Cesar dog undergoes *canine disarming*

 At least theya ren't completely removing the teeth I guess, but nonetheless I'm surprised a vet would be willing to do that.  Most I know would be equally appalled as we are!

Why can't they use a muzzle I wonder?  That's humane, and accomplishes the same thing without medical procedures...

eta: finished the article and it explained the dog can wiggle out of any muzzle.  Either way the last line or two was a bit disturbing with the gardener offering his foot for the dog to go after to show he can't hurt anyone. *sigh*

Another example of "you can't fix stupid", not even Cesar

I remember an episode where a couple had problems with a great dane. Cesar helped them and there was no problems after that. The dog dies a few years after that and the couple got another great dane who was doing EXACTLY the same as the last one. Well the couple called Cesar once again like if they never saw that behavior before in their life. Unbelievable how stupid the people is.

And just like the note says, not because the canines are gone that means the dog does not have other theeth 

Rehab does not last one day, is a constant process. I'm sure the owners thought that the dog was "fixed" by Cesar on one day and they didnt need to do anything else.

For the owners is even more difficult because they have to erease the old picture the dog used to have in his mind about them and turning it around.

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Clearly this family never learned how to "fish" (as easy as it can be)

 Yeah, espence, I bet you're right. That's one of the biggest problems I have with TV dog trainers - so often they make it seem like an "instant fix" instead of an ongoing training process. Or at least, that's the idea the public takes from their shows.

espencer

and the couple got another great dane who was doing EXACTLY the same as the last one. Well the couple called Cesar once again like if they never saw that behavior before in their life

I would agree with you espencer, in that humans have a hard time changing and whatever they did to cause fear or see fear in their previous dog may be the same thing they are doing with this dog. Often, people don't change. And that's why the one line I always agree with in regards to Milan is that the difficulty is with the human. A dog is just being a dog and will learn to adapt to any situation. The humans, however, changing them is like moving Mount Rushmore. It can be done but it would take lots of dynamite.

I'm actually surprised that this is the first time anyone has done this, and maybe it's not.

I've personally wondered myself if this wouldn't be a viable soulution before resorting to "Plan B - Kill the Dog".

It would be interesting to see if this changes the dog's behavior either directly, or indirectly due to the humans possibly losing their fear of being bitten and having more confidence around the dog.

Yeah, there's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but let's just see...

The article says it itself:

"The American Veterinary Medical Assn. says it's opposed to tooth removal or disarming of dogs because the procedures don't address the underlying cause of aggression and may lead owners into a false confidence."

"And what has happened since then? Krieger says Cotton still pounces at any man who ventures onto her property. The family's gardener, Guadalupe Davila, obligingly offered his booted foot for Cotton’s delectation. After 30 seconds of ferocious gnawing, Cotton had only succeeded in lightly scoring the thick leather. Whether or not he learns from such experiences has yet to be determined."

They care more about a law suit that about the doggy. 

Maybe next time it wont be a boot and will be a hand or a kid's face intead.

You dont have to be dog saavy, it's plain and simple common sense

I guess I do not understand the point of this procedure at all.  As someone who trains dogs in bitework, I know theres a spectrum of where in the mouth and how hard a dog bites.  Most dogs actually need to be trained from a young age to strike full and hard.  Go to any Sieger show and you will see 80% of the dogs doing their protection test not striking hard, falling off the sleeve, and/or biting shallow, and these are adult German Shepherds titled in Schutzhund.  The canines are not the problem, it's the back molars.  That's the difference between a bite that will bruise and maybe punture or tear your skin a bit (nothing requiring stitches or a doctor) and a bite that will rip and crush.  I've been bitten (accidentally in play or training) by Nikon's canines on my hands, stomach, and face.  When we get bit in training we will joke and ask "canines or molars?" Even when my large, insanly ball drive dog misses the ball and chomps my hand, I get two little bruises from the canines.  Filing canines might prevent that but it never prevents a bite, especially the *real* type of bite that will put you in the ER.

I think a lot of dog bites (outside of bitework training) are really fear bites, and judging based on the bites I have received as well as the ones I have seen, these are not the type of bites intended to really maime or kill.  Myself and my siblings have all been bitten by dogs (intending to bite), but they were "get away from me" fear bites and I only know of one person that was bitten in a way where the dog intended to do serious damage.  In his case having the canines filed down would not have made a lick of difference (the dog locked onto the kid's head and ripped half his scalp off).

Not only that, but this seems like a stupid band-aid solution.  The dog's behavior, training, and what triggers the bites need to be addressed.  Honestly I would rather see a dog put out of his suffering than have a muzzle slapped on or teeth filed down with no regard to what is going through the poor animal's head.

What Kim and Liesje said. 

 I find this appallingly stupid, for the reason Liesje mentions.  This is also an example of what we were discussing on another thread about the fact that someone can work with a dog to reduce the threshold at which aggression occurs, but the potential for it is always there.  I agree with espencer that perhaps the owners thought things were rectified, but also with the poster who said that's the trouble with TV trainer shows.  They make it look too easy.  It's been my experience that the public wants the quick fix, and are sometimes shocked at the information they receive about how to manage their aggressive dog, and what it takes to keep everyone safe.  I think they hope against hope that one training session, or the dog maturing out of adolescence, or some magic pill will make their nightmare go away - and it doesn't.  I hate when I get the call after the dog has already bitten four or five people and broken skin... I'd rather get the call when the puppy is eight weeks old and can be socialized and trained properly from the get go.  Even then, some dogs develop aggressive behavior - not anyone's fault, and can be genetic or due to unforeseen environmental factors or illnesses, but if it happens, people should ask for help sooner than later.  Muzzles are cheaper than dental surgery, but early socialization and  training is the best investment you can ever make in a dog!

Just a little P.S. - It sounds as if the dog received inadequate initial training (sorry, Petsmart, but I have a copy of your training manual, have seen many of your trainers, and most are newbies who have never had much *behavior* experience and wouldn't know what to do with dogs that actually are free to interact off leash, which is what puppies really need - can't do that in the middle of a retail store with doors that open and close at will)  The next thing that happened is that the dog was either a bully or fearful - in which case, the cans and spray, etc. are exactly the wrong tactic.  Clicker training works to teach skills, and to modify behavior - if done correctly.  But that process, if impeded by a dog's physical condition, will never work.  This dog should have been taken to a veterinary behaviorist, not a vet, trainer, or canine dentist.  Instead, the dog was again subjected to tactics that are ineffective and sometimes dangerous.  It lasted one day because Cesar either got it completely wrong (can't say because I didn't see the episode - if anyone posts a link, I will comment), or the owners were not able to implement (which is often the case if there isn't ongoing support).

I'm wondering if they tried drugging the dog as an option as well.

 I don't find the tooth dulling particularly cruel (I mean, all of my dogs have had various dental procedures, at different points in  their lives, from puppy tooth removal, to cleaning, to repairs of broken teeth and pulling teeth). Offering a foot for a fearful dog to lash out at??? Evil. Giving up on the dog, allowing it to live an existance where it is constantly in defense mode? Cruel.

The article was creepy.

Here it's a little clip of that particular show (not the entire episode). I dont think this shows how Cesar worked on the problem and also i dont think the owners have the personality to deal with a problem like this. They just need to have a turtle as pet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXPkSZ7gBTk

Angelique

I'm actually surprised that this is the first time anyone has done this, and maybe it's not.

I've personally wondered myself if this wouldn't be a viable soulution before resorting to "Plan B - Kill the Dog".

It would be interesting to see if this changes the dog's behavior either directly, or indirectly due to the humans possibly losing their fear of being bitten and having more confidence around the dog.

Yeah, there's a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but let's just see...

Personally, I too would be interested to see where this goes.  As long as it is done properly I don't see how it is any different than any other voluntary medical procedure (altering, crop/dock, etc) as far as cruelty goes.  My only concern is that the dog gets the help he needs to not be constantly anxious and in mental pain-that is no life.