Questions I would ask NG
by Kendal Shepherd BVSc MRCVS CCAB
'Cesar Millan suffers, (if not now then at some time in the future will suffer) from the 'guru effect', namely: -
He has set his stall out on acting and behaving in a particular way with dogs. If they do not arise spontaneously, he has to create situations which demonstrate the success of his 'method', in other words forcing dogs to appear to capitulate to him by aggressive means. As this is the source of his livelihood and reputation, he cannot afford to be seen to change in any way, even if he begins to suspect he is wrong. This is the 'guru effect'.
Five questions I would ask National Geographic (or anyone else for that matter) regarding Cesar Millan are, with my personal views:
1. Are the methods he uses abusive?
By any commonly accepted standard, what is depicted in the Riley video (and many others) is abusive. Is it justified to create cyanosis (deprivation of oxygen) in anyone or anything in order to impose your will? I don't think so.
2. If so, does the end justifiy the means?
The end however, that of a dog which will now walk upstairs (or a person who will confess to a crime they did not commit) may, by some, be viewed as justifying being choked and dragged - in other words, torture gets the required result.
3. Does CM understand WHY what he does works?
CM views his methods as working because the dog now perceives him as an 'alpha' and 'leader' when all that has actually happened is that the dog sees capitulation as the only means of being able to breathe again and survival. It is a credit to Riley's character that he did not attack CM -- but if he had, CM would have labelled him as 'dominant'. Yes, Riley might well have perceived walking upstairs again as a less dangerous prospect than refusing and then being choked, thus justifying CM's entire premise. But surely we have the brains, the understanding, the compassion and the humanity to think of better ways of achieving the same end.
4. Is his interpretation damaging and dangerous if relied upon and copied by other people?
Children get bitten by dogs because they copy adults. CM's programmes come with a warning for a very good reason -- because they are dangerous. Dogs evolved to communicate with small humans as well as big ones -- if only we understood dogs as well as they understand us. Although dogs have been selected to tolerate us, deliberately forcing one's aggressive will on dogs should not part of the evolutionary equation.
5. Does his view of the domestic dog as a species have any basis in current scientific knowledge?
NO! All current literature points to the domestic dog, as well as its ancestor the wolf, lving in family units as do we, rather than in any kind of hierarchy. A dog's behaviour is based upon its innate desire to keep the peace and its experience of how best to do this, in turn based upon its expectations of its companions, rather than any concept of 'dominance'.
Dogs are uniquely adapted to live with and tolerate us despite all humans foibles and failings. If Cesar Millan has even the remotest comprehension of this (which I doubt), then he has exploited the domestic dog for his own commercial ends beyond all belief.'
Kendal Shepherd
(The first UK veterinary surgeon to be accredited by the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour as a certified clinical animal behaviourist - Ed.)
'Cesar Millan suffers, (if not now then at some time in the future will suffer) from the 'guru effect', namely: -
He has set his stall out on acting and behaving in a particular way with dogs. If they do not arise spontaneously, he has to create situations which demonstrate the success of his 'method', in other words forcing dogs to appear to capitulate to him by aggressive means. As this is the source of his livelihood and reputation, he cannot afford to be seen to change in any way, even if he begins to suspect he is wrong. This is the 'guru effect'.
Five questions I would ask National Geographic (or anyone else for that matter) regarding Cesar Millan are, with my personal views:
1. Are the methods he uses abusive?
By any commonly accepted standard, what is depicted in the Riley video (and many others) is abusive. Is it justified to create cyanosis (deprivation of oxygen) in anyone or anything in order to impose your will? I don't think so.
2. If so, does the end justifiy the means?
The end however, that of a dog which will now walk upstairs (or a person who will confess to a crime they did not commit) may, by some, be viewed as justifying being choked and dragged - in other words, torture gets the required result.
3. Does CM understand WHY what he does works?
CM views his methods as working because the dog now perceives him as an 'alpha' and 'leader' when all that has actually happened is that the dog sees capitulation as the only means of being able to breathe again and survival. It is a credit to Riley's character that he did not attack CM -- but if he had, CM would have labelled him as 'dominant'. Yes, Riley might well have perceived walking upstairs again as a less dangerous prospect than refusing and then being choked, thus justifying CM's entire premise. But surely we have the brains, the understanding, the compassion and the humanity to think of better ways of achieving the same end.
4. Is his interpretation damaging and dangerous if relied upon and copied by other people?
Children get bitten by dogs because they copy adults. CM's programmes come with a warning for a very good reason -- because they are dangerous. Dogs evolved to communicate with small humans as well as big ones -- if only we understood dogs as well as they understand us. Although dogs have been selected to tolerate us, deliberately forcing one's aggressive will on dogs should not part of the evolutionary equation.
5. Does his view of the domestic dog as a species have any basis in current scientific knowledge?
NO! All current literature points to the domestic dog, as well as its ancestor the wolf, lving in family units as do we, rather than in any kind of hierarchy. A dog's behaviour is based upon its innate desire to keep the peace and its experience of how best to do this, in turn based upon its expectations of its companions, rather than any concept of 'dominance'.
Dogs are uniquely adapted to live with and tolerate us despite all humans foibles and failings. If Cesar Millan has even the remotest comprehension of this (which I doubt), then he has exploited the domestic dog for his own commercial ends beyond all belief.'
Kendal Shepherd
(The first UK veterinary surgeon to be accredited by the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour as a certified clinical animal behaviourist - Ed.)
