Cesar Milan is considered a hack by almost every reputable dog trainer, and his methods conflict with every modern study I have seen on how to effectively train a dog.
I mean, you can Google it and find countless sources, if you really care they are readily available within seconds.
The Tl;dr is that his methods are based in dominance theory. Dominance theory has been widely debunked and the methods that arose from it are widely considered to exacerbate fear and aggression related issues in dogs. Caesar’s celebrity status has contributed to its persistence in the popular imagination.
The discussion is literally that there are bad owners and those owners are solely responsible for the pit bulls reputation. I’m proving that wrong by showing an “expert” in the field… If an expert in the field cannot do it… Then why would a lay person be able to?
This isn’t argument from authority. You just like screaming random shit to shut down discussions because you don’t have any better evidence against the argument.
How does that say anything about pit bulls in general? Someone else brought up the fact that labs and German shepherds bite just as much as pit bulls. Where’s the scaremongering about labs? Oh wait, they’re the choice breed for service dogs? Maybe it’s not the breed then.
I’m directly refuting the point that Pit Bulls are not bad, just their owners are. I don’t give a shit about German Shepherds because there’s isn’t a disproportionate amount of them causing harm to humans.
Yes… they’re number 2 and 3… Except between position 1 and 2 is literally a 20x difference. If #1 is held by pitbulls by such an astounding lead that they 20x ahead of #2… You don’t look at #2 and #3 as contenders.
Yes… pits accounts for 66% and Rottweilers are ~10%… And Shepherd’s are ~5%. When First places is 4.4 times further ahead than second and third place combined… It’s pretty safe to make the claim they’re worse. And it ends up being a very logical claim to hold. So thanks for agreeing.
I didn’t believe it at first, but it seems my doubt was misplaced.
You would think that a supposed professional dog trainer, who allegedly was aware that his dog was aggressive and had a history of biting other dogs, wouldn’t just let such a dog wander around unattended. I guess he was too proud to admit he couldn’t correct this dog’s behavior.
https://www.tmz.com/2021/09/10/cesar-milan-queen-latifah-pit-bull-dog-junior-coverup-lawsuit/
So then when one of the premier dog trainers in the USA runs into significant issues with their pit bull… is it the dog or the owner?
Cesar Milan is considered a hack by almost every reputable dog trainer, and his methods conflict with every modern study I have seen on how to effectively train a dog.
Source? Citation? Anything?
I mean, you can Google it and find countless sources, if you really care they are readily available within seconds.
The Tl;dr is that his methods are based in dominance theory. Dominance theory has been widely debunked and the methods that arose from it are widely considered to exacerbate fear and aggression related issues in dogs. Caesar’s celebrity status has contributed to its persistence in the popular imagination.
It’s Cesar Milan being a fraud who doesn’t practice what he preaches.
Ah yes… the person with more than 25 years of experience must be wrong! Ya’ll are a trip.
Did you even read the article? He left a poorly socialised dog untethered and unattended.
That would stil be extremely irresponsible dog ownership if he had been the undisputed king of dog trainers for 800 years.
Thus why the source should be questioned… it’s TMZ, all trashy celebrity gossip. I doubt this incident even happened.
There are doctors with 25 years of experience that still fuck up constantly and get away with it.
Argument from authority is a fallacy for a reason.
The discussion is literally that there are bad owners and those owners are solely responsible for the pit bulls reputation. I’m proving that wrong by showing an “expert” in the field… If an expert in the field cannot do it… Then why would a lay person be able to?
This isn’t argument from authority. You just like screaming random shit to shut down discussions because you don’t have any better evidence against the argument.
You’re citing a tabloid, not exactly a reliable source…
So you believe that cesar milan didn’t have a pit bull and it didn’t bite someone and didn’t kill another dog?
You can literally pull up the court records if you want. Other sources can cover it perfectly fine.
https://www.citywatchla.com/animal-watch/22536-lawsuit-cesar-millan-s-pit-bull-kills-queen-latifah-s-dog-in-training-and-mauls-girl
https://www.nydailynews.com/2021/09/10/cesar-millans-pit-bull-killed-queen-latifahs-dog-attacked-star-gymnast-lawsuit-claims/
https://www.businessinsider.com/cesar-millan-covering-up-dogs-attack-on-queen-latifahs-dog-2021-9
What a weird hill to die on.
How does that say anything about pit bulls in general? Someone else brought up the fact that labs and German shepherds bite just as much as pit bulls. Where’s the scaremongering about labs? Oh wait, they’re the choice breed for service dogs? Maybe it’s not the breed then.
I’m directly refuting the point that Pit Bulls are not bad, just their owners are. I don’t give a shit about German Shepherds because there’s isn’t a disproportionate amount of them causing harm to humans.
Numbers say otherwise. Rottweilers and German Shepherds are after Pit Bulls.
Yes… they’re number 2 and 3… Except between position 1 and 2 is literally a 20x difference. If #1 is held by pitbulls by such an astounding lead that they 20x ahead of #2… You don’t look at #2 and #3 as contenders.
Got it. They don’t count because Pitbulls are worse. Logic.
Yes… pits accounts for 66% and Rottweilers are ~10%… And Shepherd’s are ~5%. When First places is 4.4 times further ahead than second and third place combined… It’s pretty safe to make the claim they’re worse. And it ends up being a very logical claim to hold. So thanks for agreeing.
I didn’t believe it at first, but it seems my doubt was misplaced.
You would think that a supposed professional dog trainer, who allegedly was aware that his dog was aggressive and had a history of biting other dogs, wouldn’t just let such a dog wander around unattended. I guess he was too proud to admit he couldn’t correct this dog’s behavior.
Since it was settled out of court there is zero truth to any of it. Not saying it didn’t happen, but there is no proof that it happened either.
There’s plenty of proof. Documents were submitted to court. Just because there was a settlement doesn’t mean it didn’t happen