Do You Disagree With CM?

Is it possible that I'm the only person on the forum who has never seen the CM show??? Everything I know about him and his methods I've picked up here. My impression of him, based entirely on statements by forum members whose opinions I respect is ... I am not impressed.  Maybe one of these days I'll be looking for something to watch during re-run season and I'll catch it.
 
Joyce

ORIGINAL: fuzzy_dogs_mom
Is it possible that I'm the only person on the forum who has never seen the CM show???

 
Nope, I've never watched his show either, I've seen commercial shots and read what is written here as well as what I've gotten from radio and others who speak of him, his training and the show. I can't really form an educated decission of good or bad in what he does but I do appriciate the fact that more epople have become more aware of dog training and breed discrimination through him.
 
Thanks for keeping this thread civil, I do hope it continues

I too like HoundLove used to be a fan of CM until recently from what i've read in my magazines and heard other people say. Well I'll too explain how I first became a fan and how I have begun to dislike his methods esp, since they are on nat. television[]where the average joe dog owner will try to use his method of "training"(put in quotes because as he says it's not really training it's rehab) and be quite unsuccessful.
 
Well my family had just recently got cable and I was going through the T.V. guide looking for something to watch and saw the dog whisperer so I turned to nat. geo. When I first saw him I thought how mean he was being to the dogs, but I truly would want the dogs to be happy as they could  possibly be, so I slowly fell under the CM spell[] 
I went on other forums and blogs and whenever I saw that someone had something negative to say i would jump right in and defend him and always remind the people that he wasn't training dogs he was putting them through "rehab" Got his book and fell under his spell even more.
 
 
Luckily quite recently a couple of my magazines have featured stories about him or the evolution of dogs so I slowly came to realize dogs aren't wolves(esp. behaviorally, they devolped alongside man not other wolves right?) not only that the other reason I dislike his method is because again dogs don't live in the wild like wolves so they don't need a strict heirarchy. I had read there are other ways to heal an agressive dog though it may take longer I also realized Cesar does have a special talent to communicate with dogs he has been practicing his  method for many years and knows how to stay "calm-Assertive" (which is very hard...yes I shamefully admit I tried his method on the poor doggies[sm=banghead002.gif]gosh! what was I thinking)One episode I watched  really inforced the fact that he is definetley Black&white with the whole dominant and submissive positions. The dog he was working with had seperation anxiety and if her barking didn't stop the owners would have to get rid of her, so Cesar's reasoning behind this was the dog was dominant over the human beings(of course) and it wasn't natural for other members of the pack to leave without the alpha[&:]anyways could the dog just be scared of being alone or without his family oh and they got the dog from the shelter so maybe it had a bad expierience when being left alone, ya know.
 
I don't hate Cesar , he does really love dogs but his show is dangerous to be airing on national television.Every time the dog is misbehaving doesn't mean the the dog is trying to be dominate some of it's just plain dog behavior humans don't like.Also I like +R training as it allows the dog to keep it's personality without always being afraid there is a physical punishment coming it's way. Luckily for me and other people dogs don't hold grudges[]. that's why I love them[sm=kiss.gif]
 
 

Everyone has said really sensible things so far and articulated their views with impressive impartiality and eloquence.

I don't have a problem with CM especially. He's not big over here. I haven't seen anyone screwing up their dogs by applying his methods, but I've seen plenty of people screwing up their dogs by just being people. I think CM does have a fine understanding of dog body language and very good timing, like mrv said.

I don't try to emulate him, but then, I don't try to emulate anyone. I don't see that raising a dog should be so difficult that I need to mimic a particular approach. I just do what seems right to me. I think this is one of the best approaches I personally could take because I don't have to think very hard about what I'm doing. I can act before I've thought through what I'm going to do and dogs I've dealt with seem to understand me better because I act instantly rather than thinking. I have experience doing behavioural observations on wild animals and that has made me much more aware of how I can minimise my impact on the animals I interact with. I've always been sensitive about animals and now, after working with nervous, wild creatures, I'm even more so.

So the way I handle and train my animals is, more than anything, a reflection of my personality and the experiences that have shaped me. I do what comes naturally. I've found that what comes naturally correlates most with Patricia McConnell's methods, but I see some of CM in the way I watch my animals and learn their usual behaviour patterns. I doubt I'll ever try to emulate anyone completely, but I'll take advice from everyone and incorporate whatever rings true with me into my approach to animals.

I'm not picking on you, ron, but I do have one thing to disagree on.  It is better to start training in puppyhood, but it is *not* necessary to do so in order to end up with a really good dog.  Case in point - my BF's mom had two Yorkies.  She died and the Yorkies came here.  Well, long story short, I was busy, training my own dogs, and didn't pay much attention to the little squirts, other than to take good care feeding, patting, and generally loving on them.  But, much later, it occurred to me that having an untrained dog of an advanced age might be a good way to set an example for my students - if a 15 year old Yorkie could be successfully trained, why not their adoptees, rescues and strays???  So, Miss Fergie became the oldest dog to attend classes at our training center.  She learned everything that her younger classmates did, and, in fact, is much better at her long downs than most.  Now, she misses a cue occasionally, since deafness is setting in, but if I can get in front of her, she still, just as Dancer always did, remembers her hand signals.  It isn't age, breed, or intelligence that matters.  It's the diligence, skill and timing of the handler!  And, with lessons and practice, almost anyone can train a dog of any age, at least in the basic obedience skills.

It is better to start training in puppyhood, but it is *not* necessary to do so in order to end up with a really good dog

 
Agreed. Otherwise, who woud end up adopting?
 
Let me adjust my statement and say that training has to be consistent and patient.

My primary issues is that I feel his understanding of social structures is simplistic and, often, completely inaccurate. The idea, for example, that the human is the 'alpha' and then there should be no hierarchies among the dogs is something I think most people who've ever seen dogs together understand as incorrect. He uses a top-down model of power that I think is very outdated; he could benefit from Foucault Also, by fitting almost all problems into the dominance/submission structure, I think he overlooks and incorrectly identifies a lot of issues and if the problem isn't properly identified in the first place I find it very unlikely that he can solve it.

While the disclaimer tells people to not use these methods at home, he does have books and DVDs that *are* intended to be guides for people and they're full of the same sort of advice shown on TV. As a result, I have a fantastic, well-meaning friend who started alpha-rolling her anxious, insecure puppy. She had seen the behaviours her dog was displaying handled this way by CM and she thought she was doing what was right for the dog. This is an intelligent, educated woman who truly adores her dog and I think it's indicative of the shortcomings CM - not shortcomings of disclaimers - that she believed this was an appropriate way to handle her dog and, perhaps even more importantly, that she believed her nervous, defensive, resource-guarding dog was actually trying to fight her for position. After she realized the actual problem and turned to different, positive methods (after like a year of doing the CM stuff), her dog is totally different and will actually let other dogs sniff her bum, share toys, roll her on her back during play, etc. and it only took a short time for these changes happen.

I think there are a lot of great things about CM as well. He's charismatic and entertaining. He stresses exercise and stimulation, he does use some +R methods and he puts the burden on the owner where it almost always belongs.

I have a different take on Ceasar than most of you.

I don't see him relying on excessive force - as a matter of fact, he is able to get results using less force than you might imagine.  When he's dealing with what he calls "Red Zone" dogs, he's able to get their attention and refocus their behavior without being brutal.

I don't think his show is a good way to teach neophyte dog owners how to train Fido - it's TV, after all, so it's going to be dumbed down and edited to fit a time slot.  I have used some of his methods on my younger lab, who has some behavioral issues, with a good deal of success. 

I've never felt the need to "Alpha Roll" one of my dogs, but I will use leash corrections, or tap them on the shoulder to get their attention, if necessary.  I also carry training bits in my pocket most of the time, and frequently reward them when they're being good (or just because[]).  Neither of my dogs - or any of my kid's four, for that matter - are afraid of me.  They do, however , have respect for me, and generally behave themselves quite well.

Like anything else, I think you need to take what works for you from CM, as well as other trainers, and adapt it to fit your style.  My own training methods rely on positive reinforcement for good behavior, as well as consequences for inappropriate behavior.  I'd never try to pass myself off as an expert dog trainer, but I've got two rescue dogs that have both passed their CGC, one is a Pet-Assisted Therapy Dog, and are generally happy and pleasant to be around.  My three adult kids have all adopted dogs from rescues, and all of them are reasonably well behaved and happy (the dogs, not necessarily the kids []).

Is it possible that I'm the only person on the forum who has never seen the CM show???

I haven't either. I don't have cable, but if were given the opportunity I don't think I'd waste my time. My own training mentor will not let people even film their own dogs being trained, when he trains. Why? Because he knows the tendency novices have to take a one-time approach and make it into a "one-size-fits-all" tool to attempt to fix every problem. He also dislikes giving one-on-one lessons for this same reason. What he does has little to do with what he's actually doing with the dog. It has to do with reading the dog's reactions to what he's doing, taking "I'm trying" for an answer, and being very clear in his expectations ("not this") and leaving the path to the right answer wide open.

There seems to be some parallels to what CM is developing - sort of a natural, fluid method of communication. I like that he's obviously got a lot of people more aware that the problems they have with their dog might start with the person in the mirror. The big red flag to me is his willingness to take the risk that people will misunderstand and misapply what he's doing. I understand that fame and fortune must be a heady thing. But there's a certain responsibilty that goes with it. My mentor knows he'd make a lot more money if he sold videos and whatnot, but he feels responsible that people understand thoroughly what his method is, and so he only works with people in an interactive setting.

I'd love to see a show with Karen Overall or Patricia McConnell working with problem dogs. The latter particularly because she's a fellow BC person, and sheepdog handler, lol. Instead of snippets with three or four cases in one show, it would be more instructive to see one dog being worked through a single problem - with the big picture building up over a season of shows. Much like those baby or wedding planning shows on TLC, you start seeing patterns over several shows when it's presented in a consistent way each time. That would be really cool - but of course would draw a smaller audience, probably.

Maybe they'll do it with the popularity of CM's show - just like Crocodile Hunter spun off practically singlehandedly an entire network, maybe networks will be more inclined to consider other dog training shows.

ORIGINAL: gdgarth


but I will use leash corrections, or tap them on the shoulder to get their attention, if necessary.  I also carry training bits in my pocket most of the time, and frequently reward them when they're being good (or just because[]).  Neither of my dogs - or any of my kid's four, for that matter - are afraid of me.  They do, however , have respect for me, and generally behave themselves quite well.

That's actually the problem)  If more people's dogs exhibited fear, people might question these methods sooner.  The problem is not always that severe.  What I notice about "corrected" dogs is that they start to avoid offering behavior.  After all, if you offer your own behavior, and it earns you a leash pop, if you were a smart dog, you'd probably only do what you knew was not going to earn you one.  That's why "crossover" dogs are often the hardest for clicker trainers to work with in shaping new, or complex, behaviors.  The dogs have been taught not to try anything.  Conversely, the clicker trained dog tries new things in an effort to get his reward.  Worst thing that happens?  He doesn't get a reward.  And, the unwanted behavior extinguishes on its own.  Dogs continue behavior that works for them, not us, much as our human egos hate to admit that.  They discontinue behavior that doesn't work.  So, if you *never* acknowledge that jumping puppy, he stops doing it.  But, if you occasionally reward him for jumping up by pushing him, looking at him, speaking to him...well, he has been rewarded by your attention, so why would he ever stop jumping up?  And, if your Aunt Millie rewards the pup even once or twice when she visits, by saying "Oh, I don't mind - he's soooo cute", as she leans down and pats the jumping-up pup's head, you will *never* stop him from jumping up - why?  Intermittent reinforcement keeps behavior happening.  It really is as simple as that - the dogs "get it".  It's the humans who don't.  If you are intent on "catching your dog doing something right" go ahead and carry treats - personally, I hide them all over my house, even on top of the fridge.  But, don't assume that you will stop behavior with a leash correction that is being rewarded in some other way.  And, keep in mind that, for some dogs, the leash correction is the reward (like the kid who does naughty things to earn a spanking because it's the only time the parent interacts with him).   If leash corrections worked so well, no one should have a pulling dog.  I think people have to ask themselves, "If I'm correcting the dog all the time, why is he still pulling on his leash?"  Trouble is, they don't take that logic a step farther to say, "What if, instead of correcting him for forging ahead, I rewarded each step he takes in the correct "zone", right next to my left leg?"  Too much of the time, they seem to want only to employ a more severe correction.  My hope is that people will develop the patience to try it the other way around.

OK, I'm not saying I disagree with anything posted above.  BUT, what is so wrong with the dog having a little fear as you put it.  But to me it's more of a worry or giving things a second thought. 
 
I've got the exact opposite issue, my dog has NO fear of anything.  I sometimes wish she was a little more concerned with her consequences than she is.
 
I remember when I was a kid, no fear of my mom and we walked all over her.  But, we knew that wasn't gonna fly with my dad.

I sometimes wish she was a little more concerned with her consequences than she is.

You CAN have both worlds. You can have a dog that has some impulse control, and also feels free to try something new.

Just as an example (oh, there she goes again, somebody stop her): Training working dogs isn't all goodness and light and tidbits when they are right - but the dogs are motivated, happy, and enthusiastic about work. It's just really, really hard to develop that balance within a consistent approach - and you don't meet the challenges in everyday life that a working dog does. No lives are lost if Fluffy is pulling on the leash (though my MIL ended up in hosp for over a week when her dog knocked her down on a walk)

But if my dog goes right instead of left and lets the ram get to my kids - well, let's just say we aren't going to wait for that behavior to extinguish on its own. Plus I can't set things up all the time to avoid triggers or desensitize slowly. Sometimes I do have to use flooding, for instance - there's no other way to get a dog through some facets of work training - they've got to learn to deal with stress. If they have learned they can just resort to random behaviors whenever they want, they will do it at the moments of greatest pressure. Pressure meaning the stock are being difficult, or they are working somewhere difficult like heavy brush or in a large area or maneuvering over a narrow birm.

But as I say it's better that most owners of pets go towards the positive side of things because that balance is difficult to strike. I'd say offhand - this is my instinct - if you are dealing with behaviors that are deeply reinforcing in themselves, relating to the breed function or the "kill it/eat it/mount it/run from it" part of the brain - you can apply corrections - fair and clear ones - without developing a habitual nervousness or fear in your dog.

I've seen my mentor use a technique that would make Shining Path (all R+) trainers faint dead away - on fearful dogs. I can just imagine what it would look like on TV, and how it would turn into terrible abuse, because it is 100% timing and reading the dog. I've seen it many times and still have trouble following it, much less emulating it. But his whole philosophy is illustrated in this one technique, if you know what you are looking for.

I'm sure you are just dying of curiosity. But for anyone that is still with me - don't try this at home. []

The point is to get the dog to get to the point where a very quiet name call will break concentration, and a sharp name call will stop anything. Remember, this is stock work, so anything can include some very dangerous things like running 1000 pound calves over the top of you, allowing an aggresive ram to escape, or slamming pregnant ewes into a gate.

Jack steps away from the dog, which is on leash. This is the beginning - the dog can either come with him or not. The natural inclination of a dog is to go with a person. A fearful dog will try to get away immediately. Jack is not facing the dog - he's making himself as neutral as possible. He calls the dog's name, very quietly - "Bonnie!" If the dog doesn't respond, she gets a leash jerk, followed by Jack stepping away again and repeating "Bonnie!" again very quietly. This sequence happens so fast it almost seems to come simultaneously. The second his leash jerk gets a head turn, ear flick, or any other appeasement type gesture, he unclips the lead and tosses it. Now it will be the name used sharp and soft alternately, with a gentle coax in the middle to let the dog know she's on the right track. So, ear flick, "Bonnie!", the dog starts to come, gets "Boooonnieee", then panics and hears "BONNIE!", turns, hears "Bonnie!" comes a bit closer, hears, "Boooonnnnieee", stops, turns away, hears "BON-nie!", turns back, hears "Bonnie!", comes to his side, "Booooonnnieee, good lass, Booonnniee, that's a lassie" but then makes a break for it, hears "BONNIE, Bonnie, Boooonnnnnieee, that's a lass." And so it goes on - sometimes he has to regress to the leash for a couple reps (extinguishment burst?) - but it never takes longer than a minute or two.

When he's done, the dog will happily and calmly walk offleash with him. I know a happy dog when I see it - I've rehabbed terrified absued dogs for ten years and he can accomplish in two minutes what it takes me months to gain. The fear is still there, but just as we are trying to teach the dog through desensitization and positive methods - she has gained a way to deal with her fear and the experience that she can think through her fear and trust Jack, at least. I believe this is classic flooding? But in his hands it looks and sounds like a sonata with accompanying ballet - there's a moment of "YIKES!" then even people who are dubious, start to fall under the spell of his voice, body position, and the changes in the dog's behavior.

Now he can take that dog and it has learned, somehow, through that symphony of communication, that he wants her to try, but that he'll be there to tell her if something is wrong - and it won't kill her to find out, that's the important thing. I've seen "strictly positive" trained dogs started on sheep and the problem is that when they have to take direction, they start acting like beaten dogs, looking for mommy, trying to get out, attacking the intructor - because they've never learned that "No" just means "Try something else", not the end of the world and they stop thinking. Dogs that have learned Jack's lesson approach the stock with confidence, knowing he's there to help do it right. I've moved stock under his direction - no commands, just the flow of corrections to let me know when I'm wrong - and I started out nervous but quickly felt more and more confident - it was a real eye opener.

What I'm trying to get at, is, that a few corrections doth not a shutdown dog make. Not always. But it's not a good foundation for training pet dogs - corrections should be considered a specialized tool, like the prong collar Glenda mentioned.

benefit from Foucault

 
I think you get extra points for mentioning Foucalt.
 

That would be really cool - but of course would draw a smaller audience, probably.

 
I would watch. Then again, I watch everything, including documentaries of wolves eating berries and other unpopular ideas. I have seen a +R show on the satellite called "Good Dog U". So, it can be done.
 

What I'm trying to get at, is, that a few corrections doth not a shutdown dog make. Not always. But it's not a good foundation for training pet dogs - corrections should be considered a specialized tool, like the prong collar Glenda mentioned.

I agree with that, too. While a dog will do what works and extinguish what doesn't work, there may be some behaviors that will take what may be too long to extinguish. Example, I can put up with Shadow jumping on me. My 12 year old goddaughter cannot. If he tries to jump on her, I will physically grab him and hold, as many times as necessary, without hurting him, until he settles and stops it. Otherwise, I can continue the ignore and wait to extinguish method if it's just me.  But, with the "off" command getting stronger through repitition and reward, I will certainly try that next time it becomes necessary. That is, I start with the softest approach.