Slate mag's take on CM

I'm with you Mastiff. I don't get it either. I've said before that I don't agree with every single thing that CM does, but his basic messages of excercise, disipline, affection, rules, boundries, limitations and being your dogs calm assertive pack leader are right on. No, he didn't invent these ideas and this is nothing revolutionary, but he has a way of communicating these simple concepts better than than just about anyone out there in the public eye today.

Agreed. I don't use all of his techniques and functionally can't do them in the order he suggests. But the powers of observation, proper attitude, consistency, etc, are important, regardless of who said it. And the episode about the hung dog is often, I think, misquoted. I've seen the episode more than once. Two dogs were fighting. Not just growling and posturing in "ritualized" form. Fighting, fang and claw. He stepped right in and grabbed each by the leash and separated them, which did involve a temorary suspension of the front legs off of the ground. Cesar Millan is a short man and not capable of hoisting a pit bull or GSD completely off of the ground. It is physically impossible for him. Anyway, he scruffed the offender which relented and lowered itself and laid down on its side.He was trying to avoid damage happening to the dogs, since the problem dog was not his. Stopping a fight and physically controlling a dog reduces his insurance liability. I hate to say it but a court of law would require that an on scene vet determine if the dog was harmed. Not that that's good or bad, it's just the way they argue things in court.

Nor does he expect the average viewer to use these more drastic techniques. What he is trying to get across is a more active role for the human as a leader, exercising, training and expecting obedience, and rewarding that obedience. Other episodes, he has changed a dog's mind without touching him by owning the space or resource and taking over the alpha position.  TSSST is just a sound to get the dog's attention diverted from the wrong behavior to you. My wife, not watching the show, says "Ahhhh" in a really nasal tone. Big flipping difference. I make a smooching sound. The point is to have a sound that signals the dog to disengage from the unwanted behavior.

My initial reply wasn't a carte blanche support of everything he does but I do get some good ideas from him that I implement in my own way, usually without physical means.

But of course, we can't have a civil discussion about him. That's why Jaime had that one thread stating that she will shut down CM threads since people get so irate and emotional and then end up calling each other names, etc. If one person seeks to go to a trainer because of what CM has said, I don't think that's so bad. And watching his show may give them a second thought about getting a dog they might not be able to handle.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

many of us are hostile to CM because every day we observe people doing unpleasant, weird, and unsafe things to their dogs (and to MY dogs) because they are trying to emulate his methods- which they loudly proclaim to all. I've never seen anyone do anything weird or unpleasant to a dog and claim they are trying to emulate Karen Pryor or McConnell.

Exactly. [8|]

Yes, but it is a very small percentage of people that emulate CM in the big scheme of things.  There have been people, and still are, that have been doing weird, unpleasant and unsafe things to their dogs for decades regardless of CM's existance or not.  All I have to do is watch an episode of "Animal Precinct" to witness that fact.  He can't be blamed for every problem owner on the planet.  I'm sure there are other "experts" in the dog world that people follow that you wouldn't agree with.  Not just CM.
 
And, CM does advecate goint to +R obedience classes for everyone.   
 

It never gets old because it's so consistently infuriating, the way CM points to that American need for the shortcut. Emily Yoffe hasn't trained her dog, does not understand clicker training, and probably won't follow through on her CM-ification of her dog, either.

And it's not like CM is always wrong. The dog will consistently see Yoffe as "weak."

But CM is so popular, and so irritating, and occasionally dangerous, because he is about the short term and not the long term. Because he is marketing this idea that you, too, can be a dog whisperer. Americans LOVE to be hardcore and hate to understand the big picture.

And for what it's worth, there are lots of other disciplines that have their own CM. Bikram is the McDonalds of yoga, it forgoes lots of the philosophy of yoga so that it can be Xtreme and easy at the same time. And academia does bouts with CM-types as well, all flash no substance.

CM is not "evil" or anything--he is right to say that dogs need to be trained, etc. It's just that he's preaching to the lowest common denominator using unsophisticated tools and there are better ways to do it. It's irritating that his popularity, which is a marketing issue, allows people to continue to misunderstand concepts like Operant Conditioning, even though these concepts are more useful than the SSSTtt, the alpha roll, or these outmoded, inaccurate ideas about how dogs consider "respect."

I agree with you Deb.  I think his show would have to be an ongoing documentary following only a dog or two for at least a year in order for people to get the idea that short-term isn't going to work. 
 

Nor does he expect the average viewer to use these more drastic techniques.

 
Does the average viewer understand that?  I don't watch the show, though I've seen a few episodes here and there.  The stories are edited for time, so how does one really get the gist of how the dog behaves (or doesn't) and how the humans act/react?  Can the average viewer put the two together and then come up with a solution for their own situation?
 
I don't quite understand how people can think they can watch a TV show, remember everything, and follow the methods correctly.  Can you remember everything about making duck a l'orange from watching an episode or two of Emeril?  Human memory, like that of "eyewitnesses" to a crime, is very fallible.

My opinion on CM is "Don't shoot the messanger!" We are bombarded with "experts" giving us advise on everything from training our dogs to saving our marriage. From raising our kids to raising our property value. If you don't take the time to fully understand any 'expert'
advise then you are doomed to fail (or you may simply get lucky). It's absolutely true for +R experts as well. So many people beleive +R is just about giving treats. They don't bother to fully understand the concept and end up believing it doesn't work. Same for CM.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You can't blame the messager if you don't read the message.

ORIGINAL: denise_m

My opinion on CM is "Don't shoot the messanger!" We are bombarded with "experts" giving us advise on everything from training our dogs to saving our marriage. From raising our kids to raising our property value. If you don't take the time to fully understand any 'expert'
advise then you are doomed to fail (or you may simply get lucky). It's absolutely true for +R experts as well. So many people beleive +R is just about giving treats. They don't bother to fully understand the concept and end up believing it doesn't work. Same for CM.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You can't blame the messager if you don't read the message.

RIGHT ON!!!, it happens all the time in all fields. Someone with NO knowledge whatsoever learn one or two tricks, and after that they believe it's just a combination of those two tricks to solve EVERYTHING.

"all possitive trainers just shove a treat down the dog's throat", "all none possitive trainers kick the dog while they hang it from the choke collar", "all pittbuls are ticking time bombs", " there is no such thing as an aggressive golden retriever", all those myths come from half-informed (and the "half" is a best case scenario) people.

Why is it that the one thing that people seem to ignore when an expert says it is "always consult with a professional"?

"they did it on TV, how complicated could it possibly be?"

he has a way of communicating these simple concepts better than than just about anyone out there in the public eye today.

So, does that mean you think that Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Karen Overall, Patricia McConnell, Kathy Sdao, Trish King, Pia Silvani, and others, are not in the public eye, or just that you have never gone to see them?  And, if you have, can you honestly say that CM has a better take on dog behavior than they do?  If so, I'm completely stupefied by that.

Well said fisher. Love the Bikram analogy! []

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

he has a way of communicating these simple concepts better than than just about anyone out there in the public eye today.

So, does that mean you think that Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Karen Overall, Patricia McConnell, Kathy Sdao, Trish King, Pia Silvani, and others, are not in the public eye, or just that you have never gone to see them?  And, if you have, can you honestly say that CM has a better take on dog behavior than they do?  If so, I'm completely stupefied by that.

They're not in the public eye they way Cesar Millan is right now.  Your average new dog owner probably isn't going to pick up a book like Culture Clash or The Other End of the Leash or even know who any of those people are.  I'm not saying that anyone has a better take on dog behavior than anyone else.  I'm saying that CM has a way of communicating simple yet extremley important aspects of living with dogs in a way that gets through to lots of people that might not "get it" otherwise. 

At the beginning of every episode is the warning, in letters big enough to see;
 
"Do not attempt any of these techniques without consulting a professional trainer."
 
On a few of the episodes I have seen, CM did use a physical control. There was no other choice and "just let the dogs fight, they're only having an argument" won't cut it. Most of the time, he is training the human. They are the ones who have allowed the dog to become this way. By getting them more actively involved in being a leader and showing the dog what is expected, it's go to help.
 
I do things differently than his order. When I get home, we walk. When we get home, his appetite is triggered. He eats. Then, later we work obedience into play and vice versa. But I have learned to watch his body language. I expect obedience. I am the leader, or human-alpha, or whatever. I don't panic. I watch the behavior of other dogs. Some of them, he gets along with, some not so good, similar to humans. Dogs don't have a union card that guarantees they will all be friends.
 
Here are some results to ponder. Can anyone here go rollerblading with 10 dogs of different breeds from troubled backgrounds? Can anyone maintain a pack averaging 35 dogs without problems and walk amongst them with any of them trying to resource guard the human? He's not just about yanking and cranking and pinning. And these are big dogs. Pits, GSDs, Huskies, Labs, Rotties, Bulldogs. When I see them, they don't look unhappy in the least. In fact, his strongest success is when he is allowed to keep a dog for a few weeks and let that dog assimilate into the huge pack. After a while, the dog follows the status quo. That's about as hands off as you can get. Is he the greatest trainer? Well, he doesn't claim to be a trainer. Is he the greatest behaviorist? Maybe not, since he doesn't have academic credentials in this country. I suppose it depends on personal opinion. People are willing to sing the praises of Ian Billinghurst, who was not educated in this country. But just because CM shows some of the steps in rehabbing a dog does not mean that he thinks you shouldn't go to a trainer. That's stricter than the home improvement shows where they show you how to build a room. The only thing they won't show is how to do the electrical work. They always say to hire a licensed electrician. Well, CM always says to consult a trainer.
 
If I were walking down a street with my dog on leash and CM was also on that street and a loose dog came at us, I would rather have him scruff and subdue the dog than another person stand there and say, "Oh, just let them fight it out. It would be cruel to physical control and correct them." The person who says that would find themselves in a lawsuit that leaves them bankrupt. Them, and the owner who let the dog get loose.
 
And  I realize that we won't come to an agreement on some middle road about CM, but he certainly has raised the idea that you, me, and JQP can do something about dogs and their problems.

I'm saying that CM has a way of communicating simple yet extremley important aspects of living with dogs in a way that gets through to lots of people that might not "get it" otherwise. 

Well, I guess what I'm saying is that if they are watching and emulating him, they still don't "get it". [:'(]
Perhaps AP could boost their ratings by putting one of the real behaviorists on the air opposite CM.  Just a thought...

BYW, did you all know that Paul Owens, who used to post here, wrote "The Dog Whisperer" book a year before CM got famous by dealing with Oprah's Cockers?  Now, that's a Dog Whisperer book I could recommend.

If I were walking down a street with my dog on leash and CM was also on that street and a loose dog came at us, I would rather have him scruff and subdue the dog than another person stand there and say, "Oh, just let them fight it out. It would be cruel to physical control and correct them."

Ron, I don't see how this scenario justifies what might happen toa pet at home.  Gimme a break. No reputable trainer would simply let an off leash dog attack someone because "it would be cruel to correct them".  But, that is *not* the same as assuming that a technique used in an emergency situation is generally appropriate for training or rehabilitating dogs. 


 

ORIGINAL: ron2

At the beginning of every episode is the warning, in letters big enough to see;

"Do not attempt any of these techniques without consulting a professional trainer."

I *am* a professional trainer, yet I cannot convince many of the people here that they shouldn't emulate this guy.  So much for disclaimers.

I hate to tell you this, but not everyone lives in California. Nor do I think you can do an effective job as trainer, over the net, or that anyone else could over the airwaves. And we certainly have your counterpoint to anything  said about CM, though I think you limit the disagreement to just a few items concerning his method.
 
He is a champion and advocate for the bully breeds. He always advocates spay/neuter. Training. And, of course, being the one in charge. He has saved dogs that would hav been put down. And maybe some of the should be put down. But not every dog is perfect, just as not every human is perfect.
 
Nor am I advocating harsh methods, ala Leerburg but how about some more results or, shall we say coincidental conditions?
 
I'm in the tail end of the baby boom, which ran from 1944 to 1964. We were raised with corporal punishment, and obeyed and behaved to avoid the punishment. We had learned there were consequences to our actions that were misbehaviors or breaking of the rules. Well, when I was a kid, no one ever brought a gun into school, not even the kids that hunted with their dads. You settled your beefs with your bare hands, "like real men." Young people said yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am. The worst thing that happened in school was a student got arrested for selling marijuana. Another time, someone decorated the Christmas tree in the cafeteria with beer cans and condoms. Oh, we were hooligans.
 
Now, parents are afraid to spank their children. They have "time outs," which is merely time to plan the next caper. And kids bring guns, crystal meth, knives, whatever, to school. What's the worst that's going to happen to them? A time-out? Great, they'll just catch up on their text messaging. And the parents will get blamed, etc, rather than place some personal responsibility on the young'un and a clear set of undesirable consequences that they will incur for misbehavior.