Shock and prong collars and Cesar Millan's answer to the critics

http://www.denverpost.com/homegarden/ci_25392216/cesar-millan-trains-humans-his-dog-centric-live

It's also an approach many dog trainers moved on from years ago, with some in the media even dubbing it "cruel" and "barbaric," since it occasionally involves electric shocks, spike collars and "touching" (or hitting, as critics call it).

Love how they use 'even' with such surprised connotations. I think it's quite obvious whether or not the article's author is a Millan fan.

I do not, nor will I ever, agree with or condone the use of electric shock collars and prong collars. They're utterly barbaric.

Even on a low setting, repeated use of shock collars can cause severe harm to a dog. Visible injuries such as raw, inflamed burns can occur within a day. The neck is also one of the most vulnerable areas of a dog's neck, physically and psychologically; fear aggression, anxiety and other nervous problems can occur from use of these collars. The nervous system itself can also be damaged, considering the close proximity to the spinal cord. Delivering electric shocks - yep, great idea, considering that this could interfere with the impulses running through the spinal cord and ultimately damage the dog's nervous system!

Another problem is the thyroid gland, also found by the neck. Both shock and prong collars can cause severe and irreparable damage to this organ, particularly for larger dogs; larger dogs, having a heavier weight, are far more likely to cause injury to the thyroid gland when they pull against a prong collar or receive a shock. If the thyroid gland becomes inflamed, the body's own immune system may attack it in an attempt to get rid of the damage tissue.

I've heard countless times about how you can test the discomfort of a prong collar or shock collar around your arm. Why? What does this possibly replicate? If you want a fair comparison to how a dog would feel when one is used, place them around your neck instead. There are plenty of videos online showing huge, grown men screaming in pain when they use them. These are adult men, much larger than dogs and with a greater understanding of what's happening - they know that they can very easily stop the pain whenever they want. A dog doesn't have the luxury of that knowledge.

Now this, I agree with:

Dr. Nicholas Dodman, the head of Tufts University's Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, once characterized Millan's technique as "flooding and punishment" that "sets dog training back 20 years." And with Americans spending $53 billion annually on their pets, according to the American Pet Products Association, critics say the problem is only getting worse.

"I wish he would understand where behavioral science really is these days," said Laura McGaughey, a licensed Denver-area dog trainer and owner of Delightful Doggies. "Even the founder of dominance theory has recanted his stance on it."

McGaughey said that both science and her experience support the fact that dogs learn primarily through association, and that positive reinforcement has a more lasting effect when used correctly.

"It's good television and it's working for him, but if you do a little research you see there has been a lot of fallout from his techniques," she said. "It's positive reinforcement for him to be getting paid a lot of money to do this."

I really don't understand what the article was about. It didn't seem to have any real point. Terrible journalism! Was it saying he agrees with these methods or just a plug for his new show?  

Advertising, in my opinion. It's a shame that advertising seems to take up a lot of journalism nowadays. They could have used the opportunity to properly discuss the live shows, followed by a personal conclusion.

I think the article is just a publicity stunt for his theatre tours.

As for Millan, I think he has a genuine love for dogs, but a totally outdated & dangerous approach to dog training.

Yup. Typical journalism failure as well; pick a story with some decent potential, then hash it all up by churning out a load of jumbled up quotes and a brief description of Millan. It reads like a secondary school student's English essay, with information blatantly sourced from a Google search, no originality, clichéd expressions and little to no point.

And they wonder why newspaper journalists look down on online journalists?