Joined
·
59 Posts
[personal opinion on] I don't really disagree with any of the techniques CM uses on his show (I've never read any of his printed materials). I've watched a dozen or more episodes and have never seen him use any kind of physical force that I would consider abusive or extreme. However, advising people who don't have a clue on how to handle aggression can be very!!! dangerous. Its one thing to air a show about how to housebreak or leash-train "Fluffy." Its quite another to toss out 5 mins of tele-advise on how to get Rottweilers to stop attacking every dog they see, especially when he advises controlling the aggressor dog(s) by grabbing the neck (like another more dominant dog would) or using an alpha roll.
The main complaint I have with CM, and the reason I wish National Geographic had picked a real expert like Ian Dunbar or Patricia McConnell, is the fact that CM has no credentials at all and he uses "made-up" science. Tossing around terms like "the red-zone" and "gladiator dogs" just gives people a false sense of understanding. Just what is a "balanced" dog anyway? Unfortunately, I believe The Dog Wisperer is less about dog training and more about NG competing with all the Animal Planet "man chases down and wrestles with wild animal" shows. I am very glad that NG has added all the warnings during the show. [/personal opinion off]
The main complaint I have with CM, and the reason I wish National Geographic had picked a real expert like Ian Dunbar or Patricia McConnell, is the fact that CM has no credentials at all and he uses "made-up" science. Tossing around terms like "the red-zone" and "gladiator dogs" just gives people a false sense of understanding. Just what is a "balanced" dog anyway? Unfortunately, I believe The Dog Wisperer is less about dog training and more about NG competing with all the Animal Planet "man chases down and wrestles with wild animal" shows. I am very glad that NG has added all the warnings during the show. [/personal opinion off]
