Whole Dog

ORIGINAL: houndlove

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.

hahahaha. Your parents' philosophy about dog owners sounds like my brother and sister-in-law's. But my brother and sister-in-law own a dog. But they LOVE to hear about "stupid" people who are having issues with their dogs and it's SO easy for them to see how "stupid" these people are. WHEN THEIR DOG HAS JUST AS MANY PROBLEMS AS THE DOGS ON CM'S SHOW. She absolutely will have NOTHING to do with men at all what-so-ever. Never. She obeys my brother's stern command and shock collar threats, but the second he is out of the room, BAM! she's trying to get the ribs that are sitting on the counter. Right in front of a room full of people. She's crazy and runs all over the house. She's scared to death of him.
CM would have a hay day with my brother. I promise. When Ella was having some issues, he got on me to start using a shock collar that that would solve all my problems because Ella wasn't having problems, I was. I was the problem. And I REALLY was the problem because I refused to use a shock collar on her.

Sorry to go off topic. Houndlove's post made me think of my brother and his love for CM and how he most likely intreprets CM's show wrongly and walks around like he's the know all, end all of dog behavior when his dog is crazy due to HIS doing.

ORIGINAL: jones

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.

 
Thats right [] however in Mexico there is a looooooooooot of street dogs without owners which help him to continue watching dog's behavior, also i dont think he abandoned his grandfather and never went back to visit [] 

ORIGINAL: fisher6000


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.

 
Wasn't there a guy name Joel that caused havoc on the established people of this forum?  If I recall he had nothing to do with CM.  Do you want other examples?

quote:

ORIGINAL: fisher6000


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.

 
You told me to call you out if I don't agree with you.......ok.....[]
 
CM is fairly new in the dog world, he makes good television and is all in all personable.
 
But, because people subscribe to his techniques does not mean they not want to talk about dogs and want to be a problem. It appears to me that people get so emotional about what they believe that it gets pretty heavy at times, and that would be on both sides.[]
 
I don't think I have seen one thread that talked about just the show or his techniques without somebody getting all critical, and that is where the trouble starts over and over.......

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.

Someone asked my mentor at the herding clinic I just had here, what he thought of the Dog Whisperer. He laughed and said that while there was a lot he disagreed with, he liked watching people being told that their dogs are dogs and not little furry people.

Now THERE'S a guy who needs a TV show. Imagine the Scottish accent and perpetual impish smile. He's had an offer to do internet-video based training sessions but he is probably going to turn them down. His reason? He believes strongly that video is a dangerous medium to display dog training techniques - it's too easy to get things out of context and have people come away with the wrong idea.

I asked him later exactly what he thought of the show and I was amazed that he actually had a very different perception of what CM was doing with the dogs, than what I have heard most of you - the PRO CM people - describe. It's an interesting perspective as someone who's never seen the show myself, hearing his description versus y'all's description. And as I say his perception was very positive towards CM overall.

The fact that even his fans are unsure of what he represents exactly, adds to the religio-istic overtones here. Creepy.

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.

 
I think you're right.  laying the blame game serves absolutely no purpose.  It doesn't help correct the problem and Kato surely couldn't care less about it!  I highly doubt he lies awake at night tossing and turning over why he barks at dogs while on a leash!![sm=rofl.gif]
 
You may also be right in that by forgetting thinking about "who's fault is this?" and just relaxing, sending better energy through the leash it may just be better for both of us.  Blaming oneself is negative energy and a total waste of time.  Thanks for lifting that burden off my shoulders!! [] 

I don't think I have seen one thread that talked about just the show or his techniques without somebody getting all critical, and that is where the trouble starts over and over.......

Isn't that what discussion is all about?  Critiquing and exchanging ideas?  If everyone agreed with everyone else vis-a-vis this method or that method, then there would be no progress, no reason to research, and no learning.  Healthy disagreement is the hallmark of education.

Wasn't there a guy name Joel that caused havoc on the established people of this forum? If I recall he had nothing to do with CM. Do you want other examples?

....and who can forget dog_whisper (without the last er), that guy was downright obnoxious, great for comic relief though.....

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

Jones brought up a good point in the [linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=250226]pit bull, dog aggression[/link] post:

I don't know if this is something Millan himself would actually say but it has been heavily implied, if not outrightly stated, many times in this forum that there are really only 3 reasons why a dog does anything wrong, ever (including aggression, property destruction, etc): 1. Lack of exercise or breed-specific jobs, 2. Lack of leadership by the handler, 3. Negative emotional or "energy" influence of the handler (eg, coddling, anxiety, etc). I think this is where Awsomedog is coming from wrt to the dog aggression issue. Millan's show portrays all dog problems as handler problems, so there is no genetic imprint for dog aggression - except in extremely rare cases of mentally ill dogs I would suppose. As I've said before in another thread, his notion is of whole Dog, a perfect being who is only corrupted at the hands of humans. I likened him to St. Augustine, & maybe it's a bit Platonic too. It's very much untethered to the sort of guts & bones everyday business of dog breeding and individual temperament and so on.

And it made me think that this is probably one of the sources of the deep divisiveness that has plagued this forum lately. As someone who's been posting here for a couple of years, I am really surprised the way things have devolved. It used to be common for folks who used "traditional methods" and folks who used "positive methods" to discuss differences in training without it getting particularly heated. These days, I sense a more basic difference in philosophy between folks who are really listening to CM and other folks. I think that this "whole dog" issue might be part of it.

Because as I peruse my bookshelf (which includes a lot of traditional trainers like Woodhouse Kilcommons and the Monks) I don't find anyone else who is thinking about dogs in these terms.

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.

I do not think it's always the handler.  I see people with dogs that they have rescued which are undersocialized or not socialized.  The people rescued these dogs in good faith, not realizing that they were permanently handicapped by the fact that the socialization window was not only closed, it was slammed shut.  They are trying to help dogs that are severely handicapped, and sometimes they do a fine job, but the dog still doesn't progress much.
Breed and genetics does play a role.  Otherwise, treating hypothyroidism or using psychopharmacology would never work to alleviate aggressive behavior.  I certainly don't think that a handler is responsible for his dog's genetic makeup - that falls to the breeder, or natural selection.  One expects Border Collie to weave and gather more than one would expect that behavior of a Basset Hound.  And a Beagle is more apt to bay than a Newfoundland is.  Beagles are less likely to be dog aggressive than Akitas (right, Gina?), but that doesn't mean that there aren't some dog aggressive Beagles, and some dog-friendly Akitas (love you SB, my fave playgroup Akita). 
None of these things come under the category of "written in stone".  Some undersocialized dogs get a little better with good handling, some get a whole lot worse with inadequate human input.  Not all Pits fight with other dogs, and not all Cockers are submissive wetters.  But some do, and some are.
Life among dogs is no less complex than life among humans.  []

I do not think it's always the handler. I see people with dogs that they have rescued which are undersocialized or not socialized. The people rescued these dogs in good faith, not realizing that they were permanently handicapped by the fact that the socialization window was not only closed, it was slammed shut.

Who owned the dogs before they were rescued?

In my experience it is still the owner or handler if you will who did the damage, unless the dog was a pup and just in the system for a long time.
 
Second owners carry a big burden.

ORIGINAL: snownose

I do not think it's always the handler. I see people with dogs that they have rescued which are undersocialized or not socialized. The people rescued these dogs in good faith, not realizing that they were permanently handicapped by the fact that the socialization window was not only closed, it was slammed shut.

Who owned the dogs before they were rescued?

In my experience it is still the owner or handler if you will who did the damage, unless the dog was a pup and just in the system for a long time.

Second owners carry a big burden.

 
One I gladly accept. []
 
I'm glad to pick my personal dogs from the worst of the worst. My current dog was not socialised, obviously struck with an object, mistrustful of humans, high-strung, dominant by nature, insecure, confused, intelligent, and wary.
 
She was 1 1/2 years old when I found her and is mostly Catahoula, but I doubt a pure bred. She is not only my dog, beloved companion, and helper of other dogs...she is also my teacher.
 
What a gem she is!  []

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?

I am one of the CM folk, you could say [], and, I don't believe that the handler is always the problem. I also don't believe that the problem lies in the dog. What I think is the issue here, is that, often, the dog is just not the right fit for the owner. As simple as that.

I watched a documentary on wolves, it was about introducing them to one of the parks in the US. Scientists selected a healthy *dominant* male wolf from one of the Canadian parks. They also selected a female for him, with which they hoped he would breed and form a new pack. Scientists tried to *very carefully* match his temperament to the temperament of the female wolf. Since their introduction was 'forced' there was this tense, slow motion moment when both spotted each other. It was mentioned that if one decided it didn't like another, there would be a nasty fight - a big chance that one would go after another --to kill. (This one was had a happy ending.)

So, why should two beings get along, just because one chooses to live with another? I think we often forget one important point, and that is a 'freedom to leave' - that homeless dogs (and wolves) have.

If you want to study stray dogs, go to Moscow, Russia - it's amazing how many dogs they have - how many packs there are running around wild! When I read C. Millan's book, I knew exactly what he was talking about when he expressed his respect toward homeless dog owners, and how they manage to keep their dogs under control without any tools. They just have this energy - it's not centered around dogs, it's centered around their own survival... Anyway, my point is - C.Millan offers a solution - "Your dog is not the right fit for you. (If it was, you wouldn't struggle.) Since you are a human being (and are gifted with a more complex brain), you should be the one 'bending over', changing the way *you* behave in order to get the situation under control)"

I do believe that some dogs, just like humans, are born with loose screws... I don't think any kind of *energy* could fix that.

On Ceasar's show, most of the time the handlers are the issue.

Because there are no handlers.

The dog becomes a spoiled rotten brat (complete with backyard pool) due to no guidance or rules whatsoever.

I don't think I have seen one thread that talked about just the show or his techniques without somebody getting all critical, and that is where the trouble starts over and over.......

Snownose, thank you for disagreeing with me and telling me why. I see what you are saying, but I agree with Ed:

Isn't that what discussion is all about? Critiquing and exchanging ideas? If everyone agreed with everyone else vis-a-vis this method or that method, then there would be no progress, no reason to research, and no learning. Healthy disagreement is the hallmark of education.

What I am curious about is why critical discussion seems so impossible when discussing CM. From my perspective, it looks like people raise fair questions and make fair observations about what they see on CM's show, and instead of disagreeing, like you are disagreeing with me right now, people get angry and attacking.

It's like what happened on page one of this thread. I made a fair observation, and you didn't agree, which is fine because I am often wrong and I can't see your point of view.

But instead of disagreeing with me, you gave an emotional response that I will reproduce here in its entirety:

am probably going to get bashed for this one.

Watching CM's shows has shown me how simple it can be......dogs are crazy or go crazy, dogs being all over the owner, no discipline.....I guess it's almost like going to your friends house and witnessing his or her children being totally wild. You say to yourself "Darn, somebody needs to do something about that".

You watch CM's show and it has the same effect, and you think to yourself how easy it can be, but we make it all so complicated.

I wanted to add, that I am amazed everyday how much CM is hated on this board by some member, at the same time the same members take so much time out of their day to hover and post on a CM thread.
I think there are emotions involved on both sides.

Basically, you said that "some people" shouldn't be posting at all, and in a passive-aggressive way basically accused me of not having a life. Your response was not about disagreeing with me, it was more of a veiled personal attack, and it took a lot of effort on my part to unemotionally call out your passive-aggressive behavior and simply ask you to disagree with me. I am a mere mortal--I came very close to attacking you back, in a much more straightforward way, and perpetuating the pattern that has marked almost every CM thread to date:

The CM Thread Pattern:

1. Someone makes a fair critical observation about CM.
2. One of a small handful of folks ignores critical observation and delivers a passive-aggressive swipe.
3. Original Critical Observer gets defensive and attacks back.
4. Fight erupts.

The thing I am wondering is why making critical observations about this television show results in emotional personal attacks instead of disagreements. Because there have been a lot of irritating people on this forum, but I have never seen so many personal attacks over any other subject. Including breeding.

The thing I am wondering is why making critical observations about this television show results in emotional personal attacks instead of disagreements. Because there have been a lot of irritating people on this forum, but I have never seen so many personal attacks over any other subject. Including breeding.

I have long wondered this myself, and agree that if people would just disagree, giving their reasons for disagreement, things wouldn't get so ugly.  But, instead, we go round and round, and people get called "yank and crank" or "treat dispensing butler robots" when, in most cases, neither is accurate.  Even the people who use leash corrections can do so in a manner that is not rough or angry.  And, positive trainers use food - but manage not to "bribe" their dogs.  The correct application of training principles, and genuine education, is so hard to get to here these days that I, who never used to get many PM's at all, have lately had suddenly appear in my inbox comments that are valid and should have been able to be posted here, or anywhere on the forum.  Yet the individuals are sick of the arguing, sick of the bold and caps, and sick of CM - it didn't have to be that way.  There are things about this man that are not good, just as there are aspects of him that are.  But, while no one wants to hear the negatives, they want to bash back at the positive people as if they were idiots who couldn't possibly know anything about dog aggression or "red zone" dogs.  That's poppycock and everyone knows it - it's just about backing your team now, not seriously thinking about methodology and what you can take from each.   So, can someone please answer fisher's question - why???