Poll: Love Or Hate Cesar Millan

[dostacos]

What can you sad bad about Cesar Milan???? He thinks he is a pit bull or rottweiler! And apparently so do the dogs he works with...How bad can that be????

More like the size of a mastiff

the fierceness of the pitbull

the the bravery of the Ridgeback

the heart of a collie

and the SPEED of a greyhound

[Guest Pat2003]

 

 

And of all the episodes I've seen, I haven't seen a greyhound once. I do believe greyhounds are likened to cats and have to be treated and trained in many different ways from the 'average dog'. The entire Caesar thread seems a little out of place for this forum. We're not rescuing pitbulls and chow chows and trying to rehabilitate an aggressive case.

 

 

 

Actually, Caesar has had greyhounds on several times, but not as problem dogs. Apparently, there is an adoption group near him in CA and he uses the greys to calm down hyper dogs. He said he loves greyhounds and their even temperament.

 

Caesar bills himself as a behaviorist and he says he is not a trainer. His interest is getting a dog to be a balanced dog physically and emotionally not whether they sit, stay, etc, which are the interests of a trainer - two different worlds and both are important.

[Guest Swifthounds]

Caesar bills himself as a behaviorist and he says he is not a trainer. His interest is getting a dog to be a balanced dog physically and emotionally not whether they sit, stay, etc, which are the interests of a trainer - two different worlds and both are important.

 

In either category, he sets the understanding back about 20 years.

[Guest dmt]

In the March issue of Cesar's magazine (my mom subscribes) there is a question by someone who is looking to adopt a greyhound and wants to know if it can be let off leash. Cesar said "The idea greyhounds can't be trusted off leash is a myth. That they are prey animals and if you can get someone to help you control the prey drive you will have a social dog." I think my dogs are social, I just don't let them off leash. As for their prey drive, my dogs got loose one day and just ran. They weren't running after anything, they just ran. Luckily just to my neighbor's to visit their dog so they were caught in a matter of minutes.

[Guest AboveTheClouds]

I agree that throughout history, greyhounds have always been leashed because when they're unleashed they run away.

 

 

I believe that in an urban environment, it is safest to leash a sighthound, but I have begun frequenting a 15 acre dog park and my dogs follow me on the walk unleashed (It is a fully enclosed park).

 

ATC

[Guest AboveTheClouds]

In either category, he sets the understanding back about 20 years.

The nature of psychology is change. Psychologists always look back at was was done before and say the way things were done 20 years ago were incorrect. What will they say 20 years from now? Dogs do not change because they live in the moment.

 

I have helped many owners with their dogs and the owners are always amazed at how quickly their dog's behavior changes. In truth, their dogs are just looking for a calm leader who treats them like a dog, not their child.

 

ATC

Edited April 10, 2011 by AboveTheClouds

[kudzu]

I agree that throughout history, greyhounds have always been leashed because when they're unleashed they run away.

 

Yes, there is a big difference between running & running away. However...

 

I believe that in an urban environment, it is safest to leash a sighthound,

 

This is my reason for keeping my dogs, all of them not just my sighthounds, leashed in urban & suburban areas. The danger for my dogs in my neighborhood is our close proximity to busy roads with high speed limits. And of course we also have leash laws. Like you, I have sought out & found large, secure areas for them to be safely unleashed. Guess what. My Greyhounds just trot along & sniff. In fact, they are better at staying within sight of me than my prior dogs. Yes, furry woodland creatures will be chased & the dogs care not where I am at that instant but once the quarry is up a tree, down a hole, etc. my dogs come back, usually of their own volition but if not they respond quickly to a recall. They ain't that hard to train.

 

The nature of psychology is change. Psychologists always look back at was was done before and say the way things were done 20 years ago were incorrect. What will they say 20 years from now?

 

True, but I've yet to see the return of ice pick lobotomies.

 

In truth, their dogs are just looking for a calm leader who treats them like a dog, not their child.

 

Yes, I believe that is part of why folks see him as such a miracle worker. However, that does not justify his methods.

[Guest AboveTheClouds]

Yes, there is a big difference between running & running away. However...

How did greyhounds survive through the centuries before we discovered that they needed to be leashed?

 

True, but I've yet to see the return of ice pick lobotomies.

True. After ice pick lobotomies came electric shock treatment. Don't forget separating the brain halves to cure epilepsy. All proven in the forum of medical knowledge. I wonder what psychologists will think of Prozac in 20 years? Perhaps a chemical lobotomy? All in the name of "practicing" medicine. Think they'll ever get it right?

 

Yes, I believe that is part of why folks see him as such a miracle worker. However, that does not justify his methods.

I believe they think of him as a miracle worker because his methods work so quickly. Tell that to the clients he has helped.

 

ATC

[Guest Swifthounds]

In either category, he sets the understanding back about 20 years.

The nature of psychology is change. Psychologists always look back at was was done before and say the way things were done 20 years ago were incorrect. What will they say 20 years from now? Dogs do not change because they live in the moment.

 

With any luck, we should be learning and growing in our abilities and discarding what is unnecessary. We have no more need to go back to training dogs the old fashioned way (albeit packaged as Cesar's dog pop psychology), than we do to go back to considering homosexuality a mental illness, women as property, or backs as fractions of white men.

 

I have helped many owners with their dogs and the owners are always amazed at how quickly their dog's behavior changes. In truth, their dogs are just looking for a calm leader who treats them like a dog, not their child.

 

If only that's what they got with Cesar's methods or what his viewers try at home. You can be calm and assertive while displaying any number of bad practices. Ill guided parents and dog trainers alike have perfected the art of being calm and assertive while teaching their subjects through brutality.

 

Yes, I believe that is part of why folks see him as such a miracle worker. However, that does not justify his methods.

I believe they think of him as a miracle worker because his methods work so quickly. Tell that to the clients he has helped.

 

It's amazing how much gratitude the lazy express when they aren't required to do any work or thought.

[JJNg]

For those who love Cesar, have you noticed how often he gets bit on the show? Do you not see how stressed, and in some cases even terrified, the dogs are while he's working with them? Try turning the sound off and paying attention to the dogs' body language, and if you truly understand dogs, you'll get a totally different picture from what he says. At least those are the things I noticed in the early seasons - I watched most of the episodes in the first 2-3 seasons because I felt I needed to know what clients were seeing and asking about, but I can no longer bring myself to watch.

 

If you are one who believes that "the ends justify the means" then I suppose what Cesar does might work in some cases. I have to wonder what happens to all those dogs that he 'fixes' a few months or a year down the road, though. I believe that there are better, kinder methods that can be just as effective - and yes, even for supposed "red zone" cases. I choose to treat dogs with respect and take their needs and desires into account, not just bully them into doing as I say, period.

[Guest AboveTheClouds]

With any luck, we should be learning and growing in our abilities and discarding what is unnecessary. We have no more need to go back to training dogs the old fashioned way (albeit packaged as Cesar's dog pop psychology), than we do to go back to considering homosexuality a mental illness, women as property, or backs as fractions of white men.

My original point is that psychology is a grand experiment with the doctors using their patients as their test subjects. When they find the latest method of treating a patient fails to produce the results they had hoped for, they move on to the next fad while leaving behind a trail of failed experiments (patients). Your other points are straw dog arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

If only that's what they got with Cesar's methods or what his viewers try at home. You can be calm and assertive while displaying any number of bad practices. Ill guided parents and dog trainers alike have perfected the art of being calm and assertive while teaching their subjects through brutality.

This is just silly. This is another straw dog argument that you are putting up to knock down.

 

It's amazing how much gratitude the lazy express when they aren't required to do any work or thought.

Wow. Do you feel that all of CM's clients are brutal, lazy, and thoughtless?

 

ATC

Edited April 11, 2011 by AboveTheClouds

[kudzu]

How did greyhounds survive through the centuries before we discovered that they needed to be leashed?

Yep. Makes ya wonder. You know I was being a bit sarcastic but agreeing with you on leashing Greys & psychiatry, right?.

I believe they think of him as a miracle worker because his methods work so quickly. Tell that to the clients he has helped.

But not agreeing so much here because again the portion of his results that appear favorable could have been achieved with methods that are safer, kinder & more effective in both the short & long term. Also with less likelihood of unfavorable side effects or repercussions. The biggest concern should be obvious at the beginning of the show. Training that must include the don't try this at home disclaimer is neither safe nor humane.

 

As I said much earlier in this thread & jjing has more recently pointed out, if he truly knew dog behavior he would be able to read their body language to see the amount of stress he was placing on them. He would also avoid getting bitten. The saddest thing to me is that he seems to feel the need to intentionally trigger the undesired & inappropriate behavior so he can "correct" it. In the process he creates even more stress for the dog & danger for all involved.

 

The good news is that the show is ending. The bad news is it will likely live on for quite some time in reruns. [sigh]

 

If only that's what they got with Cesar's methods or what his viewers try at home. You can be calm and assertive while displaying any number of bad practices. Ill guided parents and dog trainers alike have perfected the art of being calm and assertive while teaching their subjects through brutality.

This is just silly. This is another straw dog argument that you are putting up to knock down.

 

No, it is not silly at all. It is the plain & simple truth. Your belief or disbelief of it does not effect reality.

[Guest Swifthounds]

With any luck, we should be learning and growing in our abilities and discarding what is unnecessary. We have no more need to go back to training dogs the old fashioned way (albeit packaged as Cesar's dog pop psychology), than we do to go back to considering homosexuality a mental illness, women as property, or backs as fractions of white men.

My original point is that psychology is a grand experiment with the doctors using their patients as their test subjects. When they find the latest method of treating a patient fails to produce the results they had hoped for, they move on to the next fad while leaving behind a trail of failed experiments (patients). Your other points are straw dog arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

No, as a society, when we find that methods do NOT work, or are not the least destructive way to go about things, we try something new. We once thought that all of those notions I listed were good ideas - even the most beneficial for the subject. Once that was proven to be untrue and change was demanded, a new approach replaced the old idea.

 

There is a huge difference between doing the best you know how and unintentionally causing injury, and doing harm despite knowing that the same end result could be achieved without harm. Cesar and the methods he thinks he invented or perfected are a perfect example of the latter. You absolutely can harm a dog into compliance much faster than you can build a relationship of trust and skill through positive methods.

 

For all Cesar thinks he knows about dogs and body language, anyone who has actually studied both can tell you that's categorically untrue. If you watch his show muted, and know just a bit about dog body language, you can see it too.

 

If only that's what they got with Cesar's methods or what his viewers try at home. You can be calm and assertive while displaying any number of bad practices. Ill guided parents and dog trainers alike have perfected the art of being calm and assertive while teaching their subjects through brutality.

This is just silly. This is another straw dog argument that you are putting up to knock down.

 

No, abuse - verbal, physical, mental - is best and most effectively administered from a calm, cool, and collected person. If you study both abusive human relationships and abusive human/animal relationships it is the common theme. I know he thinks he invented calm and assertive, but he didn't - he just popularized the thinking that one can and should engage in a one sided conversation, apparently so there's no confusion about who's in charge. It's the difference between being a leader by force and a leader by choice.

 

It's amazing how much gratitude the lazy express when they aren't required to do any work or thought.

Wow. Do you feel that all of CM's clients are brutal, lazy, and thoughtless?

Most of them are lazy, or they would not have problem that took months or years to develop. Somehow, an unhappy dog, destruction, fear, violence, etc. isn't a problem worth dealing with until it's really bad, and when it takes longer to correct. Then they want a quick fix because it's so bad they don't know how much longer they can deal with it. If it took you a year to create the problem, why on earth would you think it can be alleviated completely in a few days? Of course it can, through positive punishment to extinguish behaviors, but not without damaging the trust on which a productive human/dog relationship is built.

 

I certainly hope they're merely ignorant and thoughtless, rather than they believe than the ends justify such barbaric and backward-thinking means. If they actually sat and watched their dogs instead of Cesar, they might learn something.

[Guest Gemma]

With any luck, we should be learning and growing in our abilities and discarding what is unnecessary. We have no more need to go back to training dogs the old fashioned way (albeit packaged as Cesar's dog pop psychology), than we do to go back to considering homosexuality a mental illness, women as property, or backs as fractions of white men.

My original point is that psychology is a grand experiment with the doctors using their patients as their test subjects. When they find the latest method of treating a patient fails to produce the results they had hoped for, they move on to the next fad while leaving behind a trail of failed experiments (patients). Your other points are straw dog arguments that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

 

Psychology is a science. It evolves because our ability to analyse the world and our bodies continues to improve. Ideas once held as true 20 years ago are not ditched because of new 'fads' but because of our increased understanding. As our understanding increases so has our knowledge of ethics and patients rights; where once it was acceptable to be barbaric in the name of science, it no longer is, and there are many agencies and laws that govern how all those in the various sciences behave and treat their patients/research subjects.

 

This is why old 'dominance' training is no longer deemed acceptable by those who study animal behaviour. Our knowledge of the way animals function and our increased focus on ethical treatment has resulted in a shift away from the old 'do what I say because I said so (or because I'll hurt you)' to a method that encourages genuine interaction, positive reinforcement, healthy incentives, and sustained relationships between dog/critter and owner/trainer.

 

If anything, your argument about psychology being founded on constant change only supports why CM should fall out of favour. And Swifthounds comments, rather than being strawmen, further underline how our cultural norms change as our understanding of ourselves improves with time.

[XTRAWLD]

I'm bringing this back to life.

 

We watched it for a whole season or so, after that it started to get old. Usually it's the same problems that are recycled and a lot of them are caused by the owners, the dog continues to act up and we have a vicious circle. Some of his training methods I get and I agree with, but some other ones just wouldn't work for most people. You need an assertive person to pull off a lot of what he does, and continue to have that assertiveness to keep the dog on track. What we did pull out of the show is "Rules, Boundaries, Limitation" and exercise or giving them a job to do, and walks are important.

 

I can handle Cesar, especially after understanding his amazing background/biography that got him to where he is and what he has become. The guy that does At the End of My Leash annoys me to no end.

[Guest chimni]

 

Psychology is a science. It evolves because our ability to analyse the world and our bodies continues to improve. Ideas once held as true 20 years ago are not ditched because of new 'fads' but because of our increased understanding. As our understanding increases so has our knowledge of ethics and patients rights; where once it was acceptable to be barbaric in the name of science, it no longer is, and there are many agencies and laws that govern how all those in the various sciences behave and treat their patients/research subjects.

 

This is why old 'dominance' training is no longer deemed acceptable by those who study animal behaviour. Our knowledge of the way animals function and our increased focus on ethical treatment has resulted in a shift away from the old 'do what I say because I said so (or because I'll hurt you)' to a method that encourages genuine interaction, positive reinforcement, healthy incentives, and sustained relationships between dog/critter and owner/trainer.

 

If anything, your argument about psychology being founded on constant change only supports why CM should fall out of favour. And Swifthounds comments, rather than being strawmen, further underline how our cultural norms change as our understanding of ourselves improves with time.

 

Right on.

[Guest AboveTheClouds]

Heh heh. Thanks to all for the amusing and entertaining replies. If we don't learn from the past, we will be doomed to repeat it. With that in mind, it's pretty difficult to take today's psychological treatment seriously (or dog training methods), knowing that in 20 years they will be considered just another outlandish treatment on the heap pile of failed experiments.

 

YMMV,

 

ATC

[Guest Gemma]

Heh heh. Thanks to all for the amusing and entertaining replies. If we don't learn from the past, we will be doomed to repeat it. With that in mind, it's pretty difficult to take today's psychological treatment seriously (or dog training methods), knowing that in 20 years they will be considered just another outlandish treatment on the heap pile of failed experiments.

 

YMMV,

 

ATC

 

Well, I live with a scientist so I can't help but be fascinated by the way our knowledge only continues to increase. The fact that we will look back in 20 years and marvel at how little we seemed to know only makes me more interested in what new things are coming to light. To not take what we see now seriously seems like an unnecessarily limiting view point. Not everything changes, after all. Some discoveries and realisations still prove true today and are the foundation of modern accomplishments and advances.

Edited April 13, 2011 by Gemma

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

Please let this thread go away already...

[Guest AboveTheClouds]

Please let this thread go away already...

 

Sorry but posting comments like this only keeps it alive.

 

The best advise is if you don't like what you read...don't visit it.

 

ATC

[MerlinsMum]

I finally got rid of my Cesar Millan book - bought it years and years ago before we had Merlin, and before I figured out how awful he is.

 

Of course it went into the recycling - I wouldn't just throw paper in the trash, and I don't want to give it to Goodwill as I don't want to promote his inhumane and ignorant methods.

 

Accompanying him is Grogan's Life with A dog Named Marley or whatever it was called). Ugh. Still get angry when I think back about how he kneed his dog in the chest Of course he was featured on a Cesar Millan episode later too. Figures.

 

Buh-bye! I hope that paper is transformed into something USEFUL this time.

[Guest manawatugal]

I much prefer Jan Fennell and Victoria Stillwell's methods!

[Guest Greyt_dog_lover]

Please let this thread go away already...

 

Sorry but posting comments like this only keeps it alive.

 

The best advise is if you don't like what you read...don't visit it.

 

ATC

 

 

Thank you Mr. MOTO (Master Of The Obvious). =}

[BertnLil]

 

How did greyhounds survive through the centuries before we discovered that they needed to be leashed?

 

 

ATC

 

I think the biggest argument for leashing is avoiding getting hit by an automobile, which have only been around for the last century.

[Guest LindsaySF]

One ironic thing I have found, and it's obvious even in this thread, is that CM's biggest supporters tend to be what I deem more newbie/novice dog owners. They have 1-2 dogs, maybe they had 1 or 2 more growing up, but they have dealt with easy dogs, and they aren't really "dog people". They are people that happen to own dogs, there's a difference. They find a forum like this one, they get 20 posts to their name and they come in and start defending CM left and right. The real "dog people", the trainers, the people with big packs, the ones with dogs with behavioral issues, the people that work with dogs day in and day out, the ones that have forgotten more dog knowledge than most people will ever have, those people are followers of positive reinforcement, Patricia McConnell, Victoria Stillwell, etc. Not saying one is right and the other is wrong, but I thought I would point it out, as it's a trend I have seen fairly often.

 

 

 

~Lindsay~