Printable View
I saw that episode too Anna, and I agree with you, and he also did not "tie the dog's tail up". He held it up but it was gentle and not harmful at all. I thought it was a good idea as it really did see to help that particular dog to a certain extent. I also choose not to beleive in his guilt unless I see proof to the contrary.
The Cesar bashing makes me so angry! I'm a big Cesar Milan fan.
I feel like I can't put anything into words right now and Anna and Vela have said pretty much how I feel also, so I will just leave it at that.
I also wanted to mention that Cesar is going to be on Oprah. I can't remember what day though. He is going to be working with Nate's dog(s). He has been on before and worked with Oprah and her cockers.
I think we should wait until the case is tried, and not assume guilt or innocence until we know all the evidence. The DVDs I have watched show him as a very caring person, and the dogs seem to do well with him. He tresses over and over that the people are the ones that need training, and never did his methods seem abusive to me, the way he puts the leash on dogs is exactly how they do it for dog shows, which I used to wonder about, until he explained that gives you more control, and makes the dog keep it's head up as well. I will wait until the case has been tried and the evidence heard, I will not believe someone is guilty just because they got sued.
Poor dog! :( Cesar Milan certianly deserves this! :mad:
Very well said, Karen. Thanks for putting that into words for me;).
I definately agree with Karen. :)
I agree Karen. Also it has always been stated that a worker at his facility did this, not Cesar himself. While Cesar would still be legally responsible it does not mean that he endorsed such behavior, if indeed it happened the way the prosecutor is describing.
I have seen many of the shows. Even when dealing with "red zone" cases where a dog is wanting to kill another dog or even a human, he has never behaved with angry aggression or cruelty, but calm assertiveness. I have no problem if someone wants to disagree with his philosophy or his methods but to exaggerate and skew things and make him out to be some sort of malicious evil-doer is just going too far. I seriously doubt a man who has devoted his life to dogs and saving dogs from death row and helping people keep dogs they may have otherwise had to give up as some kind of an uncaring monster who gets his kicks from tormenting dogs.
OMG! Do you think that is true? :eek: :mad:
There is no *one way* to train a dog. How you train your dog may not be how I train my dog and visa versa. That doesn't mean either way is wrong, it's just different. I, personally am a big Ceasar fan. Like what K-9soul said, when he's working with his "red zone" cases, I would have lost my cool, but Caesar doesn't, which is why I said I would like to know more about the alleged injuries to the dog.
I don't need to see how this case turns out to know about the horrible methods this man applies to "help" dogs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Karen
"Flooding" to try and make a dog overcome its fears is NEVER a good a idea, is DANGEROUS, and can mentally DAMAGE a dog.
This man deems himself a 'Dog Whisperer', a Dog Psycologist,.. yet he has never taken any college courses to actully learn behavioral psychology.
I am only sad that I do not have the National Geographic channel. I am looking forward to the new training series with Ken Ramirez. He sounds like a phenomenal trainer, and a GOOD example to learn from. :D
Flooding CAN be an effective training tool but it must be done properly and by a well seasoned trainer. If you flood a dog that has a deep fear of certain things due to prior trauma, chances are you'll traumative the dog more. However, if your dog is scared of loud music, let's say, and you slowly flood the dog with loud music, s/he can learn to immunize itself from the music. Hence, the dog is desensitized.
Like the others have mentioned, there is no ONE WAY to train and dog and it is only in your opinion that flooding is detrimental to a dog's mental health. I personally think it could be beneficial in certain cases. Needless to say, there will always be controversy within the world of dog training and not everyone is going to go for "treats-praise-lovey-dovey-100% PR-kissies" training. That's certainly not how Schutzhund dogs are trained, but we can't blame them either.
I think training is just like dog food: Use what works for you!
I agree. I think that is what they were trying to do but the EMPLOYEES took it way overboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by anna_66
You should never, never put a dog on a treadmill with a choke collar anyway. A harness is best. And they should always be under supervision. I don't care who hooked the dog up to the treadmill but obviously they shouldn't have been working with dogs, and there probably was more than one person at this "training" facility who stood by while the dog was being hooked up or exercising.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anna_66
Right on Anna. :D This accident happened when a trainer helper was
exersizing the dog on the treadmill to burn of the dog's nervous energy.The
same effect as talking the dog on a mile long walk/run.. I have never heard
any reputable trainer fault his methods.He understands, loves and respects
all dogs. Most human problems with animals happen because people have'nt
got a clue how dogs think.
Somehow I have a hard time believing the allegations as presented in the article. Until the court case is resolved it is impossible to tell what the truth is, the article only states one side of the case.
As far as the title of the thread goes, it was only a matter of time before someone sued him for something. After all, you want bucks? Get a lawyer and sue someone rich for something. (Not a comment on the legal profession in general)