Slate mag's take on CM

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.

This is equating dogs with humans.

It is also saying that there are no consequences for behavior other than "time outs" and saying that corproral punishment is the only effective punishment. What a crock of doody, Ron! When you mess up at work, does your boss slap you or fire you? And which punishment has more clout?

What a crock of doody, Ron! When you mess up at work, does your boss slap you or fire you? And which punishment has more clout

 
Temper, temper.
 
Termination is removal from the scene. So, are advocating euthanasia?
 
Raising children these days is tough but it appears to be +R, like we train our dogs with. So, who is equating what with what? We judge our dog's reactions and psychology by our own. In fact, the rebuttal to the use of physical control of a dog (no hitting involved) is, "how would you like it if it were done to you?" That is also equating dogs to humans. When I was a child, parents were in control. There was no negotiation. You will do what is expected or suffer a consequence, which might be a simple as grounding, what they now call a time-out, though extended. Part of what makes a dog trainable is its pack mentality, moreso than humans, who are also social creatures, unlike the sea turtles of Galapagos.
 
I'm not advocating corporal punishment for dogs. They lack the abstract reasoning to understand what it is for and simply see it as an attack, for which they will become defensive and bite. But if a dog needs to be physically controlled, i.e., restrained and segregated until the issue can be resolved, then so be it. Someone here said once that some dog fighting is just an argument and they'll work it out. I would view that, IMHO, as a load of doody. I will not allow dogs to fight, if I can help it.
 
But, at the same time, we don't have the same mindset in place to raise our kids as when I was a child. And look what we have for it. Areas of town where the police don't go unless called and never less than two units responding. In Dallas, they used to call it the "War Zone." FWIW, I've never seen CM hit a dog. The strongest thing he ever did was pull two fighting dogs apart by the leash. Then he took the problem dog and grabbed the scruff until it lowered and rolled. That dog, if it wanted to, could have broke free and run off. But he responded to the scruff because that is what momma dog used to do. And I say that because I have seen, and so have some friends of mine who have been through a litter or two. Once the dog is calm, training begins again. Nor is that always the first line of defense. He starts every dog the same way, with a walk. And he walks the dog with less force than a dog show exhibitor, but using a similar style. He is in charge and never lets them forget that and it starts with a walk, where the leader is in front.
 
Nor do I care to blame him for lazy dog owners that want a magical button.

You may be a boomer that was raised on corporal punishment, but I am not.  I don't think it's necessary to hit children at all.  They completely "get it" if you are consistent, and don't waver.  It certainly beats the people who tolerate boisterous, boorish behavior for hours then finally snap and get out the paddleboard.  Some people think they grew up just fine being treated like that, but in the general scheme of things, I see more successful people who were raised with rules, but not violence.  I will never change your mind, ron, but my dogs are well behaved and so are my "stepkids".  I rest my case.
What I never can figure out is why people get so wound up defending this guy.  He is not the creme de la creme of even the traditional training crowd.  Anyone here ever hear of Brian Kilcommons???

And, FYI, everyone, I do sometimes advocate euthanasia.  Why? Because, in most cases of severe and escalating aggression, the owners cannot manage the dog appropriately to keep everyone safe.  And, because for every truly dangerously aggressive dog that is kept alive, maybe somewhere in some overpacked shelter, a really good dog is being PTS.  In the bigger picture, is it right to euth so many good dogs to save a few potential killers?  Every time the owner of a severely aggressive dog makes a mistake that results in a bad bite, the spectre of BSL looms closer.
What we really need is a better system of evaluation, less emphasis on "save them all" and more on "save the best", because we are talking millions of dogs...  Until rescuers stop being so codependent about it, we will continue to have "iffy" dogs placed in unsuspecting average pet homes that don't belong there.  The large percentage of average Joes are looking for Lassie, not Cujo.  They don't want, or need, a rehab project that, if they fail, will chew their kid's face off.  If I were you, I would spend less time defending this guy, and more energy advocating for people to read and be educated before they need to even think about getting someone to help them rehab a dog they shouldn't have adopted in the first place.  For the lurkers, you may want to read Sue Sternberg's "Successful Dog Adoptions".

Also, ron, if you are referring to me as the person who said that dogs can "work it out" by fighting, at least quote me accurately.  Yes, dogs do work out their status issues by fighting *ritualistically*.  That's different from fighting for keeps and drawing blood.  The former may be best left alone, the latter should be stopped asap.  You must understand dog body language and the nature of the interaction before knowing which course to take.  So, since you seem not to understand the difference, you probably should stop "fights".  Just understand that by doing so, you may actually be creating more of a problem if the dogs can never determine just who (below the humans of course) is the leader.

1. CM is capitalizing on lazy dog owners who want a magic button. Whether it is right to blame him for the existence of these lazy owners is not that interesting... but he isn't exactly part of the solution.

2. +R is consistently misunderstood and evolves into spoiling. I have been in enough public schools and seen enough of the horrible power dynamic this creates to agree that it happens. But that does not make +R spoiling, and your argument seems to depend on that conflation.

3. I don't know what you are referring to re: dogs fighting. But there are lots of squabbles that are short, ritualistic, and best worked out by the dogs because dogs do establish pack dynamics by air snapping and protecting personal space. That's different from a real, prolonged fight.

4. The only way to remove a dog from a situation is to kill it?

You miss the point, which is that you suffer from terrible consequences for your behavior regularly, and these consequences don't motivate as much as +R. You get speeding tickets, late fees, you can get fired or your GF can leave you... you can go to jail, get sued, pay fines. But most folks do not interface regularly with corporal punishment. In fact, we have a thing about it. We consider it abusive. We do work to avoid these punishments, but more often we work to keep good stuff coming. We work to get money, or to make sure the flow of money does not stop. We also work for affirmation or the positive regard of others, which can be turned into good references in the future (access to more good stuff). We work to feel that satisfaction that the job is done. We work at understanding our lovers so that we will get more lovin'. We work at school to get good grades.

I'm not saying that there is nobody out there working from a position of fear, to avoid a punishment, but I will say that I tend to leave jobs and friendships with a culture of fear lickety-split.

And I will also say that I speed all the time--just not when I can see a cop.

The problem with punishment is that you start working to avoid punishment, and that is fundamentally different from doing the right thing. Your argument is that kids knew right and wrong better when they were hit, right? Because the only response I have to that is that frightened kids tend to do less in general. I don't want that for any kid, not when there is a better way to communicate what right and wrong is.

And I still don't see what this has to do with dogs, except that dogs, like people, shut down in the face of punishment.

What I never can figure out is why people get so wound up defending this guy. He is not the creme de la creme of even the traditional training crowd. Anyone here ever hear of Brian Kilcommons???

 
That's pretty much what I said about why trainers feel the need to bash Cesar or keep harping on overblown verbage, i.e. choking, strangling, that simply aren't true. 
 
I have heard of Brian Kilcommons and have a book on my shelf of his that I have read.  I enjoyed it and have nothing bad to say about him. 
 
Again, Cesar does NOT advocate hitting dogs, EVER.  His biggest philosophy is about letting balanced dogs teach unbalanced dogs how to become balanced.  His use of other dogs works well for him and the dogs.  As Ron said, that's about as hands off as you can get.  The dogs at his center look happy to me, and I don't think anyone can judge them without seeing them in person if you think they don't.  They don't all run away in fear of Cesar when he walks in.  They have respect for his position and live their lives accordingly.  They live a dog's life, not a human- in- a- fur- suit life.  He gives them affection at the right times, not the wrong times, which MOST dog owners do.  They inadvertantly nurture the unwanted behaviors.   
 
He has said many times that +R training is a must for dog owners and their dogs.  He is NOT dealing with puppies, housebreaking issues, or basic commands.  He does teach the owners how to behave around their dogs and to be mindful of what type of energy they are giving off in different situtations.  We all know that if you become scared, panicky, hyper and tense that your dog will immediately pick up on those vibes and react accordingly.  If you see another dog coming and are fearful your dog will react aggressively, by staying calm and assertive you can counteract some of that reaction.  He stresses that dogs live in the moment.  It's humans that worry in advance about what will happen, etc.  He teaches the owners to live in the moment, forget about the bad scene last week and MAKE a good scene happen.  Take control and your dog will follow.  Follow the leader.......

Anyone here ever hear of Brian Kilcommons???

Yes I have heard of Brian and read many of his books.  As a Protégé of Barbara Woodhouse (which I have read as well) he has softened her techniques. I have read many book by Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, Patricia McConnell as well.  I find all these trainer to have insight and I agree with all of them on some things and on some things I do not.  My opinion, I use a mix of all their techniques as see fit for each of my dogs personalities and I too have VERY HAPPY dogs who are very well behaved, trained and respond quickly and happily to our whole family and not just me.

I raise my kids with rules, not violence as well.  I don't hit my kids but smacked them in the back of the head on occasion when I needed their attention and wanted them to know I am serious! [].  Just as I give my dogs a gental leash op when I needed their attention,  My dogs are also, well behaved and so are my "KIDs", all three of them - ages 27, 24 and 5.  It didn't happen overnight with either my dogs or my kids but I am very proud and happy to take them (dogs and kids) anywhere with me.  I am not ashamed or feel like I have tortured my dogs or my kids because I have used some -R with them.

I can't figure out where people think Cesar's physical "touch" equates with beating a dog. Being physical does not automatically mean corporal punishment. I may not physically spank, hit or slap my kids, but I WILL physically pick them up or pull them away to get their attention or remove them from a situation. Are we so afraid of being "physical" that we see picking up a child and putting them in a corner as corporal punishment now? Is a parent that restrains a child having a tantrum at the grocery store the same as the parent that belts a kid? Is it wrong for me to even tap my son on the shoulder to get his attention when he's tuned into the tv or a toy?

I see leash corrections or Cesars's "bite" as he calls it in the same light. It is a physical interaction that removes the animal from a situation or gets it's attention back to me. I don't ever hit my dog, but I will pull her back and put her in a sit or down if she tries to chase a kid on a bike. She is rewarded for the correct behavior with praise or a treat, but incorrect behavior is physically redirected when necessary.

I think the biggest problem Cesar has is that his greatest tool is attitude and body language and that is the hardest thing to teach and explain to people. You really have to watch his show consistently and carefully to catch that element. At first glance, it seems like all he has to do is put the leash high up on the dogs neck and throw out an occasional "tsstt" but it is so much more than that. But I guess some people hear him say the words "dominant" and "submissive" and immediately write him off as a yank and crank without looking at what he is REALLY saying.

Something ironic for the fans of "real" behaviorists. A New Yorker article quoted Patricia McConnell when describing how Cesar interacts with dogs. The way she describes the problem of leash aggression is nearly identical to the way Cesar explains it. It's not a dog problem - it's a people problem.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

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.

What's wrong with being calm and assertive, not rewarding neurotic behavior and making sure your dogs needs are filled through exercise, disipline and affection??  That's what I personally get out of the show.  If there are a few stupid people out there  who don't take heed to the many warnings throughout the show and try to emulate what Cesar does in some of his more extreme cases, it's not fair to blame him.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
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.

i read that book before we got amelia. when i first saw ads for the show i thought maybe it was going to be mr. owens.

i have wondered if ngc or cesar have to pay any kind of royalties for using that as the name of the show.

More than the physical stuff, the biggest influence on John Q. Dogowner that I've seen is the alpha/dominance theory that people shoe-horn into every problem they have with their dog. Most of the posts to dog forums I'm on that get a lot of traffic from novice owners describe a normal unwanted dog behavior, and end with, "I know he's trying to be dominant, so how do I make him more submissive?"
 
I haven't watched enough of the show (maybe like 10 episodes total ever, and those from the first season) to know whether this is an explicit or implicit message sent to viewers, but I have definately noticed that this is the message that's getting across, regardless of how. Every dog behavior problem is because the dog is trying to be dominant. The way to solve the behavior problem is to make the dog submissive and to be dominant yourself. I just don't think that's what's going on with most common household behavior problems.
 
I've seen a really dizzying list of normal problems (and some I wouldn't even categorize as problems but rather preferences, like a ball being returned to you while playing fetch rather than run off with) attributed to "My dog is trying to be dominant over me!!!"  And for most problems, that attitude is really counter-productive.
 
There's no doubt in my mind that there's a lot of subtle stuff happening on the show and with Cesar's methods, but this is the end result. There was a great article in the New Yorker about him that basically said that what he does is pretty amazing, and you can't do it. He's got a gift and many his methods rely on the person applying them also having that gift.
 
I just wish people would think a little more critically. That's not his fault, but it is the fault of his editors and producers and National Geographic Channel for creating what is essentially a reality show but then subtly implying that it's a how-to show (despite the warnings, which, please, no one pays attention to those and the producers know it).
 
What I'd love to see is a similar show that had a team of trainers and behaviorists with different methods and specialties and for each individual dog and its problem, they'd dispatch the appropriate person and explain why. Hey, kind of like Nanny911!

What I'd love to see is a similar show that had a team of trainers and behaviorists with different methods and specialties and for each individual dog and its problem

Have you ever seen "Barking Mad" on BBC? They do a show like that! They have several behaviorists who specialize in dogs, cats, ferrets, horses, birds and about any other pet. It's fun to see all the creative ways they use to alter or live with the behaviors. )Although their solution for a bull terrior who hated men in hats was a sign on the door that asked people to remove their hats before entering. I didn't think that really solved anything.)

ORIGINAL: fisher6000

1. CM is capitalizing on lazy dog owners who want a magic button. Whether it is right to blame him for the existence of these lazy owners is not that interesting... but he isn't exactly part of the solution.

I don't feel Cesar promotes a "magic button" for lazy dog owners.  Among other things he suggests in taking a more active roll in your dogs life, the thing he repeates over and over again is that dogs need a MINIMUM 45 minute walk everyday.  Lazy people aren't going to bother with this or half the other things he suggests.

What's wrong with being calm and assertive

Nothing's wrong with being calm and assertive... but CM's "assertive" behavior is often bullying. Bullies are not assertive. They are aggressive.

I don't feel Cesar promotes a "magic button" for lazy dog owners. Among other things he suggests in taking a more active roll in your dogs life, the thing he repeates over and over again is that dogs need a MINIMUM 45 minute walk everyday. Lazy people aren't going to bother with this or half the other things he suggests.

I actually agree with you. And yet the most irritating thing about the show is that it makes people do things like make strange noises at dogs and think that they know what they are doing. And in this translation process, all that aggressive stuff gets amplified and all the common sense stuff falls away as if by magic.

I work in a park with a pretty huge dog community. The CMification of certain (already ignorant and irresponsible) owners is really perturbing because they feel like it's OK to go up to other people's dogs and shake them down or alpha roll them or SSSSTTTT them. And that is aggressive behavior.

I still don't see how it's Ceasar's fault that stupid people get the wrong idea from his show.  It's pretty clear to me.  I watch the show and I don't act like the people you describe in your park.

Who's to say that if ANY dog trainer had a national television show that stupid people in the television audience wouldn't get the wrong idea about certain training and behavior concepts and execute them the wrong way?