Would You Join Or Support An Organisation Like This

[Rom]

I'm wondering what sort of following an organisation like this could attract in Australia?

Code of Conduct

Mission Statement

Position Statements

I think Australia needs an organisation such as this.....thoughts?

[Erny]

As you know, ROM, I think the terms in the Codes of Conduct, Mission Statement and Position Statements given here are some of the more sensible and balanced than I have seen of numerous orgs currently available in Australia. I think we would do well with an organisation such as this one in Australia - one with a balanced voice and not riding on and imposing their own personal bias and agendas as several other more well known organisations here do. In fact, I often wonder if some of those well known organisations currently in existence here in Australia have not lost the plot and lost focus on the point being about 'dog-welfare', even though they commonly use the words 'dog-welfare' as some sort of guise to suit their own agendas and bias.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

I like it and would join depending on who was behind it/ how it was run. Seems a very sensible and balanced approach

Edited July 8, 2008 by Cosmolo

[squeak]

Interesting. I would be concerned about the "Position Statement" for Service Dogs. Whilst I understand them not supporting assistance dog trainers (not the handlers/recipient) obtaining public access for their own personal dog, it is unclear on if they support public access for assistance dogs in training who are accompanying handlers who are not disabled. This is a bit of a "passion" of mine, as it appears to be a very fuzzy area in Australia. It seems, (correct me if I am wrong) that if you are training an assistance dog, and are also disabled, then public access is supported. But where does that leave assistance dogs who are being trained by able-bodied people?

[Erny]

Interesting. I would be concerned about the "Position Statement" for Service Dogs. Whilst I understand them not supporting assistance dog trainers (not the handlers/recipient) obtaining public access for their own personal dog, it is unclear on if they support public access for assistance dogs in training who are accompanying handlers who are not disabled. This is a bit of a "passion" of mine, as it appears to be a very fuzzy area in Australia. It seems, (correct me if I am wrong) that if you are training an assistance dog, and are also disabled, then public access is supported. But where does that leave assistance dogs who are being trained by able-bodied people?

A good point, Squeak. When I read that position statement this was my interpretation :

"That just because one is a qualified professional trainer it does not go to follow that you have the right to train in the name of "assistance dog training" in public areas where dogs normally are prohibited, unless that trainer was training under the umbrella of a recognised and authorised "assistance dog training" organisation (eg. such as "Assistance Dogs Australia")."

However, I agree that this point is not entirely clear and re-reading the position statement after your comment, I recognise some area of ambiguity and that my own interpretation isn't exactly what it says. I think this is a point that could be easily clarified and if the intention is as per my own interpretation, also easily rectified with additional wording. Remembering too that the IACP is not an Australian based organisation so perhaps their "Position Statement" has been written to accord with the laws and issues they recognise in their own Country.

Good call, though.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Erny

[squeak]

.

Edited July 8, 2008 by squeak

[Lablover]

Re: Past conferences

The proof is in the pudding. That said, a couple of names have high regard in some circles.

Anyone who has attended a conference/seminar by multiple World experts, smiles from time to time with conflicting views - WHICH IS GOOD!!!!!!!!

Keeps the mind working. Also terminology can be confusing.

Personally I do not think future dog training can be MUCH improved. What works WORKS.

[Erny]

Re: Past conferences

The proof is in the pudding. That said, a couple of names have high regard in some circles.

Anyone who has attended a conference/seminar by multiple World experts, smiles from time to time with conflicting views - WHICH IS GOOD!!!!!!!!

Keeps the mind working. Also terminology can be confusing.

Personally I do not think future dog training can be MUCH improved. What works WORKS.

Hi LL

I'm a bit confused by your post and what you're trying to say. Is it cryptic, or am I simply tired and not thinking clearly? Would you mind expanding to explain please?

For example, are you trying to tell us that you know of past conferences by the IACP?

If so, what do you mean by the "proof is in the pudding"? Is there something about IACP that we don't know and that perhaps we should?

"What works WORKS" is a pretty broad statement (and a safe one ). I guess you could say with equal confidence "what doesn't work, doesn't work". But I'm still puzzled by what your point is here. Look forward with interest to your responding post and hoping it manages to clarify for me what you mean by the contents of your post. ;)

Cheers!

Erny

Edited July 8, 2008 by Erny

[Rom]

I think that perhaps LL is referring to the front page of the website where some of the participants of the last IACP conference are featured?

LL:

Personally I do not think future dog training can be MUCH improved. What works WORKS.

I think that the point is though, and as Erny alluded to, that the future of dog training may come under some threat under those influences that seek to ban some methods or tools that 'work, work, work' and we may not be able to legally use them for the best benefit or welfare of dogs.

Edited July 8, 2008 by Rom

[Rom]

Just bumping this thread again because a thought occurred to me. Perhaps we are only getting the view points of trainers, either pro or otherwise, because the documents in the links seem only to apply to them.

The IACP does have provision for associate memberships that allow for the general pet owner or anyone involved with dogs in any way to be a part of the organisation, and I would envisage that a similar organisation here in Australia would make provision for associate memberships.....

.....so I welcome the views of all doggy people on this subject....

[Erny]

I think that perhaps LL is referring to the front page of the website where some of the participants of the last IACP conference are featured?

LL:

Personally I do not think future dog training can be MUCH improved. What works WORKS.

I think that the point is though, and as Erny alluded to, that the future of dog training may come under some threat under those influences that seek to ban some methods or tools that 'work, work, work' and we may not be able to legally use them for the best benefit or welfare of dogs.

Ahhh, ok.

LL - what do you mean by "proof is in the pudding" ????

Edited July 10, 2008 by Erny

[Rom]

If discussions were to be opened up on this subject with the IACP in regards to having an Australian chapter, does anyone have any issues that they'd like to have addressed?

[Jey]

If an organisation like this would provide a bit of a yard stick for beginner's choosing training etc. then I think it would be a good idea.

I've been fortunate enough to recommendations off ppl on DOL but otherwise I would have had no guidance or idea on how to choose a trainer.

[Rom]

Hi Jey

Most dog organisations have lists of trainers or behaviourists that they recommend. But just because an organisation recommends a trainer will not mean by itself that that trainer will follow or agree with the method that will best suit you, your dog and your circumstances. You will still have to do some homework to ensure that you get what you want in the time frame that you want it within realistic bounds.

Some guidelines to follow when you are undertaking research into finding a trainer that suits you:

IACP

The thing about DOL is though that many here that make recommendations have had personal experiences with the trainers that they suggest and that is a good starting point, however, to ensure that you get what you want or as close to it as possible, I'd still suggest that you take a look at the above

BTW, would you be interested in joining an association such as IACP as an associate member if it existed in Australia?

[Rom]

Interesting. I would be concerned about the "Position Statement" for Service Dogs. Whilst I understand them not supporting assistance dog trainers (not the handlers/recipient) obtaining public access for their own personal dog, it is unclear on if they support public access for assistance dogs in training who are accompanying handlers who are not disabled. This is a bit of a "passion" of mine, as it appears to be a very fuzzy area in Australia. It seems, (correct me if I am wrong) that if you are training an assistance dog, and are also disabled, then public access is supported. But where does that leave assistance dogs who are being trained by able-bodied people?

Rom makes mental note to self to seek advice from Assistance Dogs Australia on Position Statements that may affect them should discussions/enough interest be generated to follow through with this idea. Thanks for that Squeak

[Just Midol]

I'd potentially join as an associate but I'd have to have a good read to make sure I agree with everything.

[Jey]

"But just because an organisation recommends a trainer will not mean by itself that that trainer will follow or agree with the method that will best suit you, your dog and your circumstances. You will still have to do some homework to ensure that you get what you want in the time frame that you want it within realistic bounds."

I know that, it just might be something useful for someone who has no knowledge or networks to get recommendations from.

I'll reply to the rest later.

[Rom]

Having those guidelines publicised on the research needed to help find the best trainer for their situation will help those with no networks or recommendations to choose one though?

[Jey]

Definitely.

[Jey]

I think I would support and join such an association as an affiliate member.