Dog trainers or dog behavorists

I think some +R trainers dont like CM because they fail to recognize the difference between a great person who works really well with dogs and stupid people who want to do the same as CM without any success since they have it all wrong, those people go to them and say "but i learned on TV" then the trainer blames CM instead of blaming 100% the person who did it wrong even when in the show they repeat not to do the same at home
 
If someone with a clicker is doing it horribly i wont blame the trainers who use that technique because of course they are doing it right, i blame the person for not getting it yet, is not the trainers fault that not everybody is as smart to do it as fast as the professionals []

Jaime, thank you for stepping in today. 

I get where you've formed your opinions about +R training, but I'm unclear where your opinions on Millan come from, so I'm earnestly asking. Please don't consider this a "challenge." I just want to learn well! I'm learning the pro-Millan arguments beautifully, I'd like to learn the downside beautifully as well.

I have watched quite a few of the shows, some more than once, and have read "Cesar's Way".  Quite a few times I have witnessed him doing things that do not suggest to me that he truly understands dog behavior.  His descriptions are always vague, and not explained in a way that makes sense to someone who wants to understand behavior in a scientific way.  He may have some natural ability - but it is not tempered with reasoned study.  I come from a background that spans quite a few decades with dogs, and have seen the difference in the demeanor of dogs that are beneficiaries of positive reinforcement training, and behavior modification, versus those that are trained coercively.  There is a distinct difference in between the dog that avoids offering any behavior because he understands that, if he's wrong, the leash pop will follow, and the dog that offers behavior freely in an effort to figure out what the human wants.  Positive training, or clicker training, properly applied, does not "bribe" the dog (but that terminology comes up frequently from people who don't understand the mechanics), or make him food dependent.  In fact, some dogs are not motivated by food at all, so the trainer must find something else to use as the reinforcer (reward)CM still relies on force, even if it is mild, to get what he wants.  The Illusion collar is nothing but a modified choke collar.  And, instead of explaining equipment to the clients, and perhaps making life a bit easier for the dogs, he seems to just use whatever they have on the dog.  I've seen prong collars on fearful dogs, which is not something that most knowledgeable trainers advocate, even if they do use prong collars generally. 

 I'm asking where you go to inform yourself about him. For example, in regards to his alpha rolling, have you seen him do one in life? On TV? Or do you respond to the concept of "someone who would do the the alpha roll" in general, not with specific regards to Millan's execution of it? Where did you learn that he is not engaged in serious study or scholarly pursuits?

His show used to say that he was a "dog behaviorist".  When people began to object to that, not only because he used protocols that seemed antiquated, but because they found he had no degree or other credential, he changed it to "dog behavior expert".  The commonly accepted credential for someone to call themselves a dog behaviorist is a DVM, or a Master's or Ph.D. in Applied Animal Behavior.  So, naturally, people who take the time to earn such credentials and practice according to scientific principles, might take offense at someone calling himself a behaviorist.  Something like the guy who wrote Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus - John Gray, I think his name is.  Said he was a Ph.D.  Turns out his degree was from a well known diploma mill, and not an accredited university.  Cesar himself says, on his website that his formal training has come from working with thousands of dogs.  I would say that's nice, but it is quite possible for someone to be doing something one way for years, then find out there's a better way.  I just think the better way is not Cesar's way.

In answer to your question about AR's, on one of the older shows, I did see him pin a dog with sufficient force that someone could call it an alpha roll.  He did not pick up the dog or slam it down, or any of the other things that would suggest abuse.  (I also saw the episode with the hanging dog, too, though.) Personally, I don't see any reason why a human would ever need to pin a dog.  It simply isn't necessary.  In the newer shows, his demeanor has been less macho - I suspect due to the criticism from the +R community directed at NGC. 

Although, in your statement above, it sounds as if you're disqualifying him because he's "ethnic" and popular, I can't imagine that's what you meant and wanted to ask you to clarify the actual *basis* of your opinions. You often state, like above, that your mission is to alert newbies, and get them properly educated. As a newbie myself, it would round out my education to know what are the sources of your scholarship in regards to this topic.

I would never disqualify someone on the basis of ethnicity or popularity.  I merely think that his ethnicity adds to his popularity in a certain demographic, which networks are trying to appeal to.  There's nothing wrong with that from a commercial standpoint, but my gut tells me that it would be in dogs' best interest if a more positive person had been chosen.  (Maybe a petition to Oprah to have Pat Miller on her show?)

BTW, I have emailed CM several times, to find out the information you have questioned, and never got any response, even from an underling. 

His "Leader of the Pack Quiz" is not indicative of leadership, only of whether you practice his way of walking your dogs.  We've had discussions before about the relationship between leadership and where the dog walks, so I won't go into that, but suffice to say that my dogs are all well behaved, don't take advantage of me, and don't always have to walk behind me or go out the door last.  They do that if I want, but sometimes I don't ask, and it has not resulted in the dogs becoming the CEO's of my household LOL.

If by "my scholarship" you mean what are my credentials, I have a Cum Laude Bachelor's in Psychology from an accredited college, have attended many seminars and workshops on training and dog behavior, as well as shelter, animal assisted therapy, and training experience, plus over forty five years of dog ownership and an apprenticeship.  

Without getting into dog training theory, because I'm NOT a dog trainer, I'll say that my dogs and I have a great relationship without using negative techniques. Two of the three are Canine Good Citizens and the third is a very safe dog that pulls on leash and may sniff a butt or two. If his Peer--Daddy were consistent, he'd quit. Tasha and I just started a "Freestyle" classs where you use tricks to music.
 
They are: Tasha, 7 1/2 year old Golden Retriever/Chow adopted at 12 weeks, Wolfgang, 6 year old Belgian Malinois/Akita adopted at six months, and Floyd, 7 year old Belgian Malinos adopted at four years.

I'm far more intersted in dog psychology than dog training. When we got Tasha she was a 12 week old stray, and yes we did do a decent job. I shudder to think if I'd known about forums then, because we knew nothing. We had enough brains to take her to the vet. There was a brochure about puppy kindergarten. DH has inherent good things with animals. I'd have been truly trashed for home cooking, not crating, putting her outside etc. But it worked. She never heard an unkind word. It took Tasha a little longer to grow up than most dogs, but hopefully she'll live a little longer. We just started a "freestyle" dance class where the dogs do tricks (clicker) to music. Tasha is five years older than the next oldest dog and is right up with the top of the class. Our teacher is thrilled to have a  senior, Chow Mix. Tasha knows it's all about play.
 
Wolfgang is a product of his superb socialization. He's Malinois/Akita and loved by all. He's a joy and always has been. If he steals a roast now and then, well he deserves it.
 
Floyd has problems. But Floyd loves us and he gets along with Tasha and Wolfgang. I adore Floyd and he'd do anything for us. But his background and genetics make him a very different dog.

What i like about CM is that he will never ever suggest to put down a dog since his techniques always work, some other trainers when they see they have failed on rehabilitate the dog always rely on the old "well is not me, is the dog who will never be ok again, you would have to put him to sleep" like trying to have an excuse for their lack of abilities. At least with CM you know you dog is going to get better because he never gives up on the animal []

Good point espencer.  Another reason for some trainers dislike of Cesar may be that he isn't in the "club" so to speak.  He doesn't really affiliate himself with any other professional trainer and he doesn't label himself and prescribe to one particular method of training.  He also doesn't use the same scientific terminolgy and jargon that some trainers use to communincate with each other.  Some may call his language vague, but I feel his explanations are clear and easy to understand.  He breaks things down and brings them to a level that really gets through to people.

Spritdogs,

Thanks so much for your time and energy in answering my questions. I was interested in how you learned about Millan (your scholarship). Thanks for addressing that, and for providing your academic and professional history, as well. It is formidable, indeed, as was already clear from the breadth and depth of your knowledge and experience. I teach at a private art college (was recently upgraded from lecturer to professor - hurrah!), and issues around credentials vs charisma are oft encountered. As you might imagine, "star quality" is often a hot topic in the art world.

ORIGINAL: spiritdogs
There is a distinct difference in between the dog that avoids offering any behavior because he understands that, if he's wrong, the leash pop will follow, and the dog that offers behavior freely in an effort to figure out what the human wants.

This is *the* crux of behavior philosophies and training concepts for me, and forms the drive for my current studies in wooflandia.

Awesomedog, I hope we don't lose you! []

ORIGINAL: espencer

I think some +R trainers dont like CM because they fail to recognize the difference between a great person who works really well with dogs and stupid people who want to do the same as CM without any success since they have it all wrong, those people go to them and say "but i learned on TV" then the trainer blames CM instead of blaming 100% the person who did it wrong even when in the show they repeat not to do the same at home

If someone with a clicker is doing it horribly i wont blame the trainers who use that technique because of course they are doing it right, i blame the person for not getting it yet, is not the trainers fault that not everybody is as smart to do it as fast as the professionals []

This is the part that's always confused me. If CM is offering all of this information and instruction on TV but then I'm not supposed to actually "try any of it at home," then what purpose does it serve? Is it just entertainment?

And since we're at it, are there similar disclaimers in his book or on his website?

What i like about CM is that he will never ever suggest to put down a dog since his techniques always work,

Woah woah woah! ALWAYS? They always work? How can any of us actually know that for a fact? I've seen plenty of anecdotal stories from people who have hired Cesar who said that what he did did not work, and in some cases made their dog worse. Of course those cases don't make it on to his show or into his book. I would never trust a trainer who says that they ALWAYS are successful, 100% of the time. He may be opposed to suggesting any dog be euthanized, even if he fails with the dog, which is fine and dandy, but to say his technique always works? For real?

ORIGINAL: espencer

I think CM is great with dog's, he sees stuff that others dont or will never have idea that exist,

 
Perhaps some people don't see what he sees.  But what he does is NOT new!!  Lots of other people use - or have used - his kind of techniques and ideas without his influence.  Many of those people have moved on from that kind of training - often after learning about the science of learning and behaviour.  Perhaps truer to say he sees stuff that people "saw" 50 years ago and have since been disproved satisfactorily in most people's eyes.  So there are some people out there who see CM as a bit.... er, backward?  Behind the times?  And looking at the progression of CMs attitude in his show, either he has buckled under pressure to soften his approach, or perhaps he is moving forward too.... ??  Who knows.  I do suspect he would be more open to this idea than may of you will be.
 

ORIGINAL: espencer
Now i think also that he is great since he does not rely in treats as much as he can to avoid the dog see the human as just someone who provides the food, as just another member of the pack who is there to open the fridge, CM does not think dogs are made of glass and will get the biggest trauma ever if they get corrections, CM is a leader of the pack, not a follower, he is in charge of the discipline, not only the pack's butler in charge of bringing the food while another dog is in charge, which happens a lot, CM does not believe that if you control the resources you are the leader, not at all, just like female lions provide the food but they are not the leaders but the male, dogs are not lions but the idea is the same

 
I am completely baffled about your views on the leader not being in control of resources.....  Is there any kind of evidence, articles, studies, research you can point me to to convince me of this?  And, btw, lions are FELINES and have a different social structure to CANIDS.  Dogs are canids.  So the comparison with lions is a little irrelevant in this case IMO. 

ORIGINAL: espencer
CM uses treats in very rare ocasions since he does not want to depend on bribing the dog to make him follow his rules, i think this tecnique is important to avoid the dog to manipulate you in a way that you just become a machine just ready to give treats away, dogs are really inteligent, if they know they can get a treat by doing something bad they will do it, ie. dog chewing couch, stops, gets a treat for stopping, therefore dogs will chew again knowing he will get food when he stops. In those cases CM rathers just to let the dog know that is wrong, no bribing, no bad behavior

 
You are correct that many people fall into the trap of teaching a dog to do X (bad behaviour) even more, knowing that a treat is in the offing when they stop.  That is symptomatic of a person who has not understood or applied the technique correctly. 
There are certain unwanted behaviours which DO NOT earn a treat when the dog stops, peeing on the carpet is one, chewing inappropriate items is IMO another.  These kind of instances are prime candidates for the rolled-up newspaper technique.  (In case you are not familiar with this technique, it is where you lead the dog up to the mess with rolled up paper in hand and hit yourself repeatedly over the head, repeating the mantra I Forgot to Watch My Dog, Bad Human, Watch Him Better Next Time")
My point is of course that a training programme which is largely R+ involves a great deal of good management to prevent bad habits developing, rather than waiting for them to happen and then correcting for it.

ORIGINAL: espencer
Even Ian Dunbar one of the principal trainers for +R techniques agrees that corrections like the ones CM uses will give you a better success level rather than +R only, and of course if one of the main +R persons says it is because then corrections are not bad at all

Plenty of people here have used corrections.  I know I have.  I support the view that properly delivered corrections can definately be beneficial when used in support of a largely R+ training programme, which is, I suspect the context Ian Dunbar intended for them also.  I am sure many "R+ people" here are of the same view.
The problem people have with CMs use of corrections is not that he uses them - but that they think he uses them excessively and he skips to their use without using a gentler method first.  And that when he does use them, he keeps using them until the dog "stops".  He doesn't introduce something positive for the dog to do instead, which IMO opinion is rather unkind.
 
With regards to the topic of the thread, CM is not a behaviourist.  He does not have the education or sufficient paperwork under his belt to call himself that - and those who have worked hard to gain said education understandably take umbrage at the suggestion he is one. 
He can safely call himself a "behaviour expert" but that is a matter of opinion.  Is it just a matter of number of years of experience?  I know a lady personally who breeds dogs, all puppies raised in outdoor kennels and receive little human contact for the 1st SIX weeks of their life, after which they go to new homes.  SHe has been doing this for more than 20 years.  Dog breeding expert?  Possibly, depends on your definition of the E word.  Do I agree with her methods?  No.  Do I think I know more about breeding practise, genetics and ethics than she does, despite the fact I have never raised even one litter?  Most definately.
CM gets rid of unwanted behaviours largely by using corrections.  This makes him - in my eyes - a trainer.  An R- trainer, who uses a little R+ occasionally.  To me, in order to be a "dog behaviour expert" I think he should display a good understanding of canine behaviour and use it to his advantage in understanding the dog, building a rapport with him and helping him to overcome or manage fear, anxiety or aggression issues.  I really do not feel that he properly understands canine behaviour.  I have watched a few shows.... and a few YouTube clips and I see evidence of fundamental lack of understanding over and over....
 
Contrary to popular belief, I don't hate the man.  I don't care enough about him one way or the other to hate him.  He certainly has done a lot of good for a lot of dogs.  It's great that he is encouraging people to get out there and WALK their dogs.  It's great that he is discouraging people from "humanising" their pets and encouraging them to lay down basic rules and boundaries.  When it comes to specific behaviour problems - particualrly involving fear or aggression - I just don't think he fully understands just what he is doing.  It is instinctual.  So he cannot properly explain WHY he chooses to use that method; WHY it works and WHY it is better than a different approach.
 
For me, his philosophies have many, many holes. 
 
The biggest thing that puts me off is that some of the techniques he uses are so easy to screw up!  And for a novice and they can be so diffcult to get right that its nigh on impossible. 
 
DOgs made of glass?  Corrections being traumatic???  What?????  In some dogs yes, that is true - incorrectly applied they can be harnul.  But the biggest thing is, I don't enjoy administering corrections to my dogs.  If you DO enjoy it, you are frankly quite quite weird and sadistic and shouldn't own an animal.  However, who among us does not enjoy giving a dog a treat?  Who doesn't enjoy seeing his tail wag and his eyes light up at the prospect of a walk or game or training session?  Who doesn't get a smile and glow of pride when they are using the clicker and suddenly that famed Lightbulb switches on?  Who wouldn't want to use kind techniques first, before using corrections or before facinga dog down in a social confrontation?
 
However out of everything I have read on this forum about CM, this by far intrugues me the most.
 

  he will never ever suggest to put down a dog since his techniques always work

 
Biiiiig red flag, on Oh So Many levels.... I would be interested to know: are those CMs words or your own?
 

  
This is the part that's always confused me. If CM is offering all of this information and instruction on TV but then I'm not supposed to actually "try any of it at home," then what purpose does it serve? Is it just entertainment?

 
YES.
 
OK, that was waaaaaay longr than I intended.
 

ORIGINAL: houndlove

What i like about CM is that he will never ever suggest to put down a dog since his techniques always work,

Woah woah woah! ALWAYS? They always work? How can any of us actually know that for a fact? I've seen plenty of anecdotal stories from people who have hired Cesar who said that what he did did not work, and in some cases made their dog worse. Of course those cases don't make it on to his show or into his book. I would never trust a trainer who says that they ALWAYS are successful, 100% of the time. He may be opposed to suggesting any dog be euthanized, even if he fails with the dog, which is fine and dandy, but to say his technique always works? For real?

Show me those "anecdotal stories" and after seeing if actually was the owner who didnt like the technique or it was for real the dog's issues the cause for the technique to fail then we can talk about it
 
silverserpher: Yes the TV show is for entertaiment, i decided myself  to try it on my own, but thats my decision, is not a teaching TV show, he talks about what the owner with that specific problem with that specific dog should do, if people decide to do it also nobody can blame CM for their mistakes since those people are not professionals, just like i dont blame Patricia McConnell if people wants to use treats for everything

Chuffy: thats my opinion and you can talk as much as i want, that wont change anything (ps i never said his stuff was new)

Chuffy: thats my opinion and you can talk as much as i want, that wont change anything (ps i never said his stuff was new)

 

  I think CM is great with dog's, he sees stuff that others dont or will never have idea that exist,

 
 
I don't want you to CHANGE your opinions.... but I would be interested to have you support them, in the interest of debate.  Namely the following questions:
 

  I am completely baffled about your views on the leader not being in control of resources.....  Is there any kind of evidence, articles, studies, research you can point me to to convince me of this? 

 

  
[blockquote]quote:

  he will never ever suggest to put down a dog since his techniques always work
[/blockquote]


Biiiiig red flag, on Oh So Many levels.... I would be interested to know: are those CMs words or your own?

 
?????

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

I am completely baffled about your views on the leader not being in control of resources.....  Is there any kind of evidence, articles, studies, research you can point me to to convince me of this? 

All those people that come here asking why their dogs are biting them, i'm sure those dogs dont prepare their own meals, again, i know lions are not dogs but thats an example in mother nature that the leader is not always the one who control the resources, let your dog find his own food and see if he still see you as "leader", also leaders in wild packs dont control resources, the pack together kills and the leader sometimes has not not even touched the killed animal yet, he still is the leader, controling the resources for me has another name: instead of calling the human "leader" is more like "the pack member who can open the fridge"
 

ORIGINAL: Chuffy
quote:

 he will never ever suggest to put down a dog since his techniques always work
Biiiiig red flag, on Oh So Many levels.... I would be interested to know: are those CMs words or your own?

Which one you dont like? the putting down a dog or the one where his technique always work? Big red flag indeed, but for those trainers that lack on abilities and suggest the dog to be PTS, Cesar shows that there is always hope, if the owner or the "trainer" are lazy well thats going to happen