Gsd Problems.

[JulesP]

a text book and real life is two different things. An animal can never come with a manual - you can read what you want but if you dont have dog savvy you wont be able to properly implement all your 'superior' knowledge.

I do think there is a difference between a trainer and a behaviorist Corus. Just don't think a behaviorist necessarily needs a uni degree.

[Aidan3]

Mark Singer is well within his rights to call himself a behaviourist, he has plenty of experience dealing with behaviour problems.

With all due respect I'm not sure that I follow Jeff's reasoning. Comparing someone's academic achievements with someone's K9 handling experience is comparing apples with oranges. How do we know that Dr Hazel hasn't also worked with thousands of GSDs?

Mr X:

Mr X began training working dogs in 1980 in xxxxx , when he became involved in German-style sport training and joined the Xxxxx Schutzhund Club, where he soon became the Training Director. Shortly thereafter he became a professional dog trainer, and established a reputation as an authority on agitation and man-work for both sport dogs and police service dogs. In the mid-1980's he was one of the first Americans to import working-bred Belgian Malinois to the United States, and he traveled widely in Western Europe studying Malinois breeding and the training disciplines of French Ring, Belgian Ring, and KNPV. He was the founder and first president of the American Ring Federation, the first F.C.I.-sanctioned organization for French Ring Sport in the U.S. , and he was the first American to receive his Selection (certification) in France as a French Ring Trial Decoy. He has taught working dog training seminars for sport clubs and law enforcement agencies all over the United States, and also been invited to teach in Melbourne and Brisbane, Australia, Sao Paulo, Brazil, and Montreal, Canada. Mr X is now Chief of the Military Working Dog Course, and Chief of Military Working Dog Evaluations with the 341 st Training Squadron at Xxxxx Air Force Base, Xxxx . In this capacity, he directs the basic training and evaluation of most of the patrol and substance detector dogs supplied to all branches of the U. S. armed forces; he consults on Military Working dog Training and behavioral problems; and he carries out original research on substance detector dog performance and aptitude testing of working dogs.

Dr Y:

In 1983, Dr Y received his B.A. in psychology, and in 1990 he moved to Austin , Texas to enter Graduate School at the University of Texas at Austin , where he studied animal behavior and learning. He is the author of a number of scientific papers in reputable psychological journals, and in 1997 he received his Ph.D in Behavioral Neuroscience.

Which one would you hire for a GSD behaviour problem, Mr X or Dr Y?

[Jeff Jones]

I would go with Stewart Hilliard which would be either option.

[KOE]

TO the original poster the owner of this dog have you been back to your breeder by any chance ?

[Staranais]

Mark Singer is well within his rights to call himself a behaviourist, he has plenty of experience dealing with behaviour problems.

With all due respect I'm not sure that I follow Jeff's reasoning. Comparing someone's academic achievements with someone's K9 handling experience is comparing apples with oranges. How do we know that Dr Hazel hasn't also worked with thousands of GSDs?

It's true, you have a point.

But on the other hand, if Dr Hazel had worked professionally as a GSD handler with the RAAF or run a business for 30 years specialising in resolving dog aggression, (or if Mr Singer had university qualifications in dog behaviour), I think there's a good chance that they would have both listed these things on their professional websites.

Assuming that Dr Hazel hasn't done these things, or Mr Singer doesn't have those qualifications, is an assumption, but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption based on the information that both trainers have chosen to present about themselves.

[Aidan3]

I would go with Stewart Hilliard which would be either option.

10/10

[Aidan3]

but I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption based on the information that both trainers have chosen to present about themselves.

I have no idea who Dr Hazel is or if she even works with pet dogs, but the info given was from the University of Adelaide website, so it was an academic CV.

[corvus]

With all due respect I'm not sure that I follow Jeff's reasoning. Comparing someone's academic achievements with someone's K9 handling experience is comparing apples with oranges.

Blarg. That's what I was trying to say.

[Diva]

ETA Okay, I ammend that. I don't know anyone with a PhD in DOG behaviour that I wouldn't trust with a behavioural problem in a dog. The principles carry across species, but dogs are a bit loopy in their behaviour if you ask me. I think they are at least ten times easier to read than most animals I've ever tried to read, but they have subtleties to their communication that other animals don't seem to have, and they don't always make it obvious that they are distressed. Mess up with a wild animal and you bloody well know about it.

There is something rather weird about characterising a whole species' behaviour as 'loopy'.

Having a PhD wouldn't be enough for me to think someone could be worth calling in for a behaviour problem. An ability to undertake a research project or two is quite different to being able to effectively work with people and their animals in the circumstances of a normal household. It means something to me, but not a great deal if it isn't paired with hands on experience and talent.

[corvus]

There is something rather weird about characterising a whole species' behaviour as 'loopy'.

Well, they are neotenous, aren't they. That's pretty loopy, don't you think? But that's just a subspecies, not an entire species. Nothing loopy about Canis lupus.

[Diva]

There is something rather weird about characterising a whole species' behaviour as 'loopy'.

Well, they are neotenous, aren't they. That's pretty loopy, don't you think? But that's just a subspecies, not an entire species. Nothing loopy about Canis lupus.

No, I don't think it's 'loopy'.

[4paws]

'Aidan2' date='18th Dec 2010 - 08:20 PM' post='5030042']

Mark Singer is well within his rights to call himself a behaviourist

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.

[Staranais]

No one has bought up the term qualified behaviourist except yourself. Everyone who recommended Mr Singer just referred to him as a behaviourist - i.e., someone who works with behaviour. I believe everyone was using that term correctly.

However, although it's off topic, I'd still be interested in you providing the piece of legislation that states only the four type of qualifications you list can legally call themselves "qualified behaviourists", please. Thanks.

[abed]

No one has bought up the term qualified behaviourist except yourself. Everyone who recommended Mr Singer just referred to him as a behaviourist - i.e., someone who works with behaviour. I believe everyone was using that term correctly.

However, although it's off topic, I'd still be interested in you providing the piece of legislation that states only the four type of qualifications you list can legally call themselves "qualified behaviourists", please. Thanks.

Good question???

Edited December 19, 2010 by abed