Do You Disagree With CM?

ORIGINAL: ron2

I have seen a +R show on the satellite called "Good Dog U". So, it can be done.

I don't know if that's the one I've seen, but I have seen a +R show featuring a slightly portly, older man. After half an episode, I totally understood why this show would never be anywhere near as popular as The Dog Whisperer - it was beyond boring. Instead of seeing a seriously charismatic man swoop in and transform or even save lives before your very eyes, it was a soft-spoken man teaching doing some lure and reward training that the owner will have to keep doing for months. It looked like the production budget was about $48. Snoozefest. But I'm sure with the right host and good production, there could be a really great +R show.

That is the guy and he has this dog on that they put captions over his head.  It's a little corny.  But, I enjoy that show also.  He doesn't work with any difficult dogs though.  I've only seen the basics like commands and how to stop things like jumping or barking.  It's never anything dealing with aggression.  And, it's only on at like 7am on a Sunday here. 

ORIGINAL: inne

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 He uses a top-down model of power that I think is very outdated; he could benefit from Foucault Also, by fitting almost all problems into the dominance/submission structure, I think he overlooks and incorrectly identifies a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.

That's a really interesting point. I know exactly what you're talking about, but I interpret it slightly differently. To me, it seems like CM knows just about instantly exactly what is wrong with a dog, but his way of dealing with ANY problem is to start by stengthening the 'alpha' human idea. What I find interesting about dog behaviourists is that often when I think they're doing the exact opposite of what they should be doing, they still produce results. It's just a matter of how effective their methods will be in the short and long term. I think it's rare that a behaviourist can't do ANYTHING to help a problem, because dogs are so easy.

it seems like CM knows just about instantly exactly what is wrong with a dog

 
I'm not trying to make this a pro-CM thread but he has been watching dogs, especially in packs, for a really long time. And he noticed behaviors, whether on a ranch or with a feral pack that walks around the villages at will. That is, he learned doggy speak before he learned English. I do think he has a keen sense of signal observation, timing, and response, no doubt, honed after a lifetime. Though there are certainly disagreements on his methods.

Okay, here are my thoughts on Cesar Millan.

He's not a bad person. He has done a LOT for dogs over his lifetime. He helped out in a huge way with the Hurricane Katrina pets. He took them in, fixed them up if needed (medically), even had some spayed and neutered, and then returned them to their families, or to new families for those who lost their families. He has worked at women's prisons, implementing a recovery program (he didn't start that trend however) where the inmates take on a dog, train it, and then adopt them out to the public (and act as a help for the inmates as well). He was one of the first advocates against BSL legislation with Pit Bulls. He does have a great love for dogs, that much is sure.

However, when it comes to the Dog Whisperer TV show, that's where we part ways.

He DID bring two important aspects to the show, and they are the following:
1. He emphasizes the importance of exercising dogs.
2. He emphasizes the importance in training dogs. That dogs don't come knowing human rules, that they need to be taught how to be a dog in a human society.
I'll speak more on these two issues later.

People have to remember, that above all, for the DW, he is first and foremost an entertainer. That is what he's being paid to do. He is NOT being paid to "help dogs", contrary to how the show portrays it. If that was the case, TV would be full of dogs learning to sit, or learning to shake paw. No, they pick the cases they know will draw people's attention and focus on those.

It's Hollywood. It's very selectively planned, filmed, produced, and edited. Very carefully cut into scenes that make it appear great. Paired with his so-so good looks (to some), his riveting accent, and his great vocabulary to make up words like "calm, assertive energy", make the general public drool over him.

In reality: He has no formal education in dog behaviour or training. He had no accreditation, no degrees, no courses. He has only what he calls "life experience" in working with dogs. Which is great. Although life experience doesn't make you an expert in the field. Just because I grew up observing people my entire life, that doesn't make me a Psychoanalyst, nor does loving to bake a lot make me a chef. Right? The fact remains that he has no real basis for where he gets his training methods, and it's still very much force-based attitude from the mid 60's, when decades of research have already not only falsified most of those theories, but much more dog-friendly methods have developed. I know in REAL life I'd never go to a trainer that didn't have education, I am constantly baffled about how a TV show can all of a sudden make people experts in their field when in reality they know very little about behaviour principles.

His lack of the ability to, or the care to, read a dog's body signals is incredible. Not only does he totally ignore the signs that dogs give him about their true emotions, the only thing he ever focuses on is the appearance of a dog when it is forced into submission. He is ignoring the tail movements, the whale eye, the ears pinned back, the strong weight shift depending on the dog (front - adversarial, back - defensive/fearful). He gets bitten SO often, his hands must look like hamburger by now. Good trainers don't get bitten (in 90% of cases), they heed the dog's signals, read the body language, and never, EVER put the dog in a position to feel it needs to defend itself.

Another reality check: How much he emphasizes "not to try it at home". I mean....come on, really. The point of the show is to try and teach people how to communicate with and therefore better train their dogs, no? Why on earth would anybody, no less a dog trainer, recommend that people NOT try those methods? Isn't the point of training people to train their dogs, to do something they CAN try at home? That right there raises flashing red flags to indicate that he's not doing what he should be doing to help people learn effectively and properly.

His methods simply shock me. The never cease to shock me. The methods he uses have been proven to be outdated, some of them considered downright cruel by the majority of modern trainers. The terminology he uses is completely made-up, he does not use proper behavioural terms. He uses painful and/or fear-illiciting devices to force dogs to comply with him. He uses flooding which is "almost" one of the worst methods in existance to use for fearful dogs. He forces the dogs into what is termed Learned Helplessness. Yes, to your eye, the dog does stop reacting. However, the dog has NOT learned to cope with the situation, and his emotional state has not been altered, at least not in a positive way (and more often than not in a negative way).

Also, and this is what most people don't get:
The dog is NOT cured. The shows ALWAYS make it appear like the dog has been cured miraculously of its problem in one episode. What you don't see on TV, is the part where those dogs are taken to new trainers to fix the problems that have been made worse, AND the problems that have been CAUSED by his work. I KNOW some of the people who have worked with dogs from these shows. They. Are. Not. Fixed. Don't EVER let a television show fool you into thinking that.

Also, his focus on exercise. I completely agree with him that the majority of dogs are highly underexercised in our society, and that proper exercise is a huge part of having a well-behaved dog. However, that's as far as my agreement goes. I do not agree for one moment with forced exercise (the part of tying the dog to a treadmill and forcing it to run for miles), which he and his training center do daily. Making dogs exercise for 4 hours straight is not my idea of beneficial. And, well, simple comparisons to both domestic dogs, feral dogs, and wild dogs, all indicate just how wrong this method of exercise is, as dogs do NOT function naturally like he makes them exercise.

Now, and this is a bit of a kicker, and just goes to show his position as, remember - an entertainer - on the show. In the last few shows that have been ongoing, he has, on a number of occasions, used some of the methods that more modern trainers have used. He has been seen on TV using the "be a tree" method for pulling. He even had a clicker trainer come on the show recently (last week maybe? Or the week before?) to work with a dog. So, it seems, that the public and the real trainers just "might" be finally beginning to get through to him a bit. Perhaps the discussions and the "real" experience is beginning to wear off a bit. That doesn't mean that I agree with the show if it turned to that, because I don't, as even with positive methods I don't believe he has real knowledge of what he's carrying out (remember entertainer factor, although a sign of him trying to learn new methods is a good thing), but at least if it ever became more positively-based, I wouldn't have to worry so much about the people watching it who are soaking up everything he says like a sponge and doing horrendous things and putting themselves, and their dogs, and society, in danger.

So yes, that's my position, be as it may, on The Dog Whisperer.

Kim MacMillan

Kim, I agree with your point about him utilizing more modern methods, and I think it may be a response to some rather pointed criticisms that were leveled against the show by some highly respected animal welfare and training professionals.  But, I winced, as I'm sure a lot of trainers did, when he dispensed a treat to one dog, then told the owner that this was a technique called "positive reinforcement".  So much for knocking down stereotypes...

Rebecca, I know what you are saying about the necessity for working dogs to do a job in a particular way, but I really do think we are mostly interested in *not* having neophytes try any of these methods on their pets, or the dog who will be herding dog-broke sheep. []
I realize that you know that, and are only highlighting a situation when it might be useful for the dog to learn a skill in a different way.  However, one would assume that before that happens, the dog already has a solid, trusting relationship with its handler, or is being worked by someone whose ability to read a dog is exemplary, not someone like CM, who, as Kim has pointed out, misses the nuances of behavior that should have suggested a different conclusion, in many cases.  Overt aggression, for its own sake, and fear-based aggression are not the same animal.  The dog who is generally submissive, and is not trying to run for CEO of your household, should not be dealt with in the same way as a dog who is.  Clearly, if you take the position that all problems stem from a desire to change the hierarchy, your solutions will be inappropriate a good part of the time.

Lori, as to teaching a dog self control, read Suzanne Clothier's booklet on it.  [linkhttp://www.flyingdogpress.com.%C2%A0]www.flyingdogpress.com. [/link] Maybe it will help.

Also, for anyone who would like to investigate the uses of clicker or positive training within the world of working dogs, there are resources available.
Steve White, Gottfried Dildei, Shirley Booth for Schutzhund.
"The Clicked Retriever" (workingdogs.com)
Click-herd list on Yahoo (www.clickertraining.com)
and others.

One thing I find interesting on these CM threads is that the fact that he has no formal education, no degree is brought up a lot. 
 
But, neither do most of the people on here giving advice and every day I see people take advice from other (uneducated with only life experience, which is what CM has) and do exactly what they are told in all sorts of facets of ownership from nutrition, to illness to training. 

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.

I've watched almost all the episodes if not almost all of them and have never heard him discuss heirarchy among the dogs themselves.  Do you remember anything about the episode(s) this was gone over in?  Maybe it will trigger my memory. 

 Why on earth would anybody, no less a dog trainer, recommend that people NOT try those methods?

First, it doesn't say not to try them at home, it says to not try them at home without first consulting a professional.  That is because there are quite a few idiots in this world who would use the wrong techniques on their dog.  Just because he is showing one way doesn't mean that's right for all the dogs of the world. And, t here is another voice over that comes on and states this in the beginning.  He isn't usually teaching the dog to "sit", he's dealing with aggression.  And, I don't believe they are wrong to take precautions when showing people how to work with it. 

I always feel like I need to defend him and I'm not a user of his methods but I notice quite a bit of misinformation when it comes to him.  I actually watch the show. I don't understand how some here can be so opinionated on something they admittedly haven't seen. 

Although I do not think Ceasar is cruel, I would not use his methods on my dogs. To me his show is not about training your typical pet dog it's about rehabilitating out of control dogs.
 
Personally I love clicker training. For me it has worked wonders with Mattie. As soon as she sees the clicker she goes through all the commands she knows. Then she sits anxiouxly waiting to see what we are going to do. I just made board that was mentioned in one of the grooming threads to have her file her own nails on. She learned to do that in about 10 minutes with the clicker. Mattie is very nervous and fearfull, I am sure if I used leash pops or anything forced with this girl she would shut down for me. But the positive clicker training really boosts her confidence.
 
With Casie my 3 yr. old adopted dog, she is afraid of the sound the clicker makes and is not real motivated by anything I have found so far. She is very well mannered and calm, but so far I have not been able to really train her to do anything. Luckily though she instintively sits nicely and comes when called. But chase a ball, shake, speak, roll over...anything like that I have had zero luck with her.
 
So I have to say I really dont disagree with Ceasars way on problem dogs. But personally I would not use his methods on my dogs. And if I ever had what I percieved as a *problem* dog, I would try clicker training first with the help of a professional.

ORIGINAL: willowchow


I've watched almost all the episodes if not almost all of them and have never heard him discuss heirarchy among the dogs themselves. Do you remember anything about the episode(s) this was gone over in? Maybe it will trigger my memory.

I've seen him say it several times when the owner of multiple dogs tries to explain the pecking order, although I can't remember specific episodes. I don't have cable, so I watch them in bunches I BitTorrent and it's hard to keep track of!. The idea is also made clear in Cesar's Way.

Clearly, if you take the position that all problems stem from a desire to change the hierarchy, your solutions will be inappropriate a good part of the time.

I find it interesting that Jack, who does use many traditional techniques, actively opposes the idea of pursuing dominance in the dog/person relationship. He does seek a leadership role, in that what he wants for the dog is to respond to him when he interjects a signal that what the dog is doing is wrong.

I've always heard, CM is so good at reading dogs and thought that was his main tool. Now I'm curious to see whether that's true. If not, as you say, it would be truly disturbing to think of someone trying to apply these sorts of techniques in high-pressure situations, who is poor at reading calming signals (when do you know when enough is enough?) or other outright signals. The key to Jack's approach is he quits, not when the dog does when he wants, but when the dog signals he's thinking about Jack rather than doing what he wants to do. It's important in training a dog to work stock because there's MANY times you want to break in and say, "Hey, remember me?" Even if the dog isn't doing something necessarily wrong, you might need the dog to do something else, like come around the back of the flock to get between me and the dangerous ram.

Click-herd list on Yahoo (www.clickertraining.com)

It's actuallyhttp://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/ClickHerd/

I am one of the founding members of ClickHerd, but I no longer think that clicker training, as such, can be a significant tool in training the working stockdog. There's numerous reasons for this that I won't go into here - and I'm still working out one difficulty I have in particular, which goes to the heart of the attitude that clicker training shapes in a dog. I need to do some more research into the exact mechanics of clicker training and discuss this with the top trainers I know.

Other problems are more obvious. Some of the shaping techniques are nearly impossible (try getting a rank calf to cooperate with back chaining), training mechanical behaviors "dry" is ALWAYS a bad idea yet that's what clicker trainers resort to, to start their dogs. Clicker trainers typically don't understand exactly what they are marking when they do progress to real stock working. I've winced at discussions of clicking when the dog is at balance, or flanking - you never want to reinforce a dog there, beyond giving them freedom to work, because what's going on in the dog's head is far more important than what the dog is doing physically.

The only way to find out what's in the dog's head (when it comes to the complexities of working stock) is when something goes wrong, and you can't wait for the behavior to extinguish on its own in that case. In all the discussions on that list, they have NEVER figured out how to avoid corrections when the situation is going to hell in a handbasket, or how to stop a bad habit once it's started. Bad habits are just too intrinsically reinforcing. I believe most of the clicker herding instructors (of whom I've never heard of, in a herding context), make use of pens that allow the dog to see the stock but not access them. I can't think of a better way to increase the frustration level in a high-drive dog. It's a great way to turn your dog into a stock killer - I use this method for increasing drive in my goosedogs.

Mary Lott is probably the closest of anybody out there to working out a clicker-based training program. And she only really troubleshoots with the clicker - her dogs seem to be good enough that they don't have to be "taught" the basics beyond the traditional approach of shaping what's there already, by limiting what's incorrect. I know someone else who has trained a few dogs using the clicker, but again her dogs are generally good enough to know what she wants - but they don't do really advanced stuff and would be basically useless even on a small farm like mine. I've seen her training and she uses the pen too - and high-drive dogs stymie her. She doesn't like working with them.

There's definitely a role, as I've mentioned, for reinforcement in the working environment. The smart trainer is constantly aware of the reinforcing nature of being allowed to work freely - ie, access to the stock.

And this is NOT to diss the importance of clicker training in general. I just cringe when generalizations are made that corrections are never appropriate, are abusive, will make your dog nervous and shut them down. Then when people get into a situation where a correction IS needed, they lose sleep over it.

I've always heard, CM is so good at reading dogs and thought that was his main tool. Now I'm curious to see whether that's true. If not, as you say, it would be truly disturbing to think of someone trying to apply these sorts of techniques in high-pressure situations, who is poor at reading calming signals (when do you know when enough is enough?) or other outright signals.

 
Actually, I would have to disagree. I would say that CM, while he claims to observe dogs for his whole life, doesn't actually know THAT much about dog behaviour, calming signals, and body language at all. If he knew as much as he claimed about canine communication, he would not get bitten as often as he does, as he would KNOW and FOLLOW the signals the dog was giving him that it was uncomfortable and that it was communicating that in every way possible, until it felt the need to defend itself physically.
 
He doesn't appear to follow the use of calming signals at all, or else he'd notice the lip licking, yawning, turning away, whale eye, etc, and respond in an appropriate manner, he would not continually force the dog to do as he wanted, regardless of what the dog was showing and feeling.
 
The only "body language" he appears to notice is the forced submission of the dogs he works with, who have succumbed to what modern trainers call "Learned Helplessness".
 
If he had the knowledge he claimed that he does of body language and canid communication, I doubt he would be doing things the way that he did.
 
Kim MacMillan

he'd notice the lip licking, yawning, turning away, whale eye, etc, and respond in an appropriate manner, he would not continually force the dog to do as he wanted, regardless of what the dog was showing and feeling.

That makes me crazy to think of. I've got to see whether I can get someone to tape this show for me. To me, if you don't let off when the dog is screaming, "I'm trying!", that's close to abuse.

I see now why experts dislike him so much, if that's true. []

I agree with Kim on Millan's inability to read dog body language, based on the half dozen or so shows that I've seen. I think I posted about this once before when it was more fresh in my mind, but in one episode he had a trio of GSDs and from my view he consistently mistook which male was aggressing toward the other - he seemed to take the owner's word for it on which was the culprit, when it seemed clear to me that the other one was aggressively posturing and glaring while the one being blamed was only displaying (perhaps more obvious to the eye) defensive postures. He took the wrongfully accused one into his pack and the dog did fine, which he took only as evidence that he'd cured the dog... meanwhile the "victim" caused problems in the pack but this was selectively ignored.
 
I also agree with the notion that he focuses so much on dominance theory that this makes his solutions often inappropriate (nice description btw). In another case I watched, he was responding to a young, completely untrained beagle who was hyper in the house and chewing up things. We would all recognize this immediately as a young, completely untrained beagle, nothing more, nothing less. The dog hadn't ever been taught what she could and couldn't chew, or anything else for that matter. But Millan treated it as yet another dominance problem. He cowed her into submission, but what he saw as "calm-submissive," I observed as calming signals - making herself small, looking at him out of the corner of her eye and looking away again, etc.
 
Lori... I take your point about most of us (with some exceptions) having no formal education or training in dog behavior or training and still dispensing advice every day. I think the difference is firstly one of scope - Millan reaches millions of people; also of context - we are clearly just semi-anonymous people on an online forum, while Millan occupies the position of an expert (TV host, professional, and authro) even if he never claims to be one; and lastly... I think people here are pretty responsible about deferring to an expert either in recommending books or a behaviorist visit when it comes to situations where dogs or people might get hurt. I think if Millan were more responsible he would not even televise those cases where a dog was truly aggressive, because of what could happen if owners of aggressive dogs watching at home tried to mimic him... disclaimers are fine and dandy from a legal point of view, but I'm not sure it's "full coverage" from an ethical standpoint.