Reward: Millan (Dead or Alive)

Chuffy

 Thank you for your post, it is articulate and has helped me in understanding your position.

I like the guy but can agree that there are things that I do not agree with and some valid points to your post.

Where the inspiration he inspires brings out a negative response in you, it brings out a more positive one in me.

 I can also agree on the disclaimer to a point. Many training books that have been very well known over the years have no disclaimers at all, just an ABC of dog training, so IMO to judge him harshly because his disclaimers might not be sufficient is not fair, again that is how I see it, since I do agree that some of his methods could back fire if tried by someone with little understanding of dogs and depending on the personality and mental health of the dog in question. I do see where blaming Cesar is easier.

 The way I see it is that he has done more positive things for dogs than negative.

 I agree with you on the walk, it is not a cure all, some dogs do not need exercise to the extent of others and some need way more, walking strictly with no opportunity to stretch out and run, or just bob along and check stuff out is most likely boring for many dogs, I know mine require more, and I also agree that playing games with your dogs is important and he does not really touch on this aspect at all.

 The treadmill might be useful, I do not have one so I cannot really judge its value, but again I suspect that if I did use one to depend on it to much would bore my dogs, they like and need exercise but they also like and need mental stimulation and the treadmill really does not provide this IMO.

 On the trainer issue I would also have to agree with you, he says he is not a trainer in that he does not come in and teach your dog to sit, stay or other obedience commands, but the work that he does do involves training or at least my opinion of training. In all fairness to him though I think he is talking about basic obedience and tricks, which is not his thing. In one episode he even brought in a trainer (a clicker trainer actually) to teach the dog he was working with tricks. Many behaviorists call themselves behaviorists but again in my opinion they are trainers, behaviorists being a more “fancy” word for it.

I do not see his corrections as punishments and really the only one that I disagree with is the alpha roll. I can see the value of this exercise in placing a dog in a submissive position at times, but I would never do this with a strange dog or with a dog under stress, nor would I consider doing this in the presence of another dog or the presence of something the dog is afraid of. He uses it, I do not think he hurts the dogs nor is it his intention to hurt them. I have noticed this is something he does less and less now.

I have seen distressed dogs, but have also been impressed with how he has turned them around, the last episode had a dog that was basically shut down from fear and he used other stable dogs to communicate calmness to her. I do not think he worsens their state of mind; instead he assists them in getting past it.

 As for “speaking dog” I think he is awesome at reading dogs, and good at communicating to them. He has gotten better on the communication part this new season. He has always been good at reading them. There are two sides to the communication process, reading and “speaking. I would disagree that is a screamer. I like Cesar but I also believe that there are a few trainers out there that are better than him at the speaking part.

 I agree with Four on the breed part, I have seen the opposite of what you see. He takes breed into account and mentions it fairly often. His new book has a large section on breed.

 Anyway I enjoyed your post and it assisted me in seeing your side and perhaps in understanding you better. I appreciate that and hope this post may assist in you understanding mine.

 I think Four got it as good as anyone ever will.

On the subject of animal whisperers, Kathy Marks, I think it was, was the horse trainer on Barking Mad. She constantly said what she did anyone could do, but when she worked with a horse, they responded as if she could speak to them. Whether it was a scared horse or an aggressive horse, it was putty in her hands. It was a beautuful thing to watch and it always amazed me to see how she just knew exactly how much pressure and how much understanding was needed. She knew when a horse was truly afraid or just trying it on and changed her response accordingly. Horses quickly come to trust her.

From what I've seen of CM, dogs he treats are terrified of him. I know which one I think of as a whisperer. 

rwbeagles

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!

Ditto that.  I would LOVE to see this trend continue, particularly in this section.  As a mod it makes for much more pleasant reading and as a member it makes for much more pleasant participating.  

Everyone, whether participating or lurking, please remember this thread as an example of what debates CAN be on this forum. 

 I know that the question was addressed to ron, but I just want to poke my nose in here to say that even very dominant dogs can be trained using positive methods.  Two of my favorite Rottweilers, one German Shepherd, and several Mastiff mixes come to mind pretty immediately.  These were certainly not soft dogs, yet were all trained to a high level of obedience using clickers, lure/reward, shaping, 3 quadrants of OC - with no chokes, pinches, or physical correction.  The key is really the skill, consistency and insistence of the trainer, much more so than the method being too soft for the dog.  I have found that most training failures are from expecting too much of a dog that isn't fluent in a particular behavior yet.  And, that happens no matter what side of the argument you are on.

spiritdogs

I just want to poke my nose in here to say that even very dominant dogs can be trained using positive methods.

I agree. It can be done. And if that's the owner's preference and it works, I think that's the way it should be done. The point I'd like to make about this is that there seems to be a mindset that if you can use a clicker or reward-based or "+R only" form of rehab, you should. It's as though it's understood that the more intuitive and direct methods of behavior modification should only be employed as a last resort or on the more stubborn dogs or "hard cases" or if the owner doesn't have the talent, skill or consistency that it takes to do it "the better way".

I don't agree with that. I think the method(s) one should use is the one that best suits the application, for whatever reasons. For example, Jaia is what I would call a very stubborn and "hard" dog. And most times, I employ more intuitive methods in working with him and he thrives. When he developed a 'fear' of the vet's office all of a sudden, those methods didn't "seem" to me to be right. So I had to do something different. It's not a matter of skill or consistency (ANY method requires skill and consistency); it was a matter of determining which method(s) and techniques would work best for the combination of the dog, the owner, the issue and the circumstance. It turns out a hybrid method employing several forms of rehab (including the two methods we're discussing here) is what is working best for Jaia, myself, fear and the vet's office.

spiritdogs

The key is really the skill, consistency and insistence of the trainer, much more so than the method being too soft for the dog.

Again, I agree that skill and consistency are required, but that's true for any method. It's not a simple formula to apply: If you have a "soft" (sensitive or submissive) dog, you should use one method and if you have a "hard" (stubborn or dominant) dog, you should use another. There are many more factors to be considered, one being owner preference. I am much more successful using a method I feel comfortable with and confident of, rather than something I don't trust or approve of. I'm pretty sure we all agree with that. 

My point is that we all choose the way we work with dogs because we think it's best. Duh. And we're all intelligent, loving, conscientious people who are somewhat obsessed with doing "the right thing" for our dogs. And, surprisingly, our dogs are doing very well, regardless the methods we choose. There is no one "best" way. There is no one "right" way for changing the behavior of a dog. Several methods can be used and depending on the application, they all work!

It's like taking the freeway or the back roads to get to the same destination. Depending on your priorities, your vehicle, your time constraints and your mental state, you decide which to take. Neither is "better" because the outcome is the same.

FourIsCompany

The point I'd like to make about this is that there seems to be a mindset that if you can use a clicker or reward-based or "+R only" form of rehab, you should. It's as though it's understood that the more intuitive and direct methods of behavior modification should only be employed as a last resort or on the more stubborn dogs or "hard cases" or if the owner doesn't have the talent, skill or consistency that it takes to do it "the better way".

I would agree that CM's methods are more "direct" - as in, more physical.  I would strenuously disagree that they are more intuitive.

FourIsCompany

There are many more factors to be considered, one being owner preference.

FourIsCompany

Duh. And we're all intelligent, loving, conscientious people who are somewhat obsessed with doing "the right thing" for our dogs.

Not sure why the duh was necessary....that's a bit rude? Anyhow..."owner preference", ends where the dogs physical or mental well being begins IMO. If an owner's preference is to be harsh with a soft dog...IMO that is not okay...and I will say so. And so will many others here...so there's that.

Who is this "we"?....JUST the people who hang out in behavior? JUST the people who post on this forum? JUST the people who apply our methods? Having been on this forum a long time I can honestly say no..."we're" not all intelligent or loving...people come here who are neither of those things, people come here who want to do what's easiest....not best...people come here who want quick fixes with almost no work on their part....this forum is not just "us"...it is thousands of people who read and never post, etc. THOSE people are the one's we need to be keeping in mind when we make suggestions...IMO.

rwbeagles

Why hasn't anyone answered?

rwbeagles

not interested in having their answers dissected

Just wanted to repost this...because I do think it is a factor fueling these types of thread. Wasn't it stated a while back that "we're more alike, than we are different?"....IMO (and just mine I know) that's the truly important aspect of this convo to explore.

rwbeagles

Not sure why the duh was necessary....that's a bit rude? Anyhow..."owner preference", ends where the dogs physical or mental well being begins IMO. If an owner's preference is to be harsh with a soft dog...IMO that is not okay...and I will say so. And so will many others here...so there's that.

That's very true.  While each owner needs to believe in the manner of training they are using in order to use it effectively, it should never be about what satisfies some need of the owner...it should always be about a suitable method of learning for the dog.

This is true for people too.  I once landed a contract based on ONE thing that I said during the interview.  I was asked how I'd ensure that I got the message of the client across to the widest possible market, and I said:

"Well the most important thing to remember is that different people learn different ways.  Many people are visually oriented/stimulated, others are more aural in nature and must hear information in order to process it.  Still others learn kinetically - movement stimulates the learning areas of the brain.  In order to reach as many people as possible, you need to ensure that the message is spread out across all 3."  The client told me later that was the best answer to that question he had ever gotten.

At the risk of humanising dogs, I'd say the same holds true here - that you have to have enough tools in your "arsenal" to be able to tailor an appropriate training program for any dog that might come your way.  The fewer tools one has, the more likely it is that a "one size fits all" solution will be put in place, and while with +R training that is unlikely to do any harm beyond confusion/a slower training process, with more physical types of training you run the risk of having a dog shut down completely or rip your throat out.   

spiritdogs

 I know that the question was addressed to ron, but I just want to poke my nose in here to say that even very dominant dogs can be trained using positive methods.  Two of my favorite Rottweilers, one German Shepherd, and several Mastiff mixes come to mind pretty immediately.  These were certainly not soft dogs, yet were all trained to a high level of obedience using clickers, lure/reward, shaping, 3 quadrants of OC - with no chokes, pinches, or physical correction.  The key is really the skill, consistency and insistence of the trainer, much more so than the method being too soft for the dog.  I have found that most training failures are from expecting too much of a dog that isn't fluent in a particular behavior yet.  And, that happens no matter what side of the argument you are on.

I certainly agree that harder dogs can be trained with positive methods, I use positive methods myself....my rewards are what the dogs love ,may it be a ball or other favorite toys......but, what some members are trying to get across is that getting several harder dogs to live in harmony isn't just about a clicker and a treat, that's when management comes into place, so things like body blocking or loud marker noises work well for me.....I think it was Ron who mentioned a well trained show dog, a Husky that broke loose and at that point had no recall.Look in my sig line, I have two Husky mixes that don't take off, they stay with the rest of the dogs, and all form a good pack........and guess what, I didn't need a hunk of meat....tata....the pack is a wonderful thing, in that area I completely agree with CM.

AND, can I say it one more time, CM is not a typical trainer that one would employ for regular training session, nah, he gets called when all else hasn't worked, many clients of his have said that, so comparing his way to a regular training session is apples and oranges.

snownose

AND, can I say it one more time, CM is not a typical trainer that one would employ for regular training session, nah, he gets called when all else hasn't worked, many clients of his have said that, so comparing his way to a regular training session is apples and oranges.

OK, so...and this is a genuine question and not meant negatively at ALL...

Why is CM discussed so heavily on this board if this is the case?  If his methods are for dogs for whom absolutely nothing else has helped, why is he brought into discussions about ordinary training?  Do we have so many almost-lost-cause dogs here that it is warranted to discuss CM and his methods so much?

snownose

I think it was Ron who mentioned a well trained show dog, a Husky that broke loose and at that point had no recall.Look in my sig line, I have two Husky mixes that don't take off, they stay with the rest of the dogs, and all form a good pack........and guess what, I didn't need a hunk of meat....tata....the pack is a wonderful thing, in that area I completely agree with CM.

Another area I am uncomfortable with CM.  The assumption that dogs are pack animals.  They are very social animals and some have a much greater pack drive than others.  I see you have GSDs (well known for being "velcro";) huskies (which are very well known for team work) so I imagine both types have a high pack drive and you can use this to your advantage.  I can see why his methods would therefore make sense toyou, because it must resonate a lot with much of what you do anyway.  What about terriers or hounds who have been selectively bred, sometimes for CENTURIES to be more independent and aloof? To work independently of the handler?  The difference between dealing with a lab, a terrier and a herder is TRUE "apples and oranges", yet I don't see that come across in his show much at all....

Benedict

Why is CM discussed so heavily on this board if this is the case?  If his methods are for dogs for whom absolutely nothing else has helped, why is he brought into discussions about ordinary training?  Do we have so many almost-lost-cause dogs here that it is warranted to discuss CM and his methods so much?

Hmm, point.

I am sure snownose has mentioned taking in rescues, so has dgriego.  But I suspect both, as well as 4IC, MOSTLY deal with ordinary pets that are not nearly-lost-causes at all.... so I don't know about that.  Food for thought anyways...

Benedict

OK, so...and this is a genuine question and not meant negatively at ALL...

Why is CM discussed so heavily on this board if this is the case?  If his methods are for dogs for whom absolutely nothing else has helped, why is he brought into discussions about ordinary training?  Do we have so many almost-lost-cause dogs here that it is warranted to discuss CM and his methods so much?

 

Good question......

What CM brings to a home with a troubled dog is not only his way of trying to fix it, or at least a start to a better life for the dog and owner, but tools that should have been applied to managing the dog, like the exercise and structure deal.......the fact that a dog needs to be physically and mentally stimulated, and that a dog needs to be a dog not a human.....and I can tell you, I have seen some funny cases before, where I thought to myself that if I had to live in that environment I would go nuts. He basically restructures the behavior of the owner and the dog,he doesn't just work with the dog he will also work with the owner/handler. It's a whole package deal.......