Dog trainers or dog behavorists

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

I'll take the "Millan is not a trainer" mantra one step further.

Nobody, 50 years ago, was being the Tony Robbins of the dog world. In his TV shows, Millan's emphasis on human behavior is readily apparent. His show is not all about training with corrections to the dog, it's all about modifying human-dog relationships by motivating humans.

Millan is a motivational speaker, in the model of our contemporary life coaches, but with a twist, because he makes televised house calls, and is hands-on. He claims Tony Robbins and Wayne Dyer among his heroes. He and his wife are building a growing company that aims to foster betterment for dogs through empowering people. He is not psychologist, biologist, nor ethologist, but rather, like other motivational speakers, he's made himself successful through trial and error, and, yes, by cultivating the instinct he was born with. People are attracted to that, which is why he's popular.

Millan demonstrates, in each episode, that many companion dog problems are created by human psychology. He demonstrates how people use dogs to fulfill their own emotional neediness. His "terse” handling of animals is a logical approach in trying to break a cultural habit of over-emotionalizing pets. He'd probably say that coddling does more damage to dogs than slip leads do. He probably finds many so called +R methods to be fraught with unhealthy co-dependent dynamics.

Millan's show is about leaving people, and their dogs, better than he found them, which generally means that they are exercising more self-control. He motivates fatherless boys to become confident young men in handling their feisty GSD, he inspires a chaotic house of young ladies and their mom to create more structure when their pitbull is becoming dangerous, he gets a family to see that they're spoiling their little terrier in deference to the memory of a dead aunt. He motivates people to stop being embarrassed about setting high standards, and he gives them tools to reach those outcomes. Millan gets people to see how they create unhealthy environments for their dogs. He focuses on modifying the human's behavior.

Millan is supremely agile, physically. I'm an artist with much background in dance, movement, and performance. When I watch Millan handle animals, I see precise self-control, and a sophisticated knowledge of movement mechanics. On TV, I've seen him massage dogs, I've seen him speak softly to them, I've seen him communicate through the lead with only a wiggle of his pinky. His alpha rolls are delicate, and his so called "hanging” is calm and swift. In both of those controversial moves he redirects the animals own energy, rather than "applying force” to the animal. He's expert at that fundamental martial arts concept because of his training. Millan's not a brute, he's a well developed instrument.

That said, The Millan's are candid in interviews about their learning curve and personal growth, together as a couple, as well as professionally. I wouldn't be surprised that he's modifying his methods in response to criticism. He strikes me as being a lifelong learner. I find the Millans to be a great model for right livelihood, philanthropic work, and good basic values, as imperfect as they may be.

Millan *touches* people. That kind of talent - ya can't buy a diploma for it, ya either got it or ya don't.

Edited to add: IMO, the major "method" he teaches people, besides "mastering the walk" is NILIF. Not bad!

 
Beautifully put, and great observations on many levels. []
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: Angelique



Beautifully put, and great observations on many levels. []

I second that Ixas_girl.  Great post!

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Good point - maybe the trainers out there who participate here could tell us how they interact with the owners.... I presume initially there is a questionnaire or telephone call to get a bit of background, a home visit to assess and then .....?  Is there a schedule of visits for a set amount of time, or just one follow up visit arranged and then further visits as needed?  Would you just be available on the end of the phone whenever they needed you?  Would you make sure you called them to see how they were getting on, make sure they were doing everything properly or would you wait for them to call you if they need to?  Is this different depending on whether you are a trainer or behaviourist?  Or doesis jsut differ from professional to professional?

houndlove thanks for the link.... interesting but I'd want to see more dissatisfied testimonials, not just that one.  After all, anyone could have written that and just made it up couldn't they?  Have they contacted CM with a formal complaint that they could tell us about and what was his response?  It would be good if we could see CMs side of that story.  Perhaps the owner wasn't following his method consistently?  And how did they know CM strangle dthe dog when they weren't looking.... if they weren't looking?!!!!!

My clients fill out a rather complete behavioral questionnaire.  I meet with them, assess the dog, and I decide if the dog is within the scope of what I do.  Most times it is, so we discuss interventions, and how to proceed with training.  Some are advised to go ahead and take a group class, others are coached privately.  Some are offered behavioral advice.  Depending on the circumstance, I might refer them to a veterinary behaviorist who can augment the behavioral work with short or long term medication, if necessary.  BTW, anyone who thinks all dogs can be rehabilitated does not understand that organic brain dysfunction can happen in dogs as well as in humans, and isn't always fixable.   Seizures can cause intractable aggression, for example. 

Former CM fan here, went to his seminar, watched the show like no other, got my photo with him, the whoe thing. I loved that there was no yelling or hitting. It made sense to me.
 
Then I really got into training and read lots of books by other trainers, subscribed to magazines, attended a week long seminar, joined some organizations.  As my education grew, watching the show became a new experience. And not a good one.
 
I read the CM's book. I agree with most of the content, too. The book IMO is light years better than the show, which I am beginning to detest. 
 
The CM method relies on one thing: being dominant. It assumes that all dog problems are based on bad leadership. The solution for 95% of his cases is always the same. Inhibiting through intimidation (the "tch!!" noise, poke in the throat, posture and leash pull). This is better than physical pain, I guess. But that's not a good excuse to use it and just because it's better than pain, doesn't mean it's the most effective, fastest, or kindest way to train.
 
I get frustrated whwen I see people "training" their dogs by poking and "tching" them, and doing this tight leashed heel trying to be little CM's, thinking I must be more calm assertive and my dog will:
lose his fear, like other dogs, share his toys, lose his SA, like riding in the car, blah blah blah.
 
I could go on- but I won't.
I don't think CM offers much real training help, or much real insight into dogs. He does get people to exercise them more, and to stop hitting and yelling- so I give credit for that. But that's as far as I'll go.

Don't forget that he emphasises C-A-L-M as pretty much the keystone of any relationship with a dog.  That is bang on, IMO.  Also I find the show easier by far to watch if I hit MUTE and just watch him "dancing" with the dog and his owners... his instinct for subtle body language is far better to watch than the neck pokes and collar pops.... and I really think that THAT is what the problem dog responds to, more so than the corrections.  Sometimes I even wonder if he is aware of what he is doing, it seems to happen so seamlessly. Having said that, I haven't watche dthe show in donkeys, or much TV at all.  Too much to do!!!

ORIGINAL: amyliz

poke in the throat

 
Wow really?? in the throat? that could kill the dog, are you sure is exactly IN the throat? for being ex fan it seems that you are picking the wrong words or you want to level it up a notch since you dont like it anymore, there is a huge difference between a correction at the side of the neck and the same correction on the throat, thats how the misunderstandings start [sm=no%20no%20smiley.gif]
 
I think that a "poke" at the side of the neck uses less force that when you pet your dog, shouldnt we pet our dogs then?, a touch at the side of the neck is effective because what it means for the dog, not because is violent, it seems that you already forgot all what you've learned from CM or you got it wrong from the beginning

ORIGINAL: espencer

ORIGINAL: amyliz

poke in the throat

Wow really?? in the throat? that could kill the dog, are you sure is exactly IN the throat? for being ex fan it seems that you are picking the wrong words or you want to level it up a notch since you dont like it anymore, there is a huge difference between a correction at the side of the neck and the same correction on the throat, thats how the misunderstandings start [sm=no%20no%20smiley.gif]

I think that a "poke" at the side of the neck uses less force that when you pet your dog, shouldnt we pet our dogs then?, a touch at the side of the neck is effective because what it means for the dog, not because is violent, it seems that you already forgot all what you've learned from CM or you got it wrong from the beginning

Pardon me. ON the throat. It is supposed to simulate a bite. When I pet my dog, I am not simulating a corrective bite in order to show my dominance. If, truly, the touch is just supposed to be an interrupter, and just a touch, then it would be okay to touch the dog on the leg and not necessary to poke the dog with the cupped hand/fingers.

I understand the method just fine. I do not think it is the be all and end all, the main problem being that it blames all dog problems on dominance.     

ORIGINAL: amyliz

Pardon me. ON the throat. It is supposed to simulate a bite. When I pet my dog, I am not simulating a corrective bite in order to show my dominance. If, truly, the touch is just supposed to be an interrupter, and just a touch, then it would be okay to touch the dog on the leg and not necessary to poke the dog with the cupped hand/fingers.

I understand the method just fine. I do not think it is the be all and end all, the main problem being that it blames all dog problems on dominance.     

 
It does not matter if is IN or ON the throat, thats dangerous, CM never does corrections on the throat, he does them at the side of the neck which is different, he does it at the side of the neck because that how dos do to eachother, you can try the leg but it does not have the same effect
 
I would have to disagree on "all problems on dominance" i have see him helping  fearfull dogs too that have nothing to do with dominance, is like blaming Nanny 911 for "all problems are parental related", well the parents need to show the kids what can be done and what it cant be done, thats why he rehabilitaes people, he shows humans how to teach the dogs what boundries they need to follow but like i said, there are fearfull or unsocialized dogs that have nothing todo with dominance and he just take them to his pack to get better, nothing dominant there