# Cesar Millan: What's True, What's False?



## MarsCruiser (Jan 2, 2016)

Before I became a dog owner, I would sometimes watch Cesar Millan's TV show The Dog Whisperer and go, "wow, that's pretty cool." But once I got a dog, I did what every 21st century, first-time dog owner would do, which is spend hours searching the internet for dog ownership tips. As I was doing this, I noticed a lot of mixed opinions about Mr. Millan, which I found odd at first because judging from his TV show, he seemed like the ultimate dog man, the guy who knows everything there is to know about dog psychology. I couldn't see how anyone could question his methods of dealing with dogs. This has been hanging around my mind for awhile, and now that I've found this forum site, I want to hear from you guys. How much of of Cesar Millan's lessons and advice are legit, and how much is BS? Many say that what he teaches is not scientific and can't be trusted, but the man has like forty dogs, so surely there has to be some truth to his style, right?

Let me know what you guys think.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Legit:
- Dogs need Exercise, Discipline** and Affection

**Not punishment, but a set of rules and to be taught how to follow them

Not legit:
- Pretty much everything else.

Having a lot of dogs isn't really a qualification to be a dog trainer. His handling methods have directly resulted in bites to humans and/or euthanasia of too many dogs for me to take his methods seriously. There have been plenty of discussions about him that I'm sure you can find by using the forum search tool.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

One thing you have to remember about him is he is a TV personality, his show is heavily edited and scripted, which means you see about half of what really happened.

This "dog before breed" crap really irritates me, because a dog's breed IS part of what, and who they are ... and if he knew ANYTHING about dogs, then he should at least know that.

He misreads dogs a lot, and gets bit a lot. A good trainer wouldnt get bit as much (or shouldnt) as he does, because a good trainer wouldnt knowingly push a dog that far over threshold that the dog thinks the "only way out" is to bite. A good example is the episode with the lab that was food aggressive, that situation could have been handled SO much differently, the dog, IMO was awesome, she warned him a BUNCH of times before finally biting him. He said she was "dominant" (in reality 'dominant' dog personalities are very rare, I have only known two or three in my lifetime ... and one of them was mine), when in reality, dogs who guard things are actually insecure. 

I laugh when he tries to get his dogs to do agility and other things that require them to be "revved up" because he has spent so much time and effort keeping them "under his thumb" so to speak, that they have no drive what so ever, and to do sports, you need drive, you have to nurture drive, build drive, etc ... something I dont think CM even knows how to do.

In summation, his show should be a tutorial on how NOT to be with your dog, LOL.


----------



## MarsCruiser (Jan 2, 2016)

I've always been the type of person to follow science, and Cesar's ways don't really add up to what researchers have come up with over the years.

For example, his talk about "energy" didn't make much sense to me. I know that dogs are good at reading body language and facial expressions, but I don't think that has anything to do with energy.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Personally, I'm not a fan of the guy in general, although I think that he makes some good points. He's right that most "bad" dogs are under-exercised. He's also right that dogs need a confident leader. I believe that he truly loves dogs, and I admire the work he's done to erase some of the stigma on breeds like the pit bull. However, most of his training techniques are rooted in old, now-disproved pack theory, which I hate seeing spread like gospel.

Very basically: Pack theory comes from some 1940s studies done on a group of captive, unrelated wolves. These wolves, when thrown together in captivity, fought over all resources. The researchers decided that they were fighting to become the "alpha." However, those researchers and others have since learned that real wolf packs are family groups, with the parents as the natural "alphas," and that they engage in very little competition over resources. The younger wolves do not fight to usurp their parents, and behaviors like "alpha rolls" are voluntary (a wolf will roll on its back to show it's no threat). However, most of this is moot anyway, as our domestic dogs are now pretty far-removed from their wild ancestors -- lately experts like Jean Donaldson have even been disputing the idea that dogs are pack animals at all (feral dogs tend to buddy up or form loose packs when it's advantageous, but are mostly solitary scavengers).

Here are some of my favorite resources on the subject:

The Dominance Controversy (by Dr. Sophia Yin, DVM, MS)
De-Bunking the "Alpha Dog" Theory (by Pat Miller, CBCC-KA, CPDT-KA, CDBC)
Misconceptions of the Mythical Alpha Dog (by Dr. Ian Dunbar, veterinary behaviorist)
AVSAB Position Statement on the Use of Dominance Theory in Behavior Modification of Animals (with citations)
Leader of the Pack (roundup of various other articles)
Wolf expert L. David Mech's site (he wrote one of the seminal books on wolf behavior, which he has since begged the publisher to stop publishing as it's so outdated)

For anyone who's interested in getting (much) more in-depth, some blog posts from Patricia McConnell, PhD, a renowned applied animal behaviorist:

The Concept Formerly Described as "Dominance"
The “D word” and Social Relationships in Dogs
Dogs & “Dominance” –What’s a Person to Do?
Dog Training and the “D” Word

Some criticism of Cesar Millan himself (I like these links because they aren't invective-filled rants; they acknowledge his good points while explaining the issues with some of his techniques):

What Do I Think About The Dog Whisperer?
Food Aggression and a Famous Trainer (in response to this video)
One Person's Experience With the Dog Whisperer (stories like this are rare, as show participants must sign a NDA)
Pack of Lies (New York Times article)

And a bit of information on thresholds and learned helplessness (what Cesar calls "calm submissive"), as mentioned in some of those other articles:

Across a Threshold
Shut Down Dogs (with some great photo examples)

Finally, a video that demonstrates how Cesar's dog and human helpers rile up the dogs that appear on his shows to make for more exciting TV -- just as a reminder that this is, above all, reality television, and is subject to the same editing and behind-the-scenes machinations as any other "reality" show.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I agree with the other posters, especially Crantastic. Love that post.

I think if CM had just looked at the science and the research and the evidence and said 'well, it looks like it's time to change tactics' it would have been fine. But, from everything on him and from him that I've read, he has an ego the size of Jupiter and will never admit that his training methods are outdated. And it's the dogs (his and the dogs of people who ignore the "do not try at home" disclaimer at the beginning of his shows) who end up suffering for it Besides, having 'pack leader ENERGY' makes for way better television. :/


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

I've lost the link. But I once read an article that saw CM as a master of body language . . . something of a cross between a dancer and a soccer player who has a genius for communicating with dogs.
I haven't watched a lot of CM shows, but the few dozen I've seen support that. He is extraordinarily good at using his body to communicate with dogs. He gets timing right. He's great at suggestion . . . little steps that block . . . motions that shut down aggressive behavior.
Unfortunately, these extraordinary skills are not something that most of us can replicate. As for theory and scientific research: as others have stated, CM is far off track.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

The shows disclaimer should tell you everything you need to know. Do not try this at home. It's entertainment, not education. It's fiction.

Sometimes I enjoy Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe, but there is nothing he does on that show that I would try at home.


----------



## Pomom (Apr 9, 2014)

The rib jab and the sound he makes to interrupt unwanted behaviour are positive punishment, that is adding something unwanted. There are different opinions on this but for a dog that is already on edge, this can't be de escalating. His "no touch, no talk, no eye contact" is negative punishment, withholding something desirable. I feel this has a place in training, but in the beginning it should be easy for the dog to "win." Baby steps. But do you notice a theme? He's big on punishment. My favourite tv dog trainer was Stanley Cohen. Though it's been years since I saw him so I reserve my somewhat more experienced opinion. Anyone remember what his show was called? The best thing about him was he trained the PEOPLE in the family to communicate with their dog. He didn't haul the dog off to a completely different environment to "fix" them and then return them to the same dysfunctnal atmosphere where they acquired their problems.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

RonE said:


> The shows disclaimer should tell you everything you need to know. Do not try this at home. It's entertainment, not education. It's fiction.
> 
> Sometimes I enjoy Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe, but there is nothing he does on that show that I would try at home.


Yep, I LOVE Mythbusters, but I would NEVER try anything they do at home. IMO, When a dog training show has the same disclaimer as a show with dangerous stuff happening, it kind of makes one wonder.


----------



## Amaryllis (Dec 28, 2011)

sandgrubber said:


> I've lost the link. But I once read an article that saw *CM as a master of body language* . . . something of a cross between a dancer and a soccer player who has a genius for communicating with dogs.
> I haven't watched a lot of CM shows, but the few dozen I've seen support that. He is extraordinarily good at using his body to communicate with dogs. He gets timing right. He's great at suggestion . . . little steps that block . . . motions that shut down aggressive behavior.
> Unfortunately, these extraordinary skills are not something that most of us can replicate. As for theory and scientific research: as others have stated, CM is far off track.


As often as he's escalated dogs, especially to the point of being bitten, I doubt that's true.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

sandgrubber said:


> I've lost the link. But I once read an article that saw CM as a master of body language . . . something of a cross between a dancer and a soccer player who has a genius for communicating with dogs.
> I haven't watched a lot of CM shows, but the few dozen I've seen support that. He is extraordinarily good at using his body to communicate with dogs. He gets timing right. He's great at suggestion . . . little steps that block . . . motions that shut down aggressive behavior.
> Unfortunately, these extraordinary skills are not something that most of us can replicate. As for theory and scientific research: as others have stated, CM is far off track.


No just ... no ... he gets NOTHING right. What he SAYS is right, but what he says often counteracts what he does. He pegs fearfully aggressive, insecure, dogs as "dominant", and reactive, or DA dogs as "red zone". 

That being said, I do use touches and leash pops as well, but not in the way he does, I use them more as an interrupter of behavior than a punishment (HEY stop doing that!/look over here! do this instead! yay, good boy, here is a treat!) LOL.

CM would HATE my dogs and I , if he tried that stuff on Lincoln, he would likely think he was playing, since that's how I play with him anyway.

Also, another thing that is comical to watch CM do is when he tries to take his dogs over an agility course, because he has spent so much time suppressing his dog's drive and independent thinking, they just go around there like robots, no animation at all. Lincoln and I would smoke him!


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> No just ... no ... he gets NOTHING right. What he SAYS is right, but what he says often counteracts what he does. He pegs fearfully aggressive, insecure, dogs as "dominant", and reactive, or DA dogs as "red zone".
> 
> That being said, I do use touches and leash pops as well, but not in the way he does, I use them more as an interrupter of behavior than a punishment (HEY stop doing that!/look over here! do this instead! yay, good boy, here is a treat!) LOL.
> 
> ...


 Ok . .. I'm probably wrong. I found the article . . . it was in the New Yorker in 2006 .. .and it's been at least as long since I saw a CM show. The article (' What the dog said') can be found in full in this download
https://gizul.wordpress.com/2015/05...and-other-adventures-by-malcolm-gladwell-pdf/


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Amaryllis said:


> As often as he's escalated dogs, especially to the point of being bitten, I doubt that's true.


I am still on the fence as to the reasoning behind why he does that. Is it; because he thinks it helps the dog? Because it makes for dramatic TV? Because he is a vindictive jerk? IDK, I would LIKE to believe that he does it because he really believes it helps the dogs, but I might be wrong.


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I am still on the fence as to the reasoning behind why he does that. Is it; because he thinks it helps the dog? Because it makes for dramatic TV? Because he is a vindictive jerk? IDK, I would LIKE to believe that he does it because he really believes it helps the dogs, but I might be wrong.


I believe it's because when he pushes them far enough that even biting the threat gives them no results they shut down. He perceives learned helplessness as "submission " which he wants to achieve with every dog.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

It's partly for dramatic TV (his viewers are most impressed when he helps the so-called "Red Zone" dogs) and partly because when he gets these dogs to shut down, they APPEAR very compliant. His strategy for almost everything is just bullying the dog into shutting down, though. I remember one episode where a big dog (Saint Bernard named Riley) was terrified of the staircase in his family's home. A good trainer would have worked to get the dog over that fear by associating the staircase with good things, but that wouldn't have been a quick fix or very entertaining TV. Cesar just dragged the dog up and down the stairs over and over until the dog was too exhausted/scared to fight, and called that a win.


----------



## hanksimon (Mar 18, 2009)

I agree that he thinks that learned helplessness is 'submission' AND he thinks that 'submission' is good. I believe he confuses that with compliance and obedience.
I also believe that he thinks that Flooding is good, confusing that with eliciting a behavior in order to correct it ... which is some very specific cases may be correct.

He deserves the excoriation that everyone provided, b/c his methods, at best, are based on incorrect ideas that are 30 - 40 years old. However, I'm going to try to be a little nicer:

1. He appears to be learning a little bit. If you read his first books and his recent books, his philosophy has improved ... but he still doesn't recognize advanced and effective positive methods even when shown to him using his own dog!
2. Reading his first book and looking as his television disclaimers - He is NOT a dog trainer, he rehabilitates. [They try to be cute in the disclaimers.]
3. I can train, but I would never try to rehabilitate the dogs that he tackles. But, I try hard not to get bitten.
4. In his first book, there is some disclaimer that not all dogs need his methods. His later books are a little different.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Crantastic said:


> It's partly for dramatic TV (his viewers are most impressed when he helps the so-called "Red Zone" dogs) and partly because when he gets these dogs to shut down, they APPEAR very compliant. His strategy for almost everything is just bullying the dog into shutting down, though. I remember one episode where a big dog (Saint Bernard named Riley) was terrified of the staircase in his family's home. A good trainer would have worked to get the dog over that fear by associating the staircase with good things, but that wouldn't have been a quick fix or very entertaining TV. Cesar just dragged the dog up and down the stairs over and over until the dog was too exhausted/scared to fight, and called that a win.


I vividly remember that clip. And have used it several times with people who claim they've seen all his shows and he NEVER chokes or kicks or hurts a dog or whatever. That and the resource guarding golden, I think it was. Holly, maybe? But the Saint hit home for me especially since giant breeds often just don't like stairs. Or, following vet/breeder/internet advice, the dog's owners didn't have them going up and down stairs until they were older. But, I guess carefully guiding the dog up the stairs using treats on every step and praise over a period of time just isn't hear-pounding exciting television. Basically, when people ask me about him, I've been trying to be as diplomatic as possible and say that his shows are more like reality TV than documentaries or a science show - The Kardashians, not Cosmos.


----------



## MarsCruiser (Jan 2, 2016)

Wow. Thanks for the replies, guys. All of your posts have been very interesting to read.



hanksimon said:


> I agree that he thinks that learned helplessness is 'submission' AND he thinks that 'submission' is good. I believe he confuses that with compliance and obedience.
> I also believe that he thinks that Flooding is good, confusing that with eliciting a behavior in order to correct it ... which is some very specific cases may be correct.
> 
> He deserves the excoriation that everyone provided, b/c his methods, at best, are based on incorrect ideas that are 30 - 40 years old. However, I'm going to try to be a little nicer:
> ...


That made me curious. Anyone have a video of that?

Also, I remember that episode where Cesar was working on that aggressive resource guarding dog named Holly which was mentioned a few times on this thread. Cesar got a bad bite on the hand. How do you guys think that situation should have been handled?


----------



## cookieface (Jul 6, 2011)

MarsCruiser said:


> Also, I remember that episode where Cesar was working on that aggressive resource guarding dog named Holly which was mentioned a few times on this thread. Cesar got a bad bite on the hand. How do you guys think that situation should have been handled?


By not continuing to intimidate the dog. This is a good blog post with an explanation of resource guarding and an effective training protocol: http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/theotherendoftheleash/resource-guarding-treatment-and-prevention

Note that training does not happen in the moment; it is carefully planned and carried out once emotions have settled and everyone is set up for success.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

If someone pulls a gun on you, generally the best thing to do to not get shot is to do whatever they're asking. Holly repeatedly told CM to leave her alone. He didn't (he actually did the opposite). So she shot him.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

We as humans seem obsessed with making dogs be perfectly behaved little creatures - not allowed to have their own likes and dislikes or ever get annoyed. To some extent, I get that, dogs have an arsenal of weapons that can do serious damage and it's difficult to understand their language. But if we all have our own likes and dislikes (I don't like certain people, I get super nervous around kids, I don't like people just sticking their fingers in my food, sometimes I just need to be left alone for a while to decompress, etc) and we are supposed to be the higher-functioning more intelligent species, WHY can't we just let dogs have their own personalities and respect what they don't like? What CM did to Holly was basically recognize that she was uncomfortable and didn't like him around her food and then say "you know what? I don't care what you want, it's all about what -I- want" and then proceeded to get in her face until her only option was snapping. 

I don't know, I think there would be a lot less bleeding if everyone would recognize what their dogs are saying and work WITH them instead of forcing things against them. Which a lot of trainers do! Just not CM. Because, as others have stated, he sees a completely shut down dog with learned helplessness as a perfectly obedient good dog. It's not the same.


----------



## petpeeve (Jun 10, 2010)

Pomom said:


> My favourite tv dog trainer was Stanley Cohen. Though it's been years since I saw him so I reserve my somewhat more experienced opinion. Anyone remember what his show was called? The best thing about him was he trained the PEOPLE in the family to communicate with their dog. He didn't haul the dog off to a completely different environment to "fix" them and then return them to the same dysfunctnal atmosphere where they acquired their problems.


 It's actually Stanley Coren, just saying, and the show was called "Good Dog!". I believe it's available for download on-line if anyone is interested.

Anyway. That's my big contribution to this thread.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I watched that show as a kid and I remember it being a mixed bag. I do remember some good stuff (like using scents around the house to help blind dogs navigate) but also some dominance stuff (making the dog think you're eating out of their bowl before you give it to them, etc)


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ireth0 said:


> I watched that show as a kid and I remember it being a mixed bag. I do remember some good stuff (like using scents around the house to help blind dogs navigate) but also some dominance stuff (making the dog think you're eating out of their bowl before you give it to them, etc)


Victoria Stillwell did a lot of that same dominance stuff too. Nothing heavy handed, but pretending to eat out of the bowl stuff. I think that was just considered "good" training then. But she has since said that all of that is silly and is up to date on new methods. Not saying I love her or her show or anything, but she does have a very active blog that consists mainly of guest posters writing things about positive training, plus a podcast. So she's doing a lot for positive training these days even if she's more of a spokesperson than trainer.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Victoria Stillwell did a lot of that same dominance stuff too. Nothing heavy handed, but pretending to eat out of the bowl stuff. I think that was just considered "good" training then. But she has since said that all of that is silly and is up to date on new methods. Not saying I love her or her show or anything, but she does have a very active blog that consists mainly of guest posters writing things about positive training, plus a podcast. So she's doing a lot for positive training these days even if she's more of a spokesperson than trainer.


I dont remember Stilwell doing any of that, I do know she did use a lot of aversives, like noise deterrents, and scat mats (though I dont disagree with those, I kind of WANT my dog do associate the trash can with something unpleasant, since what is in there has the potential to kill him haha).


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I dont remember Stilwell doing any of that, I do know she did use a lot of aversives, like noise deterrents, and scat mats (though I dont disagree with those, I kind of WANT my dog do associate the trash can with something unpleasant, since what is in there has the potential to kill him haha).


I forgot about the noise deterrents, but you're right, she did use those. I don't think she ever did any physical dominance stuff. And that was only her UK show. I think when she came to the US it was much more modern training.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> I forgot about the noise deterrents, but you're right, she did use those. I don't think she ever did any physical dominance stuff. And that was only her UK show. I think when she came to the US it was much more modern training.


Ah, okay, i never saw the UK version of her show, only the american one, LOL and she was even chastised by her peers for those aversives, LOL. My favorite thing was how she "told it like it was" to owners and didnt sugar coat anything.


----------



## MarsCruiser (Jan 2, 2016)

One more little question. We've established that Holly the resource guarding dog that bit Cesar wasn't dominant at all.

What then, is a dominant dog? How do they really behave?


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Dog-human dominance really isn't a thing. _Dominance_ really isn't a thing, if you're talking the "power and control over others" definition that someone like Cesar uses. Patricia McConnell explains what dominance is and isn't here.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I was actually JUST studying my class materials on what some trainers present as dominance. The trainers who push dominance (which, once again, isn't really a thing - even the man who talked about Alphas in his wolf research years ago has updated his stance) don't even have a universal agreement on what dominance is. In terms of dog-dog dominance, they push a great many different theories (which basically just have some anecdotes and opinions to back them up) There's linear dominance, linear subordination, character trait dominance, contextual dominance, non-transitive hierarchies...

The thing is, as humans, we live in a society defined by hierarchies (who is dominant). Think of the military with all their ranks, or a company with the chairman of the board, board members, president... In schools you have a principle and a vice principle and the superintendent and teachers all in a hierarchy. So we find is VERY difficult to imagine a species that isn't defined by all these ranks and rules. Also, and I think this is a pretty big part of why dominance theory continues to stick around, is that if we say the dog is trying to dominate us or be dominant over us or whatever, it keeps ups relevant. If the dog is trying to constantly one-up us and be the dominant animal, it means that the dog's world revolves around us. Otherwise, the thought that we might not actually be relevant to the dog at the time - the dog is pulling because he walks faster or wants to go sniff that post and it has nothing to do with us, for example - is a blow to the ego that is really hard for some people to take.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I dont know if dogs practice "dominance" (as we see it) with each other or not, I kind of equat dogs interacting with one another to kids on a playground, there are the outcasts, the loners, the cool / popular kids, the bullies, the wimps, etc.

I could be wrong, but that's how I have always looked at it.


----------



## Sarah101 (Jun 27, 2015)

Deleted I am leaving this forum.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

There's no such thing as "positive only." This link does a good job of explaining the various myths and misconceptions around positive training: http://eileenanddogs.com/common-misconceptions-positive-reinforcement/


----------



## Sarah101 (Jun 27, 2015)

Deleted I am leaving this forum.


----------



## BigLittle (May 28, 2014)

I'm not a fan of Milan by any stretch for the above reasons. He misreads what is really going on inside dogs' minds and essentially shuts them down through force and intimidation to get to what he thinks is success...

That being said... There are things he focuses on that I think really do need to be focused on by everyone.

"Exercise, Discipline, Affection" is the first that comes to mind. Discipline, I would reinterpret as "Structure/Training" and it's a good motto.

"No talk, no touch, no eye contact" is a good protocol to follow with completely unknown, strange dogs. Especially for kids who need things to be broken down into simple terms.

Use of other dogs in rehabilitation/training. I find a well-rounded dog, personally, when paired with the right fearful personality, will make a wallflower blossom much more quickly. Louie would be WAY more timid if it wasn't for taking cues from Clyde on how to act in unsure circumstances.

In one of his more recent shows, my mom was watching and I glanced over to see that he was using incompatible behaviors to train dogs. Dogs can't jump in bed with owners, get guardy, or disrupt sleep if they are in a down-stay in dog beds... Or a herder can't nip at dancers if he is told to stay in a spot. Really, just add some treats in the mix and you have how I like to train. Teach what I don't want using "NO" or an interrupter noise followed by verbal/food reward after doing the right thing.(With or without a command to guide them to the desired behavior)


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Sarah101 said:


> Ok, there are a lot of people posting negatives on CM, so I think I will try to post in his favor. I agree with some of what is said above, you need to take each of his assertions about dogs individually, and judge them for yourself. Definitely take in multiple perspectives with multiple trainers, books, or legit websites on dog training. I recognize patterns a lot, and one pattern here is similar to one in history. Early Psychologists tried to figure out what was going on inside of the human head, but without today's sophisticated equipment, you'd say many of their assertions were WAY off. Then rose up a "movement" of sorts within the profession, Called Behaviorists, they thought psychologists should only focus on what was observable, i.e. behavior. They developed many of the "Learning Theories" you use on your dogs now. They called the brain a "Black Box" saying it was worthless to research it because you could never observe it. Then there were a few psychologists who still thought it was possible to discover more about the mind, They were called Cognitive Psychologists, and were mostly disregarded as backwash by the Behaviorists who dominated the profession. Until things changed. Eventually Scientific Procedure and Equipment reached the goals of the Cognitive psychologists and the Behaviorists accepted them. After this Psychological Therapy took a major step forward, because a form, combining the theory's of each was put together, called Cognitive Behavioral Therapy.
> 
> Anyways, The pattern similarity is this: CM, and those similar to him, used theories about the dogs mind. The Dominance perspective was popular until the "Positive Training Only" perspective came about (Clearly derived from Operant Conditioning, a theory the Behaviorists mentioned above thought up). Now this perspective dominates the field and anyone who uses, even a portion of the Dominance theory is called backwards. Now here is the part for you to judge: Where on the line is CM. Is he the old Cognitive dog Psychology, or are there portions of his theory that are worth taking.
> 
> I still believe that true dog training methods won't rise to it's best until we combine theories completely, but that may be a long way off, because there are parts to the whole CM theory that I do not follow. He is changing, and some of his theories are acceptable to me, but not all of them.


But ... CM is not a behaviorist, he has no credentials. Even his "colleagues" (if you can consider them as such since he isn't even in the same league as them IMO) advise against his methods, saying in most cases, they do more harm than good.


----------



## Sarah101 (Jun 27, 2015)

Deleted I am leaving this forum.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

What I also dont like about him is its almost like he doesnt want people having fun with their dogs, you know? Like fun is a form of "dominance" or something.


----------



## Wolfiepaws100 (Jan 8, 2016)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> One thing you have to remember about him is he is a TV personality, his show is heavily edited and scripted, which means you see about half of what really happened.
> 
> This "dog before breed" crap really irritates me, because a dog's breed IS part of what, and who they are ... and if he knew ANYTHING about dogs, then he should at least know that.
> 
> ...


Um, You could have the nicest pit bull, that snuggles up to you and never hurts a fly. On the other extreme, you could have a lab that wants to bite your face off all the time. So, it is dog before breed. A breed, is only looks. A dog and its owner determines the dogs behavior and its personality.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Sarah101 said:


> Anyways, The pattern similarity is this: CM, and those similar to him, used theories about the dogs mind. The Dominance perspective was popular until the "Positive Training Only" perspective came about (Clearly derived from Operant Conditioning, a theory the Behaviorists mentioned above thought up). Now this perspective dominates the field and anyone who uses, even a portion of the Dominance theory is called backwards. Now here is the part for you to judge: Where on the line is CM. Is he the old Cognitive dog Psychology, or are there portions of his theory that are worth taking.
> 
> I still believe that true dog training methods won't rise to it's best until we combine theories completely, but that may be a long way off, because there are parts to the whole CM theory that I do not follow. He is changing, and some of his theories are acceptable to me, but not all of them.


First, CM is not a scientist, he has absolutely no formal training in any field. Comparing him to psychologists and "behaviorists" who studied and learned from experts in their fields before they were accepted as experts themselves. CM has no formal training in dog behavior or dog training, he proclaims himself to be entirely self taught. He is NOT an expert in the field by any measure. It is not a case of the experts in the field being divided in a topic... it is a case of someone who is claiming to be a "self-taught" expert spewing garbage that contradicts everything that has been carefully studied and researched by the people who are actually experts in the topic (not people on this board, but trained and educated and certified dog behaviorists and trainers).

Its pretty much the same situation as Jenny McCarthy (and others), who has no education in health or medicine, claiming that vaccines cause autism. People believe her and perceive her to be an expert _even though she is not one_. Meanwhile, science has poured billions of dollars into studies to repeatedly show that there is no association between vaccines and the occurrence of autism. Those billions of dollars could have been much better spent on projects trying to help people who ARE born with autism, but no. The public believes Jenny McCarthy and one falsified study over the dozens of studies that repeatedly show there is no link between the two.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Wolfiepaws100 said:


> Um, You could have the nicest pit bull, that snuggles up to you and never hurts a fly. On the other extreme, you could have a lab that wants to bite your face off all the time. So, it is dog before breed. A breed, is only looks. A dog and its owner determines the dogs behavior and its personality.


Breed is not only looks tho. There are plenty of breeds who have been developed for a specific job... one that they cannot do without a specific temperament. Which is actually something you can breed for, because it is determined (at least in part) by genetics.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

gingerkid said:


> First, CM is not a scientist, he has absolutely no formal training in any field. Comparing him to psychologists and "behaviorists" who studied and learned from experts in their fields before they were accepted as experts themselves. CM has no formal training in dog behavior or dog training, he proclaims himself to be entirely self taught. He is NOT an expert in the field by any measure. It is not a case of the experts in the field being divided in a topic... it is a case of someone who is claiming to be a "self-taught" expert spewing garbage that contradicts everything that has been carefully studied and researched by the people who are actually experts in the topic (not people on this board, but trained and educated and certified dog behaviorists and trainers).
> 
> Its pretty much the same situation as Jenny McCarthy (and others), who has no education in health or medicine, claiming that vaccines cause autism. People believe her and perceive her to be an expert _even though she is not one_. Meanwhile, science has poured billions of dollars into studies to repeatedly show that there is no association between vaccines and the occurrence of autism. Those billions of dollars could have been much better spent on projects trying to help people who ARE born with autism, but no. The public believes Jenny McCarthy and one falsified study over the dozens of studies that repeatedly show there is no link between the two.


thank you, i am glad i wasnt the only one who thought that the entire time i was reading that post.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I do see some point to "dog before breed" because otherwise you have people going "but he can't be dog-aggressive! He's a Lab!". You do have to look at the individual in front of you. But breeds have breed traits and that also needs to be taken into consideration.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I do see some point to "dog before breed" because otherwise you have people going "but he can't be dog-aggressive! He's a Lab!". You do have to look at the individual in front of you. But breeds have breed traits and that also needs to be taken into consideration.


Yes, I agree "dog before breed" should be applied, not to the extreme he uses it, like he believes that "dog before breed" will "cure" dogs who have an inherent predisposition to things like SSA, and DA, and herding breeds, who have herding instinct, which often times, isnt true.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I was just reading a parenting blog, and it made me thin of ol' CM . OK, let's see if I can explain it well. 

There are some people who promote a very harsh and authoritarian, child vs parent, the parent must always win, the child must always obey even if the parent is wrong/stupid/being a jerk, the child must always show "respect" (it's really fear), kind of parenting. Some people say "well, if the child isn't being abused, who cares?" The article I read made a very good case that, if someone has that mindset, that the parent must always win, abuse is inevitable. Even if the promoters of such methods give lots of lip service to "never be abusive!", it really is only lip service, because if you truly believe that you must win at all costs, you WILL be abusive, there's no way around that. 

And so it is with CM's methods. If someone takes a "dog vs owner" power struggle view of dog training, they WILL be abusive. No way around it. If they feel they must win at all costs, those costs will come at the dog's expense. So he can say nice things about not being abusive, he could even never show anything abusive on his show, but promoting that kind of mindset WILL lead to abuse. 

And that's what's wrong with CM's methods.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Willowy said:


> I was just reading a parenting blog, and it made me thin of ol' CM . OK, let's see if I can explain it well.
> 
> There are some people who promote a very harsh and authoritarian, child vs parent, the parent must always win, the child must always obey even if the parent is wrong/stupid/being a jerk, the child must always show "respect" (it's really fear), kind of parenting. Some people say "well, if the child isn't being abused, who cares?" The article I read made a very good case that, if someone has that mindset, that the parent must always win, abuse is inevitable. Even if the promoters of such methods give lots of lip service to "never be abusive!", it really is only lip service, because if you truly believe that you must win at all costs, you WILL be abusive, there's no way around that.
> 
> ...


I do believe that kids should always show respect, even when the adult is being a jerk, because if they do, they come off the bigger person, instead of "stooping" to that person's level and telling them off.

But ... I think it is in accurate parallel, because kids and dogs arent even close to being the same thing. A child is eventually going to grow up to be part of and contribute to society (you hope),whereis a dog is not. I am not saying it is okay to be cruel to either, I am just saying.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Of course, teaching kids how to effectively deal with jerks is an important life lesson, techniques may include faking respect in order to keep the jerk from causing problems. But teaching them that they have to tolerate jerks just because they're older or "outrank" them is an extremely damaging life lesson. 

But that's not the point. The point is that, if someone sees their relationship with any being as a war that he/she needs to always win, this requires that they need to make sure that the other party _always loses_.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I used to see my relationships with dogs that way oh boy am I ever glad I changed and converted. I have SOOOO much more fun with my dogs now, I have accomplished much more, and am a better trainer for it.


----------



## CheshireCatSmiles (Nov 20, 2015)

I mix some of CM's ideologies with some positive training from trainers like Victoria Stilwel etc. It's worked for my dog, with his particular temperament and sensitivity.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I wish this man's name was banned from this forum.
How pleasant would it be to see threads about him get shut down before they can start.

The man beats, punches, kicks, and hangs dogs until they're passed out. Dogs are so afraid of him that they urinate and defecate on themselves when he approaches. And then he hits them for it.

He is trash and every show and book he's a part of needs to be shut down and burned.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> I wish this man's name was banned from this forum.
> How pleasant would it be to see threads about him get shut down before they can start.
> 
> The man beats, punches, kicks, and hangs dogs until they're passed out. Dogs are so afraid of him that they urinate and defecate on themselves when he approaches. And then he hits them for it.
> ...


Banning anything is not the answer. We need to ba allowed to discuss him so we can enlighten others about why his methods arent the best choice anymore.

Do I think he is cruel on purpose? no. But it doesnt make what he is doing right, either.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

There are veryvery few people who are deliberately cruel/abusive. This goes for animal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, domestic abuse, all of it. The majority of people who commit these acts truly feel they're doing the best thing, they really love the ones they abuse, they think they're doing great! And it's difficult to educate them on better methods because in order for them to change, they have to admit they're doing it wrong. And people hate to admit they're wrong :/. So that's what makes it so hard to change the culture of abuse.


----------

