It's my opinion, Rune. He does use an emotional lure, he does state things as black and white, in my opinion, and it is not a style that appeals to me.

You may be right about CM using a charismatic style - that would be the style he adopts to target the audience he is aiming for. People who perhaps aren't emotionally drawn in, but are looking for some sort of "leader" or a person "they can relate to" or whatever is their bag.

Unfortunately that seems to be a good mask for his more unacceptable methods.

So busy thinking how wonderful he is that they don't think about what he is actually doing.

rune

I haven't found Dunbar to be condescending or overly emotional, but even if I did, I'd prefer that to the kind of charisma that CM uses to suck people in and mask the way he treats dogs.

And I'm not saying there aren't very condescending people on the positive side of things. I find some folks to be pretty awful with people but their methods are kind to dogs. Cesar sucks people in, but the things he does to dogs are pretty horrifying. I'd rather someone be nasty to me and not choke my dog in some hare-brained attempt at being "alpha."

First, you have to define "unacceptable". May not be acceptable to certain other training system afficianados, but acceptable to others. Dog training is a bit like religion in that respect. Lots of people probably like to watch bootcamp type programmes, where owners are made to feel humiliated, and then shown how they "should" do it. Victoria Stillwell incorporated this type of people bashing into her programme, which looked really odd - first she got the owner to feel really guilty about how incompetent a dog owner he/she was, mopped up the tears, and showed how it should be done (in a sort of a fashion) - that's the "find someone who wants to be on telly, and doesn't matter how stupid they need to look to do it, then edit it to make good viewing for your target audience approach", and that's a particularly queasy one.

I prefer not to be condescended to, or drawn in emotionally, Crysania, or to fall under the charisma of someone either. And I prefer not to fall into them or us camps either. I try to always pick my own way through life.

I suppose I have not watched the same things as you, I havent found ID condocending at all, but if you do fair enough

I find him a v quietly spoken gentle man, but I know how often shyness and arrogance can be mixed up - either one of us could be right

I agree he does try and use emotions to bring forwards the importance of some things - like in a puppy class pointing out that 1 in 10 puppies will die under the wheels of a car because they have poor recal - then pointing out there are 10 dogs in the class
I guess that isnt to everyones taste but I really bet it gets the message across

Thanks, Ben McFuzzylegs, for your balanced post. You put forward a perfect example of the emotional slant, and I can see exactly what you are saying, but, I feel, for someone who perhaps has tried their best to train a recall, and their puppy still gets run down, a statement like that meant to stir up the emotions could lead to a real guilt trip. They would be left wondering "should I have used some form of aversive" - a rattle bottle or water spray, or did I fail to apply Ian Dunbar's advice properly? It's one of the reasons I prefer the more neutral approach to the head rather than the one straight to the heart...

Rereading that, as I hadn't taken in the fact that there are 10 dogs in the class, I actually find that approach particularly mean and scaremongering. I can't imagine someone going along to a mother and toddlers' group, and using the same tactic. There are 10 children here, and it's very likely one of them will die, unless you instill a particular behaviour into them, and I have the very system to do it. It's just not an approach I would expect from someone who puts himself forward as a positive dog trainer. He's not using that kind of behaviour towards humans - he's using fear.

In my opinion, I think you went looking to be condescended to. I've never seen him as being condescending at all. Sometimes I find him quite funny.

There ARE positive trainers who have fallen into the condescending thing and I won't deny that. It's one of the things that bugs me the MOST about some of the positive training circle: they use positive reinforcement with their dogs, but then use positive punishment with people. I never much cared for Victoria Stilwell because she was so RUDE to people and I thought there were such better ways to approach the issues the people were having with their dogs. I was glad she used positive training with the dogs and for that reason I prefer her over CM, but I hated the way she treated people. I also don't much like Jean Donaldson because her book (Culture Clash) is horribly sarcastic and condescending. So I can understand where you're coming from there, but the videos I've watched of Dunbar haven't come off that way.

Haven't read the whole thread but surely anyones methods evolve over time?

Adam

Victoria Stillwell actually doesn't use purely positive dog training, Crysiana. She uses aversives, and she has banished dogs from rooms. She is particularly fond of noise as an aversive. So, as well as being rude to people - I agree with you there - she actually isn't the type of dog trainer she packages herself as.

Again, I'm sorry to disappoint you, Crysania. I don't approach things in the manner you describe. For myself, I find ID's approach condescending, and I don't enjoy his manner of talking to his audience. I do respect your opinion that, for you, you don't find it so.