In 2004, National Geographic television released a new show featuring Cesar Millan, a self-taught Mexican American dog trainer in Los Angeles, California. The show billed Millan as “The Dog Whisperer.” The title appears to be based on a 1995 novel entitled “The Horse Whisper” by Nicholas Evans which tells the story of the rehabilitation of a horse using some unconventional methods. Evans has stated that horse trainer Buck Brannanman was the inspiration for the book. Brannanman is a seen as one of the leading practioners of Natural Horsemanship, a training methodology that seeks to work with horses by developing a rapport with the animal through use of communication techniques observed in interactions by horses among themselves. How this concept translates to what Cesar Millan portrays in the television program completely escapes me.
It has been more than 10 years since Millan and his training techniques attained notoriety, mostly due to his work with the dogs of his celebrity clients (Jada Pinkett Smith, Ridley Scott, and dozens of others). Millan’s television show was presented as “reality television” and featured the dog trainer “solving problems” for different dog owners each week. Frequently the remedies presented in the show seemed to work without fail in fantastically short time frames with minimal and almost mystical techniques used by Millan. It didn’t take long for the community of dog training professionals to take sides regarding “The Dog Whisperer” and the experiences portrayed on the show.
The Tempest
For years now the debate has raged over whether or not Millan’s brand of dog training is a revolution or just the same old punishment based training that has been presented for decades only dressed up in a new package. Beginning in 2005, criticism of Millan mounted, coming from animal behaviour professionals, veterinarians, and academics who condemned Millan and his methods as being outdated and detrimental even if they appeared to show short-term results. In 2006, Dr. Nicholas Dodman, then director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Tufts University’s Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine contacted National Geographic condemning “The Dog Whisperer” as having “put dog training back 20 years”. That same year the American Human Society condemned the methods used on the television show as “inhumane, outdated and improper”.
In spite of the growing wave of criticism from professionals and experts in the fields of animal behaviour and training, the show’s popularity continued. By 2010, “The Dog Whisperer” had been National Geographic’s top rated show for 6 years running. Remarkably, National Geographic began airing a disclaimer at the beginning of the show stating that the techniques used in the show may be dangerous if used by non-professionals and not to be used by viewers. After 9 seasons, National Geographic cancelled the show but it continues in reruns on dozens of cable and satellite channels around the world. The debate over the confrontational, force-based methods presented in the program remains fierce and very public. My question is – Why?
The Reality of Reality Television
In the 1980’s, Morton Downey Jr. hosted an TV talk show that was quickly labelled “trash TV” by its critics because of Downey’s tactic of bullying, shouting, and becoming confrontational with his guests. Although heavily criticised, the show became popular enough to be sold into syndication for wider distribution to more television markets. It was the beginning of an entirely new kind of entertainment. After Downey came the likes of Maury Povich and Jerry Springer. Over the decades, this kind of conflict/confrontation “reality TV” has made it’s way from fringe cable stations to more mainstream programming. Even the major networks jumped on board creating shows such as “Survivor” and “The Amazing Race” that are based on setting up conflict situations for the entertainment of viewers.
It should have come as no surprise to anyone when it was revealed that talk shows like Jerry Springer were paying for “guests” and that many of these “guests” were, in fact, actors seeking fame and were contacted via agencies. It seemed that it was far easier to manufacture conflict for audience consumption than to go out and find people with problems. The reality of “reality TV” might just be that there isn’t enough conflict out there to sustain the market. So they went out and made their own. Creative scripting, clever editing, and paid guests all tainted the reality of “reality TV.”
Of Dogs and Men
This formula for “reality TV” has become so widespread that it can be seen on everything from the Food Network to The Arts & Entertainment Channel to The Discovery Channel. Even National Geographic seems to have found a way to capitalize on it with its 9 seasons of “The Dog Whisperer.” And just like other “reality TV” programs before it, The Dog Whisperer creates a compelling story of conflict, confrontation, and resolution for every show. The hapless combatants are the “out of control” dogs and their seemingly powerless owners who are often portrayed as the victims. Enter Cesar Millan – The Dog Whisperer. With a seeming unending wealth of experience and knowledge, the hero knows just what to do to bring these dogs back into line with his “calm submissive energy” or other techniques and he saves the day for the poor owners.
Should it be a surprise to anyone that these “conflicts” could be manufactured and exaggerated by the National Geographic production team? Their job, after all, is to create compelling television to sell advertising. The show was never intended as an instructional program to show people how to work with their dogs. This should be evident by the disclaimer at the beginning of the show telling viewers that the techniques shown in the program should not be tried at home.
Feeding the monster
The heated and very public debate that the program has spawned has shown up everywhere. There are websites dedicated to supporting or discrediting Millan and his methods. Facebook and countless other social media forums host discussions where Millan is, by turns, deified and demonized. Articles have appeared in magazines and newspapers. Millan has received television coverage in news reports and interviews. All of it has served the purpose of drawing almost constant attention to Millan and The Dog Whisperer program. Much to the delight of National Geographic which has enjoyed the financial benefits of the controversy by continuing to sell advertising and airing the program.
Millan benefits too. He has authored several books, runs a magazine, sells DVDs, has mounted personal appearance tours, and more. His efforts have earned him a personal net worth estimated at $45 million. Critics of Millan’s work may feel that his success is undeserved but, to a great extent, the perpetual debate of The Dog Whisperer has kept the program in the public eye for over a decade. Millan might well be the lightning rod for the larger debate over the best, most humane, most effective ways to train our dogs but he did not create the debate nor does it appear that he wanted any conflict.
Don’t blame the man
In his book “What The Dog Saw“, author and reporter Malcom Gladwell talks about the time he spent with Millan as part of his research for the book. In it he details that what is shown in The Dog Whisperer is a very selective and greatly condensed version of the work Millan actually does with dogs and their owners. In essence, what is shown on television doesn’t tell the whole story. Far from it. It tells only a small portion of the story, the parts that serve the needs of the National Geographic team to produce compelling television to keep viewers watching. The goal is not to educate, it is to entertain. Millan serves as a charismatic focal point for formula-based “reality TV.”
Millan is passionate about dogs. Whether you agree with his philosophies of dog training or not, it is important to consider that while Millan has become rich from The Dog Whisperer, he has also made significant efforts to support charities that promote the health and welfare of dogs. He has created his own Millan Foundation for rescue and rehoming of dogs and supports other charities via personal appearances and financial support. Millan is a man who loves dogs and loves working with them. Regardless of our feelings about his methods, we must acknowledge that he has been swept up and is “the eye of the storm” of the controversy that surrounds him.
The Dog Whisperer is irrelevant
Following in that long history of entertaining “Reality TV”, The Dog Whisperer should be seen for what it is – entertainment and nothing more. As a source of information about dogs and training, it is irrelevant. It should have ceased to be relevant to anyone serious about dogs and dog training as soon as it was recognized for what it is – a television program designed to keep people watching for an hour. It has a plot, a hero, a villain, and victims. That’s not something I would use as a way to teach people about dogs. There are just better ways.
Both National Geographic and Cesar Millan have benefited from the misunderstandings and controversies created around the show. And the positive training community must share in the responsibility for that. Without the controversy, The Dog Whisperer may well have faded into anonymity before it’s second season. The Dog Whisperer was never intended as a “How-To” program to teach people to train their dogs. It was always meant as entertainment. The public debate turned it into something else.
The war is over and we know who won
I am reminded of a joke about the climate change controversy. Two men are debating whether or not climate change is real or not. After several heated exchanges one of the men learns that a man at the bar is a climate scientist and he decides to get an expert to weigh in on their debate. Both men approach the scientist to get his verdict. “As a scientist, what do you think of the climate change controversy?”, asks one of the debaters. The scientist looks up from his drink puzzled. “What controversy?”, he asks. What controversy, indeed. The data is already in and debating about it is just silly or ignorant or both.
The same can be said of this controversy about dog training methods. The science has already shown that many of the techniques shown in The Dog Whisperer are not merely unnecessary but are also potentially dangerous. National Geographic has already recognized this and has provided us with a disclaimer to cover themselves in case of legal action.
There are better, scientifically valid ways to work with dogs that don’t require force or confrontation. Rather than engage in debates over an issue that has long been settled, perhaps advocates of force-free and behavioural science based training would be better served by teaching people what they know rather than spending their time trying to prove what has already been proven.
Until next time, have fun with your dogs!
Be sure to check out our Canine Nation ebooks in the Canine Nation store and join our conversation on Facebook in the Canine Nation Forum!
The first Canine Nation ebooks are now available –
“Dogs: As They Are” & “Teaching Dogs: Effective Learning”
Photo credits –
TV Trainers – Nick Reynolds 2009 from Flickr
Jerry Springer Show – Eric Olson 2006 from Flickr
Nervous – megan ann 2007 from Flickr
Book – Charley Lhasa 2008 from Flickr
John Bell Young says
This is an exceptionally well written and informative article, at least for those who are not familiar with Cesar Millan. As one who is, I agree completely with much of what Mr Brad opines. However, it is a bit disingenuous to say that “The Dog Whisperer was never intended as a “How-To” program to teach people to train their dogs”. Actually, regardless of the producers intent, that is precisely how the overwhelming majority of its viewers see it: as a program the entire purpose of which is help the perplexed consumer train his dog. There has never been any question ,or even denial whatsoever on Millan’s part, about that. On the contrary, in his public and private appearances he boasts just that, even going so far as to falsely announce, to this day, that he is Oprah Winfrey’s dog trainer. (The truth is that she dismissed him within hours, appalled by his arcane and ignorant methodology
But that is not the critical issue where Cesar Millan is concerned. The techniques he advocates, which are abundantly documented on film, include flooding, learned helplessness, stringing, helicoptering, shock, startle, intimidation and no least, throwing dogs into the so called alpha-roll. This is hardly the stuff of entertainment so much as it is a codification of animal abuse, for which he has been sued on more than one occasion by horrified clients. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the laws against animal cruelty are very specific indeed, Millan would run the risk of being arrested indicted, fined and thrown in jail for such behavior as that.The public debate has not “turned him into something else”; on the contrary, it has done due diligence in drawing attention to the very real danger his show poses to millions of innocent people, many of them children, who hang on his every word and imitate his techniques. In so irresponsibly creating aggressive dogs with those techniques, he has always been and continues to be a one man public health and safety hazard, and that is precisely the point: The criticism and intense focus of the debate is concerned with the risk and potential danger his show creates, on a nightly basis; it is in effect a public health and safety issue, which must be addressed by responsible parties who know better.
The problem, of course, is that the Positive Reinforcement community has utterly failed to extinguish the nonsense he puts out, or replace him with a no less compelling personality and program that would indeed make him irrelevant. But at the moment, with millions still tuning in and putting to the test his forceful, abusive methods, the fact is that he is anything but irrelevant. What’s more, his army of lawyers, who have tried with considerable success, to squash certain facts — such as the fate of more than 200 dogs he worked with –have also put the screws to anyone who dares challenge him, nearly shutting down the RSPCA in Britain. There is another way to deal with him, which I have addressed in a detailed article to be published shortly. Stay tuned.
Eric Brad says
Thanks for reading John and thanks too for your comments.
I am obliged to respond that this article was about the television show “The Dog Whisperer” as produced and owned by the National Geographics channel. It should also be noted that National Geographics owns and has full rights to the title “The Dog Whisperer”, not Cesar Millan. While many of his viewers and readers may choose to continue to refer to Millan by that title, he is legally prohibited from doing so.
While I understand your larger concerns about The Dog Whisperer as pervasive media and Millan as a continuing voice in the dog training world, this article was more focused on helping readers make clear and reasoned distinctions between material that is offered as entertainment and that which is intended to instruct/educate. As they say, one can lead a horse to water but you cannot (and should not!) make it drink.
Thanks again for your kind words.
Eric
dearing says
Hello Mr.Brad
how many “problem” dogs have YOU saved from being euthanized and how many have you restored to a harmonious family environment??
Enjoy your bandwagon!
Eric Brad says
Hello Mr. Whoever-you-are:
Why is that relevant and do you believe that only TV shows can save dogs?
All the best to you and yours!
Eric Brad
P.S. – I believe in putting my name to statements I make publicly. 🙂
Henri Coppola says
Omg!! Here it goes further 🙁
Millan has a talent and energy that is very unique.
Yes he brings back training many years. Because it is the right thing to do! How the development have gone is a disgrase! Millan kicks it back on route. All this modern techiques with clickers etc.. Pffffffff!
All have their oppinion. But NO ONE can work against instincts 😉
Eric Brad says
Thanks for your comments, Henri.
I’m not sure what you think “goes further” with this article but it is about the production of a television show. It happens to star Cesar Millan but I do not believe that he is solely responsible for it’s content and presentation any more than an actor in any television show can be credited with the whole production. This kind of reality TV paints a distorted picture of all of the elements involved – the dog, the problem behaviours, the owners, and the trainer who comes in to help. It wouldn’t matter if it was Cesar Millan or any of a hundred other trainers, regardless of their methods, it is a format that is great for entertainment but very poor for education. That is the point of the article.
I would encourage you to read Millan’s books and then read some others by John Bradshaw, Jean Donaldson, Karen Pryor, and Brian Hare. You might find that the current science of dogs and behaviour not only explains why much of Millan’s ideas are outdated but may also be dangerous to the average dog owner who may employ his techniques without as full an understanding as Millan himself.
Thanks for reading,
Eric
John Bell Young says
I concur completely with Mr Brad’s response here. There are any number of books — the information and science is abundant and easily available — that the responsible dog owner should read. Vilmos Csanyi’s “If Dogs Could Talk” is a marvelous study of canine culture and ethology, and in my view, even more substantial than that of Brian Hare at Duke. Mr Hare has now seen fit to market his findings as mini-surveys for those who wish to plumb the cognitive abilities of their dogs; unfortunately, for all his good work, he remains something of a marketeer and prima donna, which makes me uncomfortable. Though I take issue with some of it, Steven R Lindsay’s monumental three volume exegesis remains indispensable for its review of science (I take issue with his interpretation of shock collars, which fails to account for recent research and a dog’s response, cumulatively and over time, to even mild shocks; nor does he so much as mention the fact that a dogs thin skin conducts electricity in a more intense way than does a human’s) The work of Jean Donaldson, Patrica McDonald, Karen Overall, Karen Pryor, Ian Dunbar, Victoria Stilwell, and Drayton Michaels should be at the top of the list for those interested in learning more.
John Bell Young says
Eric Brad, you are a trooper and very tolerant! I long ago learned that responding to CM’s legions of hangers-on is a pointless exercise, because they have no interest in availing themselves of the facts.Rather, they extol ignorance as virtue, and leave it at that. on the whole, they interpret Millan as a kind of Pied Piper, or to put it more bluntly, as a cult leader who is worthy of the investment of every bit of their emotional and psychical energy. They are hopelessly cathected, and willingly choose to set forth statements such as the reader above has, no matter how ignorant they may be. They prefer not to think for themselves, but have a poseur and a fraud, such as Millan, think for them. After all, what could be more pleasurable than a quick fix and abandoning all responsibility toward one’s dog? In the end, it is all about a lack of self esteem and a deeply ingrained set of values that takes comfort in controlling absolutely another sentient being as a means of empowering oneself. It is all very sad, sadistic, repugnant, ignorant and dangerous, but until pain trainers such as Millan ,and the false consciousness he perpetuates is extinguished, this is precisely the sort of thing that will continue to rear its head. Again: it is a public health and safety issue, for exactly this reason, as Millan turns an entire swath of the public into animal abusers.
peter says
Eric,
Everyone knows they can save 15 dollars in 15 minutes by switching to Geico…and everyone knows that these entertainment shows are irrelevant to whatever ‘reality’ they purport to reflect…so one has to question why you bothered to write on it…despite your nice ‘backing off’ comments towards the man himself, the disdain you implicitly feel towards his training techniques shine through.
Your sincerity and RELEVANCE would be much better served by and giving a well thought out analysis of the results of Mr. Millan’s techniques. But i suspect that you and other dog nuts would not be happy with the results…
Eric Brad says
Hi Peter –
Apparently everyone doesn’t know that The Dog Whisperer is a reality TV show as I frequently see people attempting to emulate the things they see on the show. Further, I hear a great deal of conversation that advocates not what Millan writes in his books or the techniques and rationale he explains in detail at seminars and in articles, but repeats the same pithy platitudes that his show sets up for viewers.
In short, this article is about the unfortunate practice of people looking for a shortcut, an easy way to solve their dog “problems” and not really about which training method is better than any other. I’ve made my choices through my own research and work with my dogs. To attempt a “well thought out analysis of the results of Mr. Millan’s techniques” would be disingenuous given that I have no first hand knowledge of the methods he advocates. I just haven’t been moved to do the research on that aspect of Millan. It would be a detriment to my CREDIBILITY to have attempted an analysis of Millan without doing proper research.
I would be very interested in what a “dog nut” is because, despite your lumping me in with this group, I have no idea what it you mean by that term.
Now, if you have any substantive questions you would like to discuss, I’m very open to that.
Thanks for your comments.
Eric
Glenn Cornell says
Well written article. I don’t agree with a lot of things Cesar does with dogs but there are a few that stand out as just very creative. One was a JRT thank constantly barked when left out side. All he used was a bandanna with some lavender oil on it and when the dog started barking he went out and put it on the dog. To me that was something I wouldn’t have thought of. I feel dog training is much more of an art than science. Nothing against science based methodology but why do a lot of these trainers or followers of this form of training have to be so vindictive and sometimes out right vile to people who don’t follow their same path? As it was mentioned in a previous comment, they spen more time hunting down trainers that don’t practice or follow science base and slander them than they do working with dogs. If they are so positive with dogs why can’t they show the same to their own species? Or better yet just do the best job they can do their way and move on.
Eric Brad says
Hi Glenn –
I hesitate to speak for any trainers other than myself but the concern, as expressed to me by some of these trainers, is that force-based methods have been proven to increase the risk of aggressive and dangerous behaviour in some dogs. It could be that they feel strongly that it is necessary to prevent situations that create more of these aggressive dogs before someone is hurt or a dog is unnecessarily destroyed. Again, I can’t say for sure, I don’t go out of my way to “hunt down trainers” to berate them.
I see my job as a writer here as getting information out there. The TV show The Dog Whisperer was always intended as entertainment and not instruction. In that sense, I believe that is not valid to discuss the methods practiced in the show on their merits or failings because we don’t see the whole picture. We only see what the producers deemed to be “entertaining”.
I do believe that there is an objective answer to the question of how best to train dogs and I also believe that using science and it’s many tools offers us the best way to find that.
Thanks for reading,
Eric
Chris says
I think it’s best to build a rewarding relationship with your dog. To accomplish this you just need reward good behavior and take something away that your dog enjoys when doing something negative. No shouting or abuse needed.
Sandy says
Great article Eric!
I happened to see the link on G+
Sandy C
Eric Brad says
Thanks Sandy! I’m glad Google+ is getting some readers for my stuff.
Thanks for reading,
Eric
Desiree says
You spelled Dodman wrong. lol.
Eric Brad says
Thanks for the catch! I also fixed “condemning”, another typo just below that.
Thanks for reading.
Eric
Leon says
Very good understanding of how we are a global society hooked on TV, and believe anything seen on it.
As you so rightly say the TV series has nothing positive to learn about living with dogs. Watch if you like that sort of trash entertainment, not if you want to understand how to live with your dogs.
Kate says
P.S. – before anyone gets upset with me, I’m fully aware that many, probably most, people get into NH because they they believe all the hype and want a kinder way to handle and train their horses – I did! I’m not accusing any NH followers of being evil abusive ******** or whatever. I also know that many loving owners use NH a lot more gently than the trainers do. Again, I did.
I’m simply pointing out that whatever anyone says or how “softly” they do it, the primary motivation for the horse in NH is avoiding discomfort, pain, or fear.
I think the outdated justifications behind it are even more worrisome, though – dominance and “being the alpha horse” isn’t any more relevant in horse training than it is in dog training. And the people teaching this stuff, unlike TDW, ARE putting it out there and saying “DO try this at home”.
Kate says
Good article. I do understand the need people have to talk about his methods and why they are harmful, though – because so many people DO watch it as a “how to” programme. I do try hard not to get into debates about it, because they’re usually fairly pointless. However, I’m probably about to start a debate on a different subject here, but can’t not say something…
About The Horse Whisperer and “natural horsemanship”. You say, ” How this concept translates to what Cesar Millan portrays in the television program completely escapes me.” Actually, most NH practitioners are exactly like CM – they dominate and bully, and use unnecessarily harsh techniques to control horses, while claiming to be doing the best thing for them. They also use the same dominance/leadership arguments for why this is “necessary”.
NH claims to use horse language, the majority of it is based on the violent parts (that, as with dogs, doesn’t come close to the full picture of horse communication). NH uses a lot of “nice” language to describe its various methods, but at the core, whatever its gurus and followers say, it is all about using discomfort (at best) but usually fear/intimidation/pain as well, to make horses do what the person wants. A lot of it is more “refined” than CM is with dogs – or at least the end result is – but there are a lot of force-based or “balanced” trainers in the dog world who are better than CM – but it’s still very far from force-free or positive reinforcement.
I think the dog whisperer taking its name from the horse whisperer is very apt, especially since, in the book, the whisperer makes the horse lie down and ties his leg up to keep him still while the owner gets on — a situation the horse is obviously scared of, and the owner doesn’t feel right about. Of course, all is well in the end – i.e., the horse behaves. Very much the equine version of the alpha roll. To be fair, most people who do NH woudn’t dream of using that particular technique, but the techniques they do use, even those that don’t involve physically touching the horse (such as round-penning) are still about making life extremely unpleasant for horses if they don’t comply.
Eric Brad says
Hi Kate –
Thanks for your comments.
I must admit that my knowledge of Natural Horsemanship is only from what I have read in a few spots on the Internet. I do now own or work with horses so I have no contact with that world. Those are very interesting insights you put forward and it makes me sad to hear.
Hopefully, the horse world has its own version of force-free, positive reinforcement training for horses.
Thanks again for reading and sharing your thoughts!
Kate says
Hi Eric,
Thanks for reading and replying to my overly-long comment! There’s a growing number of people using clicker training and positive reinforcement with horses, which is fantastic, but even there, the majority still use many more aversives than they would with dogs. (Negative reinforcement to get or enforce behaviour, with the clicker and treats added on top.)
Lots of things are different with horses, obviously, especially the fact that there’s more potential to be seriously injured or killed by a horse, and there’s also a lot more physical contact with them, especially when riding, so many say it’s impossible to stop using negative reinforcement – but it’s entirely possible to reduce and even eliminate it most of the time, if you do your +R training properly. Dangerous behaviour and aggression and so on in horses is best treated just as you would a dog (force free, and stop doing whatever it is that causes them to react in that way), and for general training, too – I want my horse responding to, for example, my leg cue, because it’s an opportunity to earn a treat – not because they find the feeling of my leg on their side unpleasant and want me to remove it.
So, yes, there are people doing force-free training with horses, just not many. I’m hoping the horse world will catch up with the dog world one day!
Louise Kerr says
Sadly the situation in horses is pretty grim. The comments that positive trainers get are often worse than what happens in the dog world. Here in Australia it is very grim and not a lot of positive reward is being taught. It is all about nautral horsemanship whic uses pressure / releaae very much -R work amd they like to swing ropes amd force horses to mive away. The horse industry has a long way to go. There was a video that did the rounds recently of CM with Pat Parelli ( very appropriate pairing up in theories I thought).
Rebecca says
What a great article. DW is as relevant to dog training as Mr. Ed is to the equine industry.
Miranda says
Enjoyed reading your piece Eric. You mentioned ‘There are websites dedicated to supporting or discrediting Millan and his methods ‘ AND there are people on social media spending hours, days, weeks on the topic. Fine (each to their own) but have these people nothing else to do? I’d rather put my blood, sweat and tears into more practical efforts of animal welfare.
Eric Brad says
Hi Miranda –
Thanks for your comments. I am totally in agreement with you here. We all must put our energies where they will do the most good. We cannot change the minds of those who are firm believers but we make change where ever we can every single day. Thanks for being out there and doing the work you do!
Eric
Leonard Cecil says
Well said, Miranda. So according to his own blog, his blog was a waste of time and energy. Time and energy better spent with his own dogs. Which is basically his message to others with the blog.
Leonard Cecil says
“The Dog Whisperer is irrelevant”
Granted – so why devote an entire blog to his irrelevancy? What’s relevant is Force Free training. Anything else is irrelevant, so why concentrate on things like shock collars, prong collars, Koehler System, Captain Haggerty system, and the rest, which are just as irrelevant.
Eric Brad says
Hi Leonard –
Thanks for your comments.
The Dog Whisperer is a television show. The other things you mention are legitimate “training-aids” that are designed to modify behaviour in dogs. Given the disclaimer at the beginning, The Dog Whisperer television show should not be considered a “training-aid” nor should it be used to modify a dog’s behaviour. At least according the National Geographic and it’s production team.
I have to disagree with your assertion that the only thing relevant is Force Free training. There are a lot of ideas about behaviour, behaviour modification, training techniques and tools that are well worth discussing for both their pros and cons.
Finally, it has been remarkable to me that so many people have such difficulty separating the television show from its star whenever The Dog Whisperer is mentioned. I suppose credit should go to whatever marketing team set out to forge such a strong connection. This article was about a television show. Not about it’s star, who I do not believe was solely responsible for the content of that television show. It is my opinion that we would do well to start separating the man from his appearances, his books, his television appearances, etc. Like all celebrities, Millan has been subjected to all manner of confabulation when it comes to what he does and does not believe based on how he is portrayed on television. Only when we concentrate on his books or quoted statements can we judge the quality and value of what he has to offer for ourselves.
For myself, I’m not inclined to pursue learning more about Millan’s training techniques and philosophies because I have read enough articles by him to know that I likely won’t find much of value. In the same way I won’t devote my time to learning more about Millan’s training advice, I also will not devote time and energy to discrediting him or his work. I choose instead to offer an alternative and focus my energies there.
Thanks for writing.
Eric
Leonard Cecil says
So much to write about stuff I didn’t even mention. I guess it all didn’t find it’s way into the blog otherwise.
You’re most sincerely and entirely welcome.
Louise Thompson says
Brilliant as always Eric.
X Lou
Michelle Pierlot says
Eric
I don’t think Cesar cares about what the dog trainer industry thinks, positive or negative.He says himself he is not a dog trainer. People waste energy and time fretting about him while he laughs all the way to the bank! If his methods don’t work or he is fraudulent it will come out and the truth will be known. People love to hate, it makes them feel better about themselves.
I truly believe you can learn something from everyone even if its not what to do.
Michelle Pierlot
Eric Brad says
Thanks, Michelle.
I don’t know Cesar Millan and have never had an opportunity to speak with him. I haven’t read his books. I have read a couple of articles that have been posted online that he has written but that is the extent of my knowledge of him. This article is about the TV program and the fact that what is portrayed in it is decided not necessarily by Millan but by directors and a production team that has a goal that is something other than educating dog owners. They are selling advertising pure and simple. Best to keep that in mind when consuming anything on TV.
Thanks for the comments!
Eric
Pam says
Brilliant Eric, my favorite article to date….
Eric Brad says
Thanks Pam. That means a lot to me. 🙂
Eric