Superfluous Act of Reconciliation

I played a little, teeny tiny role in the success of National Geographic Channel's Dog Whisperer show.

It's time I atone.

Although many, in fact whole organizations, may lay claim to first allegiance, it was in fact I and a little correspondance I intercepted that started a whole chain of events that led to the eventual airing of the show, and it's continued success on the air.

Some people will hate me for this.

Some people will thank me for this.

Most people will go on blissfully unaware or unwilling, to acknowledge my role in the success of the Dog Whisperer show.

But it's all there. Any current member of the International Association of Canine Professionals on or about August 2004 should remember or anyone with access to their Yahoo Groups archives can look up a post by me directed to the SafeHands list on the 26th of August under my ALCOEUR email address. (message 19801)

I'm not a gold digger, nor do I care that the success of the show has marched largely on without me; I was a successful, full time Professional Dog Trainer prior to my involvement with either the IACP or the subsequent association of Cesar Millan and the IACP, and will continue to be so long after my association with either party is at an end. One hopes anyway.

But in the interest of the genesis (my new favorite word besides 'ostensibly') of this post and the last five years of angst over the Dog Whisperer show and Cesar Millan specifically, here is the post I sent to National Geographic's website after intercepting a rather threatening consortium who had tasked themselves with the mission of not having the show air at all.

(My outrage was not from their allegiance to any one method or dog training philosophy, but their unadulterated willingness to eviscerate our constitutional right to free speech and the freedom of expression.)

Here it goes, before it is lost forever:

"I applaud your efforts to provide a demonstration of dog training on the National Geographic channel. I am sure that by the time you read this post, you have already been inundated with posts from around the globe from a faction of people alleging that what you will be televising is 'old fashioned', 'unscientific', 'cruel' and possibly even potentially dangerous to both dogs and
humans. Although I myself have neither seen the teasers for this show nor excerpts, I assure you that after almost 30 years of working with dogs, including dangerous ones, and using a variety of methods, I doubt that you would display something over the airwaves that poses a threat to canines or humans.

In an oversimplified view of their world, where most of their practical dog training experience comes from working with perhaps their own pet dog and a lot of books, they have limited scope on the reality of dog training, and what it may take to achieve success with a non compliant, difficult dog. 'They' being the collective 'Positive only' dog training camp who utilize only two of the four learning quadrants all animals employ. Although science is a convenient way to attach nomenclature to an activity or behavior, what it fails to do successfully is to take out of the laboratory or the book and successfully apply that nomenclature to a practical, real life experience.

Positive dog training should mean successful dog training, but the very term has acquired a life of it's own, demeaning the application of methods that are both ageless and timely. Ageless, since no living thing can survive successfully without consequence, as your specials on animals living both domestically and in the wild have shown us, and timely because by the time a professional
trainer gets a call for someone's wayward pet, that dog has achieved inappropriate levels of disobedience that the owner wants resolutions to immediately.

For the numbers of pet dogs in the world today, there are infinite ways to train them, all depending on the nature of the dog, the behavior one is trying to extinguish, age of onset, and a whole host of other variables that need be taken into consideration.

Traditional training methods are traditional because they work. The methodology invoked requires skill and are often misaligned by the Positive only camp as cruel because they have never seen them demonstrated correctly, if at all. To intimate that they are potentially harmful is an excuse for this inappropriate use or demonstration. Take for example the words "choke collar". It's proper use is slip or training collar. It has one application, is worn by the dog in one specific fashion, and is the most maligned article of equipment in the dog training trade today. How it acquired it's malicious use as a 'choke collar' is simple. When applied incorrectly, it does not release automatically, nor would it if it is fitted incorrectly.

By virtue of it's simplicity, it can only be used one way successfully. So, instead of the trainer invoking it's usage incorrectly being the target for education, all training collars are 'bad' and should never be used.

A 'correction' is another term that is not only misunderstood, but horribly misapplied in the context of the new vernacular. To 'correct' a dog physically is harmful, causing stress and emotional trauma. In nature, consequences drive survival. if a wild animal cannot learn from it's failures, it is doomed.

Take for example some of the wild canidae.

As a collective unit, known as a pack; they seek, drive and bring down large game.

The social hierarchy determines who eats first, who mates first, who sleeps where. If a wolf is driven from the pack, as is often the case of adolescent males, they must learn to survive without benefit of the assistance of the pack. Their own unsuccessful attempts either make them better hunters, or drive them to starvation. Discomfort is a part of natural life, for humans and animals.

What better correction to a toddler who accidentally touches something very hot. The parent may have reprimanded the toddler verbally to stay away from a hot surface or item, but curiosity is often the best teacher as the toddler equates the words "don't touch, it's HOT!" to the burning sensation on his fingertips as he reached for the iron or stove top.

Much is the same with dogs. A correction can be as simple as a verbal reminder, "NO!", or a snap on a correctly applied training collar. It is an attention getting aide to assist in communication between two species. Teaching "human" to a dog is far more time consuming than teaching "dog" to a human.

With the advent of electronic training devices, this communication occurs even more readily between the two, and has even wider applications for the training of dogs previously determined to be "beyond training".

I am sure there are dozens of "trainers" who have no skill in the correct application of either traditional training equipment or methods who have done more harm than good. They have besmirched an honorable profession that is still in it's infancy. There are precious few of us who support ourselves exclusively as "Dog Trainers".

We could only do that continuously if we provided a product (training) that was both successful and satisfactory to both dog and owner. I seriously doubt that if we, the collective Professionals who actually sustain ourselves as trainers to the pet owning public, were to beat, choke, kick or otherwise abuse dogs, would survive successfully as trainers.

In a society where the 'management' of dogs is preferable to the training of dogs is a horrible injustice to both dogs and their owners. What a person wants in a pet is the nostalgia of a 'boy and his dog" from years gone by. The comfort of a family pet, protector and friend who is a pleasure and a joy to live with. It is a blatant disservice to so noble a relationship as the one we
share with our first friend, the dog.

National Geographic enjoys a storied history of worthy publications, information and photographs that have enlightened generations of people from around the world. Although as I watch this program, I may not agree with everything applied by Mr. Milan, I am certain you will reach millions of people who would otherwise not seek professional help when they witness what training their pet can accomplish.

Thank you, and many more successful years of education and entertainment to you.

_________________

What really surprised me whas when I got a response from one of their Executives, Michael Beller later that afternoon:

Dear Linda,

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts about this series. We appreciate your support. You will be hearing more from us soon, but in the meantime I wanted to ask how you heard about the series and the controversy. Are there websites where this is being discussed? For a program that has not even aired yet, it certainly is generating some heated debate. We hope you'll watch and continue to support the series.

Please do not share my e-mail address with anyone, I would prefer all comments to continue come in through the comment site. But I wanted to give you my address if you would be so kind as to respond to my questions about the source of the debate Thank you.

Regards,

Michael Beller

_____________________

So I responded.

The original email is lost, however I distinctly recall activities on one of those inane listservs that populate the internet on pets and behavior. I was also party to some indiscreet conversation amongst some 'trainers' regarding the series, the star and the messages it may convey to an unsuspecting public.

My email was then forwarded by Mr Beller to a gentleman named Russell Howard who contacted me via phone later that same afternoon.

__________________________

Here is my report to the IACP SafeHands list:

"Mr. Beller forwarded my email to Russell Howard, Executive VP of
Communications in Washington, DC.

He called me yesterday evening and we spoke at length about the training industry and the complicated issues surrounding the "positive only" factions and those of us who consider themselves "balanced trainers".

I had provided both Mr Beller and Mr Howard for the websites of IACP and NADOI so they could read the Position Statements of both organizations. I also provided a bit of background information on the formation of IACP and APDT, and where a lot of the difficulty between the two lie. I also provided the web address for the APDT, in all fairness.

It IS an issue of censorship, amongst other things, but the primary hope of the National Geographic executives, in defense of their program choice and subject matter follows in Mr. Howard's email to me as follow up of our conversation."

_______________________

And here THAT is:

"Hello Linda,

It was good talking with you earlier.

We very much appreciate your support for our upcoming series "The Dog Whisperer" and your insight on the balanced vs "positive-only" dog training debate.

I wanted to let you know that we have forwarded your contact info to Randy Rylander, one of our senior researchers, who has been working with us on this series.

Randy will follow up with you on some of the questions that you and I discussed. Specifically, we were hoping you might be able to help direct us to individuals you feel would be receptive to reviewing this show without a prejudiced point-of-view against all dog training techniques other than a "positive-only" method. We also would like to identify someone in a senior role from NADOI and/or IACP who would be willing to speak with press on the topic.


Thank you again.

Best,
Russell
RUSSELL A. HOWARD
VP COMMUNICATIONS

And the rest, as they say, is history.

_____________________________

I contacted stewards to both the IACP and NADOI for input and comments and sought the pillars of the dog training community to assist with the review that the executives of the show had requested.

Cap Haggerty was one, Margot Woods was another. Tony Ancheta, Heather Houlihan and myself were the first possibly ever, to see the show before it even aired.

I still have the first four or five episodes from that very first season on tape and unedited.

_________________

Why now, after all this time you may be asking, do I really think anyone actually gives a rats patootie?

I don't really, exceptin' about every 5 months or so, the topic raises it's insidious head like the Spectre of Death and the townsfolk shake their pitchforks and melt their silver to make shivs and bullets.

Because even all these years later, Millan and his show are still a hot topic. Bloggers, pseudo science, and average Joes are all still talking about him; Professional dog trainers are either maligning him or capitalizing on their vague association with him.

And besides, I just wanna stir the pot.

Do I regret my involvement? Naaaaah. Not at all. I think a little discourse is healthy and competition is always a good thing.

Have I benefited in any way from my association with the IACP and their resultant association with Cesar Millan through my actions? I can honestly say; Nope. What others do is none of my concern. My feeling is that the cream will rise to the top, regardless of who they know or how they know them.

I am secure enough in my ability as a trainer, a Professional Dog Trainer to not be overwhelmed by gimics and fads, nor be intimidated by populist opinion.

I just wanna train dogs.