4paws

Don't complicate matters, this person has a serious issue. It does not sound like an issue that would require medication, so a veterinary behaviourist would be sufficient but not necessary. Exactly, the issue is serious and what complicates the situation is the amount of trainers claiming to be behaviourists that haven't undergone any formal study in behavioural sciences is my whole point...............you can't see that Aidan??? You are happy for a self appointed behaviourist to address the OP's situation in hope that the supposed behaviourist recommends the right course of treatment for that particular dog and circumstances

The application of aversives has nothing to do with it, I merely provided an example. The problem is, an unqualified behaviourst can neither provide a recognised level of achievement to determine they have any knowledge of animal behaviour at all. They may have, they may not which is not the point when trying to choose a trainer/behaviourist when their self appointed titles can influence your decision as a customer. It's human nature as a lay person looking for a trainer/behaviourist scanning websites and advertising material seeing that some claim to be qualified and some don't, and human nature tells us that people claiming qualifications and titles appear to be the most knowledged on the subject. But when a training establisment is allowed quite legally to plaster up any bulldust they like, it makes a mockery of the industry is what I am saying from a customer perspective. Some of the franchise establishments practice this and quite often the area trainer/behaviourst attached to the franchise has a substandard knowledge of dogs in general, let alone training and behaviour modification.

I thought your point was that it was unlawful to do so. No, that was Staranais's misinterpretation which I corrected in an earlier response

What's best in this case people, a trainer or behaviourist

We aready know that Staranais Yes, "anyone" can call themselves a behaviourist including the local hair dresser or the check out chick at Coles which is the problem when these people appoint themselves with such a title and are NOT qualified behaviourists at all. In law if an issue arises with animal behaviour, the opinion of a "qualified" behaviourist will over-ride a dog trainer claiming to be one. A vet behaviourist is a vet who has done the relevent courses in Applied Animal Behaviour Sciences earning a PhD, a Zoologist or Psychologist can do the same and be regarded as a qualified behaviourist also. Behaviour is a study of animal psychology and because a dog trainer can alter the behaviour of a dog for example, apply a heavy correction to alter a dog's behaviour of jumping up on people doesn't determine that person to be a behaviourist or understand how the behaviour was modified other than the dog avoiding a correction and associated pain. Everything a dog may do that is undesirable can be called a "behaviour", which is generally caused by a training deficit in most cases and is not necessarily a candidate that requires a "behavioursts" attention. What I am pointing out is that too often people are quoting "behaviorist" too readily for any hiccup a dog may have which can easily be dealt with successfully by a trainer. On the other hand if a dog does have a neurotic issue and needs a "behaviorists" attention, you don't want a misdiagnosis from a trainer calling themselves a behaviourist who hasn't got any valid knowledge of dog psychology who thinks that cranking up the stimulation on an Ecollar should do the trick because it worked on the last dog showing a similar symptom???. You also cannot guarantee that a trainer calling themselves a behaviourist who hasn't undergone any formal academic training to understand dog behaviour effeciently, will identify that the dog's ideal treatment is beyond their experience level. The customer in that case think's they have hired a behaviourist assuming they are an expert in the entire field when in fact they are not and could well be applying corrective measures detrimental to the dog's behaviour modification. No, I don't think trainers should lace themselves with self appointed behaviourist titles because ultimately, it provides a misconception to the public regarding their level of actual competences.

Actually 4Paws has a point the NDTF graduates are not recognised as dog trainers unless they register themselves with one of these orginisations, being a memeber only with the NDTF and a qualified trainer will not get you far according to DPI : Considering there is no law stating that only X qualifications can make you a behaviourist then thats not technically right. Even a veterinary behaviourist can make massive mistakes, the difference is they will have the AVA holding their hand when the poo hits the fan. They problem is THEY consider it out of your knowledge because you dont have a piece of paper stating that you managed to pass with enough knowledge to get you a wall ornament in a frame - no part of it states that they will get results or be good at their jobs. As for a PhD I would rather see them having practically solved problem dogs with success then written a thesis. I was asked to stay on at Uni and continue on but I would rather be out there with my sleeves rolled up then in a library tapping away on a keyboard... what do you think will get me better experience with animals. When you read a textbook you read someone elses point of view. When you read journal articles they are also a modified perspective on that subject (god knows I've read enough of them) When dealing with animals you need to get out there and learn, feel, experience, trial and error with your own dogs etc. That is what behaviour is about... and considering the domestic canine is not simply living in a 'wild' environment anymore but a man made, human first one well there is more then just the dogs primal behaviours to consider. We have different expectations from the domestic dog then we do any other creature on the planet. Saying you can treat any animal to me is a massive claim, considering 1) how many different species we keep as domestic pets and how in depth you would have to be with each and 2) many people I know who have been into that particular species for decades say 'you never stop learning'. I think the AVA is trying a stunt to corner the market and allow their members to feel 'special' and charge like wounded bulls. I wont stop saying I deal with behaviour. Sue me for what little I have lying around if that makes the big organisations feel special. But pound for pound I'll take on any dog, and if I cant deal with it I'm not too proud to tell the owner to move onto someone who I know has the skills and experience for that particular problem because for me, the dog is #1, not my wallet. Saying that I dont state I have a degree in animal behaviour so there is no misrepresentation at all on my behalf. I already have 2 degrees and 10 years experience with animals, particularly dogs and have sucessfully used behavioural modification in solving aggression, fear, anxiety, unsocialised animals, trauma etc. If that doesnt count for anything it's sad really. Nekhbet, You don't claim to be a behaviourist or qualified in anything other than stating your experience and training background in your marketing material or mislead the public to claim something that you are not But having said in the general views of an average dog owner, the promotional material of others who do claim invalid qualifications to enhance their training business attractiveness and misconception of greater skills, probably costs you work in the selection process of who is chosen to train their dog.

That's correct. The opinion of a qualified behaviourist will override that of a trainer in a court of law in relation to animal behaviour.

Ah, this is my point. Accepted definition by whom? You are the only person I have ever talked to who seems to think that calling oneself a dog behaviourist implies that one is AVA registered . Can you please tell us who decided that only people with AVA registration should be called behaviourists, or is it something that you just made up yourself? Can you please also give us the Australian Veterinarian Association link to how one becomes a behaviourist, so we can see what they say on the subject? By law Staranais.

No, there isn't such a thing as a qualified dog trainer. You will be talking about accreditation for completing a course to an unspecified standard like the NDTF Cert III no doubt. That accreditation confirms that the graduate has completed a course, but the course structure and curriculum is not certified to any particular standard to result in a qualification title. The NDTF as an example isn't a regulatory body controlling the dog training industry as the industy itself isn't regulated by legislation.

:rolleyes: So it sounds like you are saying that you personally don't feel it's right for someone who is not an AVA member to call themselves a behaviourist or a qualified behaviourist? But that there are no laws to back you up, it is just your opinion? If that's the case, then it's nothing like someone calling themselves a vet or a solicitor, as you claimed. Advertising yourself a vet if you're not one is breaking the law, and you can be convicted and fined for doing so. No, I didn't mention professional titles, vet and solicitor in the context of prosecution by misrepresentation, I mentioned them as an example of a professional title the same as a qualified behaviourist is in the same vein. We know that misrepresenting one's self as a qualified behaviourist in reference to dog training is a legal practice as the dog training industry is unregulated in other words a "free for all" in that regard. The point I am making is that there is a ligitimate professional title called an Animal Behaviour Consultant qualification "behaviourist" and the many dog trainers who claim to be a "behaviourist" are not. The accepted definition of an animal behaviourist is a person registered by the AVA, not a dog trainer who has appointed themselves with a such a title and don't have AVA registration. In other words, when the avgerage dog owner reads that ABC dog training are qualified behaviourists and looks up to see what a qualified behaviourist is and thinks wow!!! these people are well qualified and hire them to train the their dog, they may infact be hiring a person that doesn't recognise the dog's tail from it's canine tooth by misprepresentation of their qualifications because they can is what I am simply pointing out.

No, I didn't say that anyone holding one of the four academic qualifications can legally call themselves behaviourists, those people holding such a qualification as a prerequisite for entrance into recognised studies of advanced animal behaviour sciences achieving a PhD at graduation are the people who can. Commonly known as vet behaviourists as an example are vets who have further completed the relevent studies for registration as a qualified Animal behaviour Consultant and can treat any animal. As I mentioned previously, qualified behaviourists are registered with the AVA as the regulatory body and the long and the short of it is, the AVA will not register an application without the relevent academic qualifications. There is no legislation that prevents the behaviourist title in connection with companion animals, anyone can legally make the claim without a scrap of dog behaviour or training knowledge whatsoever which presents the problem for the general public in their selection process of determining who is and who isn't in relation to this thread.

A dog trainer in business promotion is free to quote their experiences and background as anyone would in a competitive market place, but some take it to higher levels which in fact don't exist to obviously project to the public that their level of experience is greater than their competition. Many quote themselves to be "qualified" trainers.........sorry, no such thing, others quote themselves as also "behaviourists" which is a professsional title like a vet or solicitor for example which adds further confusion to situation. Naturally from a marketing approach, a "qualified" trainer and or behaviourist sounds far more attractive with a greater perception of experience and level of knowledge in the selection process in the public eye than an ordinary dog trainer which is why they obviously make such claims, but the point is, if they take their marketing to highest level and quote "qualified" behaviourist, there is such a thing and if these people are NOT "qualified" behaviourists, it's a blatent misconception. Qualified Animal Behaviour Consultants are registered with the Australian Veteranary Association which is not a difficult process to find out who is qualified in that field and who isn't. :rolleyes: As time evolves where people previously consulted a dog trainer which is what the majority of trainers are, at an alarming rate of escalation the former "trainer" has now evolved as a "behaviourist" being the new age fad of recommendation. You only have to scan through the posts and threads here and the amount of times in response to dog training issues that people recommend a "behaviourist" is at epidemic proportions, but the fact is, the trainers recommended are NOT behaviourists at all, not one of them???. IMHO, this charade of providing false and misleading qualifications has gone on for too long because at the end of the day, a good dog trainer is a good dog trainer regardless, they don't need falsification of qualifications and promote themselves as something they are not, the proof of ability is in the result

Anyone can call themselves a behaviourist Adian2 as there is no legislation in Australia preventing self appointed titles in the treatment of companion animals. However, if someone presents themselves as a "qualified" behaviourist, they must have achieved the title from graduating in a specific academic criteria otherwise it's a misrepresentation of skills. A "qualified" behaviourist can only be either a veterinarian, psychologist, zoolologist or biologist who has attained a PhD in Animal Behaviour Sciences as prescribed by the Australian Veterinary Association and registered as such. Unless a person can meet that criteria, they are not within their rights to claim a behaviourist qualification whatsoever.

Thanks - that's who I was trying to think of. Mark Singer is a dog trainer and may be of great assistance, but he is not a qualified behaviourist. The most prominent "qualified" behaviourist in SA is Dr Susan Hazel I'd recommend Mark Singer too, from what I've read by and about him, he knows what he's doing. I am referring to the "behaviourist" title in dog training that appears to be garthering momentum where people are recommending behaviourists rather than trainers which raises some concern especially when people recommend to seek a "qualified" behaviourist. An animal behaviour consultant in "qualified" form is a university degree achieving a PhD in animal behaviour sciences. With respect to Mark, I believe he is an excellent trainer more than capable of dealing with the OP's problem, but when people continue to quote "behaviourist", they need to be familiar with what a behaviourist actually is.

Thanks - that's who I was trying to think of. Mark Singer is a dog trainer and may be of great assistance, but he is not a qualified behaviourist. The most prominent "qualified" behaviourist in SA is Dr Susan Hazel

Just clear up any misconception regarding dog training and behaviourist qualifications for anyone interested. There is no legislation in Australia to regulate the qualifications and training of people offering services as a dog trainer or the treatment of behavioural problems in companion animals. The "accreditation" that the NDTF and others provide is certification that their graduates have completed a course in compliance with the standards set out by that organisation. A Certificate III from the NDTF does NOT make the graduate a qualified animal behaviour consultant. A "qualified" animal behaviour consultant must be either a Veterinarian, zooloigist, psychologist, or biologist with an advanced PhD in animal behaviour sciences as prescribed by the Australian Veterinary Association and is qualified to treat any animal unreserved to only dogs. Unless a person can meet this requirement, they are not a "qualified" behaviourist. Cheers :D