Do You Disagree With CM?

I agree with the point that most of us on here are not experts in the field of behaviour. That's one reason I sat back for a week or so before joining this board, as it's so diverse and I'm sure to encounter issues with people who see differently than I. But then I realized that I have no need to defend anything I do or say - I am proud that I am a positive trainer, and can provide the results to back it up. And no matter what the case, there is always opportunity for education, even if it's about methods that I'll never use. Education is key.
 
However, there ARE many people on here I'm sure who have a LOT of experience. I know personally, I have been involved in dogs since I was born, literally. I grew up raising and breeding Labradors for show and hunting, and am currently breeding and raising Mini Schnauzers. I have taken part in training demonstrations and have volunteered at the Vet College to help educate the public. I am doing my BSc. as a Biology and Psychology (emphasis on learning, animal behaviour, and principles of behaviour) double major, and once graduated am headed west to work with a training school and complete some training/behaviour programs there.
 
I live with a special needs dog who has a fear of humans, so people who live with those types of dogs and who are taking part in behaviour mod programs DO in all reality grow to have an education on behaviour principles and training. They HAVE to for the sake of their dog.
 
So no, most people on here are not experts in the field. And on a group like this you really DO have to learn to take the "good" bits and discard the "less-good" bits. But there are also people on here who do have experience, and training, and education, in what they talk about.

I'm just realizing I have another big complaint:

Relying on "energy" really disadvantages a lot of dog owners. While he does use +R occasionally, when he doesn't owners sometimes ask why they're not giving the dog a treat or praise when their dog behaves well. Cesar's answer is that the dog can sense that you're happy. I'm sure my dog can sense that I'm happy, but praise and treats are clear, unambiguous demonstrations so I don't have to wonder whether I'm "projecting my energy" appropriately or enough or whatever. Happy, confident dog owners are great, but people who aren't happy, confident and calm all the time can still have well-behaved, happy, neurosis-free dogs!

The friend I was talking about earlier is an anxious person naturally. Trying to become some zen-like dog whispering Alpha wolf creature to help her dog just made her even more anxious. Clearly dogs pick up emotions and stress and all sorts of things, but because real life is complicated you need more tricks than energy projection.

I think the whole energy thing also mystifies the process to a lot of people. I totally get lure and reward, clicker training, etc. but once you start talking about energy stuff you really lose me. Also, there's this whole complicated history of animal/human, civilization/nature, gender/culture/race aspect that has always bothered me from my cultural studies lens (I miss grad school).

ORIGINAL: willowchow

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. 

But, this is an Internet forum, and not a national TV network.  I have never said that someone needs formal education to be dog savvy, just that they cannot legitimately call themselves a behaviorist.  If someone knows a lot about nutrition, it doesn't make them a nutritionist, despite the fact that they may have as large a body of knowledge.  My contention has always been that CM doesn't recognize subtleties in dog behavior that are obvious to the educated eye.  So, some of his solutions are inappropriate.

Also, there's this whole complicated history of animal/human, civilization/nature, gender/culture/race aspect that has always bothered me from my cultural studies lens (I miss grad school).

 
Uh, yup. You are most definatley not the only one seeing that.
 
On the energy thing, it's just so California and I must admit to being slightly shocked that so many "salt of the earth" middle-of-the-country types are buying in to it. It's so flakey. And I guarentee that if someone went on TV and started yammering about projecting compassionate and loving energy, no one would care because that is flakey and weird and smacks of non-Christian religions. But because it's about projecting this powerful, dominant energy, people are eating it up. I find it kind of disturbing.
 
Steve Dale who has a pet radio show in Chicago had a full-on awesome interview with Millan in which he questioned, politely and rationally, every single one of his baseline assumptions. And he kept saying, "I'm sorry, I'm not from California so I don't really understand all this talk about energy. Can you explain that? What do you actually do? And why?" And there simply was not an answer. I get the impression that not a lot of people actually ask him those questions to his face.

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.

 
 
I haven't seen any recent episodes, but I agree with this 100%. I don't think the man understands dog body language or dog pack structure at all. He bullies, intimidates, and exercises dogs into shutting down and not-behaving.

And, unfortunately, it is that "shutting down" and "not-behaving" that can make a dog look obedient, when it's just that they are performing the doggy equivalent of "learned helplessness".

Wow what a civil thread, thats good []

Well of course most of the pleople here know what is my opinion about CM, like i said before i dont blame Anne (OP) to feel not in the best way about CM when somebody comes to her and says "but i saw it with CM and it worked"

Maybe is like Math, math is a exact science, there is no way around it (i'm not saying CM has an exact science and there is not other way but stay with me so you can see my point) however, there is people in this world that find math really easy and there is people (like me) that feel math is just almost impossible

The same happens with CM, not because you saw it on TV that means you will know how to do it right, you may feel you are doing it perfectly but maybe you didnt realize your body lenguage is saying something else, since there is no body there to tell you those things then you may choose a harder method (like pin down the animal) which actually would be bad for the dog because he only needed for you to be less tense during the walk

Too many CM fans that dont get it since they cant be told what actually are doing wrong are the ones that give CM some bad reputation

I dont think Ceasar's is the only way, actually i think that if you want to teach your dog how to sit, lay down, bring something, etc. there is no other way than +R but i rather to use something else for another kind of situations

Also, and i'm not trying to be rude or anything [], just like CM fans think they get it but they dont thats the same with some people that dont like CM, there is not 30 min fix on a dog at all, you can see results right away but he has always said that dogs are not appliances where you fix them and you dont have to do anything at all again

A good example of people misunderstanding what he does is the example with the separation anxiety, Cesar does not says that the dog cries because you should not leave the alpha behind, he says that dogs do that because is not in their nature not to be alone (dominant or not dominant), he has always said that the dog needs at least an hour to excersice, i have never heard him telling people to do it for 6 or 8 hours (??????)

Yes he has been bitten, but that does not mean he is bad with what he does, if you are firefighter you have the chance to get burn, if you work in a call center you are gonna get rude people, etc

He is more than just corrections, he uses body lenguage, he uses attitude, he even uses NILIF

IMO is all about misunderstandings, from the CM fans and no fans also, i hope this thread stays as civil as is right now []

ORIGINAL: espencer

i have never heard him telling people to do it for 6 or 8 hours (??????)

In his book he says he spends 6-8 hours/day exercising his dogs. They go for like 4 hour hikes at a time. He says he does this because wolves travel some insane number of miles per day. Which may very well be true - I really don't know that much about wolves - but the thing is that domesticated dogs probably evolved from those who hung out around humans so they didn't have to travel 23498 miles a day for food He also has this whole section about homeless people being ideal dog owners because they spend all day walking around the city, which is another point I don't really get. Why would homeless people spend 8 hours a day walking around? It seems like a good idea to stake out a few good spots for sleeping, socializing and panhandling/day-labour/whatever and move between these, not spend energy they probably don't have traveling great distances all day for no particular reason.

This is a wonderful thread, and concise.  Kim, you sound like you could write a book, and glad you joined the forum!  I am not a trainer but just an interested husky owner.
 
Inne, you wrote about this;
He also has this whole section about homeless people being ideal dog owners because they spend all day walking around the city, which is another point I don't really get. Why would homeless people spend 8 hours a day walking around? It seems like a good idea to stake out a few good spots for sleeping, socializing and panhandling/day-labour/whatever and move between these, not spend energy they probably don't have traveling great distances all day for no particular reason.
 
I have seen this in Europe and I will tell you it is sad.  These folks can barely stay warm or fed and they are just sitting around wearing tatters and a feeble blanket...looking for handouts.  They don't look like they do any exercising, but sitting and begging.  What a life, for both the dogs and the poor people.  There is a lot of it too.  So sad.  A lot of them look to have addictions of one kind or another.

Really ignorant question here - totally off topic, sorry. Is the common usage R plus or Plus R? I thought I had seen it in books and whatnot as the first, but then I have a form of dyslexia and may have gotten confused somewhere along the line. I"m not even sure when I check websites and books because I'm not 100% sure I'm processing the symbols correctly now that I'm uncertain (I have to basically know what I'm looking at, for it to process correctly). Now I'm seeing the second version used a lot and I'm thinking I've been saying it wrong all along.

Can some kind soul spell it out for me as above?

ORIGINAL: inne

In his book he says he spends 6-8 hours/day exercising his dogs. They go for like 4 hour hikes at a time. He says he does this because wolves travel some insane number of miles per day. Which may very well be true - I really don't know that much about wolves - but the thing is that domesticated dogs probably evolved from those who hung out around humans so they didn't have to travel 23498 miles a day for food He also has this whole section about homeless people being ideal dog owners because they spend all day walking around the city, which is another point I don't really get. Why would homeless people spend 8 hours a day walking around? It seems like a good idea to stake out a few good spots for sleeping, socializing and panhandling/day-labour/whatever and move between these, not spend energy they probably don't have traveling great distances all day for no particular reason.

 
Well one thing is what he does with his own dogs and another what he advice to his clients since of course his clients have to go to work, he always says that with at least one hour is enough (if you wanna do it like him for 4 hours then thats your choice)
 
About homeless people thats clear a misunderstanding, what he talks about them in his book is that homeless people are calm-assertive people who dont use treats to have a well behaved dog, it shows those dogs dont attack other dogs just because they saw them, that they are calm, dont have anxiety, fears, etc, and they dont even have a leash, i think you mixed the 2 seccions together
 
Misunderstandings, misundertandings []

Really ignorant question here - totally off topic, sorry. Is the common usage R plus or Plus R? I thought I had seen it in books and whatnot as the first, but then I have a form of dyslexia and may have gotten confused somewhere along the line. I"m not even sure when I check websites and books because I'm not 100% sure I'm processing the symbols correctly now that I'm uncertain (I have to basically know what I'm looking at, for it to process correctly). Now I'm seeing the second version used a lot and I'm thinking I've been saying it wrong all along.

Can some kind soul spell it out for me as above?
 
It is R+, (R Plus). That is the correct usage anyhow. I'm sure there are people who use it the other way, and the meaning is the same, although the literature relates to positive reinforcement as R+.
 
Kim MacMillan

Seems I used the wrong format for quotes. I'm used to using the other type of parenthesis for quotes, sorry about that.
 
Kim

ORIGINAL: espencer


About homeless people thats clear a misunderstanding, what he talks about them in his book is that homeless people are calm-assertive people who dont use treats to have a well behaved dog, it shows those dogs dont attack other dogs just because they saw them, that they are calm, dont have anxiety, fears, etc, and they dont even have a leash, i think you mixed the 2 seccions together

Misunderstandings, misundertandings []

No, I'm actually not misunderstanding. He clearly states that the 'homeless lifestyle' suits dogs because homeless people wander around all day. Here is a summary of his opinion:

"'I think that dogs that live with homeless people often have the most fulfilling, balanced lives. Watch a homeless person walking with a dog and you will witness a good example of a pack leader-pack follower body language. The dog follows either beside the human or just behind him. The dog is migrating with his pack leader, the way nature has ingrained in him.' Cesar goes on to explain that, for a dog, walking all day in a “pack,” seeking out food, and then finding a warm place to sleep at night is akin to winning the lottery. The homeless dog gets to meander for miles with his human companion and then go to bed tired."

www.allforanimals.com/homelesshounds.html

There are many other online summaries of the same if you're interested. This supposed long-distance migration is the key to the argument that homeless dogs are happy and well-adjusted.

On the energy thing, it's just so California and I must admit to being slightly shocked that so many "salt of the earth" middle-of-the-country types are buying in to it. It's so flakey. And I guarentee that if someone went on TV and started yammering about projecting compassionate and loving energy, no one would care because that is flakey and weird and smacks of non-Christian religions. But because it's about projecting this powerful, dominant energy, people are eating it up. I find it kind of disturbing.

Actually, the energy thing was what made the most sense to me when I first saw the show. I am about the FURTHEST you can be from a new-age-hippy-dippy-tree-hugger (as my brother would say) BUT the energy Cesar talks about is very similar to the attitude & visualization my riding instructor had us use. She wasn't very new age either - but the old saying "throw your heart over the fence and your horse will follow" is true. I've watched school horses that preform beautifully without missing a stride in the entire course turn around and refuse every fence on the exact same course with a different rider. We were told over and over that the biggest cause of falls was worrying about a fall. When you start thinking about falling, you body will automatically react by leaning in like in a fetal position. That would totally throw off your balance until you had to option but falling. Instead of worrying about a fall, you see yourself in following through on the maneuver and maintaining your position. Nine out of ten times, it worked for me.

I see the same result with my dog. Instead of going on a walk with worries about how bad she'll pull or what will happen if she sees a kid on a bike - I clear my head and just go. I don't worry about her reactions. If I am insecure, then she picks it up and feels insecure and defensive. Dogs are great readers of body language - much better than we are. They can see when we are faking it.