Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2008 12:11:26 GMT 1
Not a book, but a very useful free resource I've recently come across...
The Dog Whisperer, on every day 6pm weekdays and variable at weekends, Sky 3, is a Mexican called Cesar Milan who works in the States. His way of working is very IH and really illustrates his concepts of "rules, boundaries and limitations" and how your personal energy will affect the dog. His work is often with the human, toning down excitement to his favourite "calm assertive", and so reminds me of how I strive to work with horse owners.
His method of working translates so well to horses (bearing the different species in mind) that I'd recommend it to anyone who is interested in understanding how our body language affects the animals in our lives.
|
|
newimage
Olympic Poster
Olympic Poster
My best friend Milly, RIP my angel xxxxx
Posts: 677
|
Post by newimage on Apr 3, 2008 13:28:48 GMT 1
Hi LizP I love this guy and have watched him loads. I saw one episode where he was dealing with a dog that chased a horse while the owner was trying to lunge the horse. He cured the problem and did make connections with dogs and horses having some similar behaviour issues that can be cured by our energy and state of mind. I like dog borstal too. Makes me angry how the owners never think it's anything to do with them, but by the end of the week their dogs are perfect pets and the owners haven't even realised it's because they've actually been trained and not really the dog!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2008 16:59:32 GMT 1
Hmmm, Dog Borstal... it's ok if you watch it for the trainers, although I do object to the one who swears all the time. I also object to the tone of the programme, describing the dogs as bad or naughty. It doesn't do much to dispell the idea that it's the dog's fault. But, yes, interesting from a training point of view.
|
|
|
Post by rhillahorse on Apr 3, 2008 19:31:37 GMT 1
Cesar has such a great energy. I think he'd be great with horses.
|
|
jo
Novice Poster
Posts: 0
|
Post by jo on Apr 3, 2008 21:13:38 GMT 1
Oh my goodness LizP we have something we agree on?;-)
I LOooooourve Cesar's way with his dogs. Have been watching him for yonks now, even bought his book. At first I was very sceptical when I saw him working with a dog wearing horrid spikey choketype collar thing but then the more I watched the more I understood. (that he may not agree with the collar but that is what he is presented with by the owner)
I've really taken on board his Exercise, Discipline, Affection (in that order specifically instead of what is usually doled out by most problem people with dogs. Affection, Affection and then ooops a bit of misplaced wrongly timed discipline...)
and you cannot acknowledge or give affection to an animal unless it is in a calm submissive state.
Amazing how his way of thinking is successfully applied to other animals too, like cats!
I also like the way he refers his 'clients' to dog trainers where the dogs need training (gun dog specific) and reminds people he is rehabilitating dogs NOT a trainer.
There's a fair bit of criticism in the doggy world though - anti cesar brigade - which I realise you will always get, slamming the Dominance theories he uses etc etc.
Re the dog borstal I can't see the point of it? The dogs are taken out of the place they are rebelling in, put in strange environment, totally false. I don't see how it benefits the dogs to have bootcamp style stuff thrown at the owners.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2008 15:26:41 GMT 1
Oh my goodness LizP we have something we agree on?;-) I wasn't aware that I'd ever disagreed with you, or vice versa... But hey, if we're agreeing now, that's the main thing. What are his books like? Do you get something out of them other than what you see on telly? Or would you say that watching him work gives you the essence of his principles?
|
|
jo
Novice Poster
Posts: 0
|
Post by jo on Apr 4, 2008 19:01:30 GMT 1
I really thought it worthwhile reading the book (the latest one is the only one I read though). But then I wanted to know the man behind the tv screen a bit more I guess. He comes across a thoroughly genuine caring guy and IMHO soooooo right about the wierd American ideas on dog ownership!
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Apr 5, 2008 14:20:00 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rj on Apr 5, 2008 15:09:59 GMT 1
Of course there will be people who will disagree with his methods, but I for one feel that whatever discipline is instilled (in the many progs I have watched) is quick and immediately understood by the dogs. Their reaction is what I look at. They don't fear him, they obey him as the leader. It's a concept a lot of people disagree with. I'll carry on watching and learning!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2008 17:46:37 GMT 1
It is, of course, possible that there is more going on than we are shown. Television is, after all, entertainment and that is what the producers are providing. I agree with rj, though, that the dogs appear happy and accepting, and unless he is an extraordinary trainer who can train all these dogs to show emotions other than those felt, I'm happy they've not been abused. And let us not forget how many people will tell you that Monty terrifies horses by sending them away and then chases them till they're exhausted. Of course, unless you're there, you can only judge on what you're shown. But I feel comfortable with it.
And if, for the sake of argument, he is choking dogs and forcing them physically to sumbit, the concepts that he talks about are still valid and are ones I use successfully all the time with horses. If nothing else, if people can see that calm assertiveness, not blaming the animal, leadership, etc. etc. work, then the outcome has to be good, hasn't it?
As with everything, we should all watch with our eyes open and, on television, use a dose of the sceptic to temper our enthusiasms from time to time. And that in itself is a useful exercise!
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Apr 5, 2008 20:21:33 GMT 1
And if, for the sake of argument, he is choking dogs and forcing them physically to sumbit, the concepts that he talks about are still valid and are ones I use successfully all the time with horses. I think the concepts are contested, at least in relation to dogs and according to the article in the first link I posted. What do you think about this concept (assuming Mr. Milan really said it)? "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." When talking about leadership, isn't Milan actually talking about dominance? I have always assumed that for wolves, alpha-dominant and leader are the same (though the quoted article seems to throw doubt on that). I'm not sure about dogs - the "dominance theory" seems to have fallen out of favour amongst behaviourists, and the "alpha roll" is not nearly so widely advocated nowadays. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_rollI definitely know that dominant does not equal leader for horses, and that the two "functions" are separable. I'm all for calm assertiveness. I'm all for good leadership too, but don't see the need to dominate the horse (i.e. make her feel subordinate or evoke explicitly submissive behaviour) in order to be a good leader. We should all watch with our ears shut too, from time to time. What the trainer is telling us may not always be what is actually happening!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2008 8:17:49 GMT 1
I can't really get into a more in depth discussion on dog training, or on Cesar Millan, as I don't have enough knowledge of either. I've read through the first link, Francis, and see things in there I agree with (not enough positive reinforcement, not convinced by the back packs) and things I don't (I've not seen any flooding or working to exhaustion in the shows I've watched).
On a broader note, though, I personally believe that working with difficult animals without force at all is a wonderful ideal. Working with only positive reiforcement is also a wonderful ideal. However, my personal experience is that, if you have an animal who is challenging you, you need to return that challenge. If Ceasar Milan's "bite" hand equates to rather forcefully backing up a horse who is trying to barge through you, then I can understand it.
Yes, Francis, we need to watch without our ears, but I think we also need to watch without bias. Reading that link, it came across to me that people had already decided this method of working was "dominance" and he certainly does use that word. But he also incorrectly defines punishment. If, though, you watch him without that bias, I still maintain there is a lot of interesting stuff in his shows. When the BBC is showing dog training programs that label the dogs as bad, for example, anyone who brings the responsability back to the owner is at least one step better.
I would love to hear from someone who has seen Cesar Millan working at first hand and who could give something other than just a hearsay evaluation and who could say why it is a pack of lies. I'm quite prepared to believe that there is stuff that goes on behind the scenes that we're not shown, simply because that is television for you. However, I still have a feeling that it is unfair to judge anyone on comments that someone may or may not have made, or on comments that someone may have made about him and have then been passed on. It's all a bit Chinese whispers.
I don't want to sound like I'm out to defend this guy to the hilt, I just don't want to completely shoot him down in flames either, when I don't have accurate ammunition to do so!
|
|
jo
Novice Poster
Posts: 0
|
Post by jo on Apr 6, 2008 11:07:28 GMT 1
"I'm not sure about dogs - the "dominance theory" seems to have fallen out of favour amongst behaviourists, and the "alpha roll" is not nearly so widely advocated nowadays."
IMHO this is precisely WHY we have horrendous cases of maulings, fatal attacks and badly behaved screwed up dogs living in the UK and USA.
Hey, I'll even go one step further and suggest it may be why we have hooligan kids out of control. Not just our dogs in fact but even our horses...
perhaps we have all gone too far the other way and common sense has been thrown out of the window.
I don't see dogs use treats among themselves as a way of controling another's behaviour. They use dominance, power of intention, co-operation, recognition in a pack. At some point you have to have the upper say on whether a dog eats a pet bunny or not. The dog who holds no respect for your power over it will not choose your offer of a kibble treat instead of satisfying powerful instincts to chase, attack and kill.
Cesar states again and again he is rehabilitating dogs and their owners he is NOT a dog trainer.
I would like to see him start some shows on how to raise a good pet dog (different breeds).
He uses the common sense that seems to have been forgotten - mantra of rules, boundaries and limitations. How on earth can that be considered wrong by the critics? He then shows us how to apply to get balance in our animals lives. How can he be causing harm?
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Apr 6, 2008 17:51:42 GMT 1
I can't really get into a more in depth discussion on dog training, or on Cesar Millan, as I don't have enough knowledge of either. I've read through the first link, Francis, and see things in there I agree with (not enough positive reinforcement, not convinced by the back packs) and things I don't (I've not seen any flooding or working to exhaustion in the shows I've watched). I have even less experience of Cesar Milan than you do, Liz - I just offered the links as an alternative viewpoint since all the previous posts had been consistently positive. Of course, I take a personal interest in "dominance theories" too, as you know! It's good to have these as ideals, even though they would be very difficult to fully achieve in practice. Use of force is almost inevitable with horses (I can't speak for dogs). I think we agree that we can do without force applied violently? Where we do seem to disagree is about the need to return challenges. A challenge can also be blocked, deflected, absorbed or ignored. These are all alternatives that work, when well chosen and executed. I believe that is what the Passive Leadership approach of Mark Rashid advocates. The way I see it, the disadvantage of returning a challenge in kind is that it is seen as a challenge, and taken "personally". The folks who do it actually seem to want this to happen - for it to become a battle of wills (however short) - outfacing the opponent. Am I wrong? As I've said before, I believe this can and should be avoided where possible. In my experience, dominance games can sometimes be dangerous, they can sometimes make matters worse, and they are always unnecessary. Does this mean I tolerate unruly or dangerous behaviour? Not at all! I believe in setting boundaries too. But you can control without dominating: an electric fence does not "get after" a horse for "showing disrespect", yet it enforces a boundary very effectively. You can be in charge without making the horse show the kind of submissive behaviour that it would show to a dominant; and you don't have be dominant to get a horse to move. That said, you may be surprised to hear that I think backing up a horse who is trying to barge through you is not an unreasonable response. However, to me, its value is as a punisher of the behaviour (making the horse work, imposing discomfort briefly), and not as an opportunity to make a show of dominance. I'm having trouble locating that bit. How does he define punishment? Yes, it's horrible when animals get blamed for behaviour their owners created. I also agree one can still learn from watching (and listening to the views of) someone whose philosophy differs from one's own. Somewhere between credulous open-mindedness and downright skepticism there's a balance to be found. I'm afraid that's human nature - it goes on all the time. That's very fair. I'd love to watch Cesar Milan working at first hand; meanwhile, I'm going to look at some YouTube clips. Who knows, maybe I will feel comfortable with it too!
|
|
|
Post by Francis Burton on Apr 6, 2008 17:59:18 GMT 1
"I'm not sure about dogs - the "dominance theory" seems to have fallen out of favour amongst behaviourists, and the "alpha roll" is not nearly so widely advocated nowadays." IMHO this is precisely WHY we have horrendous cases of maulings, fatal attacks and badly behaved screwed up dogs living in the UK and USA. Has the number of such cases increased in recent years? Unless there's good evidence to show that the decline of the dominance theory is responsible for the increase in problems, I'm afraid I will remain skeptical. To be honest, I'm not nearly as familiar with the behaviour and psychology of dogs as I am with that of horses. I do know that dogs are not horses! But if the canine dominance theory turns out to be incorrect, something will have to replace it - and not just random giving of treats! What will be needed, I suspect, is a good, working understanding of learning theory. I too wish some kids had better discipline (and learnt self-discipline). I'm less sure it's down to the people questioning whether domestic dog behaviour is really comparable to that in wolf packs etc. though! By him, or anyone who knows what they're doing - yes, it should be compulsory viewing.
|
|