Reward: Millan (Dead or Alive)

But all in all they are all dog trainers to some extent. I wonder why he does not want to be known as a dog trainer?

lostcoyote

. so anyways, definitions ---- just as we all do herein these boards.

 Yes and that is why I have never had an issue with him saying he is not a trainer. To me he is a trainer but by his definition he is not. Works for me.

dgriego

I wonder why he does not want to be known as a dog trainer?

Another possibility occurred to me. Maybe it's just to define the difference between what he does with dogs and what he does with their people. He trains the people to behave a certain way and the dogs, being dogs, naturally follow with doggie behavior. He rehabilitates dogs who for whatever reason aren't balanced.

Just a thought.  

In another debate, a person had a philosophical issue with controlled deprivation in +R training. That is, having the dog work for the treat.

Other dogs are scared by the sound of a clicker.

Many have noted that Dunbar works primarily with puppy training.

Donaldson is noted for her strong personality and acerbic diatribes.

Just recently, it was implied that Pryor was taking credit for inventing clicker training.

And so, we say, do what works.

But I can't recall any time when CM was ever thought to be wrong. Not ever.

There are times where I have disagreed with CM's diagnosis of an issue or his solution. My disagreement would be based on what I have learned from my handful of books and half a dozen sites in my favorites folder. But of course, I am wrong, because my opinion differs with his. That is, I think, another thing that some people don't get about the CM thing. If someone disagrees or questions his method or thinking or terminology, there is sometimes a string of apologetics with some odd analogies and metaphors which may sidewind into semantics, and then into philosophy. Anything but the idea that CM might be wrong or mistaken.

For example, the episode with the dog in the bath. It seems that I am the only one to remember that one. Where he used a "dominance" move, specifically scruffing hard enough to immobilize the head for what was a fear or anxiety response. And this wasn't a red zone dog but a family pet who had an issue about being in water. And my question was why use a last resort red zone emergency strong arm tactic for what was a fear response in an otherwise regular family dog, which might be better suited be re-conditioning to make the bath a good thing?

No answer. And of course, I might be wrong for questioning his judgement in that, as well as viewing his presentation of one treat as they enter the bathtub as "positive reinforcement" as being inaccurate, thereby causing me to doubt his understanding.

Of course, I could be wrong. I have been wrong before.

And my question was why use a last resort red zone emergency strong arm tactic for what was a fear response in an otherwise regular family dog, which might be better suited be re-conditioning to make the bath a good thing? No answer.

ron2

Just recently, it was implied that Pryor was taking credit for inventing clicker training.

I hope you're not talking about what I said in this thread about that because that isn't AT ALL what I was saying.

ron2

But I can't recall any time when CM was ever thought to be wrong. Not ever.

  By whom? Because I've heard plenty of times when people thought he was wrong.

ron2

But of course, I am wrong, because my opinion differs with his.

ron, there are hard-core Cesar supporters who would call you wrong just because your opinion differed from Cesar's. But most likely, they agree with Cesar and have what they see as good reason to. So, my guess is that they're not saying you're wrong because you deign to disagree with Cesar, they're saying you're wrong because you disagree with them. I don't happen to buy this "right" and "wrong" bull.

lostcoyote

to ask anyone else why he did that would only be speculation as to why he did it..... speculation being in the form of "maybe this"..... "maybe that"...... "i bet he did it cuz".........

Quite true. So, I could just state that he was wrong, imo. And if he happens to peruse this forum he could explain to me why he did that. Sounds fair.

FourIsCompany

But no one is upset that Karen Pryor herself didn't invent the thing. Why is it a problem that CM uses the same techniques that other people use? They got many of "their" ideas from other people, too. 

Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I'm not upset that he's using techniques that he didn't invent or that other people used first, and I don't think anyone else is either. Absolutely, people borrow ideas from other people, and maybe expand on or adapt them. Not a problem at all - for Cesar or anyone else. If a training technique is humane and effective, other people will and should use it.

I was trying to address why some people don't get why other people are such rabid fans of Cesar when the good things he's doing aren't new, or revolutionary, or particularly different than any other professional trainer. In other words, what makes him special? Lets toss out the controversial techniques because I've never seen someone say they love Cesar because of the rolling, pinning, or flooding. Maybe people do, but I've personally never seen it mentioned in a discussion.

But people do say things like "I love Cesar because he treats dogs like dogs". But ALL good trainers treat dogs like dogs, so do they like all trainers as much as they like Cesar? Well, no. Or they say "I love Cesar because he tells people they should exercise their dogs". But ALL good trainers stress that a tired dog is a good dog and that they require exercise and interaction with their owners - a dog tied up on a chain in the backyard is a recipe for behavior issues, that's common knowledge. So do they like all trainers that discuss exercising your dog as much as they like Cesar? Well, no. And on and on it goes. 

FourIsCompany

Firstly, he would disagree that he's a dog trainer. He doesn't do obedience or give commands. Secondly, there's much more than those techniques that make him different from dog trainers, in my opinion. Such as the simple, straightforward way he puts forth information. The way he talks about the importance of energy and reading the dog. And even if he got absolutely NOTHING from his lifetime of living with, studying and being devoted to the ways of dogs, he DOES have the forum to reach millions of people. Why shouldn't he do it?

Not saying he shouldn't use whatever forum he has available to reach people. But the thing about not being a dog trainer is just semantics. If he says that because he's not about teaching basic obedience skills, then that's a very narrow definition of training. Any time I'm teaching my dogs to do something I want them to do, or teaching them not to do something I don't want them to do, that's training, whether we're taking about sitting on command, or not eating the cat. And that's what he does, he deals with behavior problems by teaching people how to make their dogs behave the way they want them to. Also, any good trainer (profeessional trainer, not PetSmart type training), will project calm authority and read the dog by observing it's behavior.

FourIsCompany

CM doesn't claim to be the owner or inventor of such things. Did Ms. Clothier claim she invented it? I doubt it. Did she credit the original source of her idea? I doubt it. Why aren't people upset with her for using this technique or  consider it a problem?  Is it possible that this idea occurred to Cesar and he thought he was introducing it to the world? (I actually doubt he thinks he invented it.)

Like I said, I have no idea if she borrowed the idea from someone else or came up with it herself. She is an incredibly intuitive trainer, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was her idea, but since she doesn't say, I truly have no idea. I don't expect Cesar to credit the original source of any of his techniques, and I'm not upset that he uses techniques that other people have used before. I don't expect him or anyone else to invent new techniques and only use those. Really, it's not a problem, and not the point I was trying to make at all. I'm looking for what sets him apart from others who deal with dogs with issues - trainers, behaviorists, or a rehabilitator, whatever you want to call them. And not finding much except he has a TV show and they don't.

The only thing I got from his book that I hadn't read about before in the dozens of dog books I've read in the 21 years I've owned dogs was the idea of using his calm stable pack of dogs to teach other dogs how to behave. I thought that was a very interesting idea. I think dogs can learn things from other dogs in a way that they just can't from people. Unfortunately very few people have access to a similar pack of dogs, so the practical applications are limited.

Like I said, I'm not bashing Cesar. He's brought dog training to the masses, and that's a good thing. It astonishes me that so many people never thought to train their dogs until they became horrible tyrants. But I've always had German shepherds and not training them is simply not an option. He's charismatic, obviously cares about dogs, and seems to connect with their owners too. And he has a compelling rags to riches story and he looks good on television! But nobody cops to liking him because he's cute, loves dogs and seems like a really nice guy.

Cassidys Mom

In other words, what makes him special?

Of course, I can only answer that for me and all I can really say is that after watching his show so many times, I have "fallen in love" with him. (Yes, my DH knows. He's in love with him, too!) Hearing Cesar talk about dogs and his respect for them... seeing the genuine concern he has and  watching them respond to him... seeing how happy the people are and how happy that makes him ... and really understanding where he's coming from as a person all make me really like the man. So, I don't know if people have feelings about these other trainers, or just think they're really good with dogs, but being on TV and having a show, Cesar really has the opportunity to make an impression on millions of people as a person. Not just a set of techniques. I feel like I KNOW him. He's very personable, nice and caring. Plus, I think he does have a gift. Nothing that we can't do, too, but to him, it seems to come naturally.  

Now, if I had the opportunity to "get to know" Karen Pryor, maybe I'd feel the same about her, but all I really know about her are her techniques. I don't know who she is. And maybe many people don't like Cesar the way I do. And that's cool. But he feels like a friend, someone I know. Maybe that's why a lot of people are so defensive of him. You put him down, you're putting down their friend... Who knows? That may just be why people are defensive of him. Because somewhere in the back of their minds, they're defending someone they really like.

dgriego

Chuffy

True, he says he is not a trainer.  I have heard him say so myself.  This an area where he and I disgaree. 

 

 I have to agree with you on this one Chuffy. I also think he is a dog trainer. But I also think that most "animal behaviorists" are also dog trainers. Anyone that teaches a dog how to behave is in some fashion a "dog trainer". Call yourself a psychologist or a behaviorist it does not change the fact that you teach dogs.

 Now mind you I know that many behaviorists put a lot more time into their credentials and I give them kudo’s for all their extra schooling. But I have also met a few down to earth un educated (in school) types that have a pretty awesome knowledge of how dogs and/or horses work.

I thoroughly agree. This actually really peeves me. I don't know if my understanding of training is way out of whack or something, but I consider anyone who deliberately changes the behaviour of an animal to be a trainer, regardless of how they do it. To me, it feels like this assertion of Cesar's that he isn't a trainer simply tells me that he doesn't really understand what he's doing. And that casts doubt on his methods for me. I tend to ignore the assertion because I don't understand it and it quite frankly really bugs me. It's just semantics and it annoys me that he feels like he needs to set himself apart by refusing to acknowledge that what he's doing is the same as every other trainer, essentially. 

 As an incorrigible cynic I have to say that he likely avoids calling himself a trainer as a marketing decision.  There's a definite degree of marketing genius at work with the "dog whisperer."  Calling yourself a "whisperer"or a "behaviorist" opens the door to more layers of marketing and appeals to a broader audience.  The "whisperer" moniker allows him to tap into a certain mystical or spiritual aspect, while "behaviorist" carries with it a certain quality of danger as CM climbs into the lions den with a red zone dog (plug in spooky music here.)  Playing it straight and calling yourself a trainer shrinks the audience to just those hardcore dog lovers who turn to watch somebody "fade a lure" or "mark behavior."  No room for spooky music or the potential that somebody might get bitten on that show.

I have always considered behaviorists as a subset of dog trainers, not separate from them.  They are a more specialized form of trainer but they are still dog trainers. I would never trust a behaviorist who could not also obedience-train a dog to a high level. And what many trainers do, trainers who still don't call themselves anything but trainers, is much more than obedience training. Didn't he bring a trainer in on one show to trick train a firehouse dog? Why on earth could he have not done that himself? It's like he feels that obedience training is beneath him.

My question is also not so much that Cesar claims he invented anything but why so many people think he's all that special because like others have said the things that I agree with that he says and does are not in any way new. And the other stuff that I don't agree with? That's really not new. It's so not new that it's really outdated and hardly anyone does it that way anymore becuase better ways have been found and the basis for them has been disproved. I mean, I used to love him, during his first season. But that was because I'd never in my life read a book about dogs or dog training and never really thought that deeply about it. The moment I investigated more from other sources I realized, this guy is totally on the wrong track and I can't believe that I was so in to him and I definitely can't believe that I did some stuff to Conrad based on it. Yikes.

corvus

I don't know if my understanding of training is way out of whack or something, but I consider anyone who deliberately changes the behaviour of an animal to be a trainer, regardless of how they do it.

I think it's fine for you to think of Cesar as a trainer. But I believe what HE calls himself in his prerogative. I guess I believe that everyone should have the honor (privilege? responsibility?) of calling themselves what they want to call themselves. I have had the experience of being told that I am a Republican because of my views on illegal immigration and firearm ownership. However, it has also been persistently claimed that I'm a Democrat because of my pro-choice views and my opinions on religion. The TRUTH is that I am neither. Have NEVER been either. It's nobody else's business to tell me what "camp" I am in. So I try to refrain from placing other people in boxes and I like to allow them to express themselves as they wish to.

After all, it all depends on each of our definition of the word "trainer", and that can hold many definitions. To me, it's not "anyone who deliberately changes the behavior of an animal". That would encompass all trainers, behaviorists, animal psychologists, dog racers, zookeepers and just about anyone who owns an animal. And it's ok if that's your definition. But that's clearly not what Cesar means when he uses the word. 

I don't for the life of me, understand why someone would be peeved because of the word another person uses to describe themselves... There are things about all this that I don't "get", too. LOL

houndlove

My question is also not so much that Cesar claims he invented anything but why so many people think he's all that special

Did you read my post above about how many of his supporters have "gotten to know" the man behind the TV personality by watching his shows? I think I hit on why many people think he's special. His techniques may not be new or different but:

1. We know him. He "feels" like a friend. We've met his kids, his wife, we've seen him get emotional, we've seen his heartbreak, his joy. He's real. He is non-judgmental. He's caring. We know who the man is.

2. He puts the information out to the world in a straightforward, easy-to-remember and understand format that makes total sense to millions of people. His method encompasses many different methods from pack structure to praise and reward. He doesn't pick "one way" as the right way. He never puts other trainers or behaviorists down. And he deals more with correcting the people's behaviors so that the dogs will naturally be happier and more balanced. 

silverserpher

Playing it straight and calling yourself a trainer shrinks the audience to just those hardcore dog lovers who turn to watch somebody "fade a lure" or "mark behavior." 

I beg to differ. I watched both Dog Whisperer and It's Me or the Dog last night. They were on simultaneously. CM took a Rottie in who had a tendency lunge at and injure any guest coming in. Fortunately for the owners, CM's compound is only an hour or so away. I don't know what it would have taken if he didn't have the 40-dog pack. As it was, there were still corrections. But, eventually, CM was able to introduce the dog to his family and friends, who were able to give treats for calm behavior and for heeding obedience commands. Which shows me that there is some understanding of positive reinforcement, or at least trying to make the right way easy and rewarding and the wrong way not rewarding. I liked some of how he handled the female Pit mix that was afraid of the click noise on the oven, which was a sign of other problems. The part I liked was a combination of proper stance and acclimating himself to her. At the oven, he didn't correct but he didn't make a deal out of her fear, either.

It's Me or the Dog had the lady dealing with a manic family with two littermates, a cross between Labs and Great Danes, averaging over 100 lbs each. Pulling like crazy. One of the dogs had once been attacked and now attacked any strange dog. Her solution was to change the attitudes of the owners and in the immediate time being, use Gentle Leaders, which allows for some control over the walk until you can train differently. Plus, she made the point of telling them that once your dog has attacked another, there is no way to ever trust them fully again that it won't happen but you can retrain their response to other dogs, in a large extent.

Between the two, CM was friendly and personable, as he always is. The british lady seemed more like a mum.

Both seemed effective.

I can like one thing CM does and not like another. That does not make me a sheet flapping in the wind. It means that no one's perfect, we all have the right to disagree. I don't particularly like the Gentle Leader but it may be very effective. I trained walking manners differently than either method, without corrections and without special equipment. Of course, your mileage may vary.

And, FWIW, I still like the direction and tone of this thread. It seems we can disagree or just discuss and not have it become a war of our own personalities.