NY Times published editorial on Cesar Millan

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

[color=#000000]"I don't think you will find any anti-hispanic people on this board, but illegal I think we all have issue with"[/color]
 
Deb...we do not ALL have issues with illegal immigrants, and I find it disappointing that you'd say something like that.

 
Agreed, RW.
 
not to take this thread in a different direction.

A little OT maybe, but if all the illegals in CA packed up and left, the price of produce would exceed the price of gas. A lot of people here illegally are doing jobs that absolutely nobody else is about to line up to do.  We just need to make the process of going from *illegal* to *legal* a little easier.[]

Joyce

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

[color=#000000]"I don't think you will find any anti-hispanic people on this board, but illegal I think we all have issue with"[/color]
 
Deb...we do not ALL have issues with illegal immigrants, and I find it disappointing that you'd say something like that.

 
Thank you Gina. I think the article was interesting but I don't see why the author felt the need to bring up Cesars lack of a green card. It has no relevance to his job.
 
And as far as illegal aliens, the way *I* feel is they're already here so let them stay. If they want to stay for the party, let them chip in for the keg and the majority are more than willing to do so.

OK folks,
 Lets stay on topic...the legal-illegal debate would be best left to rest on this thread

I am sorry Jaime, I did feel the need to address that comment but I will definitely move on at this time, apologies once again to you and to the forum.

Its just a journalism tactic.

Please, let's not bash journalists here. I would venture to say that most good journalists would agree that bashing someone on an unrelated matter to make a point is better left to the papers that are busy reporting on the alien four-headed baby. Sensationalism is not what good journalists aspire to.

I've watched CM sporadically, don't have strong feelings about him or his show, though, as with watching any trainer, I sometimes find tidbits that I think have value. I find that reality TV in general is less educational than dramatic, since the goal is to be more interesting than reality (otherwise, we'd turn off the TV and just all watch each other for entertainment!)

But if nothing else, I think it is a good thing to have dog training spotlighted on TV, in any way, shape or form, if only because it makes people aware that there is an option that can be tried before dumping the dog.

I still remember growing up when we had a particularly difficult German Shorthaired Pointer named Amber. Not surprisingly, she was a strong willed, stubborn dog, and when my parents had problems with her growling and snapping at visiting kids, they had no idea what to do. So the dog got shut downstairs when kids came over, or my parents worked to not have kids over. And not surprisingly, the dog got worse with kids. I always think, man, if we knew then the stuff that I know now, what a different life that dog would have had!!

When I had problems with Jess early on, and responded by making socializing her a constant in my life, my Mom used to shake her head and say, "Man, you have nerves of steel" (I didn't, really, I was scared out of my wits, but I also knew it was the only way I was going to fix the problem). After all, it DOES seem counter intuitive at first glance to constantly do the thing that seems to bring out the worst in your dog.

But over time, as she saw Jessie's transformation, she started wondering if she'd done things differently with Amber, if she'd socialized her instead of shutting her away, would things have turned out totally differently?

Of course this is going back 30 years, and few people really knew about trainers then, certainly not like they do today.

But it makes me realize, anything that puts the idea of dog training in the public eye has some merit, in my mind. Because far too many people give up their dogs, and far too many dogs end up on doggie death row, simply because no one realized that you CAN fix many, many problems. Especially if you start work on it early.

Jan

Well actually the "illegal immigrant" comment was used to illustrate CM's "compelling story."  As in "bad boy does good."  The author was communicating that part of CM's story is compelling and interesting because he came to the US in an other than legal way.

I liked the commentary in it's entirety, however I would like to see a counter point published, in the interest of fairness.  I am not a CM fan, I think I've made that clear.  But I do like to see fairness in journalism.  I did not like CM's quote about women being another "species" nor did I like the fact that he lumps women into his simple cookie cutter profile of always "affection and then discipline."  Obviously he never met my grandmother who preferred to say I love you by giving us very strict guidelines and backing them up with the back of her hand.

In fact, many animal behaviorists believe that in the long run meeting aggression with aggression breeds more aggression.

Isn't that what Anne (spiritdogs) has been saying forever in her signature? 

I do not fault anyone that sees CM as a dog whisperer.  I do wish that they would at least listen to the other side of training, and not discount the positive reinforcement side, for the sake of fairness.  After all, which would you rather do, have your dog submit to your whims or have your dog obey you because they want to?

I totally agree with you, Jan. Even the debate over whether CM is 'good' or 'bad' helps the cause of dogs everywhere, because if CM is bad, what's good? and vice versa. And while I think CM is unnecessarily harsh, I still think it's better for something to be done than nothing at all as long as dogs aren't getting seriously hurt. Xerxes has the right of it, too. Maybe we need a positive reinforcment representative to boom into stardom to show people how else it can be done. [] (Where's Barking Mad when you need them?).

I do wish that they would at least listen to the other side of training, and not discount the positive reinforcement side, for the sake of fairness. 

To be honest, I wish ALL trainers would listen to other trainers' methodoligies with an open mind, as I believe it would make them better trainers. Even if you don't think something is for you, or you don't believe it works, why not learn about it to be sure there isn't something you can take from it that might make you a better trainer?

It is very easy to get the "my way is the RIGHT way and all other methods are no good," state of mind, because, after all, we choose our own way because we BELIEVE it WORKS. And it's not just true of trainers -- I know many people who found a trainer who was successful with their dog, and forever after, they become harsh critics of all other training methods, or judgemental of others who use different methods, because they believe that their way is the right way. After all, it worked for their dog, right?

But I've seen enough dogs with enough individual issues and problems to know that training isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of thing, and sometimes something else works better for a specific dog, or a specific situation. Or sometimes someone else is doing something that I don't generally agree with, but I realize that in certain circumstances, it might be effective. Or perhaps I can incorporate some aspect of it in my own way of doing things that might provide me a few extra tools to work with.

The bottom line, to me, is that training needs to work. If you're training a dog who doesn't respond to method A, you need to have a method B. Or method C. Or maybe a method W. Even if 99% of the dogs you work with respond to method A, if you're serious about training, you should have enoough knowledge to have back up ideas, whether it's method B, C, D, etc. What I hate more than anything is when a trainer is too self righteous to be bothered learning about any other methodology, then when his/her own doesn't work, he/she pronounces the dog "untrainable." It's not about being right -- it's about the dog.

There are too many dogs out there for whom a trainer is a last resort before being dumped, rehomed or PTS. Knowing that, I believe there's no room to be anything BUT open minded to other training ideas, even if they're not the ones you personally prefer, or believe in ideologically. The more you know, the more dogs you can help, the fewer dogs end up on doggie death row. Learning is always a good thing...

Jan

Trying to explain how CM does his training is like trying to explain how George Morris does his in the horse world. It just isn't going to work without getting a few people in a crowd mad. IMO, his methods are too confrontational for the dogs and while his methods could work with some dogs with certain issues that could not be solved other ways, there are many dogs that when approached with methods like Milan's will most likely revert to being overly submissive and/or worse with thier habits. Sorry, that was a mouthfull to read. I know I'm putting myself in line when I say I don't agree with his methods a good 70% of the time, also taking into perspecive what he says about gender discrimination...

I'll end it here and be smart.  But yes, a good article in ways.

Deb...we do not ALL have issues with illegal immigrants, and I find it disappointing that you'd say something like that.

Gina I think you know me and my philosophies well enough to know  that I have no, zero,zil issues w/ illegal immigrants whatsoever.
 
but illegal I think we all have issue with.
that is my quote and it says illegal. Not illegal immigrants.
 
My aggravation w/ Mastiff came when she threw that out there,  to pull everyones attention off of CM.and I really didn't know it or see it in the article.

Sorry Jamie, I didn't see your post till I went back and read the other posts. I would have pm'd Gina

Also, The NY Times is one of the most biased newspapers in the country! That's a fairly well known fact. Those of you who are Republicans or who like Pres. Bush are already well aware of that.

Ummm, this is OT, but the Times has been getting in trouble for hewing too closely to the current administration's story, for believing the administration too much (WMD, Judith Miller, Iraq). Most media watchers (both liberal and conservative) are calling the Times a tool of the administration, and are increasingly worried that the free press is not particularly free if the newspaper of record is, essentially, Rove's mouthpiece.

(Not to start a political argument, just saying that most people whose job is to watch the media think that the above statement is spin, and that they believe this has big, negative consequences for the democracy at large)

Anyway, the CM piece was an editorial, and the very purpose of an editorial is to take a side. I don't see the point in calling an editorial biased. That's like saying that the macaroni and cheese is invalid or stupid because it's too cheesy.

With all the off-topic stuff this story could spawn we could have posted it in NDR and it would have done just fine, heheh.

I have never watched CM simply because I don't have a TV. So I know nothing about him except what is said here. From the one comment she posted I'm not sure if I would want to, but CM is a type of trainer, and so I think that I would probably have something to learn from him, even if it was how not to train my dog. But since I don't have tv and don't plan on getting it, I'll stick with my way of training and learning from books and the people here. 
OT, all jounalisim is biased, imho, if it wasn't it wouldn't be interesting.

I know that this is OT as well, but I do have to agree that MOST journalism is biased.  My ex was a reporter (when he could keep a job) and it wasn't at all about presenting a fair and balanced story...it was yes, about uncovering corruption and "dirt", but they NEVER went the whole way and told both sides.