How Do You Choose A Trainer Or Behaviourist

[Staranais]

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.

:rolleyes:

So it sounds like you are saying that you personally don't feel it's right for someone who is not an AVA member to call themselves a behaviourist or a qualified behaviourist? But that there are no laws to back you up, it is just your opinion?

If that's the case, then it's nothing like someone calling themselves a vet or a solicitor, as you claimed. Advertising yourself a vet if you're not one is breaking the law, and you can be convicted and fined for doing so.

[JulesP]

Ok everyone stop calling trainers behaviorist! I propose that such trainers should hence forth be called trainers-that deal-with-bitey-dogs!

[Cosmolo]

Lol Jules!

4paws- do you really mean that there is no such thing as a qualified dog trainer? What do you call people with nationally recognised dog training qualifications? :rolleyes:

[4paws]

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.

:rolleyes:

So it sounds like you are saying that you personally don't feel it's right for someone who is not an AVA member to call themselves a behaviourist or a qualified behaviourist? But that there are no laws to back you up, it is just your opinion?

If that's the case, then it's nothing like someone calling themselves a vet or a solicitor, as you claimed. Advertising yourself a vet if you're not one is breaking the law, and you can be convicted and fined for doing so.

No, I didn't mention professional titles, vet and solicitor in the context of prosecution by misrepresentation, I mentioned them as an example of a professional title the same as a qualified behaviourist is in the same vein. We know that misrepresenting one's self as a qualified behaviourist in reference to dog training is a legal practice as the dog training industry is unregulated in other words a "free for all" in that regard.

The point I am making is that there is a ligitimate professional title called an Animal Behaviour Consultant qualification "behaviourist" and the many dog trainers who claim to be a "behaviourist" are not. The accepted definition of an animal behaviourist is a person registered by the AVA, not a dog trainer who has appointed themselves with a such a title and don't have AVA registration.

In other words, when the avgerage dog owner reads that ABC dog training are qualified behaviourists and looks up to see what a qualified behaviourist is and thinks wow!!! these people are well qualified and hire them to train the their dog, they may infact be hiring a person that doesn't recognise the dog's tail from it's canine tooth by misprepresentation of their qualifications because they can is what I am simply pointing out.

[4paws]

Lol Jules!

4paws- do you really mean that there is no such thing as a qualified dog trainer? What do you call people with nationally recognised dog training qualifications? :D

No, there isn't such a thing as a qualified dog trainer. You will be talking about accreditation for completing a course to an unspecified standard like the NDTF Cert III no doubt. That accreditation confirms that the graduate has completed a course, but the course structure and curriculum is not certified to any particular standard to result in a qualification title. The NDTF as an example isn't a regulatory body controlling the dog training industry as the industy itself isn't regulated by legislation.

[Erny]

The point I am making is that there is a ligitimate professional title called an Animal Behaviour Consultant qualification "behaviourist" and the many dog trainers who claim to be a "behaviourist" are not. The accepted definition of an animal behaviourist is a person registered by the AVA, not a dog trainer who has appointed themselves with a such a title and don't have AVA registration.

The part of your sentence that I've bolded does not make sense. But over all, it seems to me that you're telling us that the AVA have a definition of "Behaviourist" and that's its use is exclusive for those who have completed some sort of degree.

Yet then you say this :

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.

So on one hand you're trying to tell all of us that our use of the word "behaviourist" to describe our occupational skill level/focus is wrong; is a misrepresentation. You're trying to tell us that for any of us who work beyond obedience training/sport training and actually work to rehabilitate more indepth problematic behaviour are not "behaviourists" but are "trainers". Yet on the other hand you acknowledge that there is no law against anyone labelling themselves a "behaviourist" (and I acknowledge that).

In other words, when the average dog owner reads that ABC dog training are qualified behaviourists ...

I do not know anyone who are Dog Trainers that advertise themselves as Behaviourists (let alone "qualified" behaviourists) unless they are people who work to rehabilitate/remedy problematic dog behaviour. You've definitely implied (if not actually stated) that this is almost an endemic problem. Would you please point out the people who are dog trainers only yet who advertise that they are behaviourists? Or again, is it only yourself, by your very own (obviously preferred) interpretation of "Behaviourist", who make the assumption that they are not behaviourists at all?

Which people would you suggest ARE behaviourists, by your definition?

And what's your description for those people who DO work on the behaviour of dogs (ie beyond the 'training' level) but don't have degrees, but do have years of hands on experience?

Edited December 19, 2010 by Erny

[huski]

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. :D

I have a degree too, and yet whether the behaviourist I am consulting has one really doesn't factor into my decision to work with them. I know so many wonderful behaviourists who don't have a PhD who are amazing at what they do, so much so that I really don't understand how it is such a conundrum for you. I will hire whoever I think is best at what they do, whether or not they have a degree really does not factor into how good they are at what they do. I've never had any trouble finding a reputable behaviourist, who can 'approach the problem systematically' and 'justify what they are doing and how it works'. You said yourself that having a degree alone is no measure on how good a behaviourist a person is, and that you've met people who don't have a degree who are great behaviourists. So why does having a degree even factor into your decision making process? Surely you wouldn't go with a behaviourist purely because they had a PhD?

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???.

IMO a behaviourist is simply someone who works in the field of dog behaviour, just as a doctor is someone who works in the field of medicine. Simply having the title of dog behaviourist or medical doctor does not tell you how good the person is at their job, it is simply a description of what they do. There are bad doctors out there just as there are bad behaviourists out there. And yes, I agree that dog training being a completely unregulated field is a problem, but that doesn't change that the title of behaviourist is a pretty simple one by definition.

[Staranais]

The point I am making is that there is a ligitimate professional title called an Animal Behaviour Consultant qualification "behaviourist" and the many dog trainers who claim to be a "behaviourist" are not. The accepted definition of an animal behaviourist is a person registered by the AVA, not a dog trainer who has appointed themselves with a such a title and don't have AVA registration.

Ah, this is my point. Accepted definition by whom? You are the only person I have ever talked to who seems to think that calling oneself a dog behaviourist implies that one is AVA registered .

Can you please tell us who decided that only people with AVA registration should be called behaviourists, or is it something that you just made up yourself?

Can you please also give us the Australian Veterinarian Association link to how one becomes a behaviourist, so we can see what they say on the subject?

[Cosmolo]

4Paws, the course is Nationally recognised training and has had to undergo rigorous investigation/ application to be so. There certainly is a particular standard as well so i am not sure how you draw those conclusions.

I think we should all start calling ourselves what Jules P said- trainers-who-work-with-bitey-dogs. Not quite as impressive as behaviourist but descriptive enough!

[persephone]

I think fourpaws has been studying THIS.

from fourpaws: 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.

However, this pertains to ANIMAL behaviourist ...and is not dog specific..and boy - to be able to

treat behavioural problems in any species of animal

is a pretty amazing claim!!

A fully qualified Applied Animal Behaviour Consultant is usually a veterinarian, psychologist,

zoolologist or biologist with an advanced degree (P.hD) in animal behaviour or in other

behavioural and biological sciences, or a veterinarian who has completed further study in animal

behaviour as prescribed by the Australian Veterinary Association.

A qualified animal behaviourist:

* is qualified to treat behavioural problems in any species of animal

* has specialised academic training in relevant behavioural or veterinary sciences, a study

program that facilitates their ability to accurately diagnose and treat a behavioural problem

* is able to appear in court as an expert witness in matters pertaining to animal behaviour

How would I choose?

Well, I'd ask on D O L of course!! :D

Pieces of paper wouldn't be high on my list of prerequisites ....rather experience, results, and personal recommendation .

That would go both for general problem fixing, AND vet behaviourists (who DO have their bits of paper, of course), where I thought there may be need of medications.

[corvus]

Behaviour analysis is an applied science, kind of like engineering. I did a degree in traditional science. Applying what you have learnt to novel situations is, IME, quite a different ball game. Behavioural ecology was a bit like that. Mostly people either find it easy or very hard, but in behavioural ecology you can get away with not being very good at it if you know someone who is good at it.

Anyway, if someone had done a PhD, but hadn't done it in an applied science on animals, it would mean less to me than if they had. Like Diva mentioned, a PhD on its own can mean something or nothing much at all depending on what it was done on or what you're looking for. If they had done a bachelor degree but not a PhD it would mean very little when it came to picking a behaviourist because the likelihood that they are good at applying what they know is by my reckoning no better than anyone else.

[Staff'n'Toller]

I think 4paws is alluding to this sort of thing that happens very frequently here: link none of the trainers replied with "well I'm a Trainer actually, but feel free to contact me" it was "who is a good behavourist in Melbourne?" and any Trainers who put their hand up in such threads but do not correct the OP or the posters making the suggestions, in a sense by not saying anything, they are taking ownership of that title.

We covered this in Cert IV actually, in that 5 years ago it was starting to become endemic then for those trainers who've done some Cert IV level studies. The general consensus was that it's a bit of a hollow advertisement. Should you be a qualified Trainer with a Cert III or Cert IV, and you stuff up for whatever reason and end up in court, a Veterinary Behaviourist will be called to provide expert opinion against you and that you would be taken to task if you were advertising as a Behaviourist without the relevant studies to back you up.

The point is that anyone can get away with it, but it might bite you later if you end up getting sued for whatever reason.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Staff'n'Toller

[Cosmolo]

But surely a behaviourist is simply someone who works with behaviour problems? If someone claimed they were a veterinary behaviourist that would be different. Is it better to say "I am a dog trainer who works with dogs that have behavioural problems"- how is that differet to saying behaviourist?

[Staranais]

We covered this in Cert IV actually, in that 5 years ago it was starting to become endemic then for those trainers who've done some Cert IV level studies. The general consensus was that it's a bit of a hollow advertisement. Should you be a qualified Trainer with a Cert III or Cert IV, and you stuff up for whatever reason and end up in court, a Veterinary Behaviourist will be called to provide expert opinion against you and that you would be taken to task if you were advertising as a Behaviourist without the relevant studies to back you up.

The point is that anyone can get away with it, but it might bite you later if you end up getting sued for whatever reason.

So, you're saying that anyone who calls themselves a "behaviourist" is implying that they're a Veterinary Behaviourist (i.e. a registered veterinarian with a further registered speciality in animal behaviour)? So all those people in the thread who said they were behaviourists, were implying they were actually veterinarians?

I'd very much like to see the AVA's policy statement on that, since I've never heard anything similar from anyone else before (not in the dog training or Veterinary communities).

[Staff'n'Toller]

But surely a behaviourist is simply someone who works with behaviour problems? If someone claimed they were a veterinary behaviourist that would be different. Is it better to say "I am a dog trainer who works with dogs that have behavioural problems"- how is that differet to saying behaviourist?

It doesn't really matter, until you are hauled up in court asking why you felt your level of qualification was adequate to deal with a behaviour problem that you should have referred on....it's not a problem until it's a problem IYKWIM? :D

[Staff'n'Toller]

We covered this in Cert IV actually, in that 5 years ago it was starting to become endemic then for those trainers who've done some Cert IV level studies. The general consensus was that it's a bit of a hollow advertisement. Should you be a qualified Trainer with a Cert III or Cert IV, and you stuff up for whatever reason and end up in court, a Veterinary Behaviourist will be called to provide expert opinion against you and that you would be taken to task if you were advertising as a Behaviourist without the relevant studies to back you up.

The point is that anyone can get away with it, but it might bite you later if you end up getting sued for whatever reason.

So, you're saying that anyone who calls themselves a "behaviourist" is implying that they're a Veterinary Behaviourist (i.e. a registered veterinarian with a further registered speciality in animal behaviour)? So all those people in the thread who said they were behaviourists, were implying they were actually veterinarians?

I'd very much like to see the AVA's policy statement on that, since I've never heard anything similar from anyone else before (not in the dog training or Veterinary communities).

No, I'm saying that the law would be asking for your qualifications and if you have no degree +/- post grad studies in animal behaviour you could be in lots of hot water dealing with a behaviour problem that they would consider to be out of your area of knowledge.

This is from Veterinary Behaviourists practicing in Australia.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Staff'n'Toller

[Erny]

I would have thought that anyone who charges a fee to help 'treat' a (in this instance) dog (behaviour or otherwise) puts themselves in a position to be sued for negligence, regardless.

[Staff'n'Toller]

I would have thought that anyone who charges a fee to help 'treat' a (in this instance) dog (behaviour or otherwise) puts themselves in a position to be sued for negligence, regardless.

Of course, but if you neglect to refer where you should have, you may be in more trouble. That's my understanding.

Edited for grammar...too early!

Edited December 19, 2010 by Staff'n'Toller

[Staranais]

So, you're saying that anyone who calls themselves a "behaviourist" is implying that they're a Veterinary Behaviourist (i.e. a registered veterinarian with a further registered speciality in animal behaviour)? So all those people in the thread who said they were behaviourists, were implying they were actually veterinarians?

I'd very much like to see the AVA's policy statement on that, since I've never heard anything similar from anyone else before (not in the dog training or Veterinary communities).

No, I'm saying that the law would be asking for your qualifications and if you have no degree +/- post grad studies in animal behaviour you could be in lots of hot water dealing with a behaviour problem that they would consider to be out of your area of knowledge.

This is from Veterinary Behaviourists practicing in Australia.

OK, I get that no one should practice outside their area of expertise, although I'm not personally sure if an academic degree is the best or only measure of expertise.

But my question is more whether the Vet Behaviourists agree with 4paws that only Veterinary Behaviourists should use the term "behaviourist" to describe what they do? And that anyone who isn't an AVA member who calls themselves a "behaviourist" is misrepresenting themselves? I could find nothing about that on the AVA website.

[corvus]

Does it not depend on what you promised the person when you started working with their dog? Do behaviourists have a contract or anything like that? Even our pet sitter writes out somewhere what her responsibilities will be while we're away each time, even though they are usually the same.