Reward: Millan (Dead or Alive)

OK, first of all I don't HATE CM.  ANd I do AGREE with some of the stuff he says/does, but here we are concentrating on WHY we dislike/criticise him, so here I go:

The reaction he inspires (both +ve AND -ve).  I find myself thinking "Get a grip!  He's just a celebrity for gawd's sake!"  And this negative feeling kind of goes towards CM.

I find myself on a similar wavelength to MANY CM supporters here.  It is not at all a case of "Dislike the man, dislike his fans".  It is more the other way round.  When a CM supporter is annoying me I find myself again projecting that towards CM rather than the person I am conversing with.  All the time actually.  Even if a person is actually saying stuff that CM may not ever have said or agreed with.  Sometimes if they are "parroting" stuff that CM says.... even if I agree with it, the "parroting" part annoys me.  And I load all that annoyance on to CM.  Kind of linked to the figurehead thing.  He is like a lightning rod for criticism of "his" style of training.

I don't think the disclaimer is enough.  I think on one hand he is saying DON'T try this, on the other he says "You too can be a pack leader".  And he is not clear enough about which parts are risky and why they are risky.  Or why they should not ordinarily be attempted, not for safety reasons, but because they are not the kindest method available and may really upset your dog.  Mind you, see above paragraph.... I suppose I SHOULD be blaming/criticising the folks who do it wrong/replicate stuff that should be left to experts/made the wrong choice for their dog etc.  But blaming CM is easier!

I don't like "The Walk".  There is a great deal of implication there that this is the Be all and End all, the cornerstone of his techniques, the number one thing your dog needs.  I don't think the latter is the case.  I truly think a 45 min strict lead walk is not anywhere NEAR enough for a HUGE number of dogs.  Play, learning, games, free running, the chance to express normal bhvrs... these are all just as important if not more so.  I am squeamish about the use of a treadmill and I SUSPECT that he over uses it, or over-advocates it.  That is JUST a suspicion though.  I have seen him advocate a level of exercise which I thought was too much on at least one occasion.  I don't get how he says "Birds fly, fish swim, dogs walk".  I dont see that logic at all in the natural world.  If anything, dogs are territorial and don't just go off on a jolly crossing anothers patch just for the sake of it.... or am I wrong?

I don't like how he says he is not a "trainer".  I have seen him train several dogs not to do something.  He uses punishment rather than rewards, but this does not make it magically "not training, but being a behaviour specialist instead".  I would rather he was "straight" with his viewers.

I don't think he is fair with his punishments.  I think he should say WHY he is using a punishment rather than a reward based method - why did rewards fail?  Why is punishment better suited for this dog?

I have seen dogs on his show that I would describe as "shut down".  I have felt sorry for dogs that he has worked with.

I think he sets too much store by "speaking dog".  Certainly, a few simple "broad" gestures can help you communicate something to a dog and build a rapport with him, but it is unwise to set too much store by it.  Dogs know we are not dogs.  In addition, it relies a great deal on assumption.... "knowing" that X will work because the dog interpreted it how you expected him to.... but perhaps it will work simply because the dog will view the act as aggression/threat from another species and responds accordingly to avoid it?  I think it is very important to keep this in mind.

I don't think he is all that GREAT at speaking dog and even less good at listening in Dog.  I therefore resent the "whisperer" title.  In some of the earliest shows I have seen the thought "He is more of a Dog Screamer than a dog whisperer" came to mind.

I don't like how much he seems to disregard how much breed affects each dog he works with.  If dogs were all the same, we wouldn't use different dogs for different tasks or lifestyles.  I think the idea that working with an Akita is essentially no different to working with a terrier to working with a retriever to working with a herder is incorrect.  To spread the idea that its not is wrong in my view.  How loud are we shouting at potential owners to RESEARCH the breeds they are interested in?  He is basically telling everyone he reaches that that is not necessary.  And how many dogs end up in shelters each year, at least in part because their owners did NOT do that research?

That's all I have time for, for now.  Sorry it is so long.

I used to post on a NDR board where a person used to come in and think everyone for their posts and kind of "lead" the thread and guide people in a "question and answer" session. I HATED that lady! I used to call her the "teacher". No kidding, I would tell her, "This is not your classroom." And now I'm kind of doing that here and the irony doesn't escape me. I'm hating myself right now. Having said that:

Chuffy, Thank you so much. That was a great response! LOL  I'm glad you typed it out after losing it. What a drag!

The celebrity thing: I get this. What's interesting is that I'm always the one defending the celebrity. I don't understand why people hate Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Tom Cruise. I don't particularly like them, but my God! Some people really hate them! LOL

Chuffy

I don't think the disclaimer is enough.  I think on one hand he is saying DON'T try this, on the other he says "You too can be a pack leader".

Great point. And yes, you should be blaming the individuals. I'm one, though. I have never had to do any of the more physical things he does with dogs (the red zone cases) because I have normal dogs. And I wouldn't even if I had problem dogs. But I use some of his other less physical techniques on my dogs. But I had to make that call. And take responsibility for the outcome.

The walk: I think he advocates the walk because these dogs aren't getting ANYTHING. That's why they end up as behavior problems in the first place. People don't exercise their dogs. A 45 minute walk is pure freedom to many dogs. Too many people just want to have their pretty doggie be there when they are ready for it and sit in the corner otherwise.

Chuffy

I don't like how much he seems to disregard how much breed affects each dog he works with.

Why do you say this? Because from everything I've seen, just the opposite is true.

Cesar Millan

I often say that a dog is animal first, then dog, then breed, then name.

Meaning that a dog is most importantly an animal. Then he's a dog, then he's the breed, and THEN he's Fido, your loving and trusted friend. He gives quite a bit of significance to breed.
 

I don't think anything IS "in it for them" any more than there is something "it it for them" when a person criticises a politician or celebrity. 

This thread has, in fact, taught me one thing:

Despite the validity of Cesar's sizable contribution to bringing the issue of dog training to the forefront....I am not sure it counteracts the divisiveness he inspires.  12 pages on, we are still having a this side/that side debate.  Like it or not, on a forum we are what we say, and people will form opinions of us based solely on what we say....so people on the "extremes" of each side are (and I have witnessed this on THIS forum) forming opinions about an entire person based on what they think of Cesar....and if what they think is a dissenting view, they write that person off as someone they could not learn from on any subject, and there are so many subjects OTHER than CM that we could be discussing right now and learning about.

The guy may be a genius with dogs for all I know (and I don't know)....but is it worth this?  I'm just not sure that it is. 

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

I don't like how much he seems to disregard how much breed affects each dog he works with.

Why do you say this? Because from everything I've seen, just the opposite is true.

Cesar Millan

I often say that a dog is animal first, then dog, then breed, then name.

Meaning that a dog is most importantly an animal. Then he's a dog, then he's the breed, and THEN he's Fido, your loving and trusted friend. He gives quite a bit of significance to breed.

It's not that he has specifically said it anywhere, it is just what I see whenever I watch (which is admittedly not as often as others here).  I see him use the same techniques on dogs of different sizes, breed groups, personality types...  Also because "breed" is only one above "individual", it kind of doesn't SEEM to have much importance.  Its almost at the bottom of the list. He rarely says XYZ because we are dealing with a   KWIM?  I would like to see that, I really would.  I would love it if all those millions of non dog savvy people watching his show could SEE that not all dogs are alike and (for example) a husky is not just like a retriever but more wolf-y looking...

lostcoyote

i've yet to really see the 2'cd part of Ias's question get an attempted answer.... just the why's of why some people dislike cm - but not..... the what's in it for them part.

Here's what I think about that. Where are the CM haters? LOL They're not here for the most part. How can that be answered by CM supporters? It can't.

Secondly, I'm not sure it's significant. We know (or we've tried to figure out) WHY they don't like/approve of him. What's in it for them? Hey, I don't like George Bush (sorry to keep bringing him into this   ) but what's in it for me? Nothing. I just don't like him. And I know WHY, I can list the reasons, but there's nothing "in it" for me. Know what I mean?

We could also ask What's in it for CM supporters to support him? Well, that's kind of understood. I support him because I like his techniques and I see the results of his approach in my dogs. What's in it for me? Something I understand and resonate with. Good, happy, well-balanced dogs.

I'm just saying I think it's all part of the same question and I don't think CM supporters can or should answer the "what's in it for you" part of the question. Does that make sense?

lostcoyote

  i've yet to really see the 2'cd part of Ias's question get an attempted answer.... just the why's of why some people dislike cm - but not..... the what's in it for them part.

Why hasn't anyone answered? Perhaps because they are tired of threads like this, not interested in having their answers dissected, not interested in being placed on the couch after they answer, but who really knows...only they do, and so far, they ain't talkin' lol.

rwbeagles

only they do, and so far, they ain't talkin' lol.

Nope.  And I find that VERY interesting given the title/original meaning of this thread.... 

Benedict

12 pages on, we are still having a this side/that side debate.

That's just reality. There ARE 2 sides to this. We just don't have to HATE each other! LOL There are democrats and republicans, religious and atheists, country folk and city slickers, but there doesn't have to be so much animosity between the two sides. And I, for one, feel a lot more understanding of the other side, thanks in no small part to your honest contribution.

Benedict

there are so many subjects OTHER than CM that we could be discussing right now and learning about.

True. But my hope isn't to learn more about Cesar. We can do that anywhere. My hope is to learn a bit more about ourselves and OUR relationships with each other.

When you compare this one thread (that's been pretty productive, in my opinion) to the loads of threads before it, is it really all that much? Tucking the Cesar debate away will only make sure it's there the next time someone brings up his name. At least those of us who have read and participated in this thread have a clue of why these automatic feelings of anger, defense, resentment and even hatred come up.

I feel I've gotten a lot out of this thread. And I hope I'm not the only one... If I am, close her down! LOL I'm not typing all this out for just myself!

FourIsCompany

That's just reality. There ARE 2 sides to this.

My point is that this will forever continue to be the same debate for as long as people view it as a this side/that side issue.  And I just don't see that changing, because human nature dictates that it won't.

Instead of Democrats and Republicans, there is a big group of people who hold political views.

Instead of religious people and atheists, there is a big group of people who have belief systems.

Instead of Cesar Milan vs. the +R crowd, we are a big group of people who hold the view that dogs need to be trained by a method that resonates with the owner of said dog.  

But we don't live in an ideal world....so these debates will rage on. 

rwbeagles

Perhaps because they are tired of threads like this,

That could very well be. But I have NEVER been "allowed" to discuss this subject as I have in this thread (on other boards) The threads always get closed! LOL  And I haven't really been around here that long for all the other threads that people have gotten sick of. So I appreciate your tolerance. I understand being sick of it. But people who have not been very involved in it aren't sick of it and (as you can see) have a lot to say and learn.  

Pretty good summation. Even when I was more supportive of CM, I didn't use any of his techniques from the show. The scruff I learned somewhere else. My main reason for disagreeing with his methods is that I think they accent on the wrong syllable, so to speak. And yes, in the wrong hands, will create disaster. Personally, I found to the total positve (including -P) approach to be more effective to me. To train lasting behaviors and a trust in following me that has negated the need for corrections, especially harsh, physical ones.

What I do appreciate about him is is desire to help, his work with rescue dogs, his desire to end BSL and being a champion of bully and guarding breeds. I appreciate that his fame has done more to get the average person to think about training. And I catch him once in a while doing something that I agree with, which is usually something that doesn't involve large physical corrections but more subtle behavioral cues, even if I think he lacks the proper terminology.

ETA:

I don't look down upon those who value CM's approach. And even if we disagree on a point, I can still share a laugh or find some common ground. That's the advantage of being an old fart. The ability to disagree and still be friends. We are all, regardless of training approach, crazy about dogs. However, it is unfair that Espencer has 6-pack abs that us old farts have to compete with.

Just kidding. I'm too old to care any more.

FourIsCompany

rwbeagles

Perhaps because they are tired of threads like this,

 

That could very well be. But I have NEVER been "allowed" to discuss this subject as I have in this thread (on other boards)

I think this thread is still open because of the efforts of everyone posting here's, commitment to keep it civil. I think that is a fabulous development personally. I am hoping it's catching...LOL!

I have been thinking about this some more and I recall one of my first posts here when I rejoined.... I was struggling to express taht I felt the title "whisperer" was ill-deserved on Millan's part because (IMO) a "whisperer" of any animal is one who is fluent in that animal's "language" and uses it to build a rapport with the animal.  From there, trust develops and the animal chooses to follow the person's wishes of his own free will.  This contrasts with traditional training, which is more adversarial.  Take Monty Roberts - years and years of horse "breaking" and he comes along with a gentler way.... yet CM has the same title yet appeared (in his early shows at least) to be taking dog training BACK several years... I thought he was too adversarial for the title.  I thought he didn't listen to what the dogs were telling him enough.  As I say that was more with his earlier stuff, but as they say; s**t sticks.... or, to put it more nicely, you dont get a second chance to make a first impression.