Qualifed Dog Trainer Vs Dog Trainer

[Brad Griggs]

Qualified Dog Trainer Vs Dog Trainer, What makes you a Qualified Dog Trainer?

What makes you a Qualified Dog Trainer

There is no right or wrong answers, just gaining insight as to how people perceive people to be Qualified Dog Trainers

Is it by having a number of years of experience? [ 9 ] [25.71%]

Is it by completing a course, and if so, does a two day course count? [ 1 ] [2.86%]

Is it having a Certificate in dog training? [ 6 ] [17.14%]

Is it having a Certificate that is approved by the National Qualification Framework? [ 10 ] [28.57%]

Is it by belonging to an organisation that says you are a Qualified Dog Trainer? [ 1 ] [2.86%]

Is it being recognised by your State Government under the terms of a relevant Act of Parliament? [ 1 ] [2.86%]

None of the above [ 4 ] [11.43%]

All of the above [ 3 ] [8.57%]

Total Votes: 23 (as at 06/08/09)

The reasons I have highlighted the above as it changes after each vote.

It is interesting to see how people perceive dog trainers to be qualified.

Would it surprise anyone to know that having a Certificate that is approved by the National Qualification Framework does not make you a qualified dog trainer, well at least not in Victoria.

In Victoria, the only reference I have been reliably informed to a "qualified dog trainer" is referenced in the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act.

[An Act of Parliament].

Is anyone aware if this is similar in their respective states?

I think that the question is very interesting.

In my humble opinion I think that for a person to really 'get it' they need to have the knowledge to identify what they see and what they do. The easiest way for them to do this is to have a framework of reference, and a formal education such as an NDTF course offers this.

The next step is turning that knowledge into understanding, which no course can really do for you. It is hard earnt, no way around it.

[alpha bet]

I think that the question is very interesting.

In my humble opinion I think that for a person to really 'get it' they need to have the knowledge to identify what they see and what they do. The easiest way for them to do this is to have a framework of reference, and a formal education such as an NDTF course offers this.

The next step is turning that knowledge into understanding, which no course can really do for you. It is hard earnt, no way around it.

Brad, Taking your post here and elsewhere on this Forum, you are obviously very proud of the NDTF course and appears you believe it is the basis of the need for someone to be a Qualified Dog Trainer.

Here is another frame of reference. What of the many people who where here training dogs and educating handlers prior to these courses. In fact developing the knowledge and understanding over many, many years often putting in unpaid hours talking to people over the phone or in person about the problems they have. Also investing time and money to attend conferences or seminars to increase their abilities.

I started training dogs when i was 13 and now im nearly 50. As I now live in an area without any dog clubs I started my own dog training classes some 18 years ago, there were no 'qualifications' available. It was the start of the 'industry'.

Does that make me any less qualified?

[Erny]

I think there are two interpretations of "qualified".

1. "Qualified" as in "able/capable" of doing the specific job
   
2. "Qualified" as in formally 'recognised' qualifications
   

So no wonder it is open to confusion and misinterpretation. Suffice to say that one could be qualified but simultaneously not qualified :p .

[alpha bet]

You have probably cracked the code Erny.

Perhaps we are all qualified in our own little way....... ;)

[Herr Rottweiler]

There is an old saying that i'm fond of that shares reference to this topic.

Grey Hair Alone Does Not Make An Elder!

In addition, i have always debated the difference between great and good and years may never equate to greatness.

You can have all the written qualifications in the world and still not put it to practical use.

Actions (Results) speak louder than words.

[WoofnHoof]

This is an interesting thread. My perspective is from an equestrian background, when I am looking for a trainer I am looking for someone who can produce great riders, not just the odd local flash in the pan or a bunch of ok riders but consistent high level performers across a decent time period, this shows that they are effective communicators and that they can not just produce the best results but also can keep up with changes in the discipline and transfer that ability to create great riders as the sport changes. There are plenty of instructors who were great in their time, or can jump on your horse and make it go brilliantly, but the ones that can teach you how to get the horse going brilliantly and give you the tools and inspiration to continue that work at home are the great instructors and are worth their weight in gold. There are accreditations but pretty much anyone can get a level one so you need to combine the formal quals with personal performances but more importantly the performance of their pupils, this is where I imagine word of mouth would be extremely valuable in the dog world as there might be many success stories but they are harder to find if they don't compete.

[corvus]

I can't help but think that if any old person can go out and get training qualifications easily, then there's no excuse for a trainer wanting my money to not have qualifications. Even if you just get them to wave in my face and say "See? Happy?".

The way I see it, it is true that you can have all the qualifications in the world and not be a very good trainer, but equally, you can have 50 years of experience in training dogs and if you never did that course you may never understand why what you do works. To me, it is VERY dangerous to not know why what you do works. It's like a kid playing with fire. Or, you could have decades of experience and have been going to seminars and so forth, but still have terrible people skills and so your clients never understand what exactly they are doing. OR you could have loads of experience and still just be a lousy trainer because you are not naturally good at reading dogs. Dogs are stupidly forgiving, and if you have BCs or something, your years of experience don't necessarily count for much if I have, say, a Sibe.

I'm apparently not very good at finding good trainers, though. I haven't met one yet. But I haven't looked very hard. It's depressing when you give them lots of money only to have them shout at you and accuse you of challenging them because the only reason they are dog trainers in the first place is that they are also bossy control freaks and a lot of dogs like those sorts.

Who me? Bitter?

[poodlefan]

I'm apparently not very good at finding good trainers, though. I haven't met one yet. But I haven't looked very hard. It's depressing when you give them lots of money only to have them shout at you and accuse you of challenging them because the only reason they are dog trainers in the first place is that they are also bossy control freaks and a lot of dogs like those sorts. ;)

Who me? Bitter?

You'd have to admit that taking advice without challenge isn't one of your strong points though Corvus. ;) There is the odd seminar attendee I've wanted to yell at too when all they want to do is argue and they start every sentence with "yeah but ... " ;)

I can drive a car without being explaining how an internal combustion engine works. As I said at the beginning, dogs don't care a rats arse if a trainer doesn't know the difference between +R and +P. They care about consistency and consequences. Handlers want to know what works.

If you want a trainer that can argue the finer points of canine behavioural research you might be lucky to find one. Or you can try one that gets results.

Provided a trainer can explain what the hander should do and when, that's enough for most people. Your average handler isn't interested in the finer detail of operant conditioning. They just want Rover to stop pulling on the damn lead, knocking the kids over and not coming back when he's called.

One of the fastest ways of judging a trainer I've seen is to meet their dogs. They may talk the talk but if they can't let their dogs off lead because they won't come back or they jump all over them, then that's all the lesson I need from them.

On the other hand, if they can train their dogs to do things I want mine to do, I don't care if they didn't get past Grade 3 at school - there is something to learn from them. Academic learning is not the be all and end all of dog training. Some of the most savvy trainers I've met aren't that well educated.. they just have that special knack. Reading a dog comes from experience and some people just never get it.

Edited August 10, 2009 by poodlefan

[Kelpie-i]

The proof's in the puddin' I reckon.

'Qualifications' only come from the number of dogs you've successfully worked with/rehabilitated and/or treated.

It matters not the number of letters after your name, the piece of paper in your resume nor the number of years you've been at it.

Your results speak louder than all of the above.

[corvus]

You'd have to admit that taking advice without challenge isn't one of your strong points though Corvus. There is the odd seminar attendee I've wanted to yell at too when all they want to do is argue and they start every sentence with But my dog can't... "

Well, that's true, but I am ever so polite in person. :p ;)

In all seriousness, though, if I go to a training class I assume that the trainer will assume I know nothing about dogs and that is fair enough. I don't want to get into a fight with them because they assume I know nothing and it will get ugly. It's not worth it. So I keep my head down until they tell me to do something I don't want to do and then I politely explain to them why I don't want to do it. I thought this was working brilliantly until I accidentally stepped over the line on a completely unrelated matter and discovered the semi-polite responses I was getting were actually suppressed rage. ;)

I promise you, I do not go somewhere to learn and then challenge everything that's being said. If I go somewhere to learn I do my darndest to be respectful to the person I'm there to learn off, EVEN if they don't have a university degree. ;)

I can drive a car without being explaining how an internal combustion engine works. As I said at the beginning, dogs don't care a rats arse if a trainer doesn't know the difference between +R and +P. They care about consistency and consequences. Handlers want to know what works.

If you want a trainer that can argue the finer points of canine behavioural research you might be lucky to find one. Or you can try one that gets results.

Provided a trainer can explain what the hander should do and when, that's enough for most people. Your average handler isn't interested in the finer detail of operant conditioning. They just want Rover to stop pulling on the damn lead, knocking the kids over and not coming back when he's called.

Well, yes, those are fair comments, but it doesn't change the fact that messing around teaching something without actually understanding yourself how it works is troublesome. It doesn't matter if the handlers know the finer points of training and behaviour modification, but it matters if the person teaching them does, IMO. Because what do they do when someone in the class has a problem? Even a minor one? What do they do if someone in the class has an unusual dog?

My beef is not about their level of general education, but whether they actually know what they are doing well enough to explain it accurately to someone who asks them. It doesn't have to be complicated. I think the quadrants are thoroughly superfluous, but if you don't have a good basic understanding of why some things are rewarding to some dogs and not others, or why some things are more punishing to some dogs than others, then how will you advise people on what they should do to get the best results? I've heard some pretty bizarre explanaitons for why things work. And I don't challenge those explanations because it's not worth it, but it's worrying to me that people are spreading those ideas around so freely to people who aren't ever giong to question it. They'll take it as law and spread it around a little more. I'm a scientist. The spreading of misinformation is a cardinal sin in my world.

One of the fastest ways of judging a trainer I've seen is to meet their dogs. They may talk the talk but if they can't let their dogs off lead because they won't come back or they jump all over them, then that's all the lesson I need from them.

On the other hand, if they can train their dogs to do things I want mine to do, I don't care if they didn't get past Grade 3 at school - there is something to learn from them.

All good points. I don't dispute that anyone has nothing to learn from if they don't have qualifications. I just think it's an important foundation.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

One of the fastest ways of judging a trainer I've seen is to meet their dogs. They may talk the talk but if they can't let their dogs off lead because they won't come back or they jump all over them, then that's all the lesson I need from them.

I've seen a DOL trainer with a jumping dog, but I didn't question their ability to train because on what mattered to them, the dog obeyed. Some competition people keep their dogs a little less well mannered than your average person would because whatever kind of spark they want for their sport is more important. So I think it's very much horses for courses - I will be looking for results in the area I want results in for my dog. Recall is a different matter, but I guess we all have our own criteria!

For me the real test comes down to communicating with people. Whether a club volunteer or pro, anyone training people to train dogs needs to be patient, tolerant, and canny with people. That includes dealing with their limitations, ignoring their bullshit and working out in a split second what will be in the best interests of the dog. Sadly, choking the living daylights out of someone who desperately deserves it is rarely in the best interests of the dog.

I have to say, I have lost respect for some trainers just by watching their behaviour online. Bullying and baiting tells you a lot about someone's attitude to education practice.

[corvus]

Too true. The most highly qualified and experienced trainer I know does not have fabulous people skills, unfortunately. I'm yet to personally meet a trainer that does. I can hack being patronised and spoken down to and in all honesty I've come to expect it from trainers, but I know a lot of people that can't handle it and I don't blame them. I am currently wondering if I can be bothered trying one more time with this new puppy we are getting to find a trainer that won't insist I do things I don't want to do. I would honestly be happy if I could expect just that much. If I could get through four classes without having a painfully inquisitorial 'discussion' about why my wish to do things marginally different is a recipe for failure, I swear I would be happy! Last time it all started with not wanting to put an anti-pull harness on my puppy that just didn't pull in the first place. Is that wildly unreasonable? How hard is it to work with what people feel comfortable doing even if they don't want to do exactly what you as a trainer wants to do?

[Cosmolo]

I think everyone makes great points-

Its no good being a great trainer if you can't impart knowledge to an array of people and personalities, dogs and temperaments

Its no good being a great communicator and teacher with poor handling and training skills

I think looking at a trainers dogs can give an indication- but you need to know what the dog is trained for. I might bring out a crazy, nut bag beagle (i hope to one day!) who jumps and pulls on the lead- and is the most fabulous scent detection dog. Someone else might bring out a naturally calm and laid back dog who sits next to them quietly- does that make them a great trainer?

So many criteria need to come into play- results count for sure, but how the person gets there is important as well.

[poodlefan]

Too true. The most highly qualified and experienced trainer I know does not have fabulous people skills, unfortunately. I'm yet to personally meet a trainer that does. I can hack being patronised and spoken down to and in all honesty I've come to expect it from trainers, but I know a lot of people that can't handle it and I don't blame them. I am currently wondering if I can be bothered trying one more time with this new puppy we are getting to find a trainer that won't insist I do things I don't want to do. I would honestly be happy if I could expect just that much. If I could get through four classes without having a painfully inquisitorial 'discussion' about why my wish to do things marginally different is a recipe for failure, I swear I would be happy! Last time it all started with not wanting to put an anti-pull harness on my puppy that just didn't pull in the first place. Is that wildly unreasonable? How hard is it to work with what people feel comfortable doing even if they don't want to do exactly what you as a trainer wants to do?

You've clearly had a bad run. I find very few trainers patronising and I've seen plenty. But why attend classes if you don't want to at least try it once their way.

I've been to seminars and thought "no, this method isn't for me". But I do it on the day and then discard. Why? Because I've paid for that trainer to teach me THEIR way. I try it and evaluate it and discard afterwards if I need to. An open mind on the day sometimes reaps rewards.

It's usually a lot more time effective and every now and again you get your mind changed. If it does no harm to the dog, why not do it in the lesson and then forget it. Most trainers don't want to debate their methods.. they don't have time.

If don't want to to do it anyway but your own, save your money. But there are some awesome trainers out there. ;)

Edited August 10, 2009 by poodlefan

[Erny]

That's a good post Cosmolo. As I was reading I too agreed that one might look at the trainer's dog, but that's to assume it is not a 'work in progress' or being trained for different reasons/purposes and in a different method that perhaps someone else might not prefer or even understand.

It is also possible that the dog was not the trainer's dog from the get go. The dog might be a far better behaved dog than it was when adopted, but some issues can be permanent albeit well enough managed.

And a trainer might take on more of a 'hard case' than perhaps the general person would and I don't think that because the dog isn't up to the expectations (which can be subjective any way) of others that it means the trainer is no good or sub-standard.

Edited August 10, 2009 by Erny

[Cosmolo]

Thats the thing Erny- i'd hate for people to look at Georgie and think her fear based issues are a result of our training when in actual fact she is 100 times better than when we came to have her. Dexter jumps up on us too at times in training because he is so enthusiastic and we don't mind. So i just ask that people judge us on Cosmo or Jessie- please!

[poodlefan]

One thing I'd not generally compromise on is that the trainer had expertise (however gathered) in the specific area I'm seeking help for.

A person that's trained a bunch of OC's is not automatically who I'd go to for behavioral modification. Teaching skills and dealing with problem behaviour aren't the same skill set.

I'd be after a person for the job. A very good pet dog trainer might not be who I'd go to for dog sports work but at least these days you can usually find someone with specific skills if you're fairly close to a big smoke.

I do want to know a person's basic training philosophy. There are some things I won't do to my dogs. Like you Corvus, I'm not interested in correctional devices if my dog doesn't need them and I'm not into halti's period. Sometimes asking a few questions up front can steer you towards or away from a trainer.

Edited August 10, 2009 by poodlefan

[poodlefan]

That's a good post Cosmolo. As I was reading I too agreed that one might look at the trainer's dog, but that's to assume it is not a 'work in progress' or being trained for different reasons/purposes and in a different method that perhaps someone else might not prefer or even understand.

Personally Erny, if I were a trainer with a dog that's a work in progress, I'd think twice before having on the training ground during classes. One pet hate of mine is trainers that repeatedly demo on their own dogs ad nauseum. I'm not interested in seeing what they can do with their dogs beyond a demonstration of the behaviour as a finished product. I'm there to get help with how to teach it to my dog.

Personally I don't have my dogs with me when I train others.

[Staranais]

Too true. The most highly qualified and experienced trainer I know does not have fabulous people skills, unfortunately. I'm yet to personally meet a trainer that does. I can hack being patronised and spoken down to and in all honesty I've come to expect it from trainers, but I know a lot of people that can't handle it and I don't blame them. I am currently wondering if I can be bothered trying one more time with this new puppy we are getting to find a trainer that won't insist I do things I don't want to do. I would honestly be happy if I could expect just that much. If I could get through four classes without having a painfully inquisitorial 'discussion' about why my wish to do things marginally different is a recipe for failure, I swear I would be happy! Last time it all started with not wanting to put an anti-pull harness on my puppy that just didn't pull in the first place. Is that wildly unreasonable? How hard is it to work with what people feel comfortable doing even if they don't want to do exactly what you as a trainer wants to do?

You've clearly had a bad run. I find very few trainers patronising and I've seen plenty. But why attend classes if you don't want to at least try it once their way.

I've been to seminars and thought "no, this method isn't for me". But I do it on the day and then discard. Why? Because I've paid for that trainer to teach me THEIR way. I try it and evaluate it and discard afterwards if I need to. An open mind on the day sometimes reaps rewards.

I go to training so my dog can learn to work around other dogs, and so I can learn different ways of teaching things. I don't like to try out every piece of new advice on my own dog. That confuses the dog, and me. I do like to hear new suggestions and see different ways of training, but I only try out the suggestions that I think will fit well with what I'm already doing with my own dog.

So I can see where Corvus is coming with that.

I do agree the trainer has to fit the job, though. I saw trainers when I still had my last dog who labelled him either "fear aggressive" or "dominant" when he was nothing of the sort - I think it was simply because they had had some success dealing with fearful or pushy dogs and thought they could solve any aggression by treating it the same way. They would probably have been really good trainers at fixing fear aggressive or dominant dogs, since that's where their experience seemed to lie, but they weren't the right trainers to help us. So even a "qualified" trainer might not be qualified for all types of behavioural or training work.

[poodlefan]

I go to training so my dog can learn to work around other dogs, and so I can learn different ways of teaching things. I don't like to try out every piece of new advice on my own dog. That confuses the dog, and me. I do like to hear new suggestions and see different ways of training, but I only try out the suggestions that I think will fit well with what I'm already doing with my own dog.

So I can see where Corvus is coming with that.

If its basic skills/methods that you're having issues with then find another trainer. But for new things, a different approach isn't always going to undo work.

For example, there are many ways of negotiating the same set of agility obstacles. Doing it the trainers recommended way doesn't undo any training for my dog. It's just another handling method. Changing my cues and signals however would be confusing and I'd sit that out if the trainer wanted me to do it.