Dog Behaviourist?

[Aidan3]

I've seen a couple of people posing as behaviourists; a REAL veterinary behaviourist; and I have only seen CM twice on TV.

You are doing a psych course? And, that in addition to your experience, earlier studies, qualifies you as a behaviourist? I see you are a trainer already.

Will you do your honours year, or work with a psych (depending on your state) to gain a license to practice as a psych? Just interested. I know there are no routes to behaviourist, except vet. behaviourist.

I don't refer to myself as a behaviourist, although I don't have a problem with the term being used and if it's the only way to explain to someone what I do then I will use it. I only train dogs when it suits my schedule, I've not noticed anyone else run off their feet doing it down here so I doubt it would be as reliable as my other business (unrelated). I have no formal qualifications in dog training, clients come through referral based on my past work so it hasn't been an issue. In fact, I've had referrals from a veterinary behaviourist (vets and other dog trainers make up the bulk of my referees).

I plan to work in academia when I've finished my post-grad qualifications, not sure that I would enjoy clinical psych. I have an interest in affective neuroscience (how emotions are processed in the brain, particularly anxiety) so I'd like to see where that takes me, too early to say. Probably not dogs, although I expect much of that field to be relevant to dogs.

Interestingly, I would be no more entitled to use the term "animal behaviourist" when I finish my degree than someone who has never trained, owned or even seen a dog!

[Aidan3]

Very interesting topic. Why is it then that nearly every person who posts on here with a "problem" is advised to seek the help of a behaviourist???????? A qualified trainer who is breed specific or behaviour specific would be far better advice.

Same thing in most cases, the distinction is that it is implied that people would refer them to someone who has proven to be able to work with behaviour problems (as opposed to being able to train the dog to come when called, sit, drop etc)

[Skye GSD]

But because people are using the name "behaviourist" it implies that they are qualified and therefore a step above dog trainers and this is obviously false. I agree that not everyone wants or needs a dog that can heel, sit, drop and stay with the precision required in the obedience ring but these are basic excercises that all dogs should learn to some degree whether it be in a class situation or one-on-one with a trainer. What a lot of people want to hear on these forums is advice from people who have encountered the same problems and how they have faired or solved them. Not a curt "seek the help of a behaviourist".

Edited November 28, 2010 by Skye GSD

[Greytmate]

But because people are using the name "behaviourist" it implies that they are qualified and therefore a step above dog trainers and this is obviously false. I agree that not everyone wants or needs a dog that can heel, sit, drop and stay with the precision required in the obedience ring but these are basic excercises that all dogs should learn to some degree whether it be in a class situation or one-on-one with a trainer. What a lot of people want to hear on these forums is advice from people who have encountered the same problems and how they have faired or solved them. Not a curt "seek the help of a behaviourist".

The curt "seek the help of a behaviourist" is usually given when dog aggression is the problem.

It can be very dangerous to try to solve an aggression problem by taking advice from people on a public forum.

[55chevy]

Very interesting topic. Why is it then that nearly every person who posts on here with a "problem" is advised to seek the help of a behaviourist???????? A qualified trainer who is breed specific or behaviour specific would be far better advice.

I totally agree SkyeGSD and really, a the term "behaviourst" from a qualification perspective that they are bound to follow a specific protocol is non existant and means little in practice.

[55chevy]

But because people are using the name "behaviourist" it implies that they are qualified and therefore a step above dog trainers and this is obviously false. I agree that not everyone wants or needs a dog that can heel, sit, drop and stay with the precision required in the obedience ring but these are basic excercises that all dogs should learn to some degree whether it be in a class situation or one-on-one with a trainer. What a lot of people want to hear on these forums is advice from people who have encountered the same problems and how they have faired or solved them. Not a curt "seek the help of a behaviourist".

The curt "seek the help of a behaviourist" is usually given when dog aggression is the problem.

It can be very dangerous to try to solve an aggression problem by taking advice from people on a public forum.

That's just a cop out half the time as aggression is not always a poor or unpredictable behaviour or a problem with the dog's temperament or character at all. Aggression is often only a behaviour deemed a serious issue on the basis of socitey protocol. People often buy a GSD or working breed for their protective instinct and good examples of these breeds should have the genetics for territorial aggression in the back yard and most like to think if someone came over the back fence the dog will defend it's property and a good dog will. Take the same dog out in the street, he/she doesn't know where the fence line ends, sees the bloke across the road and fires up on the end of the leash, then automatically the dog has an aggression issue and needs a behaviourist which is nonesense. The dog needs to learn when to aggress and when not to which can be easily achieved by competent training.

With breed experience and providing the owner can describe particular behaviours and reactions, you can easily provide a training guide or something to try and from a danger perspective, you can always use a muzzle in the process to keep everything safe. This standard answer to get a behaviourist does more harm than good half the time. There would be more experienced people here if dog owners did regularly discuss their problems openly who would have better practical solutions than half the behaviourists all put together IMHO. I have seen so many behaviourists assess the same dog and all have a different answer and approach anyway

Edited November 28, 2010 by 55chevy

[55chevy]

Not everyone likes Caesar M, but he is what I would expect if I hired a behaviourist

That's very interesting because that's exactly what I would NOT be expecting. Not because I don't like him (although I don't), but because he is almost the antithesis of a behaviourist in that he does not follow behaviourist principles, which are deeply rooted in the scientific method and only deal with the observable (expressly putting aside things like submission, for e.g)

"Behaviourist" says to me that you are from the behaviourist school of thought, e.g Skinner, Pavlov, Watson, Rescorla. You certainly do get that from a veterinary behaviourist, along with the veterinary medical perspective.

I don't know where I would put CM, he is very slightly in the ethologist camp.

How is Cesar Milan the antithesis of a behaviourist when the profession as a behaviourist has no formal protocol???. A behaviourist could follow Skinner, Pavlov or William Koehler, but providing they have the ability to modify a dog's behaviour, who they follow has no relevence in claiming of the title "behaviourist". I would much prefer Cesar Milan walking up my driveway with an aggression issue I couldn't handle than a behaviourist with a head full of theories who has never handled an aggressive dog before

[sas]

But because people are using the name "behaviourist" it implies that they are qualified and therefore a step above dog trainers and this is obviously false. I agree that not everyone wants or needs a dog that can heel, sit, drop and stay with the precision required in the obedience ring but these are basic excercises that all dogs should learn to some degree whether it be in a class situation or one-on-one with a trainer. What a lot of people want to hear on these forums is advice from people who have encountered the same problems and how they have faired or solved them. Not a curt "seek the help of a behaviourist".

The curt "seek the help of a behaviourist" is usually given when dog aggression is the problem.

It can be very dangerous to try to solve an aggression problem by taking advice from people on a public forum.

That's just a cop out half the time as aggression is not always a poor or unpredictable behaviour or a problem with the dog's temperament or character at all. Aggression is often only a behaviour deemed a serious issue on the basis of socitey protocol. People often buy a GSD or working breed for their protective instinct and good examples of these breeds should have the genetics for territorial aggression in the back yard and most like to think if someone came over the back fence the dog will defend it's property and a good dog will. Take the same dog out in the street, he/she doesn't know where the fence line ends, sees the bloke across the road and fires up on the end of the leash, then automatically the dog has an aggression issue and needs a behaviourist which is nonesense. The dog needs to learn when to aggress and when not to which can be easily achieved by competent training.

With breed experience and providing the owner can describe particular behaviours and reactions, you can easily provide a training guide or something to try and from a danger perspective, you can always use a muzzle in the process to keep everything safe. This standard answer to get a behaviourist does more harm than good half the time. There would be more experienced people here if dog owners did regularly discuss their problems openly who would have better practical solutions than half the behaviourists all put together IMHO. I have seen so many behaviourists assess the same dog and all have a different answer and approach anyway

How in earth is that a cop out. Someone coming to a public forum to ask for help on aggression does not have the skill to deal with it themselves and nor do the majority of people on a forum.

An experienced Behaviourist should be sought to help them.

Whether or not aggression in canines is 'normal' is irrelevant because we have dogs live in domestication and aggression within the family is not accepted.

However, you're more than welcome to say "Canine Aggression is normal" when a dog bites a child or nearly kills a dog it lives with.

You can also be the liable one when your huge amount of breed experience stops someone from contacting a professional and the dog goes on to do more damage.

Edited November 28, 2010 by sas

[PuddleDuck]

I've seen a couple of people posing as behaviourists; a REAL veterinary behaviourist; and I have only seen CM twice on TV.

You are doing a psych course? And, that in addition to your experience, earlier studies, qualifies you as a behaviourist? I see you are a trainer already.

Will you do your honours year, or work with a psych (depending on your state) to gain a license to practice as a psych? Just interested. I know there are no routes to behaviourist, except vet. behaviourist.

I don't refer to myself as a behaviourist, although I don't have a problem with the term being used and if it's the only way to explain to someone what I do then I will use it. I only train dogs when it suits my schedule, I've not noticed anyone else run off their feet doing it down here so I doubt it would be as reliable as my other business (unrelated). I have no formal qualifications in dog training, clients come through referral based on my past work so it hasn't been an issue. In fact, I've had referrals from a veterinary behaviourist (vets and other dog trainers make up the bulk of my referees).

I plan to work in academia when I've finished my post-grad qualifications, not sure that I would enjoy clinical psych. I have an interest in affective neuroscience (how emotions are processed in the brain, particularly anxiety) so I'd like to see where that takes me, too early to say. Probably not dogs, although I expect much of that field to be relevant to dogs.

Interestingly, I would be no more entitled to use the term "animal behaviourist" when I finish my degree than someone who has never trained, owned or even seen a dog!

I am currently doing an animal behavioural degree through Macquarie Uni in Sydney - it is a B.Science, majoring in Brain Behaviour and Evolution through their Centre for the Integrated Study of Animal Behaviour (CISAB). As far as I am aware, it is the only undergraduate Animal Behaviour degree in Australia (and its awesome!)

My degree is part behaviour, part evolution, part biology and part psychology.I got into it in the first place because I wanted to work with training dogs but honestly, this degree wont be the one to get me there. I adore it, it is SO interesting, but we spend a lot more time looking at insects than we do at domestic animals (I have lecturers working with bees, ants, and butterflies at the moment. Most of my biology lecturers seems to have more of a background in marine sciences so far). Even though it will give me a good understanding of learning and behaviour, to work with dogs I feel I would need to spend a lot more time doing heaps more dog-related study (I am a qualified vet nurse) - such as NDTF, etc. I will be more than qualified to put "animal behaviourist" on my business card when I finish but I do not feel in any way that I would be a qualified canine behaviourist when I have that piece of paper behind me - although there are many others that would.

Aidan, I am most likely going to end up in academia and research when I'm done as well

[Aidan3]

How is Cesar Milan the antithesis of a behaviourist when the profession as a behaviourist has no formal protocol???

Behaviourism is a specific field of science. A behaviourist, strictly speaking, should follow behaviourist principles which CM does not acknowledge. There is no body who oversees the licensing of applied animal behaviourists so anyone can use the term, unlike say, veterinarians or psychologists.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Aidan2

[Aidan3]

But because people are using the name "behaviourist" it implies that they are qualified and therefore a step above dog trainers and this is obviously false.

Not necessarily. Although there is no legal requirement for formal qualifications, someone who identifies as a "behaviourist" should be competent at behaviour modification and will usually have a formal qualification.

Your reputation will precede you, and no-one is willing to hand over the higher fee without some evidence that it will be worth it.

[Kavik]

Very interesting topic. Why is it then that nearly every person who posts on here with a "problem" is advised to seek the help of a behaviourist???????? A qualified trainer who is breed specific or behaviour specific would be far better advice.

Same thing in most cases, the distinction is that it is implied that people would refer them to someone who has proven to be able to work with behaviour problems (as opposed to being able to train the dog to come when called, sit, drop etc)

I agree with Aidan on this. Much like the discussion on Susan Garett that railroaded the Crate Games thread. You want to learn about the training methodology and techniques and precision and how to break the exercises down to get a world class performance - go to a trainer in that area that is at world class level. You want someone who can fix ingrained behavioural problems, go to a behaviourist who is experienced with dealing with problem behaviours. You need medication prescribed - go to a vet or vet behaviourist.

[55chevy]

But because people are using the name "behaviourist" it implies that they are qualified and therefore a step above dog trainers and this is obviously false. I agree that not everyone wants or needs a dog that can heel, sit, drop and stay with the precision required in the obedience ring but these are basic excercises that all dogs should learn to some degree whether it be in a class situation or one-on-one with a trainer. What a lot of people want to hear on these forums is advice from people who have encountered the same problems and how they have faired or solved them. Not a curt "seek the help of a behaviourist".

The curt "seek the help of a behaviourist" is usually given when dog aggression is the problem.

It can be very dangerous to try to solve an aggression problem by taking advice from people on a public forum.

That's just a cop out half the time as aggression is not always a poor or unpredictable behaviour or a problem with the dog's temperament or character at all. Aggression is often only a behaviour deemed a serious issue on the basis of socitey protocol. People often buy a GSD or working breed for their protective instinct and good examples of these breeds should have the genetics for territorial aggression in the back yard and most like to think if someone came over the back fence the dog will defend it's property and a good dog will. Take the same dog out in the street, he/she doesn't know where the fence line ends, sees the bloke across the road and fires up on the end of the leash, then automatically the dog has an aggression issue and needs a behaviourist which is nonesense. The dog needs to learn when to aggress and when not to which can be easily achieved by competent training.

With breed experience and providing the owner can describe particular behaviours and reactions, you can easily provide a training guide or something to try and from a danger perspective, you can always use a muzzle in the process to keep everything safe. This standard answer to get a behaviourist does more harm than good half the time. There would be more experienced people here if dog owners did regularly discuss their problems openly who would have better practical solutions than half the behaviourists all put together IMHO. I have seen so many behaviourists assess the same dog and all have a different answer and approach anyway

How in earth is that a cop out. Someone coming to a public forum to ask for help on aggression does not have the skill to deal with it themselves and nor do the majority of people on a forum.

An experienced Behaviourist should be sought to help them.

Whether or not aggression in canines is 'normal' is irrelevant because we have dogs live in domestication and aggression within the family is not accepted.

However, you're more than welcome to say "Canine Aggression is normal" when a dog bites a child or nearly kills a dog it lives with.

You can also be the liable one when your huge amount of breed experience stops someone from contacting a professional and the dog goes on to do more damage.

The point is Sas, there is no formal behaviourist profession, so what are we are really telling people to do, is seek a person who's titled themselves as a behaviourist and the problem is solved. If they happen to take that advice and get an idiot as a behaviourist and the dog does bite someone, that makes it ok then???

[Kavik]

Like with trainers, breeders and vets, it pays to do your research with behaviourists Word of mouth, learning as much as you can about them, their methods, their experience, their background, whether you think it will work for you and your dog

[Nekhbet]

yup I'm driving a hummer ... they simply rebadged it with a lion logo 14 years ago oh wait, that one's not working at the moment and I have no cash to fix it so I'm driving the mercedes instead (*cough* XG panel van *cough*)

I think if you're into dog behaviour for the money you're in it for the wrong reasons. Saying that there are trainers down here calling themselves behaviourists and charging up to $500 a session. Oh well horses for courses. I charge what I charge, it's enough to cover my time and all I really care most about is the fact the dog and family are happy. Sometimes I think I should build myself a big flash website, triple my fees, write courses etc but you know what, it makes me feel like I would lose sight of why I started this in the first place.

I dont see a point to really standardise behaviourists and trainers because you know what will happen (should I say WHO will happen ...) laws are restrictive enough already no uneducated clot or delta brainwashed politician is going to tell me how to train dogs. I do what I have to and as long as I am not causing harm to the dog either mentally or physically then people should stay out of telling me how to do it. In fact I am the one who is called after all other trainers are exhausted.

It's not hard. A behaviourist is a person who can change a dogs behaviour and help the owners understand it without throwing a psychology text book at them. Too many people still believe if a dog knows enough commands you've fixed the overall dog - no you taught it tricks. Tricks that temporarily may make a difference through conditioning but dont fix the overall dog.

Saying that practical experience is worth a hell of a lot more then just reading books. I've met 2 veterinary behaviourists. One, OK has the hands on experience. The other could not even walk their own dogs on lead - why the heck would you fork out money to someone that needed a bag full of equipment to walk dogs who didnt even know how to sit at the end of it all.

[Aidan3]

The point is Sas, there is no formal behaviourist profession, so what are we are really telling people to do, is seek a person who's titled themselves as a behaviourist and the problem is solved. If they happen to take that advice and get an idiot as a behaviourist and the dog does bite someone, that makes it ok then???

Actually that's a valid point, we do take a leap of faith and there are many behaviourists who merely suppress the precursors to aggression without really addressing the problem.

But SAS also has a very strong argument, while there are no guarantees, many problems cannot be addressed over the internet and I would argue that referral to a competent person was still the responsible thing to do. Just because someone isn't licensing applied animal behaviourists, there are bodies that train and qualify them and we know that there are competent people out there. Usually DOL asks where the person is located and provides a referral, so users of this forum are really getting very sensible advice.

[Staranais]

I don't know if there is an official definition of "trainer" vs "behaviourist". But if I went to a trainer, I'd expect help training my dog to do things (tracking, obedience, bitework, or just simple things like loose leash walking, etc). If I went to a behaviourist, I'd expect help changing her behaviour or emotions (don't bark all day, be calm when I have guests, don't be scared of fireworks, don't try to eat other dogs, etc).

I know there is a lot of overlap there, and in a way I do think it's a pity there aren't official regulated standards for being a behaviourist or a trainer, seeing as in the past I've paid a fair bit of money to "behaviourists" who did absolutely nothing to help my previous dog. It would be good to have an official quality standard for behaviourists. Word of mouth doesn't always work, since most behaviourists can help at least some dogs, and some clients are impressed with anything, so almost every behaviourist can supply glowing testimonials.

However, I'd also be a little worried that if behaviourists had to all sit official tests or all belong to one organisation, they'd not be allowed to use certain methods or tools, and they'd become a bit generic. For example I personally like the choice of consulting with someone who can use ecollar properly since I've used this tool before in the past & like it, but if all behaviourists had to belong to an organisation, what's to stop the regulations of that organisation banning the use of ecollars since they're not always a very popular tool and maybe 80% of behaviourists don't use them? That takes choice away from the client (and the behaviourist).

Although I guess it would be good to have the use of tools like that regulated so you know a so-called behaviourist isn't just going to slap one on your dog and start experimenting...

[corvus]

My degree is part behaviour, part evolution, part biology and part psychology.I got into it in the first place because I wanted to work with training dogs but honestly, this degree wont be the one to get me there. I adore it, it is SO interesting, but we spend a lot more time looking at insects than we do at domestic animals (I have lecturers working with bees, ants, and butterflies at the moment. Most of my biology lecturers seems to have more of a background in marine sciences so far). Even though it will give me a good understanding of learning and behaviour, to work with dogs I feel I would need to spend a lot more time doing heaps more dog-related study (I am a qualified vet nurse) - such as NDTF, etc. I will be more than qualified to put "animal behaviourist" on my business card when I finish but I do not feel in any way that I would be a qualified canine behaviourist when I have that piece of paper behind me - although there are many others that would.

Your degree even though it has little to do with dog behaviour gives you the means to approach dog behaviour scientifically. I remember when I took in that baby hare. I was in my 4th year of a zoology degree and doing an honours project in animal behaviour. I discovered that three years of tertiary education and a lifelong interest didn't mean a great deal practically. I still had to learn what being a hare was all about. However, because I did have the bulk of a zoology degree behind me, I had a good understanding of why a hare might behave the way he did and what might drive him. A lot of it was still guessing and even recently I got tripped up by him again for the longest time, but this time it was learning theory that got me out of trouble. Knowing stuff isn't the same as having experience, but I think it gives you an edge in the form of an organised, objective way to assess behaviour and decide what is the best bet for changing it. To me, there is nothing like having an organised approach to behaviour. It takes a lot of the guesswork out of it, and that is what I'd be looking for in a professional behaviourist.

Incidentally, there is a world full of rubbish trainers, as well. I find it much easier to judge a behaviourist than a trainer. If they have some sort of organised approach to behavioural analysis, I'm listening. I have met very few trainers that know what the heck they are doing. They will act like they do and give you a reason why it works, but it's a reason they have plucked out of the air and convinced themselves is correct, and they don't see it when it's not working.

[Aidan3]

Nekhbet and Staranais make excellent points regarding the double-edged nature of qualification. FWIW, the Australian Psychological Society avoids these sorts of problems by firstly ensuring that members are educated, then mentored, then that they use only methods that are scientifically defensible. Whilst cognitive behavioural therapy, for e.g, is the gold standard for anxiety disorders, there is nothing forcing a therapist competent with the psychodynamic approach from using those methods so long as they have data supporting their choice (which they do).

[Donegal]

Thanks guys for so much input into my thread, there has been some really good perspectives.

I do hold a bit of resentment towards the 3 behaviourists I hired to help me with my Amstaffs dog aggression which went for 10 months and $1050 I spent all up for little improvement. Admittedly, 2 were franchise behaviourists and I didn't really know much about them other than websites and what they told me which sounded good at the time, but I also didn't know many people who recommend anyone either. The last one told me that I just had to really keep my boy away from other dogs and avoid them as his brain is now training saturated and that's the best he will be???.

My gripe was that I mentioned prong collars and E collars to all 3 after doing my own research and they all spewed over it saying they were cruel training tools and it would agitate his aggression and make him worse, so I am trying what they told me clicker in one hand, treat bag which worked when no dogs were present, but if he saw a dog, he would ignore everything.

In the end, a friend told me about this K9 trainer, he wasn't a behaviourist and I booked an appointment and we simply went for a walk. He told me that his leash manners were not that good, he did pull and dart around a bit sniffing etc and he recommended we try him on a prong collar which we did. It was an awful looking thing but he ensured me that the prong won't hurt him and off we went for a walk again. Within minutes, my dog was heaps better on the leash, it was magical, I was wrapped totally, and after a couple of session and the homework he gave me, we ventured to seeing dogs. When my boy focused on another dog, he got a "leave it" command and slight correction which developed as we got closer to other dogs, well to cut a long story short, I use only a martingale collar now and he does not react to other dogs at all. I wouldn't take him to a dog park and let him loose or have dogs jump at him, but I can walk him anywhere, sit and drop him and talk to people with other dogs on leash no problems. Previously, he was a nightmare, and would almost rip my arm out of it's socket and had to avoid other dogs like the plague.

What I felt was the cause of the behaviourist problems, is that they refused to even think about aversive tools as they all said that is not the best way to train a dog, but the K9 trainer said it was the only way to train my dog and his methods worked a treat and the others failed. I am not saying that every dog needs a prong collar, but if these behaviourists used all the tools available and were not hung up so much on positive methods only, I am sure they too could have trained my dog properly also. From my perspective now, I would never ever use or recommend a trainer who only does positive reward based training as IMHO, they provide half the tools and knowledge to train selected types of dogs only, not any dog as I think a good trainer should be able to do.

Thanks

Lisa