Now that would have good too see ....

I would expect a trainer to be able to explain exactly what they were doing, why and the theory and research behind it if I asked them. If they can't then they don't truly understand what they are doing. If you put yourself out there as a great dog trainer and handler you need to have the knowledge to back up your actions, otherwise you shouldn't be doing it.

I would not "keep on" about it if people didn't keep questioning my comments and whatnot. I never said he had no right to question CM. Anybody can question anybody. Last I checked, we are all free to do that. Am I correct?

Also, if you read my "gripe" you would notice I DID question the tactics, as well. I simply thought that he was rude, and that if he's going to question people... at least wait for a proper answer and not seem so vindictive and threatened as if CM was there to punch him or something.

Even if you hate what someone is doing, when you're questioning them... there is a proper way to do it. Not having respect for someone doesn't mean you should lose professionalism or code. Which, IMO AT did just that.

Either way, (and as usual)... we can disagree all day and night and it will solve nothing. I'm done with it all.

CM is a "self trained" dog trainer, he claims. The "research" behind what he is doing does not exist. We both know that. CM uses methods that HE decided were good. Some people agree with them, some people do not.

He does tons of "explaining" on his shows with the "clients". Speaking of using dog psychology on dogs and blah de blah. Telling people about giving dogs affection at the wrong time. Bunch of drivel.

What knowledge could someone like him possibly portray to others? Especially when you're asking the questions too fast! Do people expect him to be able to give logical answers?

I don't and I'd suspect most people here don't, either. We already know there is nothing he can really say to defend what he does. We're talking about CM here!

He came up with his methods on his own, invented them more or less (of course taking from the old dominance but adding his own twist to it).

IMO, AT knew as well as we did that there really is nothing CM can say that he hasn't already said ten times over and is meaningless anyway. THAT is why he invited him onto the show and "blasted" him like that.

Both he and Stilwell are off the air now, and there will be no more interviews I suspect. Perhaps I am wrong in my thinking, but I dislike the way AT handled the interview.

I think he acted "high and mighty" despite reading off of something and being almost completely unable to formulate his own thoughts on the matter.

No I don't think he can say anything, because he doesn't know what he's doing...and he is so arrogant that he won't even lower himself to even investigate the research behind positive training and the theory showing why what he does is wrong. I didn't watch the show but I am glad he was challenged, even by AT.

He is arrogant about what he does, very much so. It's simply another undesirable trait when it comes to his dog training. But remember, he's a T.V. star.

He mostly says "That's their opinion" or something like that when someone questions him. There is nothing else that he is usually able to say.

I will agree with you that I'm glad his show is done and glad that people were able to question him instead of seeing his shows and thinking he's some sort of dog saint because he is fearless enough to be bitten by big dogs for no reason.

I didn't hate him until I saw him punch Holly. I disliked him, but thought he was doing SOME good and actually had a love for dogs. But punching a dog in the neck and that whole charade of an episode? Pure T.V. work there, no dog work at all.

I think he actually does love dogs...and thinks he has to do what he is doing...which is why I don't understand why he won't watch someone working with dogs successfully without doing what he does. But I suppose if he did really love dogs he would be open to kinder ways.

your kidding right!

Of course one would expect him to be able to give logical answers....

I guess you don't watch many talk shows, AT was a pussycat compared to some presenters....they would not be in the job if they gave their guests an easy time.

Catrin, I don't think he sees his way of handling as unkind. I think that is part of the problem. He doesn't think the dogs are suffering any adverse effects. He doesn't think he is doing any harm. He thinks he is only helping.

He HAS to watch other people, which is the confusing part. He always talks about giving dogs affection or attention at the wrong times and he goes against lots of other methods of training. Thinking on purpose, because like you said... he's bent on his methods.

In his mind, the best way to rear and manage a dog is to trick the dog into think you are the alpha dog in the pack of wolves or whatnot by acting like one. Then the dog should feel comfortable and protected YET know his place and stand down whenever you say so.

It's unfortunate for him that dogs are not stupid enough to ever confuse a person for a dog and that acting like one and trying to dominate and all that stuff like one WILL NOT garner the same response had it been done by an actual dog.

He also seems to fail to understand that NOT all dogs are happy in packs or really have any "pack mentality" at all. So that for those dogs (MANY dogs are like this) his methods are completely useless, even more so than usual.

Have you ever noticed that he doesn't speak of love or anything? We all love our dogs, and I think that word is VERY important when training. Think of everything you love. Of everyone you love. There are certain ways you simply wouldn't treat them...

True, he never speak of love. I just wish they'd bring back dogs with Dunbar. I love seeing Ian Dunbar with dogs, the joy and genuine love of dogs and love of communicating with them shines out of his face.