Independent Thinking - CM revisited

Dude, i know exactly what you said and i'm playing your game,

And you apparently have no sense of humor either.  But that's ok.  And thanks for telling me that my countless years of training are not in line with CM.  Seeing as they were way before CM and all he did was use those same methods- which are not in line with modern knowledge anyways.

Funny thing is, if one of a handful of those who support CM had said this in reference to anyone that didn't share a like mind, you'd have laughed.  So I guess you can't take a joke, or critical judgment of your preferred method of behavior modification.
 
ETA:  Why is it that you haven't "corrected" any of my misconceptions on the CM thread when I played by the rules there? 

ORIGINAL: DPU

I want, I expect, I demand more from the Behaviorist/Trainer/Specialist' in representing their methods rather than give misrepresentations and exaggerations of another method. 
 

 
[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]

Well I don't.

 I see you as a person who is trying to clean up JQP's mess.

You give their dogs good homes, deal with their issues, train them..until you find a good forever home for them.

Big difference in my book.

  I give JQP more credit because I see myself as one.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

And thanks for telling me that my countless years of training are not in line with CM.  Seeing as they were way before CM and all he did was use those same methods- which are not in line with modern knowledge anyways.

 
I have been on this earth longer than most on this forum.  I have had dogs all my life.  I don't think I have changed all that much in my training approach and that being always reward based.  Based on what I read here I have to wonder how dogs were treated prior to the +R concept, which IMO is nothing new and existed in my younger years.  To me rather than brag, I would keep it a secret.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

 ETA:  Why is it that you haven't "corrected" any of my misconceptions on the CM thread when I played by the rules there? 

 
I dont know, show me the link and i can tell you why []
 
I would laugh if you said only "ssshh and poke" but then you added the "rolling" and i was "thats exactly why people complain about CM when they actually are the ones to blame for not knowing what and when to do it"
 
At least JM complains about the people and not CM, if everybody here could be the same way then i would agree with you all, lets blame Bruce Lee for doing movies and make  the people think they can do it too without training and then get beated up at the bar, lets blame the guy who invented the shotgun but not the people that use them to kill others, lets blame the car inventors for giving us the car but not the ones that drive drunk, lets blame Evil Knievel for doing dangerous stunts but not the idiots that think that can do the same, lets blame the Wright Brothers for inventing the plane but not the Kamikazes on WWII for crashing their planes into the American boats, and the list could go on and on

ORIGINAL: JM


Okay, here is the way I am looking at it.  I mentioned the 4 dogs, (3 owners)  MP mentioned 1...as being adversely effected.  You chimed in with mine is not dead yet.

So, we have 5 owners, 6 dogs.

So...This is telling me that 1 person out of 5 is getting it right.

But more importantly....4 out of 5 are getting it wrong.

I guess my question would be, are dogs really worse off with the popularity of CM? What methods would JQP be using instead? Would they be more +R than CM's or less? What methods were they using before? Is JQP turning away from more positive methods to embrace CM's techniques or are they simply modifying their traditional methods? I think to imply that people who take up CM's techniques will have worse results than if they just kept on doing what they were doing, is a bit of a leap.

Noooooo Spence.  CM is influencing the average dog owner. The average dog owner being the one's who dumps their dogs at DPU's doorstep (not literally, but you know).

If you have that kind of influence and it goes all wrong, what do you do?

Do you just sit back and say "it ain't my fault"?

At least JM complains about the people and not CM, if everybody here could be the same way then i would agree with you all,

 I don't think they are seeking more positive methods...why pay for something when one can get it free from the tele.

I think there is a possibility that they are expanding on traditional methods.  Whereas once the dog may have gotten a yell and sit, a dog may be getting a yell a sit, and a yank.

This is what the sheperd owner showed me anyway.  I really don't know.  My point here is not to dog CM.....I mean really, I don't want to see this stuff, it breaks my heart..maybe the moral of the story is, if you don't see it, it doesn't effect you.

It effected me when I saw it.  I'm just weak when it comes to dogs.

I guess my question would be, are dogs really worse off with the popularity of CM? What methods would JQP be using instead? Would they be more +R than CM's or less? What methods were they using before? Is JQP turning away from more positive methods to embrace CM's techniques or are they simply modifying their traditional methods? I think to imply that people who take up CM's techniques will have worse results than if they just kept on doing what they were doing, is a bit of a leap.

ORIGINAL: JM
My point here is not to dog CM.....I mean really, I don't want to see this stuff, it breaks my heart..just weak when it comes to dogs.

JM, I agree it is hard to watch a dog be mistreated. The point I was trying to make is there are a lot of people out there who yell, hit, beat, yank, roll etc. who have never seen or heard of CM. This is the way they believe you train/treat your dog. If these same people were to watch someone like CM, I wonder if they might possibly at least learn how to do traditional training correctly? Now these dogs may not have as good of life as one whose owner uses +R only, but they may be better off than they were before. For example a few days ago there was a post "Naughty little puppy" The poster described how he hit his dog and tied him to a post for 45 minutes when he did not 'come' and how he later that day "beat him again" and tied him to the post for chewing a rug.
I'm not convinced that this dog would be worse off if his owner were to follow CM's methods. If he actually followed them correctly, I know the dog would be far better off.

Correctly is the key word here...which is not what I am seeing.  I am really thinking that the average dog owner watches CM and thinks their dog needs "more" of what CM is doing, therefore they escalate on the yanks and such.

They apply the words stubborn, says the dog knows he shouldn't be doing something but does it anyway, which in truth the dog is not understanding what the owner wants...like the dog has a vendetta...strong word...maybe an agenda..

Apply the word alpha and dominate to a dog that is not understanding and you could come up with stubborn, willful, disobediant, etc, = more yanks, more authority, even escalating to abuse..etc.

I'm not convinced that this dog would be worse off if his owner were to follow CM's methods. If he actually followed them correctly, I know the dog would be far better off.

I agree 100% with you there, but there is nothing we can do to change those stupid people and not because of them we will give less credit to CM (i know you dont), just like i said before, should we dislike Bruce Lee just because a guy saw him on a movie and decided he could do the same agaist 5 people and got beat up? or is that guy's fault for thinking he could do the same without proper knowledge?

 
Espence, I personally would have less of an issue if CM was more specific about which parts of what he was doing were dangerous and WHY.  As it is he says "you too can be a good pack leader!" at the end of the show and people take that over and above the disclaimer.  Frankly I'd have an issue if there was a clip of Bruce Lee at the end of his films saying; "You too can be a martial arts expert!"  Don't you think that would be just a weensy bit irresponsible maybe?

Same here...that needs to go...he is putting liability (and responsibility) right smack back on his shoulders.

And also with the dominant and alpha terms...back to my previous post concening confusion

...the owner of the sheperd was giving orders, the dog was clearly confused..brows all bunched together..when I mentioned confusion to the owner I got a " oh no, he is being dominant"

When a dog does not obey, in all likelihood he is not understanding what you want from him.  You as a handler, are not communicating properly... 

I really feel if you have to leash pop, the handler has the problem communicating to the dog. (redundant)

Fix it.

ALPHA and DOMINATE is really not on a dogs list of things to be worrying about.

His most worry IMO is what does this psycho human want with me when he does all of this yanking.

So, IMO, this is the least of what advocates could be doing.  Instead of arguing with those who are trying to get these messages across, why can't we join forces and tell people what they are doing wrong?

Why instead defend the man?  The man is not taking responsibility in my book...and is not worth it.  Let's instead defend the dogs.

I don't get it.

ORIGINAL: JM

Correctly is the key word here...which is not what I am seeing.  I am really thinking that the average dog owner watches CM and thinks their dog needs "more" of what CM is doing, therefore they escalate on the yanks and such.

This way of thinking is unfortunate and saddly true - if one Paxil makes me feel better, then 10 will make me feel even better. Does the potenial for abuse out weigh the benefits? I guess that is the question d'jour?

I haven't posted much on the topic of + vs traditional, but I have read most of the discussions over the many, many months waiting patiently for the 'truth' to be finally revealed. I have been totally open and respectful of both sides of the arguement. I now realize that this is no different (to me) than the very heated and passionate debates that filled the forum about 4 years ago over RAW vs KIBBLE.
Everyone had been happily going along discussing how and what kibble they fed their dog. Then all of a sudden a NEW theory (which was really an old theory) advocating Raw diets for dogs was thrown into the mix. Well let me tell you, there were as many if not more threads covered in red ink and/or closed. Personal attacks and hurt feelings were everywhere. People were suspended over it. On one side you had the Raw feeders who accused the kibble feeders of intentionally slowy killing their dogs. One the other side, the kibble feeders were adamant their dogs were healthier and it was impossible for todays domesticated canines to exist on a wolf's diet. Everyone pulled out the science and 'stories' that supported their side. Just like with CM, many people jumped on the Raw wagon without doing the proper education and research. They simply fed the dog, tons of raw meat with no sups or balance. And yes dogs became ill and some even died because of it. So the Raw feeders countered with the arguement that there was nothing wrong with the diet - IF DONE CORRECTLY. The kibble feeder were convinced that it was too complicated for the average person and that it should not be promoted for that reason. (Sound familiar?)
Anyways I think you get my point!

So is there much if any debate about Raw diets now? No. Why? Because through all the heavy debate, hurt feelings, personal attacks etc. we actually learned the thruth.
1. Raw is not beneficial for all dogs. You feed what works best.
2. The benefits of Raw can only be realized if it is done properly. You must educate yourself.
3. No one was right. No one was wrong. The truth was some where in the middle.

Thanks for articulating that so beautifully, which to me has always been the point...it's not about us.

It's about the dogs.

Some dogs do well on raw, some dogs don't. (when I tried raw on Zeus he gave me a "you really need to cook that" look

As far as animosity, I thought we handled ourselves well and conversed like adults...except for a few instances, but most likely the persons would have worked through it if left to their own devices.

ORIGINAL: Chuffy

Espence, I personally would have less of an issue if CM was more specific about which parts of what he was doing were dangerous and WHY.  As it is he says "you too can be a good pack leader!" at the end of the show and people take that over and above the disclaimer.  Frankly I'd have an issue if there was a clip of Bruce Lee at the end of his films saying; "You too can be a martial arts expert!"  Don't you think that would be just a weensy bit irresponsible maybe?

 
Thats when the IQ of each person comes out, if they say that at the end of a Bruce Lee's movie then what i should do, first of all, they would be right, i could be a martial arts expert if i want to, the question is how?
 
Should i get into a martial arts school and learn about it or i can be an expert with what i only saw in the movie? i believe that when a technique could be dangerous thats when the disclaimer appears, if he just talks about exersice your dog daily and stuff like that then thats when he says everybody could be a pack leader
 
Its not like he's "dont do it but do it", example:
 
CM trying to place a leash on an aggressive dog = disclaimer appears
 
CM rollerblading with a high energy dog = disclamer does not appear = "you could be a pack leader too"