performing animals, agility, hearding, obedience, etc...

I can't ever get enough! [] 

As much I  enjoy Cesar and have learned a lot from him I would LOVE to have a show with Ian Dunbar or any of the popular positive trainers too!!
 
I hope they don't replace Cesar just add another show.  I could watch dog training shows everynight and not get boared and certainly learn something each time.
 
I say BRING THEM ON!!
 
 

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

NGC has some wild stuff...it's not all about science and high brow stuff. It is for entertainment in the main like many other channels. Their shows Taboo and Is It Real? come to mind. I see little scientific value in discussiing BIgfoot or UFO's....but hey, not everyone believes the way I do. So IMO...his show fits in fine.

Did saying that make you feel all warm and cozy inside? How sad. I'm sorry admins, and you can certainly delete this post, but is the poster doing anything other than taking a cheap shot at CM?