Several times on this forum I feel like I have to defend Cesar Milan. Why can't people learn from him and disagree with him at the same time, and why is it that everythiing he does is antiquated or wrong. This just is not true. I love his T.V. show, and I take from it what I need or want and leave the rest. He works with severe problem dogs, knows dogs intimately, and is a great rehabilitator of them.
Let's face it, some dogs TRY TO BE BOSS- like mine. Some of his theory has worked for us- let the dog know the people are in charge, not the dog- and yes, WE go out or in the door BEFORE the dog does. I just don't see him doing anything cruel at all, ever. I have read criticism of his methods, and have come to the conclusion that there are many jealous people out there who think their training methods are better, (for who?), and that because Cesar does not have a Phd he can't or shouldn't be as successful as he is. I recently read a book by Jan Fennell, called "The Dog Listener"- ignore bad behavior, reward good with treats, it did nothing for us. My husband and I don't use treat rewards-ever. We don't use a clicker either. I don't have an opinion on those who do. I don't care if other trainers think one method is antiquated or not- fairness, love and consistency is what counts.
I know I am probably making some people mad or annoyed with me, but I don't care. I care about what training guidelines work for my dog, and how my dog responds, and how much he is loved.
Karen