MovieChat Forums > Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan (2004) Discussion > The criticism seems petty and nonsensica...

The criticism seems petty and nonsensical

posted 15 years ago by Princelegolas13
15 replies | jump to latest

Cesar himself states repeatedly he never recommends hurting or abusing a problematic dog, or attempting to control it via fear and anger. Such actions as he explains, can either be totally ineffective or will only intensify the problem. It seems that critics of his methods believe their recommended way is the only correct way. If that isn't the most arrogant attitude possible.

Dogs are pack animals. I don't know about any posters here but I personally have seen how a pack of dogs interact with one another. My uncle in North Carolina has a farm, and he actually owns several dogs of different breeds whom mainly help him gather and herd his animals. They also act as guard dogs. All of them are obedient to his every command, but even with out him there is clear dominance and alpha structure amongst them. One dog, a German Shepard is the alpha animal and asserts his dominance when the other dogs act out of line. This includes nipping at the neck, and directly staring down (sometimes an intense stare from the alpha animals is enough to get subordinate dogs under control).

Since humans act as the dog's alpha and pack leader, why not implement the same techniques they themselves use? What these critics seem to forget is that sometimes what may appear cruel (a quick jerk on the leash), harmful (two fingers acting as teeth) or inhumane (the infamous 'alpha roll') actually serve to correct the dog's behavior by using methods dogs instinctively use on members of the pack.

[–] Bumdark 15 years ago

— 'Foreman's not as easy as Cameron. But, of course, who is?'
— 'I'm in the room!'

[–] GSmith9072 15 years ago

YAWN.

I hate most people

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ih8tt 12 years ago

Cesar himself states repeatedly he never recommends hurting or abusing a problematic dog, or attempting to control it via fear and anger. Such actions as he explains, can either be totally ineffective or will only intensify the problem.

...and yet, it could be argued (depending on one's definition - or the law's - of "abuse") that he does exactly that (using buzzboxes, for example)

It seems that critics of his methods believe their recommended way is the only correct way. If that isn't the most arrogant attitude possible.

not every method will work for every dog, they are all individuals

Dogs are pack animals. ...All of them are obedient to his every command, but even with out him there is clear dominance and alpha structure amongst them. One dog, a German Shepard is the alpha animal and asserts his dominance when the other dogs act out of line. This includes nipping at the neck, and directly staring down (sometimes an intense stare from the alpha animals is enough to get subordinate dogs under control).

and that is completely appropriate behavior, BETWEEN AND AMONG DOGS, not involving humans...

Since humans act as the dog's alpha and pack leader, why not implement the same techniques they themselves use?

what happens when the dogs (as happens in a pack, placement in the pecking order is challenged often) try those 'techniques' back against their people to try to 'move up in the pack'? they have teeth, they also have lots of fur which blunts the affect of those teeth (and puppyhood playing teaches them just how hard to bite when doing this, something a human, obviously, has no concept of), we don't, but if you've established that you are going to behave like a canine 'pack leader,' then they will treat you like one

What these critics seem to forget is that sometimes what may appear cruel (a quick jerk on the leash), harmful (two fingers acting as teeth) or inhumane (the infamous 'alpha roll') actually serve to correct the dog's behavior by using methods dogs instinctively use on members of the pack.

and when the dog challenges back? then the human escalates?

[–] wnwndnc 12 years ago

Yawn

[–] arbilab 12 years ago

It took you 6 months to come up with that?

_______________________
It's twue! It's twue!

[–] valro 12 years ago

My main criticism of him is how he seems to gloss over the actual training he does on his show. You don't really see anything in detail aside from a few quick sessions.

[–] Rena_Mahone 12 years ago

What a load of bull crap you and the other fans of this man spit out.
"If Cesar said he doesn't abuse dogs, it must be true, and I totally believe him!"
Don't attack the "arrogant critics" if you are a misinformed idiot.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)

[–] doughgirlsass 11 years ago

How does he abuse dogs?

"In France, The Hunger Games is called Battle Royale With Cheese."

[–] avortac 10 years ago

So, just because he uses a e-collars (that someone called "buzzboxes") to redirect a dog's attention so that the dog won't lose his only remaining eye, whenever the dog approaches a dangerous tractor tire when the tractor is moving, is somehow ABUSE?

Those things do not send violent, convulsive electric shocks. Cesar only uses them with correct timing, short and to the point - like a 'touch' on the neck or back. It does not HURT the dog, and even the humans who try these on their hand, are surprised as to how incredibly MILD the effect is!

There is also 'vibration' mode that he uses a lot, and that's nothing more forceful than what a cell phone's vibration would feel like.

The purpose is _NEVER_ to hurt the dog, and if you think Cesar thinks otherwise, you are obviously deluded, misinformed, or have just stubbornly made up your mind without knowing the facts or watching the show.

People who yell "ABUSE!", just because he uses physical touch (just like dogs use on each other), never realize that the PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE that the owners put the dogs through can be much worse and more detrimental, painful and horrible to the dog, than a second quick touch or tiny electric shock (like the electrick shocks that people use to build muscles - those devices are widely sold and even used in Japanese TV as 'punishment games', for crying out loud) at the right time.

The e-collars are not used all the time, just until the dog is rehabilitated. And it's just one tool amongst many. Being so against them and thinking that e-collars automatically equal abuse is like thinking that owning a computer automatically leads to hacking to missile silos and launching third world war - it's ridiculous!

Put your hand on your heart and tell me honestly; which would you rather go through?

a) A long, tedious, scary psychological torture and emotional misery and rage that lasts for many years

b) A few quick pinches (that do not even hurt) every time you are about to do something bad or go into a crazy state of mind, for a week, so that you can become more balanced and happy

The people who cry 'abuse' are the real abusers - they WANT the dogs to suffer the torture that is the psychological abuse, just as long as their BODIES are not touched.

Incredible hypocrisy that describes the modern times so perfectly well.

People have truly lost their way and are so out of tune with nature that anything normal or natural is a shock and horror to them nowadays. "PHYSICAL TOUCH"?? OH NO! The worst thing ever! Let's just make this dog a nutcase with our psychological torture for years, but let's NEVER touch him physically when disciplining him!

Can't you even see how crazy your stance is? You critics REALLY do not understand dogs!

Cesar Millan clearly does.

[–] hodie 10 years ago

Agreed, avortac. I have tried out the sensation on an e-collar. It's a vibration that immediately distracts the dog. It's not like you're putting 25,000 volts through it. I've tried a pinch collar too on my arm. The prong are rounded so they don't cut into the dog. It didn't hurt me, and I don't have a double coat of thick fur like my Lab.

Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

[–] mikelmike77 12 years ago

Your right prince 100% !

Oh yeah !