Whole Dog

Here's the way I see it - I know we ALL see something different in this guy!

When other CM people say that breed isn't important. My interpretation is that they mean that "breed" does not mean we let the dog behave inappropriatly just because it's in his breeding. Breeding is NOT the most influential part of the dog's instincts. The most important instinct in any dog is the instinct to be a canine. Canines are pack animals and follow a leader. Then, Cesar will address breed instincts, but he believes that canine instincts trump breed instincts and individual temperament.

It's not that breed and individual temperament are unimportant - just that they are *less* important than the fact that we are working with a *dog* A dog who instincually will follow a leader no matter what the breed.

I'm sure I lost you all - I think I even lost myself there!

And I corrected the hideous spelling so you can't lose my point quite as easily!

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl

I'm sure I lost you all - I think I even lost myself there!

Not me because you implied a so on and a so on and a so on...but not dismissing any other factors.  Good.
 
Added:  Oh thats how you spell instinct..I don't give instinct a lot of weight in domestic dogs and only recognize it in its rawest form.

ORIGINAL: jenhuedepohl

I'm sure I lost you all - I think I even lost myself there!

 
I'm right with you - ultimately a dog is a dog is a dog - right?

I'm right with you - ultimately a dog is a dog is a dog - right?

Exactly! Doesn't matter if it's a pit or a poodle - they are dogs first and breed second.

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

 I am asking out of curiosity and not judgement. Is it true, CM Folks, that you believe that the handler is always the problem and that genetics and individual dogs' temperaments are not ever a factor? If so, can you tell the rest of us more about why you think that? What does that philosophy do for you in your training?

I would be happy to talk about the hows and whys of my own thinking about dogs in Skinnerian terms in exchange. And I am hoping to start an interesting and respectful dialogue.

 
Ups, please dont read my sig. []
 
He says it in his book, while living in his grandfather's ranch he use to see how the pack of dogs that were living there use to act, they were almost like a wild pack that decided to live close to the ranch because they were receiving food
 
It was not untill Cesar moved to the city when he realized that the dogs there where having problems that he never saw on the "wild and free" pack in the country, problems like non-stop aggressivness, dogs being axious, nervous, shy, etc. etc. etc.
 
I mean dogs can have those feelings once in a while but they never last more than the time it toke to other members of the same pack to correct that behavior the member was having
 
So why city dogs were having the problems that country dogs didnt? And thats because city dogs were raised as humans and not as dogs, no excersice, affection at the wrong time which nurture the bad behavior, letting the dog do whatever he wanted without feeling there is an "structure in the pack"
 
Human priorities are different that dog priorities, you can see humans 24/7 in the couch eating chips and excercise is the last thing that goes thru their mind, with the dogs is different, they need to be outside, they need excersice, their minds need to be distracted with something, they dont have a TV, radio, internet, video games, etc for dogs, what do their mind does if there is anything to do? i would be chewing furniture also, thats better than nothing
 
Is also really funny how humans can discipline their kids but they accept their dogs to do whatever they want, nobody tell the dog what is right to do and what is wrong, why the humans complain if they never let the dog know that what they are doing is actually bad behavior? why the humans complain if the dog is frustrated because he never goes out?
 
In a wild pack all of that is cover, excersice, discipline and affection. Humans are not dogs and therefore most humans dont know how to raise dogs, since the only thing they know is how to raise kids (some humans not even that) then they think that a dog can be like a human in the couch eating chips, they think that because the dog is an "adult" already then he in a magic way found out the difference between right or wrong by himself, they think that since in humans is a priority feel loved then they give a loooooooooooot of love
 
Let a dog in the street since he is a puppy with his/her mother and they will find the way to live happy and balanced, why the hell that does not happen when the dog lives with a human? well i think the one to blame in this equation is easy to name
 
If a dog was bred to pull and he does not pull, what happens? if a dog that was bred to herd doesnt, what happens?
 
"But my dog is really cuuuuute" yes lady but your dog is not a "trophy dog" he has a life to fufill too
 
There is powerfull breeds indeed, when their life is not fufilled the outcome depends on the breed, some of them bark 24/7 (beagle), some others are aggressive (pit bull) but as long as their needs are fufill they wont have a frustration outcome to show
 
i.e Try to live a week, just one week without water and you will see that you wont act everyday as you normally do, you will be cranky, depending on your personaity you will show more or less (my wife for example would become a monster []) me on the contrary would try to prepare myself mentally to be without water for a weekand look for other solutions, a clean freak like my mother in law would become really anxious and crazy, all of us would be cranky for sure but some in a greater level than others, it all depends in the personality of the person, with the dogs is the breed, dont fufill your dog needs and you will see how the dog will try to get rid of the frustration

I am asking out of curiosity and not judgement. Is it true, CM Folks, that you believe that the handler is always the problem and that genetics and individual dogs' temperaments are not ever a factor? If so, can you tell the rest of us more about why you think that? What does that philosophy do for you in your training?

 
I'll answer this question as a crossover trainer...
 
I believe in a majority of cases the handler is responsible for allowing "bad" behavior to escalate by reinforcing those behaviors whether intended or unintended. ie: thinking it's cute that a puppy is teething on fingers-then gets angry and hurt when puppy is an adult and thinks that fingers and hands are fun to chew on.
 
I also believe that dogs of a particular breed are inclined to exhibit certain behaviors that are distinctive to that particular breed or group: Sighthounds like to chase prey to the exclusion of all else.
 
What this means in my training of my particular hounds is that I do not reinforce behaviors that I consider "poor" or "bad" and I use specific motivators to train my dogs.  Be it food, play or chase games. 
 
I do not think that my training methods differ as compared to certain other individuals; for me it is always about what motivates the particular dog I am working with.  One of my friends has a BC mix that loves attention, so that is his reward when he "performs" a behavior at my request.

In case I haven't made that clear at this point, while I'm not a HUGE fan of CM, I'm not of the idea that he brings nothing to the table.

I posted this in the behaviour section, long story short, my dog's vet was telling me that my dog is MUCH easier to dea lwith when I'm not around. Whether my dog picks up on my stress (eventhough I thought I can keep cool as a cucumber), he's showing off with me, or what, I am comvinced that part of his reactivity problem is my fault. So yes, I do agree that a handler is to blame for some and in most cases a great part of a dog's problem.

At the same time, I think we ALL here can agree that dogs are intelligent beings, they have a thinking process, and whether or not you believe in the pack theory, you must agree that before being a pack member a dog is an individual. As such, intelligent, thinking individuals, they make mistakes. Some can be blamed on the handler/owner, but some are mistakes the dogs make, plain and simple.

I think that some of these statements Fisher was talking about are mostly misinterpretations. For example, while I COMPLETELY agree that there is no such thing as a VICIOUS breed, that's not to say that certain breeds of dogs have a level of agression genetically imprinted to them. The misunderstanding here comes between what a vicious dog is and what an agressive dog is. Being CAREFUL about dog agression with pittbulls is NOT inappropiate, LABELING ALL pittbulls as aggressive or vicious is. Ever thought that maybe, just maybe all the "good" pittbulls out there are good because their owners were careful about any signs of aggression?. Another statement that floats around a lot, clicker trainers are lax in discipline, no they are not (for the most part), they simply work in a way that allows them not to resort to corrections.

So, with that in mind, I believe that the whole "all dog problems can be traced back to the owner" is yet another missinterpretation. YES owner influenced problems have/had been neglected for a long time by putting all the blame on the dogs. I guess the fact that CM brings up and focuses a lot on the owners leads some people to believe that the owners are the problem itself.

I think that what keeps the discussion from having the legitimacy that some of our discussions in the past used to have is the almost religious fervor with which this person is regarded, as if he is incapable of making an error.  The point that sillysally brought up about Pat Parelli is a valid one, even as applied to dogs.  While handler problems do create behavioral problems in dogs, when we need to rehabilitate dogs we must take into account the abilities of the handler to rehabilitate himself, too.  No matter what a behaviorist or trainer has the skillset for, no lasting change will be made in the dog if the dog's handler cannot alter his own behavior.  I also believe that genetics play a huge role in the dog's tendencies toward aggression and other behavior.  It is much less likely to have a territorially aggressive Portuguese Water Dog than it is to have an Australian Shepherd exhibit the same tendency.  That doesn't mean that a Porty can't be guardy, or that an Aussie can't let the burglar steal the silverware, but IMO, if a behavior expert ignores that information completely, as if it never matters, that's a serious error in judgement.  Dr. Dodman and others frequently say that to manage an aggressive dog, an owner must be willing to understand that if a dog has manifested aggressive behavior before, the likelihood is that, if the dog is triggered in the right way, he will do it again - because aggression never truly goes away as a fall back tool in the dog's toolbox.  My sense is that whenever people, whether it's CM or anyone else, assume that all dogs can be rehabilitated, or they can handle any dog, then they are losing a valuable perspective that can keep them, the dog, and the client safe.  It's easy to adopt the philosophy-du-jour, but I prefer to think in terms of a balance of science and experience.  So, while it's convenient to reduce the arguments to catch phrases, and it's harder to explain the reasoning behind the technique, that's what I prefer.  I want a more in depth knowledge of my subject than I got from reading Millan.  I want to understand the dog from a perspective that takes behavior, genetics, training, and the human component into account.  I think that it's fascinating to see how the humans' attitudes in life guide their perspective on what is or is not effective in motivating dogs.  Fear, control, reward, bribe - the words are used to castigate, inflame, and not understand.  Pity.

Interesting responses.

I basically agree with espencer's representation of CM's side of things. Dogs aren't cared for very well in our culture. We get them for silly reasons, don't understand that they will grow up and exhibit all kinds of behavior we don't like, and expect them to be like us when they are not. They exhibit all kinds of terrible behaviors that make perfect sense given the scenario at home.

Most if not all dog trainers see this and say this. And just as many dog trainers want to make the situation unemotional. And what I see is a guy on the TV using all the language every other dog trainer is using, in a format that relies on drama, conflict, and emotion. And CM gives this. I don't personally care for his techniques, but it's good television.

I wonder if this is where the Whole Dog philosophy Jones pointed out comes from. I mean, people who have read CM's book are rightly pointing out that CM himself does not seem to believe that dogs are inherently good or perfect and that the handler therefore must be bad. And he doesn't seem to believe that genetics or individual temperament play no role in a dog's daily interactions with its owners.

But when I watch the show, the whole setup is about CM coming in and saving the owners, who are doing it all wrong and are therefore identified as kind of bad or stupid. Could it be that this Whole Dog philosophy is a function of the show and the way its drama tends to unfold?

Because while Snownose is absolutely right in that CM is not directly asking anyone to emotionally attach to the drama of dog training, there is a lot of that emotion in the dramatic arc of each show. That's the show's whole point.

I am asking out of curiosity and not judgement. Is it true, CM Folks, that you believe that the handler is always the problem and that genetics and individual dogs' temperaments are not ever a factor?

 
Well, I like Cesar and I don't think that.  I have to believe that breed plays a role in some behaviors that are instinctual.  You know it if you have a herding dog, or a guard dog, or a terrier breed.
 
I think many owners that he's done shows with  tend to blame the "breed" before ever looking at their own behaviors first.  I do think that MOST behavioral issues in dogs are due to owners, but not all.  Some of the instinctual can be made worse or a problem by owners, but I don't think that the owners necessarily "cause" all behavioral issues. 
 
I remember a DW episode in which the owners were first to blame the breed of Dalmation on the dog's hyperness, stubborness, etc...  When, after witnessing how the owners actually interact with the dog, CM was able to concur that it wasn't the Dalmation causing the problems, it was "Duke" (can't remember the dog's name) the personality causing the problems.  The owners had little rules, boundaries and limitations in place for their dog and he basically ruled the roost.  They were looking at personality, "Duke" first instead of species=dog, breed=Dalmation and lastly personality=Duke.  By treating Duke like a human, the behaviors they didn't like were born.  They retty much wrote it off to him being a Dalmation.  
 
Kato is not overly great on a leash with other dogs.  I don't blame his breed for that.  I feel like I caused this behavior by getting panicky and nervous when we'd see another dog.  I do feel that my nervous energy travels down that leash and zaps him right in the head when a dog is near!  We are a work in progress, but I hope I"ve at least learned something from this leash reactivity issue.  I"ve never had it before with any dog, so this is new territory for me.  

But when I watch the show, the whole setup is about CM coming in and saving the owners, who are doing it all wrong and are therefore identified as kind of bad or stupid. Could it be that this Whole Dog philosophy is a function of the show and the way its drama tends to unfold?

I pretty much get the same thing, which is why I mentioned that a lot of it is due to misinterpretations. I guess that in order to make the point that humans are partially at fault the show is edited in such a way that really derives from that standpoint and delivers that particular part of the message with more emphasis. The wonder of post production and editing is that you can organize things in a such a way that you as an editor pretty much control the conclusions your audience will arrive to(prvided you have the right footage), woudn't I know.....

Kato is not overly great on a leash with other dogs.  I don't blame his breed for that.  I feel like I caused this behavior by getting panicky and nervous when we'd see another dog.  I do feel that my nervous energy travels down that leash and zaps him right in the head when a dog is near!  We are a work in progress, but I hope I"ve at least learned something from this leash reactivity issue.  I"ve never had it before with any dog, so this is new territory for me.  

Mastiff, interesting. I've had a leash-reactive dog before myself, and I went back and forth on the "who's fault is this" thinking and eventually decided it was hindering things and that it didn't matter whose fault it is. And then things got better.

Again, out of curiosity because everybody's different... Is laying the cause of this behavior at your own feet helping to make it better? I ask mostly because you say that you haven't had leash reactivity with a dog before.

So here's a story: My parents love the Dog Whisperer. They don't have dogs and never have. They love my dogs but are honest enough to know that they are far far to busy to every own a dog. They have cats.

But they do live right on the city's largest park, the one with the dog park in it and the one that a tremendous number of dog-owners think is okay to let their dogs run off-leash through the whole thing. My parents are also avid joggers and bikers. That's why they moved to the park in the first place. I'm sure you can see where I'm going here. My parents have as a result of where they live and their hobbies a very low opinion of most dog owners. They love dogs and are animal lovers in general but they see a tremendous amount of irresponsible dog ownership.

They love the Dog Whisperer because they've already arrived at the conclusion that most dog owners are irresponsible and stupid and don't train their dogs enough. They love the show because it completley reaffirms this belief that they already have. Everyone likes to have their beliefs validated. They aren't watching it to get any dog training tips, they'll never have a dog and they have acknowledged to me many times that my own dogs are already very well trained and behaved. They don't know anything about dogs or dog training but one thing they do know is that dog owners are stupid and irresponsible and they love Cesar Millan for calling these people out as such (of course not in so many words and in that charismatic way he has). It has nothing to do with his methods, and everything to do with my parents feeling a little bit vindicated by watching stupid dog owners get told that they are being stupid.

But when I watch the show, the whole setup is about CM coming in and saving the owners, who are doing it all wrong and are therefore identified as kind of bad or stupid. Could it be that this Whole Dog philosophy is a function of the show and the way its drama tends to unfold?

 
I think that's part of it, but having read his book I think that you can take that away from the book as well... as espencer pointed out in the village dog - city dog comparison drawn from the book. I think that he summarized it well and I would like to add the footnote that Cesar was 6 years old when he moved from the farm to the city, so make of that what you will.
 
I appreciate espencer's honest answer that basically yes he does take the "Whole Dog theory," if we can call it that, away from the show and book... I think you can already draw the conclusion from this thread that some people who like Millan will come to that conclusion, and others won't. I think we can also conclude that we all agree that a lot of the time a good portion of a dog's problems are due to owner/handler mistakes. However, that to me can be seen as a separate question from whether the dog on its own is "born without sin," if you will... after all a flawed dog can be corrupted as surely as a whole, perfect dog can... so 'what is the nature of the dog' is still a question that's on the table.
 
Circling back to the point that Deb is making about the story arc of the DW show, certainly that has to be a factor. The "emotional tranformation" is a really really common story arc, notably so in reality shows with a sociological or semi-educational bent... just off the top of my head I could draw ready comparisons between The Dog Whisperer and What Not to Wear, Wife Swap or Trading Spouses, Supernanny or Nanny 911... purely from a narrative perspective, they all have this crucial denouement of "we didn't just fix our problem, we had a deeply personal transformation."

They don't know anything about dogs or dog training but one thing they do know is that dog owners are stupid and irresponsible and they love Cesar Millan for calling these people out as such (of course not in so many words and in that charismatic way he has). It has nothing to do with his methods, and everything to do with my parents feeling a little bit vindicated by watching stupid dog owners get told that they are being stupid.

Circling back to the point that Deb is making about the story arc of the DW show, certainly that has to be a factor. The "emotional tranformation" is a really really common story arc, notably so in reality shows with a sociological or semi-educational bent... just off the top of my head I could draw ready comparisons between The Dog Whisperer and What Not to Wear, Wife Swap or Trading Spouses, Supernanny or Nanny 911... purely from a narrative perspective, they all have this crucial denouement of "we didn't just fix our problem, we had a deeply personal transformation."

I think this is why the forum has become so... personally attacking.

Nobody used to need a pro-side or an anti-side. We all used to be people who love dogs, and even though there used to be real disagreements, everyone trusted that we are all on the same team. I think that there is a small handful of people on this forum who are looking for that story arc, while most of us just want to talk about our dogs.