I agree with most of the things said about Milan - his methods are outdated and archaic, as well as (in MY opinion) based on an abusive level of force.
When we think about whether or not a method works, we have to each decide what we consider as a "good" result. If you have a dog that doesn't pull, doesn't bite, doesn't give you any sort of dominant actions or reactions - do you consider that the method "worked" or do you look at the other aspects of the dog's actions? I see the dogs on Milan's show and they are exhibiting huge stress signals and they look absolutely MISERABLE to me. But as an experienced dog trainer, I've learned to recognize and understand the dog's body language and overall I've found that the typical person - regardless of how long they've owned dogs - does NOT have a good knowledge of the body language of dogs. Many seem to think that if a dog is obedient and minds the owner, then whatever method was used worked well. But the facts are that you can take a dog and force that dog into submission and it will indeed act obedient. I could take almost any dog out there, use the right kind of pain, and could get that dog to show submissive obedience in a relatively short amount of time (and when I say "the right kind of pain" I mean for that particular dog - it may be a tug on a choke chain for one dog, it may be a shock collar set on 90 for another). To the unknowledgeable, the end result would look beautiful - a dog that complies instantly on command. To those who know canine body language, they'd see a dog that is responding through a fear of consequence - a dog that may wag its tail, that may fawn over the handler, but that is a dog with a personality that has been broken in some way.
I don't consider that kind of result as a method having "worked". And that's what I see when I look at the dogs that Milan handles on his TV show.
Nearly every dog I've seen him work with ends up with something thin and tight directly behind the ears (at the most sensitive and easily choked section of the neck). This is a FORCE method, pure and simple, and is based on teaching the dog that any response that is not very submissive will result in being choked and hurt. Milan delivers this pain with a charismatic grin and a cute little accent and people accept this brutal treatment of their dogs! It completely appalls me that anyone can say "I LOOOOOVVVE my dog!" and then let someone brutalize it like that. Yes, the dogs are a mess generally because the owners are completely inept. Yes, forceful pain-based training gets quick results (but not necessarily long-term results). But are the results worth doing that to your dog?
I, too, trained with force when I first started. I was good at it. I could use a choke chain very effectively, alpha-roll a dog a split second after it showed any aggressive attempt, and I had dogs that were SO obedient it would make your jaw drop to watch them. I loved my dogs, but I was brutal with them all in the name of training. And I won't ever forget what I did .. regardless of how much I apologized to them afterwards, I will never forget the look of confusion in my old shepherd's eyes when I was walking around the shop reinforcing all the younger dogs (that had been trained using positive methods) for getting into heel position, and poor Dawson stood in the middle of the floor with his head and tail down, watching me, completely afraid to offer a behavior because my harsh methods had taught him that he wasn't to do anything unless given a command. He wanted to be a part of what I was doing but I had destroyed the part of his personality that made him think he was allowed a choice.
When people ask me "did I ruin my dog by using these methods?" I tell them "well, maybe not ruined - but it's likely you have changed your dog's personality by adding fear as a main part of their behavioral response to you". You CAN NOT have the same relationship with a dog if you use fear-based methods in order to train, and if you use anything that causes pain (including the choking leashes/collars) then you are compromising the relationship to a certain extent. Maybe control is more important in some instances. I know that on occasion I do use methods that provide a consequence even now, but I do it fully knowing what I'm doing and fully knowing that it could create some change in the relationship I have with my dog. And that's something I watch for very carefully.
So if people want to use force, they have the legal right to do it. But I think we all have to ask ourselves, "what kind of relationship DO I want with my dog?". If all you want is obedience then I suppose any method will do. If you want a dog that trusts you, that believes you won't cause it pain and responds from a bond you have instead of a fear, then you won't base your methods on pain. You'll work hard to develop a good, solid, trusting bond and use positive reinforcement methods as much as you can - and save the corrections for those times when nothing else seems to work.
Anyhow, having been in both camps - having seen the difference, and having enough experience to see what Milan is doing - I just wanted to offer my thoughts on this. I do agree that dogs need more exercise and that they need leadership, but those things can generally be produced with a minimum of pain. +R methods can and do work well overall IF they're applied properly and they build a trusting relationship. I encourage everyone to try that first.
Melanie and the gang in Alaska