Dog Whisperer

Oski

GSD lover
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
168
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Michigan
Yeah, its depressing. I will never forget this one, looked like a chow/gsd mix that chased my car for like a mile. He had the sweetest look in his eyes and was barking at me (in a talking way) and if I didnt have Cheko in the car I would have taken him with me but too much of a risk. It was really sad.
I saw one too the other day and I wanted to give it some food so bad cuz he didn't look like a mean guy at all..just wanted some luvin....but I didnt have any with me and before I had time to look in my rear view, he was gone...

Cute new pic by the way! :)
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
Our dogs living in our homes do not engage in functional pack behavior.
come to my house and observe, you tell me they aren't. Call them a social group, call them a family, call them a gaggle of dogs for all I care, the fact is, dogs together behave with so many behaviors that for whatever reason you don't want to contribute to "pack" behavior, I don't really know what to say.

just cause you change the words doesn't make the behaviors or the meanings any different.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
dr2little,

I think it undercuts your argument a bit to say in one sentence I find it frightening to see people here, particularly dog lovers, suggest that our distaste for his "methods" is sour grapes. and to follow in the next paragraph with FYI, Cesar is far too busy with celeb. dogs to bother with poor unadoptable rover sitting on death row at the pound.

I am similarly perplexed by the opening paragraph of the link you provide. This advocate of "Positive rewards based training for dogs" begins by asserting Dog training is a divided profession.......Dog training camps are more like Republicans and Democrats, all agreeing that the job needs to be done but wildly differing on how to do it. The entire remainder of the article and the links indicate, as does Doberluv, that anyone disagreeing with the author are "ignorant"

Worse than ignorant, the "Bark" article suggests, Millan fans represent a luddite (Republican?) rebellion against science and the educated elite who wish to control, dominate, and punish something, anything in their world; and if it is a defenseless dog, so be it.

Well, I am a liberal Democrat. grad school graduate, and do not wish to dominate or punish anything (perhaps why I feel fine owning a very polite poodle).

This thread was started by someone who WAS aware of the criticism Caesar Millan had received. On viewing the show and they did not see the actions taken and philosophies he espouses resulting in a string of cruelly brutalized dogs with vacant stares who are no longer able to enjoy human contact.

Sorry, but I still don't see it either. I do see a show that in every episode underlines the fact that their are far more bad owners than bad dogs and encouraging them to seek professional assistence.

I guess I am just ignorant.
Is that seriously what you took away from that link???? Reading between the lines has allowed you to completely miss the point (political??).

The fact stands that Cesar is NOT a dog psychologist as he claims. Every episode reveals more of his blatent ignorance with respect to something as necessary as being able to read body language. Unfortunately his claims of expertise add to frightening reality that people WILL mimic his "methods" because they believe that he knows what he's doing and dogs are the ones who suffer (AND YES, THEY DO SUFFER!!! Please think about what you're suggesting. His methods are NOT NECESSARY!!!!!:mad: Cesar does what many of us did before we knew better but that seems to escape you....what is it that bothers you about that statement:confused:

The link provided, that you somehow misinterpreted, was to show that it's not just people here on the forum who find him to be a detriment to the field but that our views are shared by the people whos books you buy.

You all wonder why we get our gonch in a bunch about some dude on a TV show having some success. Walk a mile in MY shoes and you'll see how many dogs are being threatened, hurt, strangled and totally misunderstood because this seemingly charming guy says it's OK. And don't tell me that because he has his disclaimers, NGC has covered their a$$es. We all know that humans will do what they see and it is the dog who then ends up suffering.

Again, why is it that I and many other trainers/behaviorists are able to achieve results every day without POKING, CHOKING, YANKING, FLOODING, ALPHA ROLLING, AND OVER EXERCISING??? No one seems to want to address that????

I'm flabbergasted by the willingness to protect HIS RIGHT to abuse.:mad: In your country and in mine, a dog is considered property with which an owner can do pretty much anything that does not result the need for Vet intervention. Just because Cesar has not abused a dog to the point of requiring Vet. treatment on his show (he has at his centre:mad: ), does not mean that what he does is not abuse. What is painfully obvious to mine and other trained eyes, escapes the notice of the general public.....not arrogance, just a fact. If one is willing to split hairs on HOW MUCH DAMAGE IS TOO MUCH, something's sorely wrong.
 

DanL

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
3,933
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
56
They are NOT the same as wolves even though they are indirectly and distantly related to them. Naturally, they share DNA. Domestic dogs would NOT make it in the wild.
Define "wild". It seems that the dogs mentioned that pack together in Detroit are surviving just as if they were wild. They are scavenging, perhaps hunting other smaller animals, and surviving with no human care. Just because they are in a city and not in the woods doesn't make them different in how they interact and survive.

Another post talked about how taking a scavenging animal like a dog away from its human support system and having it hunt deer would cause it to fail. A dog wouldn't hunt deer. It would scavenge just like it is programmed to do. They aren't going to turn into a pack of wolves and have an intelligent hunt to bring down a large beast. They are going to be the opportunists that they have been for generations.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
Define "wild". It seems that the dogs mentioned that pack together in Detroit are surviving just as if they were wild. They are scavenging, perhaps hunting other smaller animals, and surviving with no human care. Just because they are in a city and not in the woods doesn't make them different in how they interact and survive.

Another post talked about how taking a scavenging animal like a dog away from its human support system and having it hunt deer would cause it to fail. A dog wouldn't hunt deer. It would scavenge just like it is programmed to do. They aren't going to turn into a pack of wolves and have an intelligent hunt to bring down a large beast. They are going to be the opportunists that they have been for generations.
Very true..
 

DanL

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
3,933
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
56
Personally, I'd love to see a TV show with Ian Dunbar or some other positive only trainers. Perhaps some day that will happen. Its not like there aren't enough useless "funniest animal" shows on Animal Planet. Get the right sponsors, a show like that could work.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
Personally, I'd love to see a TV show with Ian Dunbar or some other positive only trainers. Perhaps some day that will happen. Its not like there aren't enough useless "funniest animal" shows on Animal Planet. Get the right sponsors, a show like that could work.

I'd love to see that too. I thought that one was in the works with NGC but haven't seen anything about it lately. I think that Cesar's popularity has the seeing $$ instead of the big picture...it's a shame really.

There are a few programs like Good Dog with Stanley Coren and another one with a little Aussie gal (Vet.) who travels around LA (I think) and dispenses advise WITHOUT yanking animals around. She deals with everything from rodents to large animals though, not just pooches.

I'd love to see one of the more well known behaviorists do a show too. It would give some people the much needed proof of what can be done and what IS being done everyday.
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
I'd like to see that show too, would maybe save some money on travel to and from seminars and dvd's and books, but as interesting as though people are to us, I don't know that the public would find them as interesting as we do. They do relate and connect with Ceaser.

Personally I would like to see Cesar use others like he did in the clicker episode to introduce those ideas. He is already a proven vehicle to deliver a message to the public and they enjoy it. I don't think everything in his show is worthless and I do think he has some good messages, although I train very very differntly than he does. I could never have my working dogs shut down like he does, but I also understand that not everyone is willing to put in all the time that I do.
 

sam

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
894
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Western Canada
Personally, I'd love to see a TV show with Ian Dunbar or some other positive only trainers. Perhaps some day that will happen. Its not like there aren't enough useless "funniest animal" shows on Animal Planet. Get the right sponsors, a show like that could work.
Me too! I think if the general public saw how quickly you can get results with mordern methods and how much FUN it is to have a THINKING dog who is really focused on you and wanting to work it would have a big effect- it sure effected me.

I would love to see someone go on Ellen- she seems like she cares quite a bit about animals and could help make it funny while still getting the message out.
I haven't seen Ian Dunbar in person yet, hopefully will do at the CAPPDT conference in May.
Having just returned from clicker expo, I'd love to see Kathy Sdao, Kay Laurence or Ken Ramirez. All of them are brilliant but also hilarious and can make the topics practical IRL.

I would think that if the general public could see the clips of zoo and marine animals like wild jackals trained with ZERO force to hold their necks against a cage , remain perfectly still and have blood drawn that would have a huge effect, especially if they could be shown how fun and easy it is to use those same methods to have a well trained dog. IMO people need to SEE it with their own eyes.

I am told that Patricia McConnell had a show a while back- I never got to see it.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
Excuse me. The term "wild" has been misinterrpeted, I believe. The point I was arguing against was that they are just like wolves (just because they share DNA) (as in that post quoting the similarity in their DNA, therefore claiming they are just the same) and could live like wolves. No, they could not live as a pack of wolves. But they could live the way they have evolved to live, in proximatey to humans. My point is that they are dependent on humans because that is the eccological niche in which they evolved. A dog who is wild is a scavenger and does not have the physical or mental capabilties of a wolf to do what wolves need to do to survive in their niche. Dogs have physical traits which would make it extremely difficult to blend into a wolf's environment. They'd be sitting ducks with the conspicuous coat colors of many dogs, (for instance) and would have an extremely difficult time sneaking on prey. How would a Bull dog give birth if not with humans? They have smaller brains and less innovative faculties than wolves. Dogs are neotenic versions of wolves and are not equipped to live in the wild as are wolves. Scavenging around human waste, depending on humans is the closest thing to wild that you'll find with dogs.
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
I am told that Patricia McConnell had a show a while back- I never got to see it.
she had her Calling all Pets radio show, and she did have a show called Petline on animal planet, but I don't think that's on anymore
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
I'd like to see that show too, would maybe save some money on travel to and from seminars and dvd's and books, but as interesting as though people are to us, I don't know that the public would find them as interesting as we do. They do relate and connect with Ceaser.

Personally I would like to see Cesar use others like he did in the clicker episode to introduce those ideas. He is already a proven vehicle to deliver a message to the public and they enjoy it. I don't think everything in his show is worthless and I do think he has some good messages, although I train very very differntly than he does. I could never have my working dogs shut down like he does, but I also understand that not everyone is willing to put in all the time that I do.
I think you're right. Cesar just has that undeniable appeal. I can see it too even though I can't stand what he does. And yes, sometimes he really does talk a good game and make some sense, but then he follows it up with nonsense.

While I'd love to see a true professional come onto his show, I don't think it's in the cards. I can't see anyone sitting there quietly while he spouts his dominance theories and misreads body language. Cesar I'm sure, is well aware that not one of the more well known behaviorists/trainers agrees with much of what he does. It would be really interresting and would probably make a positive impact but I don't see it happening.
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
Excuse me. I used the term, "wild" incorrectly. The point I was arguing against was that they are just like wolves (just because they share DNA) and could live like wolves. No, they could not live as a pack of wolves. But they could live the way they have evolved to live, in proximatey to humans. My point is that they are dependent on humans because that is the eccological niche in which they evolved. A dog who is wild is a scavenger and does not have the physical or mental capabilties of a wolf to do what wolves need to do to survive in their niche. Dogs have physical traits which would make it extremely difficult to blend into a wolf's environment. They'd be sitting ducks with the conspicuous coat colors of many dogs, (for instance) and would have an extremely difficult time sneaking on prey. How would a Bull dog give birth if not with humans? They have smaller brains and less innovative faculties than wolves. Dogs are neotenic versions of wolves and are not equipped to live in the wild as are wolves. Scavenging around human waste, depending on humans is the closest thing to wild that you'll find with dogs.

and yet we've had wild dogs around my parents house and an even larger problem by my in-laws place with packs of wild dogs 4-10 taking down, killing and eating sheep. NOT wolves, NOT coyotes, DOGS, packs of them. They round them up, they kill them, and in a few years there is another problem with wild dogs. Its' been that way for decades. Could a bulldog do it, no way, but i can tell you that huskies, dobermans, pitt mixes, GSD's lab mixes, etc can, and have.
 
W

whatszmatter

Guest
I think you're right. Cesar just has that undeniable appeal. I can see it too even though I can't stand what he does. And yes, sometimes he really does talk a good game and make some sense, but then he follows it up with nonsense.

While I'd love to see a true professional come onto his show, I don't think it's in the cards. I can't see anyone sitting there quietly while he spouts his dominance theories and misreads body language. Cesar I'm sure, is well aware that not one of the more well known behaviorists/trainers agrees with much of what he does. It would be really interresting and would probably make a positive impact but I don't see it happening.
It would take a great amount of tongue biting for sure. I haven't watched his show for a while. I did happen to catch the one with the dalmation and the clicker, wish it would have gone into a little more detail, but I was hoping that this was a new direction that the show was taking. I haven't seen one since, so I don't know if it has or not.

His show isn't perfect, but I think he has a good base. He's likeable, he's got an audience. he does preach, calm assertiveness, which I like, he preaches consistency, which is a must, he preaches exercise, which is foreign to most people, let alone doing it for their dogs, and he preaches that dogs are dogs, not people. Some new introductions, some other professionals willing to bite their tounges on some things, at first, could really start to change people's thinking.

Getting people to change from this dominating style of training isn't going to happen quickly. Everything in the history of the world has been trained that way by humans forever. Its in our nature. Someone had a good set of analogies on another board, that I can't remember all of, but they said if we could have found a way to put a prong collar or ecollar on dolphins we might not even know what a clicker is today. It's kind of true, to an extent.

Even I still believe dominance is important, but I do it in a different way. Not yanking, and pushing and that stuff, but i've seen it too many times in my own dogs, and when working with others, that a more "dominant" personality, will always have better control of the dogs. If I"m feeling ho hum, my dogs don't listen as well. Just thru body posture and my inner feeling can change my dogs in an instant, and other dogs that are unruly every day of their lives aren't immune, I can grab their leash, no screaming, no real eye contact, no yelling, no jerking, and immediatly become a different dog. So there is something to this "dominance" thing, that's just how I see it. anyway, i'm going off in a different direction I think.
 

DanL

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
3,933
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
56
I remember seeing a show on feral dogs before, a long time ago. I vaguely recall them saying that after a couple generations of breeding in this capacity, all the dogs revert similar traits. They were medium sized, had similar markings, and were optimized to survive in their environment. Look at pictures of 3rd world countries where you see dogs milling about- they all look the same as well.
 
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
7,402
Likes
0
Points
0
It would take a great amount of tongue biting for sure. I haven't watched his show for a while. I did happen to catch the one with the dalmation and the clicker, wish it would have gone into a little more detail, but I was hoping that this was a new direction that the show was taking. I haven't seen one since, so I don't know if it has or not.
[B]I didn't see that episode, I'll have to keep an eye out for it. [/B]

His show isn't perfect, but I think he has a good base. He's likeable, he's got an audience. he does preach, calm assertiveness, which I like, he preaches consistency, which is a must, he preaches exercise, which is foreign to most people, let alone doing it for their dogs, and he preaches that dogs are dogs, not people. Some new introductions, some other professionals willing to bite their tounges on some things, at first, could really start to change people's thinking.
I just don't see anyone biting their tongues, having seen all of them at seminars and seeing how dynamic and well versed they are...just can't see it happening. I'm sure he'll get some lesser known educated people coming on, I'd like to see that myself, but someone like Donaldson, Dunbar, McConnell...they'd eat him alive or look like fools going along with him.

Getting people to change from this dominating style of training isn't going to happen quickly. Everything in the history of the world has been trained that way by humans forever. Its in our nature. Someone had a good set of analogies on another board, that I can't remember all of, but they said if we could have found a way to put a prong collar or ecollar on dolphins we might not even know what a clicker is today. It's kind of true, to an extent.

I see what you're saying but from my experience he really is in the minority. Aside from missing the last Clicker conference, I've attended just about every top seminar in Canada and the States for the last several years and I can honestly say that the shift is obvious and enormous. Even just take the last seminar here with Emma Parsons. Sam and I were both in attendance and you'd be hard pressed to find anyone there who thought that Cesars methods were anything but ancient and unnecessary. Wouldn't you agree Sam? Even I still believe dominance is important, but I do it in a different way. Not yanking, and pushing and that stuff, but i've seen it too many times in my own dogs, and when working with others, that a more "dominant" personality, will always have better control of the dogs. If I"m feeling ho hum, my dogs don't listen as well. Just thru body posture and my inner feeling can change my dogs in an instant, and other dogs that are unruly every day of their lives aren't immune, I can grab their leash, no screaming, no real eye contact, no yelling, no jerking, and immediatly become a different dog. So there is something to this "dominance" thing, that's just how I see it. anyway, i'm going off in a different direction I think.
While I understand what you're saying and I can picture many clients who are less than convincing when delivering a command, I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think that it has much more to do with consistency and giving the dog a predictable life than it does the tone of your voice or even body language. I'm 4'9" and under 100lbs., my dogs know that they can predict a consequence from me (nothing negative, just consistent) 100% of the time (A will always get you B). That's pretty much what I can expect from them as far as compliance goes. (A will always get me B)
I'm not the least bit overbearing, firm or intimidating...simply consistent. I actually have people comment on my lack of firmness (not referring to my butt, I hope:p ) and presence and how well it relates to results...and that seems to shock people. I've also seen Sam in action with her two dogs and noted the same easy going, kind demeanour from her and her dogs were beautifully compliant, happy, eager and confident.
My husband on the other hand has a very deep voice, is a big presence but tends to be inconsistent...we see the results in the lack of consistent compliance for him. It's not that my dogs completely disreguard him, but it's clear that his messages are confusing and a bit muddled as are their responses.
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
Who ever said that dogs don't kill sheep? Of course they do. Living off of someone's sheep in a fenced pasture is different than living as a true, wild canid, such as the wolf, living entirely off of nature, real nature. Sure, some dogs can kill deer and they do. But over all, domestic dogs would not fare very well living as a wolf does. Primarily scavenging animals do not need to be in a true pack. Some dogs don't even have the full set of predatory motor patterns. I'm not here to split hairs and argue that some dogs don't kill sheep or band together as the necessity to kill a large animal requires, that they don't have any instincts. I have repeatedly said that they do have some instincts and behaviors which come from their wolf ancestors. However, as a general population, domestic dogs are evolved to eat in the proximity to humans.

Many of the "wild" dogs living at the margins of human settlements in 3rd world countries (Pariah) dogs, are thought by ethologists and biologists to be a proto dog, the ancestors of our domestic dogs. They are fairly homgenous and are not thought to be descendents of purebred dogs because there is no local history of purebred dogs in most of these places. There is also no archeological evidence of any other wild canid which would indicate the probability of cross breeding. These dogs are not mongrels. They are probably descended from wolves, but because of the course of evolution, have taken on the different physical and mental characteristics from wolves. When selection favors tameness, the genes which control the ability to tolerate humans are linked to genes which control developmental onsets and in dogs, the puppyhood is extended. These genes are linked to physical characteristics such as curly tails, drop ears, odd coat colors and length, smaller brain, skull and teeth size and more. This was demonstrated by a 40 year long experiement on wild foxes and scientists believe this is what occured in the small population of tamer, bolder wolves who were able to eat in proximatey to humans, the most significant feature of the evolution of the dog.

Getting back on topic, (Cesar Milan) ....The point is that dogs in our homes, as pets, do not need to hunt and survive on their own. They are given everything they need by us. Why then, would they challenge us or choose to take over the role of provider (alpha)? Why would they want to have that responsibility? In most cases, they don't. They can develop horrible behavior which is not conducive to living harmoniously with us. But that behavior is on account of under training IMO, not on account of trying to revert backward through evolution and be like a wolf. It is un parsimonious to skip over the simpler answers first. Why is it that I can maintain well behaved dogs who do not try to stage a coupe when I don't do those things CM does? Why is it that my dogs never develop the severe behavior problems we talk about? I never scruffed, poked at their necks, yanked on a choke chain, or stomped my foot into them or loomed over them in a threatening stance. Why is it that their pushy behavior, as they were learning not to rush the door, food bowl, grab something from my hand, pull on the leash has disappeared? Why are they now sitting politely while the door is opened, while their food bowl is set down, that they don't pull on the leash in order to hurry on their walk? If this stuff is "dominance" or "wolf-like" behavior, (as Cesar touts) and the only way to cure it is to dominate and intimidate, shut down, then how did all these behaviors disappear? How is it that many behaviorists work with "red zone" dogs without doing what CM does? They don't see that behavior as being dominant or alpha-like. They see it as having been reinforced at one time...that it wouldn't exist in the first place if it had not been reinforced. They rehabilitate dogs all the time. How is that possible if dogs are chomping at the bit to be "wild" like their wolf ancestors and want to go hunting for their food rather than co-exist with humans...how is it possible to have this phenomenal bond between our two species?
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
Everytime I post, I miss other posts. LOL.

While I understand what you're saying and I can picture many clients who are less than convincing when delivering a command, I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think that it has much more to do with consistency and giving the dog a predictable life than it does the tone of your voice or even body language.
Absolutely agree. It's about learning behavior, not about dominance.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top