register for free
View our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Our sister sites
Sarah27
Dogsey Veteran
Sarah27 is offline  
Location: Somewhere
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,087
Female 
 
31-07-2009, 10:23 AM
Like I said at the beginning, I don't think recall training is much of an issue for CM because of the leash laws in America.
Reply With Quote
Ramble
Dogsey Veteran
Ramble is offline  
Location: dogsville
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 16,141
Female 
 
31-07-2009, 10:25 AM
Originally Posted by Hali View Post
But not all counsellors/psychiatrists do, so it must be possible to deal with behavioural issues without training/educating the dog/person.
No but all will have an understanding of how to teach new behaviours....as in,a child counsellor may teach cognitive therpaies to a child...they need to know how to do that.
Reply With Quote
Sarah27
Dogsey Veteran
Sarah27 is offline  
Location: Somewhere
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,087
Female 
 
31-07-2009, 10:28 AM
Originally Posted by Mahooli View Post
When animals fight it has nothing to do with dominance and all to do with survival of the fittest. That which is strong and powerful enough to see off rivals goes on to produce the next generation.
This may be just semantics, but isn't that the perfect description of 'dominance'?

i.e. the strongest/fittest dominate the weak/ill by beating/injuring/killing them in a fight?

A definition of dominant:
1: a:commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others
b: very important, powerful, or successful

2: overlooking and commanding from a superior position

So by definition the breeding pair controls the pack because they are the only ones who breed - they control the size and wellbeing of the pack. So they 'dominate' the pack.
Reply With Quote
Hali
Dogsey Veteran
Hali is offline  
Location: Scottish Borders
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,902
Female 
 
31-07-2009, 10:28 AM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker View Post
ive heard this said before re CM....he doesnt train the dogs, he trains the owners, etc ,etc

but i think thats disingenuous and just a marketing statement.
he is training dogs and training owners to train dogs, which is what dog training is.

and even if he were just training the owners, he is still dog training, as all dog trainers are supposed to (and most usually do) train owners to train dogs, not really train the dog for them.

CM isnt any different to other dog trainers in these respects.
I see what you're saying, but I think when he says he doesn't train, what he means is he doesn't get involved in obedience training.

He doesn't teach people how to make a dog sit/stay/fetch etc. but tries to resolve problems which cause a breakdown between the dog/owner. Yes, some of that will involve 'training' in terms of learning manners etc. but it is not 'obedience training' as such.
Reply With Quote
Trouble
Dogsey Veteran
Trouble is offline  
Location: Romford, uk
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 14,265
Female  Diamond Supporter 
 
31-07-2009, 10:32 AM
Originally Posted by Mahooli View Post
The actual words he says are

"but you do have to dominate. Dominate in the animal world is healthy. It's how they keep things balanced."

Becky
Did it never occur to you, that perhaps your interpretation of the word dominate is not his interpretation of the word dominate?
Reply With Quote
Krusewalker
Dogsey Veteran
Krusewalker is offline  
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
Male 
 
31-07-2009, 10:36 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble View Post
How can the two be separated though? In order to be a good behaviourist you need an solid understanding of how to train (in a prefessional cpacity for both I hasten to add)...in order to train you need a solid understanding of dog behaviour...

Precisely, i have repeated this on the CM threads a few times now, as some people think you dont any need behaviourist level knowledge to understand dogs and others think you cant qualify as understanding dogs if you havent become a degree level behaviourist first.
Oddly, it doesnt matter which side of the CM argument you sit on that one.
Of course, you need both, you can qualify as a degree based behaviourist and have no experience of actually training or other practical work with dogs and be pretty pants (experienced that one a few times) and you can be a dog trainer who has never done any research and study into canine behaviour at all and also be pretty pants.
As long as you combine both areas well, you will be doing fine. A degree course is good, but not always practical for everyone, so their are other avenues and courses you can take.
Originally Posted by Hali View Post
I agree that you would think that if you understand dogs then you would be able to train them, but as to whether you have to know how to train them in order to be able to understand them - I'm not sure that you do.

Do all child counsellors/psychiatrist teach?
i think the reverse is more likely

you can 'train' a dog without understanding a dog.
but that is very very limited to very standard basic obedience training with clean slate issue free quick learning dogs. anything else, and you'd be stumped.

whereas, you can understand dogs in the most comprehensive behavioural/psychological way going, which involves lots of academic work, yet not know one end of a living breathing dog from the other.
Reply With Quote
Hali
Dogsey Veteran
Hali is offline  
Location: Scottish Borders
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,902
Female 
 
31-07-2009, 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by Ramble View Post
No but all will have an understanding of how to teach new behaviours....as in,a child counsellor may teach cognitive therpaies to a child...they need to know how to do that.
Sorry Ramble, I'm having difficultly trying to say what I mean..can't quite find the right terminology.

yes, I would think that all behaviourists need to teach a change in behaviour.

But there is a line between teaching/training correct behaviours which may have drastic consequences and teaching/training other skills and 'niceties'.
Reply With Quote
Hali
Dogsey Veteran
Hali is offline  
Location: Scottish Borders
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,902
Female 
 
31-07-2009, 10:42 AM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker View Post

i think the reverse is more likely

you can 'train' a dog without understanding a dog.
but that is very very limited to very standard basic obedience training with clean slate issue free quick learning dogs. anything else, and you'd be stumped.

whereas, you can understand dogs in the most comprehensive behavioural/psychological way going, which involves lots of academic work, yet not know one end of a living breathing dog from the other.
But is this the reverse of what I said (or was trying to say) - do you need to be able to train a dog to understand it?

I think the critical point is what we all mean by 'training'.

anyway, I'm struggling to express what I mean in respect to this particular point and really should get on with some work...may pop back later.
Reply With Quote
Krusewalker
Dogsey Veteran
Krusewalker is offline  
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
Male 
 
31-07-2009, 10:43 AM
Originally Posted by Hali View Post
I see what you're saying, but I think when he says he doesn't train, what he means is he doesn't get involved in obedience training.

He doesn't teach people how to make a dog sit/stay/fetch etc. but tries to resolve problems which cause a breakdown between the dog/owner. Yes, some of that will involve 'training' in terms of learning manners etc. but it is not 'obedience training' as such.
i only used to do the same until this year.
im still training the dog and owner as part of resolving the issues though, so its still training.
for example, part of the issue when their is a breakdown between dog/owner is owner has no control over dog.
how do you introduce control?
you help show the owner how to teach the dog a sit and down.
ie, (obedience) training. dont let the word obedience deflect you.
has CM never taught a sit?
walking nicely on the lead is also training.
Reply With Quote
Krusewalker
Dogsey Veteran
Krusewalker is offline  
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
Male 
 
31-07-2009, 10:46 AM
Originally Posted by Hali View Post
But is this the reverse of what I said (or was trying to say) - do you need to be able to train a dog to understand it?

I think the critical point is what we all mean by 'training'.

anyway, I'm struggling to express what I mean in respect to this particular point and really should get on with some work...may pop back later.
Ah - i get you now. No, you dont need to be able to train a dog to understand what its problem is, but you need to be able to train a dog as part of solving its problem
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 8 of 25 « First < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 18 > Last »


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


© Copyright 2016, Dogsey   Contact Us - Dogsey - Top Contact us | Archive | Privacy | Terms of use | Top