Slate mag's take on CM

ORIGINAL: Trevell

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs

Trevell, you are 100% correct that I would not have put the dog into that position, so it really is a moot point.  However, to satisfy your desire to see if I would resort to being physical, the answer is that to save another dog, or human, life - yes, I would.  But, that does *not* in any way suggest that CM was justified in his actions.  It just shows how dumb he was in the first place to have created such a situation.
Because he doesn't seem to have the knowledge to have prevented such a simple situation, his mistakes will catch up with him one day if he isn't extremely lucky. 

He created that situation to teach the dog that her behavior around other dogs was not acceptable.  That's what his clients wanted.  They felt bad that they were forced to confine their dog to the back yard and not able to take her on walks because of her dog aggresive behavior.   

Taking a dog aggressive dog and placing it smack dab in the middle of a group of dogs, or even with one dog, at close quarters, is not the generally accepted way of reducing aggressive behavior - in fact it is a good way to escalate aggressive behavior, which is exactly what happened.  Then, of course, the dog gets "punished" because he reacted.  Causing fights is foolhardy, and not in the best interest of dogs or owners.
All that has to happen for that dog to inflict damage on another dog is for the owners to take it out walking and not be quite as nasty and scary as CM.  Or, for the dog to finally decide it has had enough of that kind of treatment -which some dogs eventually do.  If you want to defend the guy, don't just tell me why *he* did something.  Tell me why it is appropriate, tell me what behavior modification principles he was using, tell me you know how the dog ended up two years later...have it make sense from a behavioral standpoint, which this does not. 

If you want to defend the guy, don't just tell me why *he* did something. Tell me why it is appropriate, tell me what behavior modification principles he was using, tell me you know how the dog ended up two years later...have it make sense from a behavioral standpoint,

 
That's actually an excellent question, not that my opinion should matter. And say that because I know you ask it for clarity's sake, and not just to impress other readers. And, to that point, I agree with you and the disclaimer on the show. People should not attempt to do on their own what CM does. His personality, his techniques. While that dog may eventually walk right and behave in his presence, the dog may go back to its old ways because it's going back to its owner, who will not have the same force of personality that CM does. IOW, CM can accomplish it, in his way, at least for the time being but another person would not be able to. It may certainly represent nothing more than total domination and desensitizing. But doesn't also represent boundaries of behavior, acceptable and not acceptable, and a person who will not accept failure on the part of the dog? Any training system does include corrections, be they physical restraint or non-inclusion. And I will agree that softer methods of training are better suited for the DIY set. Some people have too much fear to attempt a physical control. I'm not sure I could express his solutions in behavioral terms and even if I could they would not be accepted because I don't have a DVM + PhD in Behavioral Psychology specializing in animals, most exclusively pet animals, such as dogs and cats. And we must certainly realize that the one or two instances of strong physical restraint were extreme circumstances. A number of other times, he hardly touches the dog at all.
 
What if someone once saw you pulling a dog by the hind legs to physically stop a fight but they didn't see the rest of the +R you did to re-train the animal? Or, if they saw you do this and then take the animal away to be euthanized? That once or twice would get you the reputation of being a yank and crank and kill person. I just don't think the television show is all that there is to his results.
 
Once again, I don't use much of what he does. Shadow wouldn't pull if I used a slip-knot in exhibitor position. But Shadow's a sled dog and I let him do what he is bred to do. Because of his metabolism, his appetite is keenest after exercise. So then, he eats. Obedience and affection happen during the other times of the day, and sometimes, on a walk. And truth be known, I'm getting excellent knowledge out of a book called "Petspeak" that references many sources, including Susan Clothier and I haven't spotted CM's name even once. The gist of the book is to understand doggy speak. Yes, a dog can understand simply human words that you have trained in them to respond to with a certain behavior.And it's not just the word but how you say it. When you say it with the right doggy inflection, they obey quicker because it is put in a tone and inflection they understand. And yes, it is a deeper understanding into dog psychology than one gets watching the "Dog Whisperer." But it doesn't deny what I get from the show, either. The case, in either source, is to not allow behavior that you don't want, ever. Always be firm. The dog will be better when they understand what is expected and how to please you. But even that book will limit its scope by saying to consult a behaviorist to solve a problem that is not solved by training. I think most problems are only problems from a human standpoint. Such as digging. 100 years ago, when people lived on farms, who cared if the dog dug a hole by the creek? Today, it's a problem in our manicured yards. But you can't take the instincts out of the dog, they are there for a reason.
 
Aggression, while instinctual, though, is usually a sign for the need for help.
 
I would say to someone that may be a die-hard CM fan, well, that's interesting you should say that. Now, here's a book that goes more in depth and will teach you how to talk to your dog and you don't have to wrestle him. It's not that I'm the biggest CM fan and in many cases, there may be easier ways for a DIYer to train their dogs but his show always makes me think, good or bad. I think that most people who watch his show will get interested in other methods. The friends I have with the coonhounds and Am Staff, watch his show, but they also have training books by other authors, and they go to a trainer who uses +R. In fact, the Am Staff is a more perfect canine citizen than the coonhounds, even though he's a "bully" breed.
 
I realize that I didn't really answer your question but maybe I can provide other perspectives, be they good or bad. And, like you said, a healthy debate doesn't have to be bad.
 

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
Taking a dog aggressive dog and placing it smack dab in the middle of a group of dogs, or even with one dog, at close quarters, is not the generally accepted way of reducing aggressive behavior - in fact it is a good way to escalate aggressive behavior, which is exactly what happened.  Then, of course, the dog gets "punished" because he reacted.  Causing fights is foolhardy, and not in the best interest of dogs or owners.
All that has to happen for that dog to inflict damage on another dog is for the owners to take it out walking and not be quite as nasty and scary as CM.  Or, for the dog to finally decide it has had enough of that kind of treatment -which some dogs eventually do.  If you want to defend the guy, don't just tell me why *he* did something.  Tell me why it is appropriate, tell me what behavior modification principles he was using, tell me you know how the dog ended up two years later...have it make sense from a behavioral standpoint, which this does not. 

I'm really just telling you my personal understanding of what he did in that particular situation.  Whether he is right or wrong from a trained behaviorists point of view, I don't know, that's why I'm asking these questions. 

I never had any "desire" to see if you would admit to being physical, I honestly wanted to know what you would have done in a similar instance and if there was a better way.  I'm trying to learn.  So many people that slam and critizise Cesar Millan don't offer any alternative options.  They just yell about how horrible he is.  This is not to cause a heated debate, but I'm sincerely curious as to how you or someone with a similar philosophy on dog training would handle a case like this. 

You say it's wrong to put a dog-aggressive dog with a balanced and stable pack of dogs.  In my untrained mind Cesar doing this made sense to me.  My understanding was he that he wanted to use the influence of a stable pack of dogs to rehabilitate the agressive pit-bull.  A fight broke out, which I really don't think was Cesar's intent, but it was a good oppertunity to correct this unwanted behavior.  We're dealing with dogs here and no matter how in tune you are with them or how much training you've had, the unexpected will occasionally happen and you have to act on it.  How would you have handeld this case?  

If you have a known dog-aggressive dog that has done damage before, it is unethical to subject anyone else's dog to possible attack.  Plain and simple. 
If you are evaluating a dog, and don't know what it will do, you try to get a good history of the dog from its owner, remembering that past aggressive events tend to predict future ones.  If there is cause for concern, the dog can be muzzled before coming into contact with other dogs, and the trainer would pick stable dogs with good "canine language skills" (in my case, my big, mushball hound).  The dog being tested would have a dragline on, so that he could be removed from the situation quickly if there was a problem.  More than one trainer would be present to facilitate safe removal of other dogs.  And, there would be a deterrent, such as Direct Stop, available.

I have run play groups for five years, with active, high energy dogs.  There is almost never a fight, because I intervene when the arousal level gets too high, or when one dog is obsessing on another, or when a group decides to scapegoat a dog.  I have had one terrier "bitch fight" (they met as one was coming in for the second session, and one was leaving the first session - who would expect two Kerry Blues on the same day? - and, I've never seen either dog since), but managed to split them before any blood was drawn.  My predecessor had one fight (she supervised the group for about five years) and a Beagle got his ear split open).  There have been a few minor puncture wounds, and the usual sharp puppy teeth scratches.
But, out and out fights are rare.  When they occur, the first thing to try is noise.  If that has no effect, water, or an object placed between the dogs can split them (we use our folding chairs).  Direct Stop, or a blast on an air horn (we keep a few of the mini size ones handy).  If we can't separate them by those means, then we might grab the back paws or try to slip a loop on.  Depends on the dogs and the situation.

But, I still think that you don't create these situations with stupidity and then brag how you corrected the dog...

I do actually get your point in that there are ways to physical control a dog without wrestling it to the ground. And while I may defend that he has rehabbed dogs that would have been PTS, I do agree with you that some dogs should be euthanized if they can't respond to training. As you might ask, what if you had to keep scruffing the dog and it never responded to that, which might be the case in some cases. Then, if non-confrontational methods didn't work, either, then PTS would be better than any alternative for the dog or the rest of society. And then, I would add, that the owner who let this get out of hand or the breeder that didn't pay attention to temperment should not be allowed to create another dog like this.

Thanks for that info spiritdogs.  That makes sense and it's so much nicer to hear alternative methods rather than just straight up bashing.

I use a muzzle and dragline on my dog when I'm trying to get him used to my girlfriends 4 cats.  I guess you could say I use a combination of positive and negative techniques.  It's a very slow process but I'm sticking with it and there has been a little improvement since I started.  I found my dog running on the streets when he was 6 months old so I don't know his history before that.  What is Direct Stop?

DirectStop is a spray that you can use against charging or aggressive dogs. It's like mace for canines, sort of. It's non-toxic but it irritates them and makes them go away without a human having to physically overpower them. It is often recommended here to use if you have to deal with loose dogs in your neighborhood. So, what Anne was suggesting was to spray two dogs fighting and they will break it up so that they can hack and cry separately while you move in and releash or lead away one and someone can handle the other. Used correctly, it would be a less damaging method than suspending a dog by the collar. When I can find it, I plan to get two cans. The first one I may take out by myself and target practice. On plants or something, to where I could say, shoot over Shadow and not get him dosed while trying to divert another dog on the loose. And functionally speaking, there are some easier ways, such as direct stop, to deal with a problem dog than what you can see in a 30 minute show edited for time and dramatic flair. IMHO, if you spray a dog and that doesn't stop it, chances are that dog is charged up that you wouldn't have the ability to physically control it, either.
 
In that case, out in the farmland, a .243 will solve what the spray can't.
 

Interesting discussion. I'm new around here, and hadn't ever really heard all the anti CM stuff before now. I started off training my dogs with the techniques described in the Monks of New Skete books "The art of raising your puppy" and " how to be your dogs best friend" I also read "The Dog Listener" which I found more geared towards problem dogs, though it had some interesting ideas. I have since watched a lot of Ceasar's show and have found it to be inline with a lot of what the Monks talk about in their books. Maybe they too are outdated and there are better ways? I have used a nylon training collar with great sucess as described by the Monks, and similar to CM - as in a quick pop then slack, I don't correct more than once, if there is no responce then I can usually put a hand on my dogs butt and they will sit. I always make sure that the collar is correctly positioned too.
I find the tttsssst or a ahhh, really effective at redirecting attention, often negating any other sort of correction. These techniques seem to be totally humane, as I am not doing anything to the dog other than saying hey pay attention to me rather than that squirrel over there. I've also used positive reinforcement with treats and praise with good sucess.
I hear that hanging a dog is unacceptable, and respect that putting dogs into a situation that you know they will react aggressively is not smart nor responsible. But for the most part, much of what CM says/does seems humane and effective. It seems the bigger problem is that people don't pay attention to the disclaimer at the begininning of the show and try stuff without a professional. I have to admit that I have done this too, but only with positive outccomes, both for my dogs and other peoples, though I am by no means a professional - though I've thought about getting more training and doing that.
I would love to hear more about other techniques, especially deciphering all the acronyms (I think I figured out +R - positive reinforcement right?) maybe that glossery is in another post somewhere?
Anyway, thanks for making me aware that there are dissenting opinions of his techniques. I'm glad I always just took them as a piece of the larger training picture - consistancy.

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."

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.

ORIGINAL: ron2

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.

ORIGINAL: Trevell

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? 

[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Outstanding, i agree 200%

1.-Why to blame Cesar? he is just showing what he is doing with that specific dog in that specific situation, if i decide to do it myself thats my OWN problem, if i watch COPS and i decide to run around my neigborhood "arresting" bad people and of course i get shoot should we blame the TV show or just me for do stuff that only professionals should handle?

2.-He rescues dogs that no body else want and will be dead by now, i think the last thing he has in his mind is to hurt them, does any of you has 30 rescued dogs in your house like him? no? then you should not talk bad about him 

3.-Just like they said before "ssshhh" is not a magical button, it involves more than just doing a sound with your mouth, there is a lot of people who dont miss one single episode and they still call him because they dont know what to do

4.-About the article, dogs are hunters, just like humans, but of course if they can get easy food from the dumpsters then they will rather do that, just like bears in Canada, they do exactly the same since is easier than be chasing animals around

Wyoming Mutt, glad you came here with such an open mind.  You are right that +R indicates positive reinforcement.  If you want to read about another method that employs +R, try these sites:
www.clickertraining.com and www.clickersolutions.com.  Keep in mind that +R does not always involve food.  The reward is anything your particular dog is willing to work for.  Could be toys, too.  Praise is nice, but most dogs will learn faster for a higher value reward, and they don't become food-dependent if you use correct techniques.

As to espencer's questions, I will try to answer.
1.  I don't blame him for what stupid viewers do, I blame him for reducing every dog behavior problem to the same simplistic cause, which is neither accurate, nor helpful.
2. He rescues severely aggressive dogs at what price?  So, the good dogs who are on death row in shelters still die?  IMO, no ordinary non-dog savvy household needs to be harboring a dangerous dog that they are ill equipped to manage.  Someday, one of those owners will get into serious trouble when they screw up and the dog nails someone.  It's hard enough to manage an aggressive dog when you know what you are doing.  If he wants to rescue 600 of them to live with him - fine.  But, to make the general public think that they can do the same and be safe is irresponsible.
3. Dog behavior involves a lot more than what CM is promoting on TV, too.  Many trainers use interruption (like ssstt) as a way to get a dog's attention, but the key is then to find an alternative behavior for the dog to do.  It isn't just about the interruption and then expecting the dog to "get it". 
4. I have no idea what you mean by this.  Most dogs, left to their own devices, do not hunt in packs - they starve, since they've been dependent upon humans.  If a puppy isn't taught to hunt, it usually doesn't hunt as an adult. 

Could you CM boosters please tell me, once and for all, what your understanding of +R methods is, and why you continually support the use of force instead????  It isn't rocket science, it works, and it's dog-friendly.  What the heck is everyone's problem with it.  You don't even know who Karen Overall is, yet you hold CM up as a hero.
Pffft.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
Could you CM boosters please tell me, once and for all, what your understanding of +R methods is, and why you continually support the use of force instead????  It isn't rocket science, it works, and it's dog-friendly.  What the heck is everyone's problem with it.  You don't even know who Karen Overall is, yet you hold CM up as a hero.
Pffft.

Everybody here knows  that+R is not to use any kind of force with the dog, the difference here is nobody who supports Cesar is talking bad about +R, we know that +R works but not 100%, people who dont like Cesar just dont want to accept that some of his methods work by giving examples of situations that of course will be dangerous if are handled by a non professional

Cesar supporters dont go and talk trash against +R, but +R supporters do aginst Cesar, this forum would be so nice if only you accept that there is other kind of methods that even when you dont like them they work

What is this thread about? Can somebody tell me? Is it about great techniques for helping seriously aggressive dogs? Is it about redirecting my dog's attention when he really wants to chase squirrels? Is it about teaching my dog a Wait command when I'm going through an open door?
 
It seems to me that it's more about dog aggression than anything else, but maybe I'm the dumb one?
 
What I like about +R methods, as seen here or on the Internet someplace, is that, if I screw it up somehow, I won't ruin either my dog nor myself. If I screw up a hands-on technique, though, well, then, I could screw up myself (maybe get bit or lose control of my dog on the street someplace), and, of course, screw up my dog.
 
For a newbie like me, I'll take the first method.
 
By the way, my biggest issue with CM is that he has all day to work out. Just like some of the personal trainers I see at the gym. All day. He's running with the dogs for hours and hours on end, which, admittedly, they might all need.
 
With my all-day job, it's just not something I can do. I can work in the walks, and like Ron, I do, but goodness--rollerblading for hours, then running, then walking . . .

I agree with you that CM's techniques should only be used by people such as him, Per se. I also agree with Anne that by spending time dealing with an aggressive dog that may or may not rehab is taking away time and resources from naturally stable dogs that are PTS every week. And that +R, which I certainly agree with, is a good method for anyone, professional or amateur. Though I can't implement CM's order (exercise, obedience, affection) of events, I do agree on their importance, and would stress exercise, in some fashion or another. A tired dog sleeps, rather than getting in trouble. And a number of behavior problems simply stem from pent up energy. Spend that energy, end of problem.
 
The value I find in CM is not necessarily his techniques or the order in which they are processed but in analysing the needs of the dog and understanding their signals. Nor is he my only source for training or understanding dog behavior. But he does get a lot of press.
 
I think it would be more fair to come up with a show called "Dog Listener" showing +R and the success of others, with or without an alphabet soup of creds. And, perhaps, a segment now and then on the worst cases and how some of them end up in euthanasia and use this segment to reinforce spay/neuter, better breeding, and better education for the owner before getting a dog. That's one thing I see missing from CM's show. It could do more to prevent problems in the future rather than waiting until the owners are considering euthanasia and go to CM as a last resort.
 
I think he is effective in certain circumstances but it should always lead to more education.

Cesar supporters dont go and talk trash against +R, but +R supporters do aginst Cesar, this forum would be so nice if only you accept that there is other kind of methods that even when you dont like them they work

I beg to differ.  I can't even count the times I have heard that +R is all about treats, or that if you use it, you are bribing your dog.  Many people haven't a clear understanding of principles of operant conditioning, classical conditioning, or premack.  And, they don't want to learn, for some odd reason.  I was around long before CM, when all trainers were using his techniques - they aren't new, they've just been placed in the television "wrapper".  Many trainers have tried his, and tried +R and at least can make an intelligent comparison.  But, until you have trained at least one puppy using +R from square one, it isn't fair to compare.  All other dogs are considered "crossover" dogs and will have some effects from their previous form of training that they often don't forget. 
You have given a simplistic explanation of +R.  Tell me, what is premack?  Do you even know?  If not, and if you don't have at least an elementary knowledge of learning and motivation theory, you have no business pitting one style of training over the other.

And, oh by the way, I have no problem with any method that works, if it is not abusive.

Tell me, what is premack? Do you even know?

I assume your speaking of David Premack?  Although David Premack has applied his principles to the dog training world his main and many documented studies are studies with Chimps and language association (with some critisicms of his work) and now he has focused on cognition in human infants and children.  Leerburg training (and other +R trainers) are all about Davids "Premack Principles" = Watch me and Operant Conditioning, if you make the dog, children or chimps wants contingent upon doing what you want, you will see an increase of tolerance and an increase of appropriate behaviors.  Some of us only believe this to be true, some of the times, in some situations and with some behaviors.  That's why this debate is going on and on and on.  My self (as I have stated) use different techniques for different training situations and they are not all +R and they are not abusive - so we are in agreement?

I don't think anyone is disputing Operant training techniques, just supporting other techniques as well. 
 
PS:  Wanted to add, that the watch me techniques are invaluable.