Whole Dog

From what I have seen, posters who complain about the bickering are right in the middle of it.....
Maybe, that is why we can't get nowhere.

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 agree with that. And several people have made good points, even if the thread wanders just a little bit. I also understand your viewpoint that on a show it can seem misleading to read one behavior that is actually a sign of something else and JQP will, in fact, not be versed well enough to tell the difference in his/her own application. I also agree with MRV from the other thread that because of this, that it can be ineffective at best, dangerous at worst, to think that a media package designed for ratings will provide all the right answers. That people really should seek out all advice, even if some of it is not what they would use. For example, Lori's Willow does not respond to clicker training. But the insight gained from clicker training can still be applied, i.e., finding the reward the dog likes, finding a way to mark the behavior and hopefully reinforce it, etc. There are things of value from CM, whether you use his exact methods or not.
 
While CM does use a "whole dog" approach, even if his technique was 100 % successful with every dog, there just isn't enough good homes and savvy owners for all the dogs. So, Spiritdog, you are right in that an aggressive dog is likely to be pts and that is not always a bad thing. Though I do think the show is dealing primarily with dogs that have been mishandled.
 
As for severe mishandling and the end result, Jaime has a rehabbed fighting pit that she can take to shows, where there are likely to be children. So, not all dogs are beyond hope just because they had a bad background.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

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???

Ella's training session was last night. We got into a discussion about CM with the trainer. She had a pretty balanced opinion about him. She said there are some things she sees her clients do, that they will tell her that "CM does it" and it just makes her want to scream. And she spoke about how there are a TON of trainers who disagree with him and really dislike him, but she went on to say that at least he's honest. She spoke about one client who did a kick back with a dog in the rear at one of her sessions. She recognized it right away (she watches CM) as something that CM does. She asked the client where he learned it from and he immediately said, "CM does it". She went on to tell about the episode and how CM was walking a dog and the dog saw another dog in a yard and immediately you could see the dog start to posture and change body language. She said that CM just kind of kicked back, gently with his foot and got the dog in the rear and at that point the dog looked at CM. So, yeah, CM got the dog's attention and she said that's great that he got his attention so he could redirect, but she said that his mechanics are, you know, kind of wrong. There are other ways to get a dogs attention rather than kicking them in the rear. Then she proceeded to show us by use of our dog. She's very polite when she speaks about disagreeing with CM, but she said she just doesn't care for TV training. She said it's misleading and she sees that in her own sessions.
Anyway, I just mentioned that because we just had the discussion in our session last night.


About the genetics part of this thread:
My trainer works with GSDs. She owns...I think 3 or 4. Anyway, she has one that is very afraid of humans. Her dog acts like she's going to attack other humans when she's around ones she doesn't know. She won't attack but she puts up a HUGE front. She's fine with people once she gets to know them, but she would scare the pants off of most people upon first meeting.
She has had this dog since the dog was a puppy and was of an age to be able to leave her mother. She has socialized this dog SO SO SO much. She has worked like MAD with this dog. But her dog is still deathly afraid of humans that she does not know. My trainer couldn't figure it out so she started looking at the family of this dog and it turns out that on the dog's father's side, her dog's grandfather was this exact same way.
It's probably been established in this thread already (I haven't read the whole thing) but, yes, genetics definitely play a part.

ORIGINAL: snownose

From what I have seen, posters who complain about the bickering are right in the middle of it.....
Maybe, that is why we can't get nowhere.

And, that would include you, wouldn't it?  This is what I mean - we are not complaining about it at this point, we are trying to figure out why it happens, because, frankly, it's ruining any possibility of a legitimate discussion of methods that could educate anyone.  I, for one, am interested in why this man has caused the depth of animosity on this board, and in the general public, that he has.  I started  a thread to try to examine that issue.  I mean, why are we fighting about CM, and not Koehler, Dunbar or Kilcommons.  What is it about HIM?  You felt it necessary to jump right in on me, didn't you?  I mean, it sounds like you just couldn't resist it and let the discussion proceed.  Maybe, that's why we can't get anywhere.  [:'(]

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?

The use of absolutes such as "always" and "not ever", is an assumtion.

I don't recall the "CM folks" ever making this claim and denying that there are no other factors at work which can cause social and/or behavioral problems in a dog or that there are no factors to consider to get the whole picture.

Human contact is simply the most likely source, since a dog's social and behavioral problems when living with humans, do not seem to occur when they live only with each other...so it just makes sense to start at the most frequently occuring "root cause" of the dog's problems - contact with human beings. 

Although there are things to consider in each specific case, the starting point is based on simplicity, and you work from there.

For me personally, a very old and basic theory is simply the most logical lace to start:

Occam's razor.

ORIGINAL: TinaK

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.

 
This is a great point and I hadn't thought of it like that before.  But having said that, dogs cannot choose who they live with.  Humans can choose the dogs they ulive with.  With so many shelter dogs carefully assessed and the shelter willing to put so much time into "matching" the right dog to the right owner, this shouldn't be such a major issue.  If you're buying a ped. pup, there is such a myriad of breeds available and so much support and info available if you are just willing to look for it about how the dog is likely to develop, you don't have an excuse there either.  Admitted, there is still a margin for error, but if you do the responsible thing and do your homework, this margin is small.  Which brings me to my point.... if it comes to the fact that the dog is not right for the owner, the owner is still going to be frequently at fault.... I do believe that dogs are capable of doing stupid things and making mistakes
 
I love houndlove's point about some peole enjoying the show because it validates their view above any other reason, now that I've thought about it that is so true.  Isn't there a saying "everyone knows how to raise someone else's kids"?  The paralell drawn btwn CM and S/nanny  on another thread was an excellent one I think!

Before this discussion degenerates, let's step get past the rhetoric and look at the main issue of this post....
 

  I mean, why are we fighting about CM, and not Koehler, Dunbar or Kilcommons.

 
I, for one, think we would be fighting about Koehler, Dunbar, Kilcommons, and even Burnham if they had media exposure to the general population. 
 
I think it's really a sign of how the North American culture has developed; we want everything quickly.  For positive methods to work it takes time.  But with the time lapse within the "show" everything seems to happen magically and immediately.  Any and all of us who have worked with and continue to work with our animals know that this isn't the case.  But the appeal is definitely there.
 
I think that those who believe wholeheartedly in a single method feel that anyone that questions their method or methodology is attacking them personally.  Whether that method is considered this or that.  When one becomes defensive, as it is very easy to do, one stops the learning process.
 
I could and do suggest Burnham's "Playtraining Your Dog" quite often.  No one has ever challenged me on this.  Yet were they to do so, I would probably become a bit defensive at first.  But as the discussion and argument continued I'm sure that salient points would be brought up on both sides and all participants would learn something valuable about the training experience.
 
Is it possible that we could do the same with other seemingly more contreversial methods?

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
 I, for one, am interested in why this man has caused the depth of animosity on this board, and in the general public, that he has. 

 
Who has a depth of animosity? [sm=uhoh.gif]
 
 

ORIGINAL: Angelique

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
I, for one, am interested in why this man has caused the depth of animosity on this board, and in the general public, that he has. 

Who has a depth of animosity? [sm=uhoh.gif]

 
For once take the high road...if you want to degenrate this into a fight pick another thread please.  We WERE making progress.  The "We" refers to the posters on this thread.

I, for one, think we would be fighting about Koehler, Dunbar, Kilcommons, and even Burnham if they had media exposure to the general population.

 
This would be the best answer I have seen, yet.[]
 
Anne, I own up to my part.......can you?
Btw, not everything is directed at you.
 
In the end, I feel that some people in the dog training world are perhaps a little jealous of his success, as we all know, with success come the haters.....[]

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
For once take the high road...if you want to degenrate this into a fight pick another thread please.  We WERE making progress.  The "We" refers to the posters on this thread.

I think that this point bears reiteration.  Snownose, let's not make it about me or you, let's have a valid discussion.  []

ORIGINAL: snownose
In the end, I feel that some people in the dog training world are perhaps a little jealous of his success, as we all know, with success come the haters.....[]

I hope you don't mind me only quoting this part of what you said.
Can I say my thought now?

I think any trainer that goes to school or gets certified to do what they do (and excuse my ignorance as I'm not sure what entails becoming a trainer, does one go to college to become a trainer?) has kind of a right to be crusty with someone who just all of a sudden (through the right connections) appears on TV and makes a lot of claims that might not be the same as some of these "schooled" trainers.
I know if I was a schooled trainer I would probably disagree with CM, too, ESPECIALLY if I didn't agree with his techniques to begin with.
My beginning thought about CM might be, "Who the crap is this creep to go on TV and make training and dealing with troubled dogs appear so easy when in actuality it is a SERIOUS business and can be extremely dangerous. Disclaimers or not, this is going to give people the wrong impression about how to handle dogs."

Some of the disagreement about CM is directly due to some of his techniques and a LOT is to do with the presentation of his techniques.
But, I believe I probably shouldn't be in this thread since I am not a trainer, not am I very familiar with CM's techniques.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: Angelique

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
I, for one, am interested in why this man has caused the depth of animosity on this board, and in the general public, that he has. 

Who has a depth of animosity? [sm=uhoh.gif]

For once take the high road...if you want to degenrate this into a fight pick another thread please.  We WERE making progress.  The "We" refers to the posters on this thread.

 
"I" am also a poster on this thread. Your "for once" comment is an absolute, a personal attack, is very out of line, and I was not talking to you.
 
Your personal remarks are not welcome.
 
Spiritdogs made a statement that she is interested in why "this man" has caused a depth of animosity on this board. "This man" has personally caused nothing. I have never seen him attack trainers or say his way is the only way. It is the attempt to discuss this man, even in an area designed to keep the hostility out, which causes the animosity.
 
The "general public" doesn't seem to have a problem with him. The "general public" does seem to have problem when they innocently walk onto a dog board and attempt to discuss him, though.
 
The "general public" has kept his show on the air and seem to show their great appreciation for his book by writing their reviews and saying how much his basic philosophies have helped them understand their dogs.
 
"Who" shows up in those same review sites behaves with animosity, without even reading the book? "Who" shows up on his own NGC blog to bash and discredit him? "Who" indeed.
 
I wonder...
 
 
 

"I" am also a poster on this thread. Your "for once" comment is an absolute, a personal attack, is very out of line, and I was not talking to you.

 
I was speaking to both you and Anne.  Apparently Anne got it.  Sorry if you didn't.  (That's why I quoted BOTH of you.)

I, for one, think we would be fighting about Koehler, Dunbar, Kilcommons, and even Burnham if they had media exposure to the general population.

Actually Ed, I can tell you from experience that this is not true. In fact, some of the more verbal "traditional" trainers left as the CM Influx began (anyone remember HD Kutz???).

I am not kidding when I say that there used to be interesting, useful, respectful conversations *that included lots of disagreement* between "traditional" and "positive methods" trainers all the time. Most of us are "crossover" folks--there is lots of shared ground, and FWIW, two of the books in my Big Three are The Monks of New Skete and Kilcommons' Good Dogs Great Owners (or is it Great Dogs Good Owners?)

I learned how to train my first dog as an adult with the Monks in one hand, Koehler in the other, and a leash with a choke chain in... wait a minute.

I have done alpha rolls and scruffing. I have perfected the leash pop. Most people on the "positive" side of the fence have.

It's not about "Yank N Crank" v. "TreatDispensingButlerRoommate", because if it were I never would have stuck around in the first place... there actually used to be more discussions about "traditional methods" than there are now, in a weird way. Maybe it feels that way because they used to be discussions.

I still think it's about the fact that it's a TV show, and that the goal for some posters seems to be recreating the dramatic arc of the show and not debate.