# Dominant Dog Collars



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Dominant dogs - they are not really out there but there seems to be a lot of equipment made for them. Most of it works by inflicting some degree of discomfort on the dog. Millan's Illusion collar works by cutting off air supply to the dog, making the punishment seem effortless. And thereby more acceptable to the consumer. Of course, Millan would never be honest with his consumers and he will wax poetically about energy and visualizing - all the while the dog is gasping for air.

While I don't like much (most?) of what Ed Frawley of Leerburg pushes, at least he is an honest person. He doesn't mince words, he is clear this is punishment and makes no excuses as to the real purpose and reason the collar works. He writes in big, bold, blue letters

*This collar is not intended to give a painful correction. It's intended to take the air away from the dog.*

While I despise the methods, at least I respect his honesty. Which is a lot more than I can say for Millan or the Canadian clown Pattison

Of course anyone who is not blinded by the Whisperer media machine and has some knowledge of anatomy already knows this. Just try convincing his fans.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I there a point in starting this thread aside from possibly raising the hackles of many?

There's no question here, and as far as I can see, no inclination towards discussing anything. It's just a thread created as a statement.

Maybe I'm missing something and these collars were mentioned in another thread?


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

http://www.etologi.no/2008/04/kvelning-nesten-besvimelser-og.html

Inspired the thread. Which the author actually concludes that Frawley's method is marginally less bad. 

The question is : Does the believe that dominance is the root of misbehavior cause dog handlers to respond aggressively?


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

Whether one agrees with such implements, or not, they are not properly used to correct general misbehavior. A so-called "dominant dog collar" (a misnomer IMO) has its uses, but it's not the best tool for making Fluffy get with the "give paw" program.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> http://www.etologi.no/2008/04/kvelning-nesten-besvimelser-og.html
> 
> Inspired the thread. Which the author actually concludes that Frawley's method is marginally less bad.
> 
> The question is : Does the believe that dominance is the root of misbehavior cause dog handlers to respond aggressively?


I have not seen Milan tell people to have their dog bite a hidden sleeve and hang their dog 4 feet in the air until it passes out from lack of oxygen as in the link you posted.

I fail to see any logical connections in your statement between them.

A collar is a tool, a choke collar is a common one that has been around far longer then Milan or Leerburg. Even the rescue I got my dog from used them, she had one on when I got her, but not for long.

It is a tool, whether it is used well or poorly is up to the user. A hammer can drive nails and build something beautiful, or it can crush a skull or flatten a thumb. It's not to the hardware store how the hammer is to be used.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Please, not another collar abuse thread. (I did say please)


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

wvasko said:


> Please, not another collar abuse thread. (I did say please)


You didn't say pretty please!


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

RBark said:


> You didn't say pretty please!


Well I was gonna, but at my age I sometimes forget what I was it is I'm trying to get out of my head. (pretty) (pretty) (pretty, oh and please)


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

This being the question... "The question is : Does the believe that dominance is the root of misbehavior cause dog handlers to respond aggressively?"

The belief is not that dominance causes the misbehavior but it should be conceded that the misbehavior is developed from lack of proper instruction and training of both dog and handler. A dog is not expressing dominant behavior just because it is being willful because of ignorence. Most ignorent handlers/owners (meaning follow one train of training thought and don't explore other options out there) seem to go with whatever the fad training method at the moment is... and for most it's *gasp* Caesar (at the moment) who has shown us time and time again that he favors alpha methods of training rather than a more harmonious team effort and reward based training program. Same with Pattison, and Frawley. More people should be switching off Discovery and Caesar to Animal Planet and Victoria Stilwell. When you have a strong willed dog, training thru brute force will get you no where but more confrontation. Training thru positive raward based training changes the dynamic and removes all confrontational overtones in any trainig regimin. 

Any person who takes 5 minuts to educate themselves on canine behavior will realise that aggressive behavior begets aggressive behavior whether it's training, discipline, etc. makes no difference You get out of your relationship with your dog what you put into it. Unfortunately most human response to assertive behavior is to reply in kind and at an even greater level of aggressiveness. So overall I don't think it's the belief that "my dog is acting dominant therefore I must act MORE dominant in order to regain control", I just think that people really don't have a clue how to cope and "work smarter not harder" whenit comes to their dog.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

"Dominance" can be, and often is, used interchangeably with "aggression" (sometimes desirable), "drive", "assertiveness", and "hardness". It is an imprecise term, but it serves no useful purpose to select one definition to knock down.



Dog_Shrink said:


> ...aggressive behavior begets aggressive behavior....


To which, Gunnery Sergeant Martinez would say: "...then you're doing it wrong."


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Dog_Shrink said:


> Most ignorent handlers/owners (meaning follow one train of training thought and don't explore other options out there) seem to go with whatever the fad training method at the moment is... and for most it's *gasp* Caesar (at the moment) who has shown us time and time again that he favors alpha methods of training rather than a more harmonious team effort and reward based training program.


That's not what I have seen on his show at all. Seems to me he prefers positive methods, but will use other methods if he thinks they will work well.

Aggressive does not always beget aggressive behavior either, aggressive behavior can also beget a fearful dog that pees whenever you approach and won't even get up off the floor or anything in between.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

> To which, Gunnery Sergeant Martinez would say: "...then you're doing it wrong."


Isn't that the truth.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Marsh Muppet said:


> "Dominance" can be, and often is, used interchangeably with "aggression" (sometimes desirable), "drive", "assertiveness", and "hardness". It is an imprecise term, but it serves no useful purpose to select one definition to knock down.


Yes.

Most would call my dog Hope dominant, when she's anything but. She does have drive, and she does get overwhelmed with distractions and not hear me, but it is in no way dominance, nor is it even assertiveness or hardness. It's simply lack of self control combined with a high drive and she would simply ignore any physical corrections. 

I could hit her, choke her etc. She would not hold it against me but it would do no good either, it would be totally useless in training.

My other dog is just ignorant. Any physical correction to her at all is very very bad, one strike and she would never ever be the same with me, the relationship would be badly damaged.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

TxRider said:


> That's not what I have seen on his show at all. Seems to me he prefers positive methods, but will use other methods if he thinks they will work well.
> 
> Aggressive does not always beget aggressive behavior either, aggressive behavior can also beget a fearful dog that pees whenever you approach and won't even get up off the floor or anything in between.


I have seen 4 seasons of Cesar Milan and I can barely recall any situation where he used Positive Reinforcement methods.

Most of them were using the choke collar. Whether you agree with the methods or not, choke collars are not "positive" methods. Manhandling dogs is not positive either. 

A common argument is that they are red zone dogs. But most of these "red zone" dogs have never had positive methods used on them. So that's a fallacy too.

Not going to shove anything down anyone's throat about Milan, people can believe whatever they want about him. But his methods are anything but positive.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

RBark said:


> A common argument is that they are red zone dogs. But most of these "red zone" dogs have never had positive methods used on them. So that's a fallacy too.


From what I have seen the majority of the dogs on the show are not labeled red zone dogs either.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

My second interest was not so much on what he's doing, but how he's selling it. While we can at least recognize Frawley's honesty, in the case of the TV trainers we get a lot of woo-woo explanations of what they are doing. If they were honest like Frawley, would they have so many followers?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Corinthian said:


> If they were honest like Frawley, would they have so many followers?


Honesty is nice but it does not supplant sound logic and our humanity. CM believes he's honest too. His followers just don't know any differently. The, ignorance is bliss, thing.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> My second interest was not so much on what he's doing, but how he's selling it. While we can at least recognize Frawley's honesty, in the case of the TV trainers we get a lot of woo-woo explanations of what they are doing. If they were honest like Frawley, would they have so many followers?


I have yet to see anyone on TV tell you to bait your dog with a bite sleeve, and as it bites to hang your dog by it's neck over a branch with a choke chain until it passes out and is unconscious.

Please point me to that Dog Whisperer episode.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> I have yet to see anyone on TV tell you to bait your dog with a bite sleeve, and as it bites to hang your dog by it's neck over a branch with a choke chain until it passes out and is unconscious.
> 
> Please point me to that Dog Whisperer episode.


Perhaps your emotional reaction is getting in the way of understanding what I've written.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> Perhaps your emotional reaction is getting in the way of understanding what I've written.


Not at all, your suggesting they do the same thing, but they simply sell it differently.

That if the technique was sold honestly someone like Millan would have less sales.

But there is vast difference between giving your dog a leash correction and hanging it from a tree 4ft off the ground with a choke chain until it loses consciousness. 

How you sell it has nothing to do with it. They are selling two very different things. Not the same thing as you seem to be suggesting.

I have no emotional reaction at all, I don't use choke chains, prong collars or anything other than a flat collar if a collar at all. Just making an honest observation as I see it. Perhaps you are simply projecting your emotions on the issue.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

The are all doing the same thing. In all cases they they deal with dogs reactive to a particular stimulus. In all cases, they force the dogs into proximity of those stimuli. In all cases they intentionally force and shove the stimulus in the dogs face. In all cases they use force and choking to punish the dog for responding for something they created.

At least Frawley is honest and knows that he is the cause. Millan or Pattison will blame the dog (eg. "they are pulling") for something they caused.

BTW, a hidden sleeve is hidden and in Frawley's example is used in case the dog gets a bite. It is not an agitation sleeve as you erroneously paint it. Millan has used similar tools like rackets, sticks, umbrellas and more.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> BTW, a hidden sleeve is hidden and in Frawley's example is used in case the dog gets a bite. It is not an agitation sleeve as you erroneously paint it. Millan has used similar tools like rackets, sticks, umbrellas and more.


From your link....

"At that point I will do something that causes the dog to attack me. When he does I offer the arm with the hidden sleeve. When the dog is biting the arm the second handler will raise the dogs 4 feet off the ground. I remain totally calm and look the dog in the eye and tell him he will not bite me."

That isn't "in case the dog gets a bite", it's direct agitation provoking a bite specifically.

"The dog stays there until he passes out. Then he is lowered to the ground and lies there until he regains consciousness. Then we start again."

It's like the difference between spanking a child, and beating a child unconscious.

Not the same thing at all.


I've only seen Millan use a tennis racket or such in a way that is just in case the dog bites, not provoking it to. Just like so many evaluators do to dogs they are evaluating for adoption with a fake human hand approaching them, or put by their food.

If he ever looped a leash over a branch and hung a dog until it's unconscious and dropped it's lifeless body to the ground, only to repeat it when the dog regained consciousness, his show would be cancelled within 24hours.

If you truly cannot see any difference you have my sympathy.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

IMO Hostile training tactics are hostile regardless of degree of severity. Honesty in the matter is just a secondary effect that that particular trainer tries to employ to justify their training techniques. 

I don't support either of the aforementioned trainers... I actually just saw an episode of Caesarlast night that made me chringe somuchit was sickening. No wonder he took that poor food aggressive golden tohis compound rather than tryingto teach it in hosue with the owners present. They'd havelikely flipped if they saw the intimidation tactics he was using on their dog. I can only imagine what happened off camera to the poor dog to be displayingthebody language he was on camera. The dog was scared to death... acting totally like a whipped dog with Caesar constantly pushing a bowl of food into his face and not permitting him to egress from the situation, almost like he was trying to prompt a bite or negative reaction. That is NOT proper or humane training. Fear tactics don't work. 

A dog should work for you our of anticipation of reward not fear of reprocussion and any trainer that tries to justify harsh techniques really needs to be scrutinized deeply regardless of honesty. So many of those techniques have been proven more detrimental than productive and IMO seriously fall under the realm of animal cruelty. If a trainer tells me BTW I'm gonna hang your dog as a deterrent to negative behaviors, I'd be kickin him in the jewels. I could never imagine doing that to a dog in a training session. All they learn is to fear you.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Dog_Shrink said:


> IMO Hostile training tactics are hostile regardless of degree of severity. Honesty in the matter is just a secondary effect that that particular trainer tries to employ to justify their training techniques.
> 
> I don't support either of the aforementioned trainers... I actually just saw an episode of Caesarlast night that made me chringe somuchit was sickening. No wonder he took that poor food aggressive golden tohis compound rather than tryingto teach it in hosue with the owners present. They'd havelikely flipped if they saw the intimidation tactics he was using on their dog. I can only imagine what happened off camera to the poor dog to be displayingthebody language he was on camera. The dog was scared to death... acting totally like a whipped dog with Caesar constantly pushing a bowl of food into his face and not permitting him to egress from the situation, almost like he was trying to prompt a bite or negative reaction. That is NOT proper or humane training. Fear tactics don't work.
> 
> A dog should work for you our of anticipation of reward not fear of reprocussion and any trainer that tries to justify harsh techniques really needs to be scrutinized deeply regardless of honesty. So many of those techniques have been proven more detrimental than productive and IMO seriously fall under the realm of animal cruelty. If a trainer tells me BTW I'm gonna hang your dog as a deterrent to negative behaviors, I'd be kickin him in the jewels. I could never imagine doing that to a dog in a training session. All they learn is to fear you.


I saw part of that last night, likely just the end as I was channel surfing.

The dog had a piece of raw meat, and was aggressively food guarding, and Cesar just stood there beside the dog and let him growl, bark and snarl until he got tired of guarding and gave up.

I must have missed the hostility part or the cruelty. And I don't tend to fantasize about things off camera and not seen, only what I actually see.

I might do the same to a food guarding dog. I don't tolerate food guarding and I do not ever let it be a self reinforcing behavior. Of course I nip it in the bud long before it grows to the stage a dog would growl at me.

My dogs work for me because they want to, they stay out of the trash can out fear of repercussion.

If a man tried to hang my dog 4ft in the air from a tree until he dropped it's limp unconscious body to the ground with intent to do it repeatedly, the dog wouldn't be the unconscious thing lying on the ground, the trainer would.

I can take or leave Millans stuff I have seen, but hanging a dog to within seconds of death or brain injury is just sadistic abuse. I haven't seen Milan do anything I would physically harm him for were it my dog.

The OP stated "Of course, Millan would never be honest with his consumers and he will wax poetically about energy and visualizing - all the while the dog is gasping for air."

I must have missed that episode.

I went to look at the advertising, and found this.. 

"How is the correction performed?
The correction is performed by a quick pull on the leash which is attached to the larger “O” ring on the slip collar. Then the pressure is released, and the slip collar returns to the slack, loose position."

How that is the same or comparable in any way to hanging a dog from a tree until it is unconscious and close to death is simply beyond me.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> From your link....
> 
> "At that point I will do something that causes the dog to attack me. When he does I offer the arm with the hidden sleeve. When the dog is biting the arm the second handler will raise the dogs 4 feet off the ground. I remain totally calm and look the dog in the eye and tell him he will not bite me."


Which is exactly the same thing Millan does. He will stimulate a dog to act out and the strangle him for his actions. Of course Millan blames the dog and will narrate to us that he is only holding the leash. Frawley is using the identical method.



> "The dog stays there until he passes out. Then he is lowered to the ground and lies there until he regains consciousness. Then we start again."


Emily the pitbull, the wolf-hybrid video that is often cited are both great examples that Millan does this. And Pattison's attack of Molly, who he sent to have euthanized are all the same in their approach.






> I've only seen Millan use a tennis racket or such in a way that is just in case the dog bites, not provoking it to.


All the bites that have been documented on his show tell any objective person that he provokes them into biting.



> Just like so many evaluators do to dogs they are evaluating for adoption with a fake human hand approaching them, or put by their food.


They don't hang the dogs and they don't know and are testing. In the cases we are discussing, these clowns already know how the dog will react.



> If he ever looped a leash over a branch and hung a dog until it's unconscious and dropped it's lifeless body to the ground, only to repeat it when the dog regained consciousness, his show would be cancelled within 24hours.


Good thing for editing. It's unfortunate that you are so enamoured with Millan that you can't see what he really does.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

TxRider said:


> I saw part of that last night, likely just the end as I was channel surfing.
> 
> The dog had a piece of raw meat, and was aggressively food guarding, and Cesar just stood there beside the dog and let him growl, bark and snarl until he got tired of guarding and gave up.
> 
> ...


The only part of the show that I could agree with was his waiting out the dog over the meaty bone. Everything that led up to that (if you missed the food bowl training) was horrible.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> Good thing for editing. It's unfortunate that you are so enamoured with Millan that you can't see what he really does.


Good thing for editing? So now your making claims based on what you imagine goes on that are edited out.

So show me then, if what you claim is all he does, it should be apparent in every single episode, and with so many episodes that are available online, it should not be hard to find one that clearly demonstrates him doing as you say he does.. Show me an unconscious dog.

"Millan would never be honest with his consumers and he will wax poetically about energy and visualizing - all the while the dog is gasping for air."

Again, show me, convince me. I have not seen such behavior.

I am not enamored with the man at all, I just think your clearly demonizing him unfairly, and quite dishonestly.

You can honestly criticize his methods without implying that he hangs dogs in the air until they are almost dead repeatedly and lies about it.

As for Brad, I haven't seen much of his show, and I didn't like what did see and usually switched channels.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Dog_Shrink said:


> The only part of the show that I could agree with was his waiting out the dog over the meaty bone. Everything that led up to that (if you missed the food bowl training) was horrible.


Yes I came in right around the meaty bone part, and switched away again shortly after.

I have seen him use brooms etc. to do the same thing before though, and holding it near the dog and waiting the dog out instead of standing there himself for dogs that do bite when guarding.

But I have also seen him use positive reinforcement techniques as well, rewarding dogs for doing things they fear for example.

And I have seen him use just simple hand feeding and positive methods to overcome food guarding as well.

I'm not saying he's a saint or I like all his methods, but saying the only difference between him and a guy who tells people to intentionally provoke their dog to bite their owner, so they can then hang their dogs from a tree until they pass out repeatedly is simply in the way they advertise differently, is ridiculous.

That the OP believes I am in any way enamored with him, is equally ridiculous, and simply an ad hominem insult to deflect logic.

In my world if one more person at petsmart sees me with my two GSD's and says "your such a calm assertive pack leader" I think I'll puke.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

HAHAHAH TX ya know!!! GOD I HATE that... watch one show of his and then everyone is an expert in "calm assertive techniques" aye? All my petsmart is ever trying to do is kick me out for socializing dogs up there.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> So show me then, if what you claim is all he does,


Again pay attention. All the bites he recieves are proof that he agitates the dogs and then punishes them for it. The hangings, which he blames on the dogs is the same method Frawley uses.



> Show me an unconscious dog.


Jonbee, wolf and Emily came pretty close. Editing gives him the option of making sure that is never seen.



> Again, show me, convince me. I have not seen such behavior.


You've seen it. You fail to recognize it because it created a cognitive dissonance. Reality was conflicting with your beliefs.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> Again pay attention. All the bites he recieves are proof that he agitates the dogs and then punishes them for it. The hangings, which he blames on the dogs  is the same method Frawley uses.
> 
> 
> Jonbee, wolf and Emily came pretty close. Editing gives him the option of making sure that is never seen.


Ok I just watched the whole Jonbee episode. I did not see him so much as lift the dogs front paws off the ground, much less hang him 4ft in the air or choke him unconscious.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjLDQmgYd-s

Yes he agitated the dog, in that the dog bites if you try to get it lay down or when merely touched when in the house. Had bitten two trainers previously, and had bitten his owner in the same way.

How do you address a behavior, without seeing the behavior and what triggers it?



> You've seen it. You fail to recognize it because it created a cognitive dissonance. Reality was conflicting with your beliefs.


You really need to get away from insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you, it's a cheap deflection.

I might have taken a different course of action with Jonbee, but he certainly didn't hang the dog or choke it out of breathing. 

Front feet barely ever left the floor at all and when they did it was the dog jumping, and he seemed careful to keep the leash, a simple loop of pretty wide flat nylon, just taught enough so the dog couldn't slip out of it.. and keeping the dog from fleeing to avoid him. Not intentionally choking the dog or hanging it.


Then we have Emily... A dog the owners say will go after another dog with such aggression she will choke herself until her tongue turns blue.

Again I'm not seeing any hanging or choking here, in fact he even stops using the leash rather quickly and reaches down to grab the harness instead when the dog starts choking itself on the leash.

Tell me what is his only alternative? let go and let it go kill the other dog?

Should he not evaluate the dog and present another dog to judge it's aggression? Fairly standard practice I think.

http://c2.libsyn.com/media/729/pc47...05&nva=20100210204105&t=052da2ccb42023053ebbe

So where is this hanging the choking dog by it's neck that is gasping to breathe and going unconscious while he calmly goes on and gives his dishonest woowoo speech?

Ohh right, it's all just all edited out


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> Ok I just watched the whole Jonbee episode. I did not see him so much as lift the dogs front paws off the ground, much less hang him 4ft in the air or choke him unconscious.


 He chokes the dog either way. You seem to be stuck on the lifting and the sleeve. The are other ways to accomplish asphyxiation and Millan's method is palatable to viewers. The end result of the dog being choked is the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjLDQmgYd-s

Here we see another technique he employs, by putting the dog near the stimuls (just like Frawley) and holding the leash. He also Pulls on the leash with on hand while pushing the dog with the other. Again the result is lack of oxygen.



> How do you address a behavior, without seeing the behavior and what triggers it?


His actions go beyond seeing the behavior. He is intenetionally triggering it, again and again in order to choke the dog into compliance. And it is only from fatigue and hypoxia that Emily eventually ceases her actions.



> I might have taken a different course of action with Jonbee, but he certainly didn't hang the dog or choke it out of breathing.


He did, several times and we see the result at the end of the video.




> Not intentionally choking the dog or hanging it.


The tightness of the lead says otherwise.




> Then we have Emily... A dog the owners say will go after another dog with such aggression she will choke herself until her tongue turns blue.


And even with this warning Millan ends up doing it.





> Tell me what is his only alternative? let go and let it go kill the other dog?


Are you such a shallow thinker than you can only think of only these two possible alternatives? How about the alternative of removing the other dog out of sight or to a distance where it no longer triggers the behavior.



> Should he not evaluate the dog and present another dog to judge it's aggression? Fairly standard practice I think.


Not again and again and again so he can choke the dog.



> So where is this hanging the choking dog by it's neck that is gasping to breathe and going unconscious while he calmly goes on and gives his dishonest woowoo speech?


"Any negative energy while you are dominating or while you are taming wild animal......"


----------



## jiml (Jun 19, 2008)

corinth, is there any usefull info in this thread other than you hate choke collars and you hate milan more than you hate choke collars?


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> He chokes the dog either way. You seem to be stuck on the lifting and the sleeve. The are other ways to accomplish asphyxiation and Millan's method is palatable to viewers. The end result of the dog being choked is the same.


So you are exactly as bad as they guy who hangs dogs from a tree until they are almost dead, simply because you walk your dog who chokes itself pulling on the end of the leash? The end result of the dog being choked is the same after all.

And obviously everyone who has a dog that chokes itself pulling on a leash has evil intent to deliberately choke their dog, daily. After all as you say the result is the same...

He is obviously keeping the dog there with the intent to get it to lay on it's side, and avoiding choking the dog as much as can be avoided. His intent is obviously not to choke the dog.




> Here we see another technique he employs, by putting the dog near the stimuls (just like Frawley) and holding the leash. He also Pulls on the leash with on hand while pushing the dog with the other. Again the result is lack of oxygen.


I believe your simply seeing what you want to see.



> His actions go beyond seeing the behavior. He is intenetionally triggering it, again and again in order to choke the dog into compliance. And it is only from fatigue and hypoxia that Emily eventually ceases her actions.


What I saw was simply having a dog approach and then walking the dogs parallel for a short distance. That's it.

He started pushing her butt down into a sit while holding her in place with the lead after she started struggling, ending up holding her harness.

And the dog is obviously fatigued, but I see no signs of lack of oxygen, not in color of tongue or gums or anything else. Emily just did everything she physically could to get free and go attack and kill another dog, being exhausted is expected.



> The tightness of the lead says otherwise.


So just how tight can a lead possibly be without lifting a dogs front feet in the air?

The dog weighs 50lbs, 50 lbs of force on the lead would hang the dog totally in the air and choke it.



> Are you such a shallow thinker than you can only think of only these two possible alternatives? How about the alternative of removing the other dog out of sight or to a distance where it no longer triggers the behavior.


I'm not the one that can only see one alternative here, I can see many, you can see only one.

He had the dog approach, then walked them parallel for a short distance, I assume to see if walking parallel the dog might not react the as badly as a head on approach, many don't. Then removed the dog after a short parallel walk.



> Not again and again and again so he can choke the dog.


Again all I see is a dog approaching Emily, and then turning to walk them parallel a short distance, then the dog removed, and no choking except what is necessary to keep Emily from getting to the other dog.

I do not see "again and again and again", I see one dog approach and then walking parallel with, and then taken away, pretty standard evaluation stuff IMO.

Part of why Emily stops is that the dog was taken away, and you can see her looking back at the direction the dog is taken away.



> "Any negative energy while you are dominating or while you are taming wild animal......"


You do realize that quote was a voice over, a "narration", added to the video after the fact right? Kinda obvious as you can hear him saying things in the background at the same time.

If your no more observant than that there's not much point in discussing the issue further.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Fear tactics don't work.


This is not true. If they really didn't work, people would have quit working. Unfortunately, they DO work.

I don't agree with it, but they do work.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> So you are exactly as bad as they guy who hangs dogs from a tree until they are almost dead, simply because you walk your dog who chokes itself pulling on the end of the leash? The end result of the dog being choked is the same after al


 Nice strawman. A few more and you could form a football team. It a cute attempt to appeal to those having trouble walking their dogs and get them on your side. Naturally it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Your dishonesty is noted.



> He is obviously keeping the dog there with the intent to get it to lay on it's side, and avoiding choking the dog as much as can be avoided. His intent is obviously not to choke the dog.


His intent is to choke the dog. It how he achieves his the 'calm submissive" effect. Really in shock and in a state of helplessness.



> I believe your simply seeing what you want to see.


Me. Dr. Ian Dunbar, Dr. Sophia Yin, Dr. Andrew Leuscher, Dr. Nicholas Dodman, The British Veterinary Association, The Italian Veterinary Association, Norwegian Veterinary Association, COAPE, AVSAB, AHA..... the list goes on and on.



> What I saw was simply having a dog approach and then walking the dogs parallel for a short distance. That's it.


Sure, if you ignore everything else. Like the fact Millan was already told the dog reacts aggressively and pulls to the point of passing out. Most importantly, all Millan had to do is watch the video people submit to be on his show to see the problem. Millan apologetics. 




> Emily just did everything she physically could to get free and go attack and kill another dog, being exhausted is expected.


Sure and being held back by a choke collar had nothing to do with it.... riiiiight.





> So just how tight can a lead possibly be without lifting a dogs front feet in the air?


Depends on the vectors involved.



> The dog weighs 50lbs, 50 lbs of force on the lead would hang the dog totally in the air and choke it.


Your understanding of physics is terrible. Your scenario is only true under 1 condition, we don't see it here.





> I'm not the one that can only see one alternative here, I can see many, you can see only one.


You are the who suggested only two alternatives. The deficiency is yours.


> what is necessary to keep Emily from getting to the other dog.


Good excuse, create a situation where it's "necessary" to choke the dog. And then of course you choke the dog because it was necessary.


> Part of why Emily stops is that the dog was taken away, and you can see her looking back at the direction the dog is taken away.


Which actually points to the incompetence of Millan.



> You do realize that quote was a voice over, a "narration", added to the video after the fact right?


You do realize that it is the same woo-woo he always does, sometimes VO, sometimes at the moment.



> If your no more observant than that there's not much point in discussing the issue further.


The fault lies in your inability to admit the facts.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

jiml said:


> corinth, is there any usefull info in this thread other than you hate choke collars and you hate milan more than you hate choke collars?


I don't hate Millan. I think he's very likeable and engaging. He's simply ignorant.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> His intent is to choke the dog.


No, his INTENT is to get the dog to super chill. I don't agree with how he does it, but NEVER was it HIM that caused the tension on the lead. In fact, there were a couple of times where he allowed some slack in the line he had on Jonbee, but it WAS ultimately Jonbee's flailing about that caused his choking.

Cesar never hung the dog with his own hands, Jonbee's fighting it "hung" Jonbee.

With Frawley's (disgusting and appalling) method, he DOES purposely hang the dog.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Xeph said:


> This is not true. If they really didn't work, people would have quit working. Unfortunately, they DO work.
> 
> I don't agree with it, but they do work.


So you think you can scare a dog into obedience??? Hm that would be a treat. You might have a dog that will work for you out of fear of getting his butt kicked but how reliable is that? I'd much rather have a dog that was willing to work for me because it loved the work and I was a fair leader.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> Nice strawman. A few more and you could form a football team. It a cute attempt to appeal to those having trouble walking their dogs and get them on your side. Naturally it has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Your dishonesty is noted.


You are the one who stated.. 

"The are other ways to accomplish asphyxiation...The end result of the dog being choked is the same."

Just calling you on your obvious hypocrisy pointing out the end result of being choked is normally controlled by the dog.



> His intent is to choke the dog. It how he achieves his the 'calm submissive" effect. Really in shock and in a state of helplessness.


So you keep saying, but not showing.



> Me. Dr. Ian Dunbar, Dr. Sophia Yin, Dr. Andrew Leuscher, Dr. Nicholas Dodman, The British Veterinary Association, The Italian Veterinary Association, Norwegian Veterinary Association, COAPE, AVSAB, AHA..... the list goes on and on.


I won't go down the list, but Dunbar will do, he says...

""He has nice dog skills, but from a scientific point of view, what he says is, well ... different," says Dunbar. "Heaven forbid if anyone else tries his methods, because a lot of what he does is not without danger."

"Though Millan gets results, Dunbar notes that most people don't have Millan's strength or skill, and even fewer keep dozens of dogs. "I teach methods that a supervised 4-year-old can use," Dunbar says. "

Not exactly damning condemnation...



> Sure, if you ignore everything else. Like the fact Millan was already told the dog reacts aggressively and pulls to the point of passing out. Most importantly, all Millan had to do is watch the video people submit to be on his show to see the problem. Millan apologetics."


Sure, but he didn't. He wanted to see how the dog reacts with him as the handler. There is a difference.

Any idiot knows a better handler can make a lot of difference.





> You are the who suggested only two alternatives. The deficiency is yours.
> Good excuse, create a situation where it's "necessary" to choke the dog. And then of course you choke the dog because it was necessary.
> Which actually points to the incompetence of Millan.


Nobody choked the dog except the dog itself.

What he di was expose a dog to another for evaluation purposes with him as the handler, perfectly normal thing to do.



> You do realize that it is the same woo-woo he always does, sometimes VO, sometimes at the moment.
> 
> The fault lies in your inability to admit the facts.


I'm not the one claiming he stands with a dog hanging from a choke chain and choking and gasping for air while he makes a woowoo speech, you are, your just to buried in your religious fanatical zeal to to see reality.

Show me one "at the moment", show me a dog that isn't choking itself that he is actually actively choking, you haven't. Not a dog hes is pushing it's butt down into a sit you misrepresent as choking it.

You can not believe in his alpha rolling, or faux dog nipping, or butt sniffing stuff all day long and have a logical discussion. Most people like Dunbar do this.

Your choking nonsense is just that, nonsense, nothing remotely comparable to hanging a dog from a tree branch as you stated.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> You might have a dog that will work for you out of fear of getting his butt kicked but how reliable is that?


It's reliable enough. There are *some* (note the stress on the word some) protection sport trainers that still use highly aversive methods to get dogs to do what they want...and they end up being national competitors with high scores. It works.



> I'd much rather have a dog that was willing to work for me because it loved the work and I was a fair leader.


The majority of us would, but that is not the point. The point is that extreme aversives DO work and CAN create an extremely reliable dog.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Xeph said:


> No, his INTENT is to get the dog to super chill. I don't agree with how he does it, but NEVER was it HIM that caused the tension on the lead. In fact, there were a couple of times where he allowed some slack in the line he had on Jonbee, but it WAS ultimately Jonbee's flailing about that caused his choking.
> 
> Cesar never hung the dog with his own hands, Jonbee's fighting it "hung" Jonbee.


He creates a panicked dog and a panicked dog has no options. It is literally out of his mind. The problem is that dominant trainers are under the false impression that the dog is choosing to behave like this. The reality is that, it's the reptile part of the brain reacting and driving behaviour. You can't dominate or punish the fear out of the dog. At best you can simply make him so afraid that he'll shut down.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> "The are other ways to accomplish asphyxiation...The end result of the dog being choked is the same."


A straw man and you follow it up by a quote mine. You really have no qualms about putting for and intellectually dishonest argument.




> So you keep saying, but not showing.


Me and pretty much everyone vet association. Various Ph.Ds, behaviorists, trainers, researchers.




> I won't go down the list, but Dunbar will do, he says...


Dr. Dunbar is a polite English gentleman, but he has expressed more robust opinions on his own website. And here






> Not exactly damning condemnation...


This is what he thinks about Millan and his influence. From the article above
*"If we don't change what's happening in dog training, I'll look back on nearly 40 years as a waste,*




> Sure, but he didn't. He wanted to see how the dog reacts with him as the handler. There is a difference


Not unless he was planning to move into their house until Emily died.



> Any idiot knows a better handler can make a lot of difference.


The idiot in question didn't make any difference.



> Nobody choked the dog except the dog itself.


He choked the dog. The human is always responsible.



> What he di was expose a dog to another for evaluation purposes with him as the handler, perfectly normal thing to do.


Only for his type of trainers. Others who understand behavior modification would have started from far away and stopped once they found the stimuls thresshold.



> I'm not the one claiming he stands with a dog hanging from a choke chain and choking and gasping for air while he makes a woowoo speech, you are, your just to buried in your religious fanatical zeal to to see reality.


You are too blinded by your love for Millan to see the reality of the situation. If you don't think that his explanations is nonsense you need help. In the most recent ClickerExpo, Karen Pryor said about Millan 
*He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly; he just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.'*





> Show me one "at the moment", show me a dog that isn't choking itself that he is actually actively choking,


There is no such thing as a dog chocking itself unless it puts on the collar, the leash, ties it to Millan's hand and starts pulling.




> Not a dog hes is pushing it's butt down into a sit you misrepresent as choking it.


It's his attempt at punishment but because he doesn't not understand punishment its ineffective. Making his actions abusive.



> Your choking nonsense is just that, nonsense, nothing remotely comparable to hanging a dog from a tree branch as you stated.


What's nonsensical is that you support these techniques solely intended to choke a dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

You really seem a bit jaded Corinthian. You keep stating TxRide has this love for Milan, and I see none....just him being rational.

And as much as you want to believe everything is the human's fault...well, it isn't always. As I said before, I don't agree with 99% of what Cesar does, but Cesar did not draw his hands up on the lead and hang that dog. Cesar held still save for when Jonbee was going after him in his fit. Jonbee hanged Jonbee. All the dog had to do was stop.

Now, the likelihood of the dog quitting his fight before he exhausted himself was exceedingly low because his brain was in total overdrive (defense), but it sure would have been nice. The point is never did Cesar just haul off and strangle that dog. If anything he tried to position himself so the dog strangled as little as possible while maintaing his own safety and the safety of those around him.

Jonbee collapsed more because of sheer exhaustion than lack of oxygen. That dog put out A LOT of fight and if he had been physically able to keep going, he would have. When he finally collapsed in a heap he still had NOT given up mentally, as evidenced by his growl when Cesar went down to him.

It wasn't that the dog had no intellectual fight left in him...he just couldn't physically fight back anymore and that's because he exhausted himself flailing about like a marlin.

This is a case where I really don't think Cesar won (because the dog was not in a calm submissive state, he just couldn't resist anymore when Cesar was putting him on his side because he was just too tired), but Jonbee's fighting the lead was what hanged him, and nothing else.

And you can say "He was provoked!" all you like, but a dog should be able to take a cue from his owner and just lie down in the freaking house. The owner shouldn't be bitten or in any other way aggressed at. Having a dog lie down is not provocation


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

If this was a criminal case, Jonbee would be not guilty by reason of insanity, an Insanity created by Millan. Sure you can blame the dog all you want, but the dog doesn't have the power to reason and in the state he was in, fight was the only option he had. The dog could not stop and Millan's believe that the dog was choosing this action is an indication of how little he knows about behavior. Blaming the dog is out of the question once Millan triggered the fight.

I think it's wrong of you to judge the dog on what OUGHT to be rather on what IS. (Recall your Hume?) The OUGHT, by it's very nature is questionable. Whatever the prescriptive beliefs regarding dog behaviour, when were are seeking B.Mod, we have to work with the descriptive. In this case, having the dog lie down *was* a provocation and the philosophical position of what OUGHT does not help us in BMod. As you point out, forcing the OUGHT failed.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Two problems with that logic...this is not a criminal case and Jonbee is not a human.

How did I judge the dog on what he ought to be? Is it totally unreasonable to believe that you shouldn't be bitten by your own dog in your own him because you want him to lie down?

What the dog IS (was) is aggressive.

I'm not going to play the philosophy game because philosophy is circular in argument. It doesn't go anywhere because it has infinite pathways.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> If this was a criminal case, Jonbee would be not guilty by reason of insanity, an Insanity created by Millan. Sure you can blame the dog all you want, but the dog doesn't have the power to reason and in the state he was in, fight was the only option he had. The dog could not stop and Millan's believe that the dog was choosing this action is an indication of how little he knows about behavior. Blaming the dog is out of the question once Millan triggered the fight.


Nonsense. If it was a criminal case the dog would be euthanized. Millan is not blaming the dog at all.

Millan is saying the dog knows no other way to be, and he is showing the dog it can lay down, and nothing bad will happen only good things if it does lie down. To do this he lets the dog go through it's freak out and exhaust itself until it gives up and lays down and then provides positive feedback to the dog when it does.

The alternative was death, after biting the owner, and biting two other professional trainers who tried to work with the dog.

Millan is saying the dog has a choice but doesn't know it, and the only way to show the dog it has a choice is to get it to experience what another choice can be. He is saying until the dog experiences another choice, the dog will not realize it actually has another choice.




> I think it's wrong of you to judge the dog on what OUGHT to be rather on what IS. (Recall your Hume?) The OUGHT, by it's very nature is questionable. Whatever the prescriptive beliefs regarding dog behaviour, when were are seeking B.Mod, we have to work with the descriptive. In this case, having the dog lie down *was* a provocation and the philosophical position of what OUGHT does not help us in BMod. As you point out, forcing the OUGHT failed.


Rediculous. Dogs are judged on what they ought to be all the time. A dog should not be aggressive to other dogs, or to people. Dogs that bite are are euthanized every day on that judgment of what they ought to be, and jonbee was about to die for it. 

Reality is that rescued strays like Jonbee are judged on what they ought to be as a rule by pretty much all shelters or rescues.

Jonbee was a dog who got aggressive because it had an irrational fear of being in a vulnerable position in the house. All the dog had to do was give in and trust and lie down. The owner, who had rescued and rehomed over 30 strays and 2 professional trainers had been unable to get him to do so.

All Cesar did was force the issue. He let the dog go through it's tantrum, get all it's fear out of the way until it was exhausted and able to give in and let go and lay down. And the dog could experience laying down in the house and experience that it would not die or be killed if it laid down in the house.

Once it experienced that it could lie down, that it was a good thing, the dog was able to realize it had another way to react and it began to trust and the fear and aggression went away.

He didn't choke the dog, the dog didn't even choke itself really, he just persisted as long as it took for the dog to get past it's reaction of fear and aggression so it could finally experience that there was another way to be, that it could choose to lie down and that it could be a good thing.

Forcing the Ought did not fail, as the dog is no longer aggressive, it has realized it has a choice and that trusting and laying down is nothing to fear.


That is in no way comparable to provoking a dog to bite, giving it an arm, and hanging it from a tree 4ft off the ground until it's almost dead repeatedly.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Corinthian said:


> What's nonsensical is that you support these techniques solely intended to choke a dog.


I never said I supported his techniques. I am simply rationally stating what they are and what they are not.

With Emily he puts her on a leash, exposes her to another dog approaching and walking parallel to asses her reason for aggression and her level of aggression. He gets her to calm down with as little struggle as is possible.

He determines that she aggressive because she is a very unsocialized dog and knows no other way to react other than extreme excitement and anxiety and takes her to his place to socialize her properly in a controlled environment.

He does not punish her at all, he simply assesses her reaction and tries to calm her as quickly as possible.

He assesses that her aggression is due to excitement and anxiety when she sees another dog. She knows no other way to react.

He then takes her to his place, specifically stating this dog simply doesn't know any other way to react other than aggression, and he socializes her with his dogs over several weeks until she learns some social skills and learns to be around dogs calmly without excitement and anxiety which triggered her aggression.

My god he socialized a dog in a controlled environment, how abusive and awful...

Could the same be done through look and treat or other positive means? Probably with a lot of work. Did Cesar use some of those methods while socializing her? possibly.

Was what he did effective? Looks like it was to me.

Was Emily harmed during his assessment? No more than she was on any other daily walk.


I have the same issue Emily had with my dog now, except she doesn't aggress. She does get just as excited and anxious, she does strain on her leash to get to the other dog to the point of her front feet being in the air. She just licks their face when she gets there instead of killing them so it's no emergency.

What is my plan to fix this? Socializing her more in a controlled environment. I'm a bad bad man I tell ya.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

I can't believe this arguement has gone on for THREE pages.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> Nonsense. If it was a criminal case the dog would be euthanized. Millan is not blaming the dog at all.


Yes, many states execute the insane.



> Millan is saying the dog knows no other way to be, and he is showing the dog it can lay down,


No. He is forcing him to lie down.



> To do this he lets the dog go through it's freak out


Creates the freak out.



> and exhaust itself


Fights the dog to exhaustion.



> until it gives up


Physically unable to continue.



> and lays down


Forces him down when he can no longer fight.


> and then provides positive feedback to the dog when it does.


Magical woo woo talk.


> The alternative was death,


Logical fallacy of extremes. I'll add that to the straw men.



> Millan is saying the dog has a choice but doesn't know it,


Cognitive scientists disagree. And I'm going to agree with the researchers and not the celebrity who never graduated from high school.



> and the only way


Another fallacy. "ONLY way"... you guys love to use this as an excuse.



> to show the dog it has a choice is to get it to experience what another choice can be.


The dog cannot experience choice while it is being attacked. Once he triggered the amygdala, he took the dog's choice away.



> Dogs are judged on what they ought to be all the time. A dog should not be aggressive to other dogs, or to people.


As a trainer/teacher you don't work on what the subject ought to know. You work off what the subject DOES know. It's foolish for a trainer to act on OUGHT.



> Dogs that bite are are euthanized every day on that judgment of what they ought to be, and jonbee was about to die for it.


A lie. Jonbee continued to bite these people and he was not killed, he was given away to another person.



> Reality is that rescued strays like Jonbee are judged on what they ought to be as a rule by pretty much all shelters or rescues.


No. They are judged on what they are and the shelter that have the resources then train them based on this starting point.



> Jonbee was a dog who got aggressive because it had an irrational fear of being in a vulnerable position in the house. All the dog had to do was give in and trust and lie down.


Clearly you do not understand the psychology of fear. Human phobics rationally understand that X won't hurt them, they still fear it. You are still arguing as if the dog made the conscious choice to be afraid.



> The owner, who had rescued and rehomed over 30 strays and 2 professional trainers had been unable to get him to do so.





> All Cesar did was force the issue.


Attack the dog.


> He let the dog go through it's tantrum,


Wasn't a tantrum.



> get all it's fear out


IMpossible.



> of the way until it was exhausted and able to give in and let go and lay down.


Your confusing physical exhaustion with calmness.



> And the dog could experience laying down in the house and experience that it would not die or be killed if it laid down in the house.


He was still stressed but merely lacked the strength to fight. At best all MIllan did was induce helplessness.



> Once it experienced that it could lie down, that it was a good thing, the dog was able to realize it had another way to react and it began to trust and the fear and aggression went away.


Garbage! The owners later admitted this only increased the dogs aggression and gave it away. [source: Ultimate episode guide]



> He didn't choke the dog, the dog didn't even choke itself really, he just persisted as long as it took for the dog to get past it's reaction of fear and aggression so it could finally experience that there was another way to be, that it could choose to lie down and that it could be a good thing.


Again this show that you don't understand the pyschology



> Forcing the Ought did not fail, as the dog is no longer aggressive, it has realized it has a choice and that trusting and laying down is nothing to fear.


It did. The dog remained aggressive and was given away.




> That is in no way comparable to provoking a dog to bite, giving it an arm, and hanging it from a tree 4ft off the ground until it's almost dead repeatedly.


Same thing.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

TxRider said:


> With Emily he puts her on a leash, exposes her to another dog approaching and walking parallel to asses her reason for aggression and her level of aggression. He gets her to calm down with as little struggle as is possible.


Chokes her, exhausts her and then finally pins her to the floor. You mistake not moving with calmness.



> He determines that she aggressive because she is a very unsocialized dog


She's unsocialized because she is aggressive.




> He does not punish her at all, he simply assesses her reaction and tries to calm her as quickly as possible.


Choking, pinning... punishment in any book.



> Was what he did effective? Looks like it was to me.


That's because you are easily duped and rely on TV. The book Ultimate Episode Guide reveals that Emily is as aggressive as ever.


----------



## TxRider (Apr 22, 2009)

Dog_Shrink said:


> I can't believe this arguement has gone on for THREE pages.


It won't any more, the last batch of nonsense isn't even worth replying to.


----------



## Cheese (Feb 10, 2010)

I'd just like to add that I believe the OP is the same person who has trolled numerous other dog websites. They go around bashing Cesar Millan in the hopes to stir up trouble. They have done this on numerous occasions and have created many different accounts. They have no logic nor no reason. They are simply here to make trouble and disagree with anyone who says otherwise.

Their obvious lack of knowledge about other techniques really points this aspect of them out. For one to say that Millan's intent is to hang a dog is quite absurd...and it realy shows how ignorant that individual is. Or rather, it shows their intent. Anyone with half a brain will know that Millan is not out to hang dogs. And anyone with eyes will see that his techniques are not centered around hanging dogs. He has never once blamed a dog for anything. You always see him blaming the owners for everything.

You don't have to agree with the man's techniques, but you do have to realize that he is not out to injure dogs, nor has he ever injured a dog. Take a look at all the dogs he has helped....take a look at all the people he has inspired to actually walk their dogs.....take a look at all the hope he has given people in showing that behavioral problems can be fixed by a professional.....take a look at how much he has done to show people that pitt bulls and rotties and dogs like them are actually naturally friendly and that they can be good dogs....take a look at all the dogs he has rescued....take a look at the dogs he has rehabbed and rehomed....take a look at all of that and more, and then bash the man. You can disagree with his techniques all you want, but to go out of your way to bash a man who has done wonders to the dog community is stupid and ignorant.


----------



## Corinthian (Sep 21, 2009)

Cheese said:


> I'd just like to add that I believe the OP is the same person who has trolled numerous other dog websites.


 Your belief is ridiculous since I always have the same handle and you can see it at other sites like Dogwise, DogPages, Petforums, and dogforum.



> They have done this on numerous occasions and have created many different accounts.


You are damn liar and you have no evidence of this. 

You are also a convicted criminal posting from an institution. *Hey look *anyone can throw around unsubstantiated accusations.



> They have no logic nor no reason.


Your inability to understand a cogent argument is the issue.




> For one to say that Millan's intent is to hang a dog is quite absurd...and it realy shows how ignorant that individual is.


Your ignorance on the subject is astounding. Millan overcomes his cognitive dissonance by telling himself that the dog is doing to himself.



> And anyone with eyes will see that his techniques are not centered around hanging dogs.


He's more a jab to the kidneys, kicking type of guy.



> He has never once blamed a dog for anything. You always see him blaming the owners for everything.


Every time he talks about the dog trying to be dominant, he is blaming the dog. And engaging in some canine telepathy.



> ....take a look at how much he has done to show people that pitt bulls and rotties and dogs like them are actually naturally friendly and that they can be good dogs.


You are not mixing up the issues. Nothing has been said regarding his portrayal of pitt bulls. These are two separate issues and one can be critiqued without affecting the other.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Dog_Shrink said:


> I can't believe this arguement has gone on for THREE pages.


Well I said a long time ago it was another collar fiasco that has now turned into another Milan fiasco. It just goes on and on and on and on with stuff that has been hashed and rehashed on other Milan fiascos.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

This is like, seriously the most redundant argument ever.

Corinthian, insulting people's intelligence gets you nowhere, fast. Even though I agree with you about Milan, the way you argue is so disgusting and underhanded. Every other sentence you spew is full of insults. Seriously, try to learn how to explain things without trying to provoke people.

TxRider, the both of you are speaking in two different languages. Yes, it's english, but it's a conflict of laymen's and scientific language. Half the time throughout this whole debate you guys were agreeing with each other, mostly taking offense at misunderstandings. That's why Corinthian kept saying you are presenting a strawman argument. Your language confused his language and he thought you were misrepresenting him. No, that's not your fault, not Corinthian's fault either. Neither one of your language was wrong, just arguing the same thing different ways.

Egads. Chill pill people.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

IMO this thread has out lived it's usefullness.


----------

