How Do You Choose A Trainer Or Behaviourist

[corvus]

So as not to derail the other thread, I thought I'd start another one.

It bothers me how you are meant to choose a good trainer or behaviourist. Personal recommendations are fine, if they come from someone who can tell the difference between something that is working and something that is not and is honest about whether they followed what was prescribed to the letter, but what if you have no personal recommendations to go off? How do you figure out who is a good bet? What if the recommendation is for someone that is out of the price range or waiting period of the person who wants recommendations?

What I've been getting at with PhDs and degrees and so on is not so much that I think they are better, but I don't know how else to decide who to bet on. If I'm given a choice between a lot of people with a certificate in dog training, and a couple of people with an academic history in animal behaviour, I am at a bit of a loss. Maybe I only need someone good with a certificate, but I have met a few with the certificates and they have been terrible. I've met others without even a certificate that have been wonderful. So... I could risk the certificate or risk the academic history. I'm inclined to bet on the academic history because it seems safer to me as I've met a few of them as well and they have all struck me as very knowledgeable, not just book smarts, but they are really expensive. Lots of people can't afford it.

So if you had no recommendations to go on, how would you choose?

[rastus_froggy]

Hard call but it may be a matter of trial and error. Try one and if their methods sit well with you and appear be working stick with it, if not try another.

But in saying that if you aren't familiar with much in that area you may be in a position where you know no different and just keep trying with the one trainer/behaviourist who may not be a good one. I have heard people who don't know much about dogs take their dog to a not so good trainer and the trainer tells them that their dog is just untrainable, I find these sort of cases to be very sad.

[Diva]

I'd get recommendations, check out the website if there is one - what have they done previously, how broad is their experience, am I comfortable with the language they use, is there a discernable conceptual framework I can see underlying their approach, are they using populist lingo or trying to mystify, have they deal with problems like the one I am trying to solve before, have they dealt with my type of dogs before, do they seem to have good people skills - and then I'd talk or email with the person, throw in a few challenges and see how they respond.

I am not much impressed with academic qualifications by themselves, but I'd add them to the mix. Same with certificates - not much by themselves.

[Erny]

A bit like how we might choose a Vet for our dogs, in a way ..... one additional recommended criteria for which I think should be "DOLed" lol

[Kavik]

I'd get recommendations, check out the website if there is one - what have they done previously, how broad is their experience, am I comfortable with the language they use, is there a discernable conceptual framework I can see underlying their approach, are they using populist lingo or trying to mystify, have they deal with problems like the one I am trying to solve before, have they dealt with my type of dogs before, do they seem to have good people skills - and then I'd talk or email with the person, throw in a few challenges and see how they respond.

I am not much impressed with academic qualifications by themselves, but I'd add them to the mix. Same with certificates - not much by themselves.

I think this sounds like a good approach

As much research as you can, try and find someone who deals with the area you are working in/need help in

[JulesP]

First I would consider what training methods I am comfortable with, which ones resonate with me. Then I would find trainers that use those methods. I would look at their website, chat to them and if they didn't seem like a tosser would book a session. They would be on trial in that session. If I didn't like what they did, taught etc then I wouldn't go back.

I am not super precious about giving someone a go though as I had horse riding lessons every week for years, so I am pretty comfortable with the whole trainer situation.

[sas]

Someone who actually gets results regardless of their formal qualifications with methods I'm comfortable with. Lot's of word of mouth and then try for yourself, you won't know unless you actually try them.

[TerraNik]

Someone who actually gets results regardless of their formal qualifications with methods I'm comfortable with. Lot's of word of mouth and then try for yourself, you won't know unless you actually try them.

I agree... Something I have realised recently is just because you have the piece of paper that says you've done the course, doesn't mean you actually know jack about what you're doing! I have seen some real shockers who have no clue!

So I'm more inclined to go for someone that has personal results - I look at their dogs first and their achievements. Then I look at recommendations from others whom I respect - not just any random. And then if I'm still happy, I would contact them for an initial consult. Of course if they don't use training methods that I don't agree with, then I wouldn't be looking at them in the first place.

[spyda62]

Unfortunately any idiot can set themselves up as a Trainer / behaviourist in this area.

I have seen some shocking methods used by some trainers around here, including, pinning puppies to the ground and letting the other dogs around them climb all over them till the puppy on the ground "submits".

Grrr...it is so frustrating!

I always tell people to ring and talk to the clubs and trainers, then go and watch them in action (if possible) find out what methods and tools they use. Then use one that they feel most comfortable with.

[huski]

There is no way on earth I would allow someone who had PhDs/degrees etc touch my dogs if they have no real experience behind them. Having academic knowledge is not the same as having practical experience and I would choose someone who has had the practical experience and has proven their abilities over someone who has completed a degree but doesn't have the same experience behind them every time.

When choosing a trainer or behaviourist I couldn't care less if they come from an academic background, I care about the methods they use and the results they get, and how they can teach me to work with my dogs to get what I want.

ETA: I also find it hard to believe you'd have no recommendations to go on. If you can't find any recommendations for a particular trainer/behaviourist shouldn't that be a red flag?

Edited December 19, 2010 by huski

[alpha bet]

Good commonsense approach Huski - However I wonder whether Joe Public just books into the local club/whatever and doesnt really know what they are getting. It is often trial and error unfortunately.

Saying that however, I know the way the current regulations are that anyone can put up a website etc and sell themselves as a professional trainer/behaviourist. Not always a good thing, but then not always a bad thing either.

The last thing we need is the government wanting to put further regulations onto the animal industry. If they required courses/academic qualifications then we could lose many experienced people expecially in the club sector - I know there are arguments from both sides but let the public decide who is worthwhile - Over the last 15 years I have seen many trainers and/or francisees start up in my area and often just to drift away.

There are many who want to join the industry, they might have years of training their own dogs or working in a club, perhaps even purchased a Franchise or completed a Training Course, even a PHD - They might be good training - however this does not make them a Professional. At least not yet.

A Professional will commit the time and money to set themselves up, they will have a proper business plan and lodge tax returns - these are the people who will be there for the long haul - they will adapt and organise their business to cater to the needs of the public in their area. These are the ones who build their experience in the field and hopefully survive long enough to build their reputation. There are many who call themselves professional - both here and overseas - but my contact with many of these has seen just a small group who seem committed to putting their money where there mouth is.

Some of the best trainers/teachers I have met over the years have limited reputations as they tend to work solo nor do they often charge for their time. These are the gurus we can aim to learn from but they dont have the time nor inclination to become anything more.

Posing a question?

Perhaps we should take a quick poll here and ask DOL's - how much money do you think you would need to commit to set up a Training Business for say a period of 5 years (no franchise allowed). Would be a very interesting excercise for anyone considering this.

[corvus]

I suspect that maybe people don't realise why I place any value at all on degrees and think I'm just being a snob because I have one. IME a degree doesn't teach you anything specific. In most cases, they are not meant to teach you how to do a particular job. They teach you some very broad skills that are more to be built on than to be a complete education. But I know from my experiences in research that there is an expectation that you can justify just about all your decisions based on the literature. I find it very tedious, but oddly satisfying in the end when you know there's a factual reason that's been revealed through studies why the decision you are making is a good one. It's naive to assume that means it is a good one, and we're taught early not to do that. It's just likely that it's a good one and the next step is to see if that's true. We can't just make subjective observations and reckon we know what's going on, treat it, then reckon it looks like it worked. All the rules that get drummed into me while I'm learning at uni bleed into other things I do. That's what gives me more faith in someone with a degree or two than someone with a certificate or two. I don't think they know better, or assume because they have a degree they must know what they are doing. I don't think that what you learn through degrees can only be learnt through degrees. I just want someone to approach the problem systematically and be able to justify what they are doing and how it works. I want objectivity and some way to measure success other than "looks like it's working". I do actually want them to know their theory. Otherwise I could end up with a Cesar Millan.

[Jumabaar]

I suspect that maybe people don't realise why I place any value at all on degrees and think I'm just being a snob because I have one. IME a degree doesn't teach you anything specific. In most cases, they are not meant to teach you how to do a particular job. They teach you some very broad skills that are more to be built on than to be a complete education. But I know from my experiences in research that there is an expectation that you can justify just about all your decisions based on the literature. I find it very tedious, but oddly satisfying in the end when you know there's a factual reason that's been revealed through studies why the decision you are making is a good one. It's naive to assume that means it is a good one, and we're taught early not to do that. It's just likely that it's a good one and the next step is to see if that's true. We can't just make subjective observations and reckon we know what's going on, treat it, then reckon it looks like it worked. All the rules that get drummed into me while I'm learning at uni bleed into other things I do. That's what gives me more faith in someone with a degree or two than someone with a certificate or two. I don't think they know better, or assume because they have a degree they must know what they are doing. I don't think that what you learn through degrees can only be learnt through degrees. I just want someone to approach the problem systematically and be able to justify what they are doing and how it works. I want objectivity and some way to measure success other than "looks like it's working". I do actually want them to know their theory. Otherwise I could end up with a Cesar Millan.

I understand what your saying. I have done some certs, not in dog training and it was more- "this is what you do" type training, but my degree has been more along the lines of- "here is a first principle, now tell me how you solve this stupid, irrelevant brain numbing problem that has no purpose but we feel like making you jump through some hoops to fill in time" type thing. The problem with that is that I can see people that do well in the degree, but have no ability to put what they know across, or use it practically, I have also see people do certificates that 'get' what they are doing and instinctively understand the whole process.

I think as many people have been burnt by intelligent academics with no ability to communicate as there have been people burnt by people with certificates out to make a quick buck!!

Ultimately I would look for someone who has delt with the problem I had successfully, and who can communicate what we are doing and why it is being done. I am not the average dog owner, so if it comes down to me going and trying a few different places so be it. I don't think I would be swayed overly by a degree or a certificate, more what actually happens during the first consult!!!

And that might be more the problem for Joe blow- they go to a trainer and get told what to do and they do it. Often there is a fixed budget, and many people I have delt with are not going to trial a few different people to try and get the best results- once they have found someone that's it. this is what allows the crapy trainers to stay in business!!

Edited December 19, 2010 by ~Woofen~

[Diva]

I suspect that maybe people don't realise why I place any value at all on degrees and think I'm just being a snob because I have one.

LOL, I don't think you are a snob. But I have dealt with literally scores, maybe hundreds, of PhDs over the years in non-dog fields and know from direct experience that it's a qual that can mean not a lot for the ability to deliver an outcome. Depends on the task of course but ability to research doesn't necessarily translate to ability to do. That's the reason I put some weight on them, but not a lot.

Unless the research question at the core of their degree is the same as the problem I am working on, then I credit it more highly.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Diva

[4paws]

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

[poodlefan]

Only two things matter as far as I'm concerned:

experience

results

in the particular field I'm looking for help in.

I'm looking for results in training HANDLERS, not with their own dogs.

Edited December 19, 2010 by poodlefan

[Staranais]

4paws, can you please provide the piece of legislation that states that only people with one of the four academic qualifications you have listed can legally call themselves a "behaviourist" or a "qualified behaviourist", please?

I have never heard of anyone say this except you, so no offence, but I'd like to see some evidence that this is the truth.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Staranais

[Erny]

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

IMO you're wrong. But perhaps I'll re-think that if you are able to provide the evidence that Staranais has been asking for (a few times now, I think - this thread and another).

And as for the part I've bolded, where's the evidence of your claim there?

ETA: "New age fad of recommendation" ?????

Edited December 19, 2010 by Erny

[4paws]

4paws, can you please provide the piece of legislation that states that only people with one of the four academic qualifications you have listed can legally call themselves a "behaviourist" or a "qualified behaviourist", please?

I have never heard of anyone say this except you, so no offence, but I'd like to see some evidence that this is the truth.

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.

[PAX]

I would only choose one that I have seen how their dogs' behave.

If I am paying for advise, I expect them to have well adjusted dogs that can do what my requirements are.

I really don't give a toss what they have on paper or their web page. :rolleyes: I want to see it.