Yes what you say is very fair I just find it hard to leave aside his methods as I would die myself rather than subject an animal to the techniques he uses.
There has been considerable speculation as to whether she even trains the dogs herself, or just fronts the programme with others doing the bulk of the training, certainly Millan doesn't spend a day, just "observing", giving a good opportunity to get advise from someone else...
I can put that rumour to bed. A few years back I was on a forum with someone whose dog was featured on It's Me Or The Dog (UK). I can't remember the episode, but it wasn't series 1 or 2 as they're online and I've just checked. So it was a later series.
This person had a rescue dog - was an old regular on the forum, had met a few other forum members and had previously posted many pics of their family and dogs and sure enough, the episode aired and it was this person and their dogs. I say that before you say they were making it up. Forum members watched the episode when it first aired as we'd known for a while it was coming up. It was this family and their dog, whose name was well known to us all and had been known to us - esp the dog and its antics - a year or two before they were in the show.
FM told us Victoria was lovely when off screen. She did all the training herself. She was filming in the FM's house for quite a few days. No doubt whatsoever there are no secret extra trainers behind the scenes or weren't by this series. The FM had nothing but praise for her.
The fact Cesar doesn;t observe at any great length - an hour or several from the look of his show - is not something he should be proud of.;) You'd need a whole day, and a lot of contexts to thoroughly analyse what's going on.
I'd rather I got help from someone who spent a good long time observing before deciding on their plan of action.
So no - there isn't a hidden bank of secret trainers and Victoria isn't just a front person. Sorry to shoot down that particular conspiracy theory.:D
I can put that rumour to bed. A few years back I was on a forum with someone whose dog was featured on It's Me Or The Dog (UK). I can't remember the episode, but it wasn't series 1 or 2 as they're online and I've just checked. So it was a later series.
This person had a rescue dog - was an old regular on the forum, had met a few other forum members and had previously posted many pics of their family and dogs and sure enough, the episode aired and it was this person and their dogs. I say that before you say they were making it up. Forum members watched the episode when it first aired as we'd known for a while it was coming up. It was this family and their dog, whose name was well known to us all and had been known to us - esp the dog and its antics - a year or two before they were in the show.
FM told us Victoria was lovely when off screen. She did all the training herself. She was filming in the FM's house for quite a few days. No doubt whatsoever there are no secret extra trainers behind the scenes or weren't by this series. The FM had nothing but praise for her.
The fact Cesar doesn;t observe at any great length - an hour or several from the look of his show - is not something he should be proud of.;) You'd need a whole day, and a lot of contexts to thoroughly analyse what's going on.
I'd rather I got help from someone who spent a good long time observing before deciding on their plan of action.
So no - there isn't a hidden bank of secret trainers and Victoria isn't just a front person. Sorry to shoot down that particular conspiracy theory.:D
How are you to know Cesar does not spend a lot of time observing? Much has been said about editing, so how exactly do you know he does not? In fact, Cesar spends a great deal of time observing dogs, their owners and how they interact with each other. He then comes up with the best course of action for each particular case. I know somebody who knows him personally, and can tell you all that garbage molliepops spews is exactly that - garbage!
I would suggest you join some of the serious dog forums out there you will find many people who are spouting the same garbage and many who have experience of this man and his techniques. Anyone who thinks a prong collar a training aid realy shouldn't be owning a dog.
How are you to know Cesar does not spend a lot of time observing? Much has been said about editing, so how exactly do you know he does not? In fact, Cesar spends a great deal of time observing dogs, their owners and how they interact with each other. He then comes up with the best course of action for each particular case. I know somebody who knows him personally, and can tell you all that garbage molliepops spews is exactly that - garbage!
Cos I saw one the other day where I had the time elapsed on screen from he started (from him knocking on the door, then just sitting with the dog and owner, asking questions) to taking it outside and working with it. It was something like 3 hours.:D
I can put that rumour to bed. A few years back I was on a forum with someone whose dog was featured on It's Me Or The Dog (UK). I can't remember the episode, but it wasn't series 1 or 2 as they're online and I've just checked. So it was a later series.
This person had a rescue dog - was an old regular on the forum, had met a few other forum members and had previously posted many pics of their family and dogs and sure enough, the episode aired and it was this person and their dogs. I say that before you say they were making it up. Forum members watched the episode when it first aired as we'd known for a while it was coming up. It was this family and their dog, whose name was well known to us all and had been known to us - esp the dog and its antics - a year or two before they were in the show.
FM told us Victoria was lovely when off screen. She did all the training herself. She was filming in the FM's house for quite a few days. No doubt whatsoever there are no secret extra trainers behind the scenes or weren't by this series. The FM had nothing but praise for her.
The fact Cesar doesn;t observe at any great length - an hour or several from the look of his show - is not something he should be proud of.;) You'd need a whole day, and a lot of contexts to thoroughly analyse what's going on.
I'd rather I got help from someone who spent a good long time observing before deciding on their plan of action.
So no - there isn't a hidden bank of secret trainers and Victoria isn't just a front person. Sorry to shoot down that particular conspiracy theory.:D
Sorry but that is not what I have heard directly from other two other RL sources, outside forumland.
Things may differ from series to series, and people may come across differently to different people at different times, but what I have heard, from people who were not required to sign privacy agreements, is different to what you heard via your forum. Surely they were breaking that agreement to be discussing it on a forum? Which forum was it please?
Which dog was featured?
Can you explain what the problem please?
People more familiar with all the series could maybe then identify the dog and which series.
As for the time observing, professional behaviourists or trainers do not spend a day observing, then a couple of days addressing the problem!
This is generally done in a few hours by being knowledgeable enough and sufficiently familiar with large numbers of other similar cases over a number of years to be about to draw on that extensive prior experience to enable the professional to understand and address what is going on within that time frame, via careful observation combined with asking the relevant questions to bring that information out, while taking a detailed history.
At the end of the day I guess we will both have to decide which sources we are more convinced by.:)
PS however I prefer Robert Alleyne to either Cesar Millan or Victoria Stilwell.
He seems to have a sensible and realistic balance of reward and correction without being extreme in either direction, and I have not seen him taking undue risks with people or dogs or being rude to owners either, while still encouraging them to face sometimes uncomfortable truths.
To be fair I think that is because he has a clearly recorded and firmly established background in provable facts, and he does the training on his shows.
IMO one of the problems with him is that he is so good at what he does, due to a combination of several factors that together are fairly unique to him, in terms of getting results (leaving the methods used aside for now) that very few people can replicate it, including not having a controlled pack of other dogs on hand to train with so it leads to problems when they try to do so.
Stilwell's background is what she says it is, some of which can be dis proven as she couldn't have been in two different continents at once and the rest remarkably unsupported by anyone els, - no one recalls ever seeing her when she claimed to have been regularly walking 20 dogs a day and there is a remarkable lack of private, rather than TV, clients that are ever heard about for someone who claims to have been in the dog business for 10 years.
There has been considerable speculation as to whether she even trains the dogs herself, or just fronts the programme with others doing the bulk of the training, certainly Millan doesn't spend a day, just "observing", giving a good opportunity to get advise from someone else.
Even the dogs she claims to have fostered and rehomed have not been verified by anyone else, to the best of my knowledge, whereas people were aware of and going to Millan for their dogs long before he was famous and he is known and proven to have been around dogs for a very long time, whereas she has not.
I would absolutely agree Stilwell is acting a part, that of a dog trainer, but I think the "affection" at the end is a part of that act. I also think it is extremely rude to be mocking the owners, without whom she wouldn't have a programme, by pulling faces to the camera about the owners!
I think there are problems with some of what Millan does, and I think it can be very high risk to people and dogs, but I think he is unfailingly respectful to the owners, and genuinely likes dogs. I do not think he is a fraud, although of course editing goes on.
Personally I am very much less convinced Stilwell is what she claims to be and imo it is apparent from some of the shots that there is some mild punishment that occurs that is not shown, as it wouldn't fit the image of the show.
For example a Dalmation was shown being trained to stay in it's basket by giving it chicken but in one shot it collar is defying gravity by being right up it's neck under it's ears.
To me that indicated someone has just removed a lead from the collar, after lead checking it under the chin to teach it not to move out of the basket. The fit of the collar was such that it would not have been a question of the dog having just put it's head down and the collar sliding down its neck, or it would have been too loose to stay up it's neck, with the dog's head and neck upright for as long as it did.
Excellent post!! I do not think I have seen that episode, but it would not surprise me if you what you said was true. I did see another episode with a Dalmatian called Pongo. He was the dog who had bitten every member of his family and would steal food. There was a scene in which Victoria told the father how to get the dog off the sofa. She told him to sit on he floor in order to make the dog think it was a better place to be. Cesar would have done things a lot differently. He would have used his calm assertiveness and body language to claim the sofa. This is what another dog would have done. Victoria was using human psychology, whereas Cesar would have used dog psychology. Another example of transferring human psychology was when she was getting the dog to stop stealing food. She used sound diversion. Something that does not exist in the dog world. There was also a point when the dog, not even looking at food, got blasted with sound. Surely to goodness, this goes against everything she preaches. She says you must never instill fear in a dog, but frightening them into not going near food using loud sounds, is surely instilling fear. Another R+ technique I absolutely hate is that of making strangers give food to a dog. Victoria made friends of the family toss the dog food in order to stop him biting them. Telling them that he would come up and sniff them and not to worry as he would not do anything. It did not work and the dog bit one of the boys. Know what? She gave the dog a 'time out'. She said he never gave any warning, but he did. He was not in a calm submissive state to begin with, then just before he bit the boy, his body stiffened up. Victoria should have been monitoring the dog at all times which is what Cesar would have done. He would have noticed the dog's body language and corrected him. However, this is another situation he would have approached differently at the start. He would have instructed the family to introduce their friends to the dog by letting the dog sniff them and told them not to touch, to talk or make eye contact with the dog. He would have also told the guests how to read the dog. The boy who was bitten, was not aware of what the dog was doing, let alone how to interpret his body language. If Victoria had done this, the bite would not have happened. This woman is nothing more than a by-the-numbers trainer.
You are right about her rudeness. She yaps on about how the owners must never be mean or nasty to their dogs, but is then downright obnoxious to the owners. Even if it is an act, it is not a pleasant one. She certainly does not come over as being a good role model.
I also wondered about the dogs she fostered. I did quite a bit of research and could find no further information.
Sorry but that is not what I have heard directly from other two other RL sources, outside forumland.
Things may differ from series to series, and people may come across differently to different people at different times, but what I have heard, from people who were not required to sign privacy agreements, is different to what you heard via your forum. Surely they were breaking that agreement to be discussing it on a forum? Which forum was it please?
Which dog was featured?
Can you explain what the problem please?
People more familiar with all the series could maybe then identify the dog and which series.
As for the time observing, professional behaviourists or trainers do not spend a day observing, then a couple of days addressing the problem!
This is generally done in a few hours by being knowledgeable enough and sufficiently familiar with large numbers of other similar cases over a number of years to be about to draw on that extensive prior experience to enable the professional to understand and address what is going on within that time frame, via careful observation combined with asking the relevant questions to bring that information out, while taking a detailed history.
At the end of the day I guess we will both have to decide which sources we are more convinced by.:)
I am guessing they will not be the same
I'm not saying where it was as I'd hate to identify the person or upset them by them being bombarded by the curious - their dog has since died. However, those of us there watched the story unfold 'in real time', so to speak and it was indeed verified when that FM appeared on the show.
I have no vested interest - I find the subject interesting. The person involved in the show had no need to hide anything or make anything up. I doubt there's a confidentiality clause btw, someone I know IRL and on a forum,, was on 'Dragon's Den' and we knew all about that before it aired, too.:D
I spoke to somebody on a forum once too who had met VS. She said she was not a nice person in real life, so that means it's verified.........
I think.............?
Either way, she has it in her contracts that nobody is allowed to ask her anything on PA's. That bit is true, cos I have seen it. Presumably this is because she might get a bit caught out if she had no clue about the answers!!!
That defence is of course from her (defensive) point of view only, it is not an independent assessment, and it is somewhat inconsistent with her then trying to dissuade the owners of a male Dalmation, who had bitten family members and visitors, from being put to sleep due to the risk posed by his aggression.This dog was shown during filming to actually, unprovoked, bite a visiting teenager who was acting under Victoria's specific instructions at the time.
...snip....
.
Excellent post!! I do not think I have seen that episode, but it would not surprise me if you what you said was true. I did see another episode with a Dalmatian called Pongo. He was the dog who had bitten every member of his family and would steal food. ...........There was also a point when the dog, not even looking at food, got blasted with sound. Surely to goodness, this goes against everything she preaches. She says you must never instill fear in a dog, but frightening them into not going near food using loud sounds, is surely instilling fear. Another R+ technique I absolutely hate is that of making strangers give food to a dog. Victoria made friends of the family toss the dog food in order to stop him biting them. Telling them that he would come up and sniff them and not to worry as he would not do anything. It did not work and the dog bit one of the boys. Know what? She gave the dog a 'time out'. She said he never gave any warning, but he did. He was not in a calm submissive state to begin with, then just before he bit the boy, his body stiffened up. Victoria should have been monitoring the dog at all times which is what Cesar would have done. .......
This is the same dog I was referring to in my previous post above (although IIRC it was a different, female, Dalmatin with the gravity-defying collar).
Not only did the dog warn by stiffening but she should have noticed and recognised when it nose bumped, not sniffed, the teenager, to test his response, very shortly before it bit him. :eek:
You may have noticed she also stood well back herself while telling the owner, who the dog had also bitten previously, to remove the dog i.e making them take the risk of it objecting to being removed :rolleyes:.
There was also an episode with Jodie Marsh where she had a CCTV and went in to tell off the miscreant whenever one of a number of dogs urinated.
As several dogs were all the same room together and there was a time delay between seeing the behaviour on screen and going to tell off the dog the actual result was that she went int o the room and told off a dog, surrounded by other dogs who may have be upset by a raise voice, none of whom were misbehaving at the time so they would at best have taken no notice or they could have been confused, or at wprse they would anticipate a negative reaction whenever someone came back resulting in anxiety.The last thing you want when dealing with a house soiling problem as anxiety can be a major contributory factor.
I'm not saying where it was as I'd hate to identify the person or upset them by them being bombarded by the curious - their dog has since died. However, those of us there watched the story unfold 'in real time', so to speak and it was indeed verified when that FM appeared on the show.
I have no vested interest - I find the subject interesting. The person involved in the show had no need to hide anything or make anything up. I doubt there's a confidentiality clause btw, someone I know IRL and on a forum,, was on 'Dragon's Den' and we knew all about that before it aired, too.:D
How would relating which dog and which problem it was identify them anymore than appearing on the programme would?
As for protecting them from questions on whichever forum, no one is obliged to answer any questino on a forum and can always use the "ignore" button or report anyone behaving inappropriately..
Of course programme contracts differ so why would the contracts for Dragon's Den have anything to do with the contract for IMOTD?
As I have said, it is my understanding that both Stilwell and Millan use confidentiality clauses, as is also the case with Big Brother participants.
I watched both Dog Borstal and Cesar Milan earlier today. The Dog Borstal episode was OK, but Rob Alleyne was laughing to the camera over one of the women and her dog, which I didn't think was very professional, but hey ho.
I really enjoyed the Cesar Milan episode where he came to London. He had a very calm approach with the 3 different cases he addressed. The cases themselves I felt didn't have really badly behaved dogs, so I'd like to see an episode where he deals with a problem dog (like the dalmation mentioned above!).
Both programmes stated that you should not use the methods shown without consulting an animal behaviourist. And I think this is key - these programmes are entertainment rather than educational, and are obviously edited so us, the public, are not seeing the whole picture. Therefore training off the back of these programmes isn't really a good idea.
Personally as a new dog owner with a 5mth old pup, I'd like to read more about identifying dog signals and body language. I think I'd benefit from that.
I watched both Dog Borstal and Cesar Milan earlier today. The Dog Borstal episode was OK, but Rob Alleyne was laughing to the camera over one of the women and her dog, which I didn't think was very professional, but hey ho.
I really enjoyed the Cesar Milan episode where he came to London. He had a very calm approach with the 3 different cases he addressed. The cases themselves I felt didn't have really badly behaved dogs, so I'd like to see an episode where he deals with a problem dog (like the dalmation mentioned above!).
Both programmes stated that you should not use the methods shown without consulting an animal behaviourist. And I think this is key - these programmes are entertainment rather than educational, and are obviously edited so us, the public, are not seeing the whole picture. Therefore training off the back of these programmes isn't really a good idea.
Personally as a new dog owner with a 5mth old pup, I'd like to read more about identifying dog signals and body language. I think I'd benefit from that.
I would entirely agree with you there, but the Stilwell programmes are frequently praised for not giving that caveat, with it being cited that this is evidence that those techniques are harmless.
This is one of the reasons they do not show the full picture, including necessary corrections, to avoid giving that warning, and being misleading in that way, presumably to aid the PR image, is in itself potentially harmfull as owners are not going to get the same apparent results. The warning was still omitted in the earlier series where more punishment - noise, air sprays etc was shown.
Agreed Tass - think they should have the same statement for "It's me or the dog".
I guess you hope people use their noggin. If my kid had behavioural problems I wouldn't be just watching Supernanny to solve it. I'd be seeing a specialist directly. Same with a dog really, especially one showing any sort agressive behaviour.
Agreed Tass - think they should have the same statement for "It's me or the dog".
I guess you hope people use their noggin. If my kid had behavioural problems I wouldn't be just watching Supernanny to solve it. I'd be seeing a specialist directly. Same with a dog really, especially one showing any sort agressive behaviour.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Amazingly though people often don't, as specialists cost money, when the TV company isn't paying, and you have to put in lots more time and effort to change things than would be apparent from the "reality" shows, including Supernanny, without even getting your 5 minutes of fame.
Just look how everything so often goes back to how it was before, even in all these shows, when the person giving the advice leaves, be that Millan, Frost or Stilwell. and it is back to being just down to the owners/parents to maintain it.
How would relating which dog and which problem it was identify them anymore than appearing on the programme would?
As for protecting them from questions on whichever forum, no one is obliged to answer any questino on a forum and can always use the "ignore" button or report anyone behaving inappropriately..
Of course programme contracts differ so why would the contracts for Dragon's Den have anything to do with the contract for IMOTD?
As I have said, it is my understanding that both Stilwell and Millan use confidentiality clauses, as is also the case with Big Brother participants.
I'd have thought what I meant there was obvious. I'd feel bad if people from here, (maybe not just people posting but lurkers) proceeded over to that forum to cross question the poor woman about her experience on IMOTD - as her dog has since died, and I don't think a barrage of hostile questioning from strangers trying to establish the inherent evilness of VS, would be appropriate.
Re. the contracts of shows, confidentiality clauses etc - it wasn't me who raised that. My point was - how could you know? You say one show tells you nothing of the contracts for another - then proceed to tell us about Big Brother.:eek:
I am not a pet or dog owner or even want to be, but I listen avidly to a show on BBC London every Thursday from 10.00pm called "barking at the moon", which is aimed at dog owners and their friends. A similar discussion was sparked off there following an interview with Cesar Milan whilst he was in London by Jo Good the host and her sidekick. The ladies really rate him and were suprised by the almost polarised views pro and anti that he generated. I love the passion you dog owners have for your pets, I just hope which ever side you are on the dogs don't suffer.
How would relating which dog and which problem it was identify them anymore than appearing on the programme would?
As for protecting them from questions on whichever forum, no one is obliged to answer any questino on a forum and can always use the "ignore" button or report anyone behaving inappropriately..
Of course programme contracts differ so why would the contracts for Dragon's Den have anything to do with the contract for IMOTD?
As I have said, it is my understanding that both Stilwell and Millan use confidentiality clauses, as is also the case with Big Brother participants.
I'd have thought what I meant there was obvious. I'd feel bad if people from here, (maybe not just people posting but lurkers) proceeded over to that forum to cross question the poor woman about her experience on IMOTD - as her dog has since died, and I don't think a barrage of hostile questioning from strangers trying to establish the inherent evilness of VS, would be appropriate....
Who is trying to establish "the inherent evilness of VS" and why do you assume anyone would question this person, or that if they did, those questions would be hostile rather than interested ?
It is in the nature of forums that people come and go so it would be quite likely that this person may not even still be there, after a number of years, to be asked any questions.
Aside from that, you are combining two things that I deliberately separated in my post (above) as they are different things.
I asked which dog it was and which problem and said that that information would not identify someone any more than appearing the programme, in the same way that discussing the Benji or the Pongo episodes in this thread have not identified those people any more than appearing on the programme did.
Answering that does not involving saying which forum it was, an issue I have addressed separately as they are separate things. The first question, which dog and what problem, could very easily have been answered without mentioning any forum.
....Re. the contracts of shows, confidentiality clauses etc - it wasn't me who raised that. My point was - how could you know? You say one show tells you nothing of the contracts for another - then proceed to tell us about Big Brother.:eek:
Sorry but, as I understood it, you seemed to be saying before, in the post below, that as there is not a confidentiality agreement for Dragon's Den it would follow that there was also no confidentialty agreement for IMOTD.
I'm not saying where it was as I'd hate to identify the person or upset them by them being bombarded by the curious - their dog has since died. However, those of us there watched the story unfold 'in real time', so to speak and it was indeed verified when that FM appeared on the show.
I have no vested interest - I find the subject interesting. The person involved in the show had no need to hide anything or make anything up. I doubt there's a confidentiality clause btw, someone I know IRL and on a forum,, was on 'Dragon's Den' and we knew all about that before it aired, too.:D
Confidentiality agreements on shows are to protect the production, not the participants, like the magician's assistant not giving their trade secrets away, so participants may not have anything to hide, but that is not why these agreements are there.
My point is there is no confidentiality agreement for Dragon's Den but there is for BB, and yes I have known people who have been on both shows, a lady with an idea for an applicator for putting fake tan on hard-to-reach areas (she was turned down for investment) and Kamel from BB. She could tell people she was going to be on before it was made public, he wasn't allowed to.
Your quoted post (above) introducing comparing contractual clauses for IMOTD with Dragon's Den opened the discussion to shows outside those previously being discussed, and what contracts might be involved.
BTW this is what Alleyne has to say about trainers/behaviourists and people can decide for themselves who he is talking about and the veracity of it:
If he's talking about Victoria Stillwell in the video then her Wiki page is in serious need of updating! I can't find anything on Google about her being sued by Channel 4 (or Animal Planet) either.
If he's talking about Victoria Stillwell in the video then her Wiki page is in serious need of updating! I can't find anything on Google about her being sued by Channel 4 (or Animal Planet) either.
No. I think several of us here have looked following that post upthread and no-one seems to have found owt, as no-one's come back here and linked. Also I doubt her shows would still be airing online and on TV if the channel had sued. I like Robert Alleyne (to the point I'd like to see more of him on TV) but think he might be going off half cocked, there. Probably cos his show got cancelled and her's didn't.
No. I think several of us here have looked following that post upthread and no-one seems to have found owt, as no-one's come back here and linked. Also I doubt her shows would still be airing online and on TV if the channel had sued. I like Robert Alleyne (to the point I'd like to see more of him on TV) but think he might be going off half cocked, there. Probably cos his show got cancelled and her's didn't
As I said I will let people decide for themselves, I know no more on that than what anyone following the link has seen in the clip.
I don't recall how many there were but wasn't there more than one series of Dog Borstal and wasn't it only after Channel 4 announced that they weren't doing any more IMOTD (UK) (was that after series 4?) that the one hour USA versions started? Remembering that Channel 4 isn't the production company for the programme.
So didn't both the programmes get cancelled, but both after more than one series? Although IMOTD may have done fewer series
In any case both Dog Borstal and IMOTD seem to have a number of re runs
That aside, and that little part of the clip aside, I think he makes some very valid points about needing a balanced approach to training, about not being too PC so it is to the detriment of the dog, and about the difficulties faced by people needing a trainer or a behaviourist because of it being a completely unregulated field.
As I said I will let people decide for themselves, I know no more on that than what anyone following the link has seen in the clip.
I think there are a lot of reasons to believe she is the person to whom Robert Alleyne was referring. There are too many discrepancies between what she does and says. I have just re-acquainted myself with the first season opening titles of her show. She said: "there is no dog that can't be trained." What about poor Benji?? She then (in her statement) goes on to say: "...but as I mentioned on the programme and still firmly believe, once a dog has shown the propensity not just to bite, but to attack (especially unprovoked), that dog can never be trusted not to attack again." So, now - in Victoria's eyes there are dogs who can not be trained. Plus (as I mentioned previously), the contradictions between her statement and what transpired in the episode. She told a family with two Labradors that they must never get angry with their dogs, but when a technique she tried, failed to stop one of the dogs humping, she raised her voice and angrily told the dog to stop. Going back to the episode with Pongo. The father (and I think the mother) had seriously been considering having the dog put down because of his continual biting. Victoria then talked them out of it. This is a massive contradiction of the one with Benji. It is as if she can not remember the things she has done and said. A bit like a liar. A fraud in other words. Which is exactly why Channel 4 sued this mysterious female trainer.
Regarding her continued employment with the channel. It could have been that they were contractually obliged to keep her on their payroll. It has been known for companies to have grievances with employees, but keep them on if they make changes. As I mentioned previously, if this was Victoria, she might have been told to get the relevant qualifications, but could still keep her show.
Robert Alleyne strongly implied the person was a household name, so can any of you think of another well known, "glamorous" female dog trainer who had her own television series?
Having heard it from the horses mouth just before series 3 was filmed (dog borstal) none of the trainers could abide stillwell, completely disregarding her as a dog trainer, quite rightly. Dreadful woman. She was almost a windup injoke amongst them. As for robs clip above, I couldn't agree more. I see dog after dog these days, utterly untrained, rude and often aggressive towards both people and dogs. People will sit in the waiting room allowing dogs to face off at each other and raise merry hell, and NOONE will reprimand their pets for this behaviour. Another infuriation trend is allowing dogs to jump up at others, even tiny pregnant vets, and laugh about it! Don't get me started onthe lack of recall either!
Comments
I can put that rumour to bed. A few years back I was on a forum with someone whose dog was featured on It's Me Or The Dog (UK). I can't remember the episode, but it wasn't series 1 or 2 as they're online and I've just checked. So it was a later series.
This person had a rescue dog - was an old regular on the forum, had met a few other forum members and had previously posted many pics of their family and dogs and sure enough, the episode aired and it was this person and their dogs. I say that before you say they were making it up. Forum members watched the episode when it first aired as we'd known for a while it was coming up. It was this family and their dog, whose name was well known to us all and had been known to us - esp the dog and its antics - a year or two before they were in the show.
FM told us Victoria was lovely when off screen. She did all the training herself. She was filming in the FM's house for quite a few days. No doubt whatsoever there are no secret extra trainers behind the scenes or weren't by this series. The FM had nothing but praise for her.
The fact Cesar doesn;t observe at any great length - an hour or several from the look of his show - is not something he should be proud of.;) You'd need a whole day, and a lot of contexts to thoroughly analyse what's going on.
I'd rather I got help from someone who spent a good long time observing before deciding on their plan of action.
So no - there isn't a hidden bank of secret trainers and Victoria isn't just a front person. Sorry to shoot down that particular conspiracy theory.:D
How are you to know Cesar does not spend a lot of time observing? Much has been said about editing, so how exactly do you know he does not? In fact, Cesar spends a great deal of time observing dogs, their owners and how they interact with each other. He then comes up with the best course of action for each particular case. I know somebody who knows him personally, and can tell you all that garbage molliepops spews is exactly that - garbage!
Cos I saw one the other day where I had the time elapsed on screen from he started (from him knocking on the door, then just sitting with the dog and owner, asking questions) to taking it outside and working with it. It was something like 3 hours.:D
Sorry but that is not what I have heard directly from other two other RL sources, outside forumland.
Things may differ from series to series, and people may come across differently to different people at different times, but what I have heard, from people who were not required to sign privacy agreements, is different to what you heard via your forum. Surely they were breaking that agreement to be discussing it on a forum?
Which forum was it please?
Which dog was featured?
Can you explain what the problem please?
People more familiar with all the series could maybe then identify the dog and which series.
As for the time observing, professional behaviourists or trainers do not spend a day observing, then a couple of days addressing the problem!
This is generally done in a few hours by being knowledgeable enough and sufficiently familiar with large numbers of other similar cases over a number of years to be about to draw on that extensive prior experience to enable the professional to understand and address what is going on within that time frame, via careful observation combined with asking the relevant questions to bring that information out, while taking a detailed history.
At the end of the day I guess we will both have to decide which sources we are more convinced by.:)
I am guessing they will not be the same
He seems to have a sensible and realistic balance of reward and correction without being extreme in either direction, and I have not seen him taking undue risks with people or dogs or being rude to owners either, while still encouraging them to face sometimes uncomfortable truths.
Excellent post!! I do not think I have seen that episode, but it would not surprise me if you what you said was true. I did see another episode with a Dalmatian called Pongo. He was the dog who had bitten every member of his family and would steal food. There was a scene in which Victoria told the father how to get the dog off the sofa. She told him to sit on he floor in order to make the dog think it was a better place to be. Cesar would have done things a lot differently. He would have used his calm assertiveness and body language to claim the sofa. This is what another dog would have done. Victoria was using human psychology, whereas Cesar would have used dog psychology. Another example of transferring human psychology was when she was getting the dog to stop stealing food. She used sound diversion. Something that does not exist in the dog world. There was also a point when the dog, not even looking at food, got blasted with sound. Surely to goodness, this goes against everything she preaches. She says you must never instill fear in a dog, but frightening them into not going near food using loud sounds, is surely instilling fear. Another R+ technique I absolutely hate is that of making strangers give food to a dog. Victoria made friends of the family toss the dog food in order to stop him biting them. Telling them that he would come up and sniff them and not to worry as he would not do anything. It did not work and the dog bit one of the boys. Know what? She gave the dog a 'time out'. She said he never gave any warning, but he did. He was not in a calm submissive state to begin with, then just before he bit the boy, his body stiffened up. Victoria should have been monitoring the dog at all times which is what Cesar would have done. He would have noticed the dog's body language and corrected him. However, this is another situation he would have approached differently at the start. He would have instructed the family to introduce their friends to the dog by letting the dog sniff them and told them not to touch, to talk or make eye contact with the dog. He would have also told the guests how to read the dog. The boy who was bitten, was not aware of what the dog was doing, let alone how to interpret his body language. If Victoria had done this, the bite would not have happened. This woman is nothing more than a by-the-numbers trainer.
You are right about her rudeness. She yaps on about how the owners must never be mean or nasty to their dogs, but is then downright obnoxious to the owners. Even if it is an act, it is not a pleasant one. She certainly does not come over as being a good role model.
I also wondered about the dogs she fostered. I did quite a bit of research and could find no further information.
I'm not saying where it was as I'd hate to identify the person or upset them by them being bombarded by the curious - their dog has since died. However, those of us there watched the story unfold 'in real time', so to speak and it was indeed verified when that FM appeared on the show.
I have no vested interest - I find the subject interesting. The person involved in the show had no need to hide anything or make anything up. I doubt there's a confidentiality clause btw, someone I know IRL and on a forum,, was on 'Dragon's Den' and we knew all about that before it aired, too.:D
I think.............?
Either way, she has it in her contracts that nobody is allowed to ask her anything on PA's. That bit is true, cos I have seen it. Presumably this is because she might get a bit caught out if she had no clue about the answers!!!
This is the same dog I was referring to in my previous post above (although IIRC it was a different, female, Dalmatin with the gravity-defying collar).
Not only did the dog warn by stiffening but she should have noticed and recognised when it nose bumped, not sniffed, the teenager, to test his response, very shortly before it bit him. :eek:
You may have noticed she also stood well back herself while telling the owner, who the dog had also bitten previously, to remove the dog i.e making them take the risk of it objecting to being removed :rolleyes:.
There was also an episode with Jodie Marsh where she had a CCTV and went in to tell off the miscreant whenever one of a number of dogs urinated.
As several dogs were all the same room together and there was a time delay between seeing the behaviour on screen and going to tell off the dog the actual result was that she went int o the room and told off a dog, surrounded by other dogs who may have be upset by a raise voice, none of whom were misbehaving at the time so they would at best have taken no notice or they could have been confused, or at wprse they would anticipate a negative reaction whenever someone came back resulting in anxiety.The last thing you want when dealing with a house soiling problem as anxiety can be a major contributory factor.
How would relating which dog and which problem it was identify them anymore than appearing on the programme would?
As for protecting them from questions on whichever forum, no one is obliged to answer any questino on a forum and can always use the "ignore" button or report anyone behaving inappropriately..
Of course programme contracts differ so why would the contracts for Dragon's Den have anything to do with the contract for IMOTD?
As I have said, it is my understanding that both Stilwell and Millan use confidentiality clauses, as is also the case with Big Brother participants.
I really enjoyed the Cesar Milan episode where he came to London. He had a very calm approach with the 3 different cases he addressed. The cases themselves I felt didn't have really badly behaved dogs, so I'd like to see an episode where he deals with a problem dog (like the dalmation mentioned above!).
Both programmes stated that you should not use the methods shown without consulting an animal behaviourist. And I think this is key - these programmes are entertainment rather than educational, and are obviously edited so us, the public, are not seeing the whole picture. Therefore training off the back of these programmes isn't really a good idea.
Personally as a new dog owner with a 5mth old pup, I'd like to read more about identifying dog signals and body language. I think I'd benefit from that.
I would entirely agree with you there, but the Stilwell programmes are frequently praised for not giving that caveat, with it being cited that this is evidence that those techniques are harmless.
This is one of the reasons they do not show the full picture, including necessary corrections, to avoid giving that warning, and being misleading in that way, presumably to aid the PR image, is in itself potentially harmfull as owners are not going to get the same apparent results. The warning was still omitted in the earlier series where more punishment - noise, air sprays etc was shown.
I guess you hope people use their noggin. If my kid had behavioural problems I wouldn't be just watching Supernanny to solve it. I'd be seeing a specialist directly. Same with a dog really, especially one showing any sort agressive behaviour.
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Amazingly though people often don't, as specialists cost money, when the TV company isn't paying, and you have to put in lots more time and effort to change things than would be apparent from the "reality" shows, including Supernanny, without even getting your 5 minutes of fame.
Just look how everything so often goes back to how it was before, even in all these shows, when the person giving the advice leaves, be that Millan, Frost or Stilwell. and it is back to being just down to the owners/parents to maintain it.
I'd have thought what I meant there was obvious. I'd feel bad if people from here, (maybe not just people posting but lurkers) proceeded over to that forum to cross question the poor woman about her experience on IMOTD - as her dog has since died, and I don't think a barrage of hostile questioning from strangers trying to establish the inherent evilness of VS, would be appropriate.
Re. the contracts of shows, confidentiality clauses etc - it wasn't me who raised that. My point was - how could you know? You say one show tells you nothing of the contracts for another - then proceed to tell us about Big Brother.:eek:
I am not a pet or dog owner or even want to be, but I listen avidly to a show on BBC London every Thursday from 10.00pm called "barking at the moon", which is aimed at dog owners and their friends. A similar discussion was sparked off there following an interview with Cesar Milan whilst he was in London by Jo Good the host and her sidekick. The ladies really rate him and were suprised by the almost polarised views pro and anti that he generated. I love the passion you dog owners have for your pets, I just hope which ever side you are on the dogs don't suffer.
Who is trying to establish "the inherent evilness of VS" and why do you assume anyone would question this person, or that if they did, those questions would be hostile rather than interested ?
It is in the nature of forums that people come and go so it would be quite likely that this person may not even still be there, after a number of years, to be asked any questions.
Aside from that, you are combining two things that I deliberately separated in my post (above) as they are different things.
I asked which dog it was and which problem and said that that information would not identify someone any more than appearing the programme, in the same way that discussing the Benji or the Pongo episodes in this thread have not identified those people any more than appearing on the programme did.
Answering that does not involving saying which forum it was, an issue I have addressed separately as they are separate things. The first question, which dog and what problem, could very easily have been answered without mentioning any forum.
Sorry but, as I understood it, you seemed to be saying before, in the post below, that as there is not a confidentiality agreement for Dragon's Den it would follow that there was also no confidentialty agreement for IMOTD.
Confidentiality agreements on shows are to protect the production, not the participants, like the magician's assistant not giving their trade secrets away, so participants may not have anything to hide, but that is not why these agreements are there.
My point is there is no confidentiality agreement for Dragon's Den but there is for BB, and yes I have known people who have been on both shows, a lady with an idea for an applicator for putting fake tan on hard-to-reach areas (she was turned down for investment) and Kamel from BB. She could tell people she was going to be on before it was made public, he wasn't allowed to.
Your quoted post (above) introducing comparing contractual clauses for IMOTD with Dragon's Den opened the discussion to shows outside those previously being discussed, and what contracts might be involved.
BTW this is what Alleyne has to say about trainers/behaviourists and people can decide for themselves who he is talking about and the veracity of it:
Alleyne video link
No. I think several of us here have looked following that post upthread and no-one seems to have found owt, as no-one's come back here and linked. Also I doubt her shows would still be airing online and on TV if the channel had sued. I like Robert Alleyne (to the point I'd like to see more of him on TV) but think he might be going off half cocked, there. Probably cos his show got cancelled and her's didn't.
As I said I will let people decide for themselves, I know no more on that than what anyone following the link has seen in the clip.
I don't recall how many there were but wasn't there more than one series of Dog Borstal and wasn't it only after Channel 4 announced that they weren't doing any more IMOTD (UK) (was that after series 4?) that the one hour USA versions started? Remembering that Channel 4 isn't the production company for the programme.
So didn't both the programmes get cancelled, but both after more than one series?
In any case both Dog Borstal and IMOTD seem to have a number of re runs
That aside, and that little part of the clip aside, I think he makes some very valid points about needing a balanced approach to training, about not being too PC so it is to the detriment of the dog, and about the difficulties faced by people needing a trainer or a behaviourist because of it being a completely unregulated field.
I think there are a lot of reasons to believe she is the person to whom Robert Alleyne was referring. There are too many discrepancies between what she does and says. I have just re-acquainted myself with the first season opening titles of her show. She said: "there is no dog that can't be trained." What about poor Benji?? She then (in her statement) goes on to say: "...but as I mentioned on the programme and still firmly believe, once a dog has shown the propensity not just to bite, but to attack (especially unprovoked), that dog can never be trusted not to attack again." So, now - in Victoria's eyes there are dogs who can not be trained. Plus (as I mentioned previously), the contradictions between her statement and what transpired in the episode. She told a family with two Labradors that they must never get angry with their dogs, but when a technique she tried, failed to stop one of the dogs humping, she raised her voice and angrily told the dog to stop. Going back to the episode with Pongo. The father (and I think the mother) had seriously been considering having the dog put down because of his continual biting. Victoria then talked them out of it. This is a massive contradiction of the one with Benji. It is as if she can not remember the things she has done and said. A bit like a liar. A fraud in other words. Which is exactly why Channel 4 sued this mysterious female trainer.
Regarding her continued employment with the channel. It could have been that they were contractually obliged to keep her on their payroll. It has been known for companies to have grievances with employees, but keep them on if they make changes. As I mentioned previously, if this was Victoria, she might have been told to get the relevant qualifications, but could still keep her show.
Robert Alleyne strongly implied the person was a household name, so can any of you think of another well known, "glamorous" female dog trainer who had her own television series?