cesar millan - why all the negatives here?

Milan and NGC absolutely have some responsibility in what happens to animals because of what is done on the show.  Mainly because it is fiction portrayed as fact.  They are not taking the necessary steps in explaining what is really going on, and they are misleading (lying to) people.  lying by omission is wrong especially when it results in the harm of an animal. 

Also, why is it OK for him to arbitrarily electrocute a dog because he is a "professional", and then not even explain himself or pass it off as some kind of mystical control he has.

Cesar needs to be held accountable, and from the looks of the two lawsuits filed against...he is going to be. 

Mic so in your opinion...if someone were to be bitten by their own dog as a result of trying a technique they saw on TV...they themselves bear no responsibility for that?
 
What about if someone is standing watching a Schutzhund event, they don't stick around for a lesson, or to talk with the handlers, they don't listen they only watch...then they go home and proceed to train their dog to bite....then that is those handelrs faults isn't it, for displaying their sport without making sure no one who's IQ is too low to realize it might be dangerous, and requires a lot of skill and control,  watched the event?
 
What about if someone HERE is given advice by an I-dog member which results in their cat being attacked and killed, their dog injured or poisioned, or their child bitten...can they sue that I-dog member? Should someone who gives their dog a bone and then the dog dies or requires expensive surgery, as a result of an obstruction, be free and clear to  send the bill to the member here who advocated the bones, even tho they advised caution and gave a set of parameters for safety? By your logic it should be well and clear to do so.
 
I just want you to be clear...anytime anyone gives advice, or instruction, via the media, of which the INTERNET is a big part,...bolstered by what may or may not (who really knows who we are anyhow?) be "real" experiences of their own, credentials of their own, etc....they can be held accountable by those they advise...and should bear the fault of any mishap that occurs as a result of that advice, regardless of whatever DISCLAIMERS may be presented in big bold letters...right?
 
 

As Glenda pointed out training your dog is like raising children in many ways. Unfortunately we can be too positive or too corrective. Neither one is benefical to the dog. As many times as I have cringed while watching someone pull on their dogs choker to the point of actually choking the dog, I have the same problem with people who give repeated commands to their dog who is bulling - instead of physically and decisively stopping the behaviour. And will more often than not offer a treat to distract their dog. "Hmmm" dog thinks, "I beat up one that other dog and I got a treat. This must be good!"

As with our children, a positive, gentle approch is always a perferred method, however depending on its affectiveness and the severity of the problem, sometimes a harsher method is required. Not all behaviours can be corrected with a timeout or a treat. I think there is validity to both training methods. The key to both is doing it "THE RIGHT WAY".

...they themselves bear no responsibility for that?

If you read my response I said Cesar and NGC bear SOME responsibility.
 

[font="trebuchet ms"]What about if someone is standing watching a Schutzhund event, they don't stick around for a lesson, or to talk with the handlers, they don't listen they only watch...then they go home and proceed to train their dog to bite....then that is those handlers faults isn't it, for displaying their sport without making sure no one who's IQ is too low to realize it might be dangerous, and requires a lot of skill and control,  watched the event?

[/font]
 
You would be hard pressed to teach your dog to bite after watching a Shutzhund event. I would like to seem someone try.  I also don't think they would be intentionally mislead on how to do it. 
 

[font="trebuchet ms"]What about if someone HERE is given advice by an I-dog member which results in their cat being attacked and killed, their dog injured or poisoned, or their child bitten

[/font]
 
If the person giving the advice is being intentionally misleading then they most certainly have some responsibility in the situation.
 
EVERYONE should be accountable for the advice they give and how they give it.  Just as the person receiving the advice is responsible for how the advice is used.
 
So yes, if you intentionally mislead someone, and they follow your advice...then yes you are responsible.
 

ORIGINAL: denise_m

The key to both is doing it "THE RIGHT WAY".

Well of course, yes, but that is subjective. Different people have different opinions on what the "right way" is. Hence, this thread. [sm=wink.gif]

Ah I see so your beef is that he intentionally misleads these people into thinking they can train and control their dogs...I gotcha!
 
I am burdened by actually knowing someone who's worked with him one on one for a few years with their 2 dogs,...so there's perhaps why it isn't fiction, or misleading to me personally.
 
I really think you folks should form some sort of organization, complete with website, and attend his seminars en mass and you can then address to him your questions personally. It's really the best way of getting answers or venting concerns. I have heard he's quite accessible during the seminars and spends a lot of extra time with folks with concerns. This isn't sarcastic btw, I am very serious...he seems to really bother some folks here and oftentimes progress can be made if you just let someone know about it. There is power in numbers and if enough people had the same concerns he'd really just have to either address them or go away right? Either way you guys would have a victory.
 

Minimom...again great and simple post. I've found in my short (snicker) time on Earth...the right way as a phrase, is almost interchangeable with "my way".

I have had the oppurtunity to enjoy 3 of cesar's seminars, and you are right, he is quite accessable.  He was very friendly and knowledgeable. 
 
But like you said, my big pet peeve is the show is misleading...and intentionally so.
 
I also agree with the my way/right way comment.  You can put 100 behaviorists in a room and ask question, and get 100 different answers.  All being argued as the "right" answer.

The case that turned me off completely was Jonbee- the Korean Jindo who was a psycho for everything I liked CM up unil that episode, then it turned me off 100%, because that's just plain cruel. Let me explain.

His owners rescued him off the streets.
I swear it looked like CM turned into the crocidile hunter. That dog flipped and rolled and freaked out, until ceasar held him up by the neck and all four feet were off the ground. He hung him by the choke collar.

When the dog finally surrendered, it was because he couldn't breathe. He was gasping for breath and CM was like "he is finally ready to surrender and submit".

I did see the CM parody on South Park- which was hilarious! I am normally a person who is repulsed by that show, but it was darn funny!
 
Edited to Add: remember Katie- the border collie. Her owner actually came on I-dog last year because she had to rehome the dog afterwards. She said the it took CM 2-3 hours to get her to "submit/surrender" and they were still having bloody fights in the house with their Akita and their Chow mix.

Yep I do recall her...she PM'ed with me about her Akita, and I referred her to another Akita board I'm at but to my knowledge she hasn't posted there yet...it was the Akita which was actually the problem dog. The other dog was rehomed for her safety really.
 
Akitas are a challenge and I always said if Cesar had a match it'd be an Akita He trained my friend Akita but it wasn't for aggression...he did a great job with her. I think CESAR could've made that household work just fine IMO. Many people live with multiple Akitas/dogs households...BUT they know the risks involved and how important it is to watch every single interaction with a microscope. Even if willing how many people can live like that ALL THE TIME?...I think that owner made a good choice.
 
I think we've had a trainer here suggest hanging by the collar for certain special cases...if I recall rightly? Dog aggression being one of them...

I do agree with a few of CM's principles, although they are nothing new or revoluationary--dogs should be treated like dogs (not babies), dogs are way underexercised, and that dogs need a job

I'm not sure what the breed has to do with it, but I have never had the need to "alpha roll" Sally. I fact, I can take anything, even a fresh marrow bone right out of her mouth without a word from her, and have been since we've owned her. Granted, she's not an angel, but it's nothing that NILIF and more exercise hasn't helped.

If he were operating on his own, without a TV show, I actually would have no beef with him, although I likely wouldn't chose to use him. I realize that it is beyond his control if some yahoo gets hurt using his methods on their dog. Actually, I wouldn't care about the yahoo getting hurt, if it weren't for the fact that DOGS are being hurt. If some idiot decides to "alpha roll" his resource guarding rot, and the dog bites him, I really don't care about the person. I do, however, care about the dog that will likely be PTS/have the snot beat out of him.

I suppose that I worry than rather than driving the ignorance away, the show is instead breeding a special kind of ignorance all its own.

I honestly don't have a soluation, other than that CM has to do some serious soul searching and decide what he wants people to get out of is show. He has to know that people are going to try these methods themselves, quite possibly damaging their dogs, and IMHO, it is morally wrong for him (while maybe not legally wrong), as someone who is presumably a dog LOVER as well as a dog TRAINER, to just wave his hand and say, "well, we put up a disclaimer."

In addition, I cring at the fact that he uses the term "Whisperer" in his title, particularly since the methods that he uses with dogs go against the methods of the origanal "Whisperers"--Natural Horsemanship trainers.

he has some good points-- about exercise and taking a leadership role. But his methods are violent, dangerous, and about 20 years out of date (and, as previously pointed out, presented very misleadingly on TV). They make for great TV shows, but not for happy, well-adjusted dogs.  Good training takes time and is quite boring to watch. No one is going to make a TV show about someone patiently and quietly applying modern behavioral modification techniques to their dog.
 
I have re-habbed a very aggressive and dangerous dog. We started out trying to dominate the dog using methods similar to what CM advocates, and guess what. She became ever more violent. After a trip to the ER to get the SO stitched up, we decided that confrontational methods weren't a good idea with a 120 pound dog. Switched to 90% positive methods, and guess what. She became calm, and relaxed, and reasonably well behaved.

I think we've had a trainer here suggest hanging by the collar for certain special cases...if I recall rightly? Dog aggression being one of them...

 
I said this in regards to a few particular cases.  Some of which Cesar sees.  Do I think it's a good idea to demo it on TV...not really. 
 
I also think it should be called what it is...movtivation by strangulation.  I feel like it gets sugar coated and there is not enough discussion about how dangerous it is on the show. 

Mic, I am a firm believer that if you truly have a problem dog and you cannot correct them that you seek a trainer to work with you and the dog.  I don't believe in learn from a book or video and poof I am a trainer.  Luckily, I haven't owned any problem dogs.  People need to realize that if there is a problem and they cannot handle it they should seek a professional.

Firestorm, I am confused. Are you applying that I needed to get some assistance from another trainer/behaviorist?