Did anyone else see this? Just horrific!!!

[Doberluv]

Looking at those links...

CESAR (Nat. Geographics The Dog Whisperer) & ILUSION MILLAN ARE HONORARY MEMBERS OF THE IACP

If Cesar is an honorary member, that says something about the organization, doesn't it.

My method includes these steps: show the dog what you want, help it get there, praise for every success, correct/direct it when necessary, then praise or correct as necessary to maintain success.

When all or most of the tools of pos.R training are utilized and utilized correctly, it is extremely rare that a "correction" as in a leash pop or other punishment IS necessary because you cause the dog to avoid making those mistakes in the first place by only working up to a likely success stage, not beyond...Going beyond the dog's ability causes failures, which people feel need to be "corrected"....rather, punished. It is not about the dog being stubborn or dominant. There are other reasons for dogs not doing things right.

There are many "methods" and a variety of tools currently used in dog training. In some circles clicker training is currently in vogue - with an ideology of no "aversive" or "negative" feedback to the dog. This trendy approach says you should focus on and reward the "good stuff" and ignore everything else.

You see the ignorance here? That is incorrect! You don't focus and reward ONLY the good stuff and you certainly do NOT ignore everything else. There is not a complete absense of aversives. It's the KIND of aversives. These people don't know what they're talking about.

I do not support, practice or believe in this approach because it is so unreliable and ineffective.

I agree. THAT approach would be very ineffective. But that is not what clicker training or pos. R is about. They've left out ENORMOUS and important amounts and facts about motivation and reward or clicker training concepts. They clearly do not have an understanding of it, nor do they want to....typical of people who are fine with punishing dogs and think they need to get physical with them.

Your dog must respect "you" and not simply look to you for a reward. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE AND PLEASANT RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR DOG, whether it is simply as a "companion" or an outstanding obedience candidate.

Would you trust someone who shocked you with an e-collar or yanked on your throat? The second sentence is false. Looking toward you for a reward IS what creates respect when used appropriately because ALL leaders in ALL animal species CONTROL resources. Respect and avoidance/fear can not happen at the same time....are not synonomous.

My goal is to help you obtain a strong sustained relationship, built on mutual trust and respect between you and your dog.

Trust comes from never causing another to worry about receiving pain, fear or threats. The punishment that is used so frequently outside of the "PR camp," is strong enough to erode trust. I have obtained the most trusting, obedient dogs ever. My relationship with my dogs is phenomenal. These people who showcase CM and those methods do not impress me in the least.

 

[Doberluv]

I'm hearing this "Extremeist" word being thrown around a lot, and I could be completely wrong but it seems to be thrown towards trainers who are not using more traditonal methods. Is it really extreme to use a method which elicits progress without coercion or physical force. Positive doesn't mean permissive, but it still means positive when teaching behaviour. Why? Because a funny thing happens when you stop correcting a dog for being wrong- he starts trying, he wants to earn that reward, so when he doesn't get it, he actually goes back, uses his mind and offers something new.

As a "balanced" trainer before- using correction and praise and rewards- I had never seen a dog do this before. When I heard of clicker training and decided to try it out, I saw a side of my dog I didn't even know exsisted. A more confident dog who isn't afraid to try things, a dog who physically displays happy behaviours when training, and a dog who is far more clever then I ever gave him credit for as a balanced trainer- because I was more often than not focusing on his flaws.

If that makes me an extremist- fine, but I don't think you should judge a training method until you've observed both the dog and trainer using it. Having been involved with traditional training for awhile- I've seen the dogs, having watched CM- we've seen the dogs- happy is not something I would attribute to them. So before calling some R + trainers extemiest, go watch a clicker training session with a clicker savvy dog and then decide.

:hail:

Exactly. Dogs that receive what CM does do not tend to offer up new behvaiors, stop thinking, stop trying. They are all focused on desperately trying to do the "right" thing so they don't get yanked or threatened. How can they possibly use their noggins. In the 40 + years I've had dogs, never have I enjoyed a more trusting, close bond than I have since stopping all that harsher correction stuff. Never have I had dogs that just happen to hit on the right behavior much, much more frequently.....because they're not afraid to try something. Much more willing dogs.

 

[TheGoldenRetriever]

Try the International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP). Be sure to read the articles:

http://www.dogpro.org/

Thanks for the link Angelique, went to the site and read Millan's articles. It didn't take long, they are short and written on a very basic level. Here's my take on excerpts:

From CM's article Interaction Without Words

"Humans often rely on verbal communication when they interact with dogs: “Come on, Johnny, please, please stop eating the flowers!†The pack leader doesn’t negotiate or cajole to get what he or she wants. No wonder the dog is ignoring you!"

^^^ Common sense ... and he seems to be addressing +R used incorrectly. Again, it reminds of positive child-raising gone wrong. You don't beg a dog not to eat the flowers anymore than you run after a 2-yr. old child begging "Johnny, it's chilly ... please, please put your sweater back on! We discussed this!" You simply put the sweater back on the child ... if he won't comply you remove him, i.e., bring him back home. Similarly, remove the dog from the flower bed. Don't allow the dog in the flower bed, most importantly because it's likely the flowers he's eating may be poisonous to him.

"Crouching down to their level while smiling and cooing tells a dog absolutely nothing; you might as well be speaking Martian."

Crouching down to their level is one effective way to handle a fearful dog, especially a small breed. A newer member at Chaz recently mentioned that their newly adopted Chi/Yorkie mix was terrified of her and her husband ... but adored their 9 yr. old son Richard. The difference turned out to be that the child was sitting on the floor with the dog and talking soothingly to her ... when his parents followed Richard's example the dog was no longer afraid of them.

"Try this: To further achieve a calm and submissive state before feeding, ask your dog to sit and wait a moment while you place his meal in his bowl. When he has sat patiently, give him the OK to eat."

^^^^ Nothing new .... basic NILIF.

"A dog is an animal first and a breed second. For example, people think all German Shepherds act a certain way. German Shepherd is just the breed – a cultural background in the dog world."

^^^ Anthromorphism.
Dogs don't recognize "culture" in an ethnocentric way ... that's a human response. Further, all dogs are not the same and breed does make a difference. A Golden Retriever does not have the same inborn temperament traits as a Fila Brasileiro.


From CM's article Teaching Humans to Relate to Their Dogs Without Words

"A mutt can develop the same negative side effects as a German Shepherd. Do not focus on the breed; instead, focus on the behavior. The breed is just the skills or the “outfit†the dog wears. Underneath, they are all just dogs."

Again, breed differences go beyond physical characteristics and abilities. Choosing a breed that fits one's lifesytle and household is the first step to having a successful relationship with a dog.


From CM's article Why Rules, Boundaries and Limitations are Key

"The mother also allows the puppies to share activities with each other. When she wants play to end or just disagrees with what’s going on, she picks up a puppy and takes him to another spot."

Yes, she does indeed remove the offending puppy. This is exactly what Victoria Stillwell suggests with misbehaving dogs ... remove them, just as their dams would.

"If you are to understand the animal in the dog you must forget human psychology when dealing with your canine."

While you don't want to anthromophisize, do remember that many human psychology discoveries were made exactly by early studies with animals, such as operant and classical conditioning.

"Mother Nature created pack dynamics to guide the development and adult lives of dogs."

No, pack dynamics and the dominance theory were developed during studies of captive wolves in zoos, going all the way back to the 1940s and early 50s. More recently, L. David Mech has published articles disputing dominance theory by extensive observations of wolves in their natural environments, i.e., those created by "Mother Nature".

"Most people get a puppy and wait to teach him rules, boundaries or limitations until six months or one year old."

"Most" people?!?
Personally, I don't know anyone who did that ... even those without much formal knowledge of dog behavior. The first to publish formal articles regarding a puppy's ability to learn from day one was Ian Dunbar in 1980, while Cesar Millan did not even illegally cross the Mexico/U.S. border until the early 1990s. But even before Dunbar's articles most people had already discovered on their own that their puppies were perfectly capable of learning well before 6 months to 1 yr. of age! The difference was that there were no formal group puppy-training classes for those less than 6 months old ... so people just trained their puppies at home, usually beginning with housebreaking and basic obedience commands.


From CM's article How to Let Your Dog be a Dog

"Many clients I work with are surprised to learn that dogs don’t need love and affection to lead healthy, balanced lives."

Dogs are living beings, not robots. Dams do show affection toward their pups, they display frequent nuzzling beyond that which has practical purpose. Quite simply, it's affection. To say "dogs don't need love and affection" is just wrong. Yes, of course they also need discipline and exercise, but to leave affection out of the equation would create the very "unbalanced state" that Millan claims to be against.

From CM's article Start Your Puppy Off Right

"Create a schedule that includes a daily 45-minute power-walk in the morning. This is critical for your dog’s health, both physical and mental."

A "power walk" can best be described as a slow jog. Not only is an every-morning "45-minute power-walk" not "critical" to a puppy but it could well damage a growing pup's bones and cartilage, especially large breeds. Veterinarians and breeders-with-a-clue specifically advise against heavy exercise for young puppies exactly because of this potential damage.

"Make sure you find a breed that fits your lifestyle. For example, more active breeds, like hunting and herding dogs, require more physical exercise to stay physically and mentally content."

Now he's contradictfing himself! In a previous article he asserted that breed is merely "a cultural background in the dog world."

"Always walk out the door ahead of your dog when leaving the house. This will show your dog who is in the leadership role."

^^^ Dominance theory taken to ridiculous level. "Wait" is certainly a good command to teach ... but it has nothing to do with establishing "dominance", more to do with preventing the puppy from becoming a door-bolter which could endanger its life.

"On walks, make sure that your dog is not in front of you, pulling you down the street. Instead, keep your dog to your side or behind you. This will also demonstrate to your dog that you are the alpha figure."

Of course you don't want a dog yanking you down the street, this is why one teaches loose-leash walking. But there's nothing wrong with a dog being slightly in front of you while loose-leash walking ... he's likely following a scent, not seeing himself as your "alpha". Further, with small breeds it's safest to keep them slightly in front of you. Too many people let dogs run loose, you don't want to be surprised by someone else's loose dog grabbing and possibly killing your small or toy breed while you were forcing it to stay behind you.

"Give the puppy something to do before you share food, water, toys or affection. This way the dog “earns†his treat. For example, have your puppy perform the Sit or Down command."

^^^NILIF again, ... nothing new.


From CM's article Calm, Assertive Energy and Calm, Submissive Energy

"Most dogs are born submissive because there can only be so many pack leaders."

Or perhaps they're born submissive because they're born blind and unable to walk.

"Make sure your dog has reached a calm and submissive state before you place the food bowl in front of him. If you feed him when he displays any negative behaviors, such as nerves or excitement, you will reinforce these behaviors and guarantee that they will reoccur."

^^^Combination of NILIFand the same advice given by any +R trainer with a clue ... that is, don't inadvertanly reward behavior you don't want.
For example, when re-directing a dog from unwanted behavior do not use food during the re-direct. That inadvertantly teaches the dog that the unwanted behavior = a food reward.

"Food carries a powerful message in the dog world."

No +R trainer, including clicker trainers, would argue with that.

From CM's article Understanding the Nature of the Dog Pack

"Every species has its own psychology, if we understand its psychology we can control the behavior because we know how to relate to them."

^^^ Exactly the goal of behaviorists ... understand the true psychology rather than relying on assumptions or disproven theories like dominance combined with punitive "training".

 

[TheGoldenRetriever]

As long as we're on the subject of articles, read this one from the New York Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950CE3DF1E3EF932A0575BC0A9609C8B63

Particularly interesting is this quote from the NYTimes article, regarding Millan's attitude and statements regarding women training dogs:

Women are the worst offenders in his world. In one of the outtakes included in the four-DVD set of the first season of ''Dog Whisperer,'' Mr. Millan explains that a woman is ''the only species that is wired different from the rest.'' And a ''woman always applies affection before discipline,'' he says. ''Man applies discipline then affection, so we're more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don't follow lovable leaders.''

Interesting sexism on Mr.Millan's part. I have noticed that the few times Millan's wife Illusion appears on his show she never speaks ... perhaps he's shut her down too? Anyway, my guy first spotted the NYTimes article and pointed that very quote out to me. With a broad smile on his face he said, "If that's what he thinks all women are like, he's never met you babe!" I suspect he's also never met Doberluv/Carrie, or you either Angelique.

In conclusion, I'm not impressed just because the IACP has given Cesar Millan honorary membership ... they are not the first training organization to do so. It's more about his celebrity status than anything else.

It's basic marketing principle to recognize that to some degree many in the general public follow celebrities, some to the degree of engaging in a certain amount of celebrity boot-licking. So by using celebrity endorsements organizations gain more attention from the general public, more photo opps, and a reason to get some media attention for their organization's name and work. It's that simple ... it's a tradeoff ... and does not mean that the organization in question endorses or even agrees with every opinion of the particular celebrity.

 

[Doberluv]

Wow GR....you took a lot of time going through all that. Excellent observations. You are so spot on with your remarks I think.

"Many clients I work with are surprised to learn that dogs don’t need love and affection to lead healthy, balanced lives."

:yikes:
No wonder they're surpised. Too bad they're too dumb to think for themselves. That is just SICK! There are going to be a lot of screwed up dogs that don't thrive with that advice. So sad. What does he think happened during domestication/evolution? Don't even answer that.

Oh yes...I've read that NY Times article and a whole lot more on this topic.

 

[Doberluv]

Crouching down tells a dog absolutely nothing if the only language you speak is intimidation or domination. With lots of dogs, even big dogs, crouching down helps if they're unsure or not quite trusting. It makes you smaller and less of a threat, as long as they're not apt to strike or bite. Then it's not so safe to be at their face level, better to turn sideways. But puppies are so responsive to crouching down and opening your arms wide. Just look how they are so apt to come running up to you. It's a gesture of play too. If I am standing and crouch down, my dogs regard this as an invitation. I've worked with shy dogs that are hesitant to approach. But if I squat down, angled a little sideways, they are more inclined to approach. He ought to look at the studies done on young puppies with regard to reading humans. It's as if he's never heard of any science at all, but is just making stuff up. I guess it's all for TV land. It's working for him, so what the heck, right?

 

[Dekka]

WOW TGR that was AWESOME!! I didn't know it was that bad!!! I have watched his show but not read his articles.

Dogs not needing 'love and affection' umm :yikes: Dogs the only domestic species to 'naturally' look at a humans face for cues. They crave human interaction (those that were raised with humans).

I agree dogs don't need a lot of what we give them. I am sure my child could survive with less affection too... but my dogs certainly give every indication that they wish affection.

 

[noludoru]

TGR, awesome posts. :hail::hail:

Women are the worst offenders in his world. In one of the outtakes included in the four-DVD set of the first season of ''Dog Whisperer,'' Mr. Millan explains that a woman is ''the only species that is wired different from the rest.'' And a ''woman always applies affection before discipline,'' he says. ''Man applies discipline then affection, so we're more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don't follow lovable leaders.''

So he's a sexist, too. Oh joy. Glad to know he's not only stuck back in the dark ages when it comes to dogs.

 

[Bahamutt99]

Mmmkay. Well, if anyone knows where to watch full Cesar eps, please PM me. I seem to have lost my handle on this thread. It's outta my control, captain! LOL

 

[release the hounds]

I dont want to feel like i'm sticking up for him, but he isn't the only one that says men and women are different in their styles.

and I can see where one might say dogs don't "need" a loveable leader considering most humans consider loving their dog letting it do what it wants, engorging in with treats and spoiling to the nth degree. They love human interaction, they don't love sticking your face in theirs for kisses or getting hugs and kisses all the time. I think we can all agree that our pets learn to tolerate it from us, some eventually might learn to like it, but most dogs do not naturally seek out that sort of "love"

people like to post pics and video of CM and stressed dogs, i've noticed 2 or 3 threads on this here, take a picture of you hugging your dogs and see what they look like

 

[Romy]

Women are the worst offenders in his world. In one of the outtakes included in the four-DVD set of the first season of ''Dog Whisperer,'' Mr. Millan explains that a woman is ''the only species that is wired different from the rest.'' And a ''woman always applies affection before discipline,'' he says. ''Man applies discipline then affection, so we're more psychological than emotional. All animals follow dominant leaders; they don't follow lovable leaders.''

:rofl1::rofl1::rofl1:

Oh man, that's like the opposite of our household. Robert is always complaining that I was too "mean" to our dogs, making them sit before meals, not allowing them to mark on walks, and in some cases "work" for affection, etc.

It's interesting how people think +r doesn't work, or produces inconsistent results but I have never heard of a service dog organization using anything but +r, and their dogs are held to a higher standard than any other out there.

 

[TheGoldenRetriever]

So he's a sexist, too. Oh joy. Glad to know he's not only stuck back in the dark ages when it comes to dogs.

Found the blatant sexism interesting too, along with a few other things.

The lawsuit involving the Lab severely injured at CM's facility in L.A. ... first defense was that it did not occur in conjunction with NGC's production of the show. That didn't fly, so then offered was that CM was not present when the injuries occurred ... it was the fault of his employees. (Hmmm ... similar to the way he blames "energy" of owners whenever his training techniques don't work.) That didn't fly b/c he's legally responsible for actions of his employees whether present or not ... they were trained by him and follow his instructions. Next was that CM did not charge the owner for use of his facility, equipment, and employees ... it was done only as a favor for a friend. Huh? His friend's dog was abused and sustained severe injuries ... but wasn't charged for it so that makes it OK? Gosh, with friends like that ...

Finally it was settled out of court ... because clearly if it went to court it was not going to go CM's way.

Another was the second lawsuit involving his secret end-run around his publicist, with whom he was still under contract. Granted, nothing to do with dogs and training ... but it does give a further indication of a person's character.

Adding together all that I have seen, heard and read from this individual .... can't say I'd "hug" him. (Sorry Angelique.) Likely instead to project calm but :::ahem::: assertive energy ... maybe even put him in a Sit-Stay. Fact that I tower over the little dude probably wouldn't hurt.
(No, no bias here against the vertically-challenged ... Mom is like that, but I take after Dad. <G>)

I dont want to feel like i'm sticking up for him, but he isn't the only one that says men and women are different in their styles.

True, but he's not any more current on human psychology than he is on canine. One of the most pervasive gender stereotypes is that women are intensely emotional; men by contrast are thought to be calmer and more logical. But studies done by Feldman Barrett showed women merely tend to have more emotional awareness, not more emotion. Further studies by Hall & Matsumoto showed that women are more accurate at desciphering nonverbal clues ... which seems to suggest they might be better at dog training.

However, studies by Kring & Gordon showed that men and women did not differ in their emotional response to various mental stimuli ... according to Galvanic skin responses as well as their own written responses. The only difference found was that women were somewhat more inclined to verbally express emotion. This was attributed to cultural differences in how each gender is raised, rather than either being born "wired differently". The same study found that men actually exhibit more emotion to frightening stimuli, and tend to frighten more easily.

(Sorry ... research from an article written this past summer. Back to our regularly-scheduled canine programming. )

 

[Angelique]

I dont want to feel like i'm sticking up for him, but he isn't the only one that says men and women are different in their styles.

Okay...everyone who believes men and women are the same, raise your hand!

Hey, isn't it about time for that "left brain vs right brain" thread?

I have to say, I take what Cesar teaches into the female perspective. I know things he's doing, but not describing.

Neener-neener, Cesar. :lol-sign:

and I can see where one might say dogs don't "need" a loveable leader considering most humans consider loving their dog letting it do what it wants, engorging in with treats and spoiling to the nth degree. They love human interaction, they don't love sticking your face in theirs for kisses or getting hugs and kisses all the time. I think we can all agree that our pets learn to tolerate it from us, some eventually might learn to like it, but most dogs do not naturally seek out that sort of "love"

Aw, but they learn to love it. They simply have no choice.

Dogs are sooo adaptable to us. They are perfectly capable of learning our social interactions. So, why not meet them halfway?

My dogs love my hugs and touches. The happy groans, toe touches (Oh no! He's being dominant!) and pressing closer is a bit of a giveaway.

 

[Doberluv]

I dont want to feel like i'm sticking up for him, but he isn't the only one that says men and women are different in their styles.

and I can see where one might say dogs don't "need" a loveable leader considering most humans consider loving their dog letting it do what it wants, engorging in with treats and spoiling to the nth degree. They love human interaction, they don't love sticking your face in theirs for kisses or getting hugs and kisses all the time. I think we can all agree that our pets learn to tolerate it from us, some eventually might learn to like it, but most dogs do not naturally seek out that sort of "love"

people like to post pics and video of CM and stressed dogs, i've noticed 2 or 3 threads on this here, take a picture of you hugging your dogs and see what they look like

I agree that hugging dogs that haven't been conditioned to tolerate or like it isn't a natural thing for dogs...or groping, reaching and being intrusive in patting dogs that don't particularly go ga ga over it is not needed. And letting a dog do whatever he wants doesn't do them any good either. But please.....there are other brands of affection.

Or would this be dominance?

Lyric is really into Angeliques dog. Thought I'd bring this back for old time sake. The little dogs look horrified, don't they. :rofl1:

 

[Dekka]

You know I totally agree that dogs don't need a lovable leader. But that is not the same thing as saying they don't need love and affection at all!

Even dogs who have NOT learned to like human contact often seek it out after they loose their fear. I do think many dogs don't like being hugged. But since when is love and affection meaning hugs? I can pet my dog, lie on the couch with Dekka on my chest (by her choice) and be showing love and affection. Dogs as a species seek out human contact. That does not mean hugs.

 

[Angelique]

Or would this be dominance?

Lyric is really into Angeliques dog. Thought I'd bring this back for old time sake. The little dogs look horrified, don't they. :rofl1:

:rofl1:

Only if she lets him think so!

 

[Doberluv]

When I use to have Lyric and we'd visit my daughter, every time she came home from work, he'd run to greet her at the door, then she'd get all squeaky, happy and he'd race around the circle of her apartment, then Emily would drop to her knees and Lyric would race up to her and sit and slap his arms up over both shoulders and kiss her very carefully right on the lips. Then she might try to stand up and he'd grip her harder and pull her closer. This picture looks like he's freaked out because of the way the light caught his eyes, but he loved this game of hugging.

Aw, but they learn to love it. They simply have no choice.

Dogs are sooo adaptable to us. They are perfectly capable of learning our social interactions. So, why not meet them halfway?

My dogs love my hugs and touches. The happy groans, toe touches (Oh no! He's being dominant!) and pressing closer is a bit of a giveaway.

Hey, we agree!!!

Yup...sure enough. Dogs don't like affection.

 

[Doberluv]

LOL angelique.

 

[Doberluv]

I'm sure they vary. Some dogs are more evolved, I think than others. Some seem to like hugging and some clearly don't. My little Jose` loves patting, scritches and so forth, but can do without hugging or sticking my face in his face. With the girls, anything is just honky dory with them. They totally get it about hugs.

 

[OutlineACDs]

Now, having said that, those dogs appeared to be wearing collars.
WHY the f*ck didn't someone think to twist and choke those d@mn dogs off of eachother???
WTF.
I know, I KNOW! Twisting a collar to "choke a dog off" of another, doesn't seem humane or whatever, but you don't kill the dog. In an emergency situation (and SADLY it got to that point), this is a VERY effective way to get a dog off of another when it has a grip like those dogs did.

I am working on reading the rest of the thread but, it did appear to me that whoever it was that had the red/white dog was trying to choke it. The dog looked like it had a pretty big neck and so whoever was doing the choking wasn't very successful.