"Secondly, no I have never met a dog which I have not been able to rehabilitate. One of my close contacts rescues ex-fighting dogs, problem dogs, aggressive dogs and abuse cases. The state some of those dogs arrive in is beyond human imagination. He has failed once, out of hundreds of dogs. That dog lives with him and will continue to do so for the rest of his natural life. Another close contact has a 100% record with abuse cases, sick dogs and aggressive cases. Of the one case, I do not believe that Millan (there are two L's in Millan, by the way the other is an Italian city), would succeed where R has "failed" and we are both of the firm opinion that Millan's practices would, if used on this dog, result in someone getting severely hurt and cause irrepairable harm to the dog."
That is impressive, and clearly you have more experience on this matter. That was never in question. I have an opinion based on what I have seen with my own eyes and some of his stuff is unquestionably brilliant. To deny that is completely ridiculous and a little suspicious, hence asking you if it bothered you. I have no idea why the official organisations cannot recognise a lot of the good he has done/does for dogs and work with him in some way. Again, clearly I do not know enough about the politics of the dog training/rehabilitating world. Incidentally, I never professed to. I simply expressed an opinion.
I stand by thinking it mildly curious that as humans we think it useful to train dogs, a completely different species living in a completely different world in terms of its senses, with cheese and DOG chocolate (exasperated). Not really that controversial. I understand that some situations have been stressful with the dogs he has worked with, but in the end, he does it for the dogs.
I'd also like to add that the transformation in some of the dogs he rehabilitates, particularly when they go and stay with him in his centre, is nothing short of remarkable. To fail to acknowledge that is just stoopid.