How Do You Choose A Trainer Or Behaviourist

[JulesP]

You also have a limited time in which to get the message across

[4paws]

So, the nice people at AVBIG have replied - very kind of them considering I emailed them just before xmas, I was half thinking they'd be away for the holidays.

The direct quote from the president of AVBIG is:

"Thanks for your post about the term dog behaviourist. Anyone who is not a vet can call themselves whatever they like - expert, specialist, behaviourist etc. It is only vets who are bound by rules set by the various State boards... To my knowledge, membership of AVA or not has no bearing on appropriate terminology in any jurisdiction."

So, as far as the AVA are concerned, you're free to call yourself a behaviourist if your work involves modifying canine behaviour, you don't need to be an AVA member to use the term.

Hard to argue with the president of AVBIG, I think, so that is pretty much the final word on the topic so far as I'm concerned.

We aready know that Staranais Yes, "anyone" can call themselves a behaviourist including the local hair dresser or the check out chick at Coles which is the problem when these people appoint themselves with such a title and are NOT qualified behaviourists at all. In law if an issue arises with animal behaviour, the opinion of a "qualified" behaviourist will over-ride a dog trainer claiming to be one. A vet behaviourist is a vet who has done the relevent courses in Applied Animal Behaviour Sciences earning a PhD, a Zoologist or Psychologist can do the same and be regarded as a qualified behaviourist also.

Behaviour is a study of animal psychology and because a dog trainer can alter the behaviour of a dog for example, apply a heavy correction to alter a dog's behaviour of jumping up on people doesn't determine that person to be a behaviourist or understand how the behaviour was modified other than the dog avoiding a correction and associated pain. Everything a dog may do that is undesirable can be called a "behaviour", which is generally caused by a training deficit in most cases and is not necessarily a candidate that requires a "behavioursts" attention. What I am pointing out is that too often people are quoting "behaviorist" too readily for any hiccup a dog may have which can easily be dealt with successfully by a trainer.

On the other hand if a dog does have a neurotic issue and needs a "behaviorists" attention, you don't want a misdiagnosis from a trainer calling themselves a behaviourist who hasn't got any valid knowledge of dog psychology who thinks that cranking up the stimulation on an Ecollar should do the trick because it worked on the last dog showing a similar symptom???. You also cannot guarantee that a trainer calling themselves a behaviourist who hasn't undergone any formal academic training to understand dog behaviour effeciently, will identify that the dog's ideal treatment is beyond their experience level. The customer in that case think's they have hired a behaviourist assuming they are an expert in the entire field when in fact they are not and could well be applying corrective measures detrimental to the dog's behaviour modification.

No, I don't think trainers should lace themselves with self appointed behaviourist titles because ultimately, it provides a misconception to the public regarding their level of actual competences.

[poodlefan]

No, I don't think trainers should lace themselves with self appointed behaviourist titles because ultimately, it provides a misconception to the public regarding their level of actual competences.

I thought your point was that it was unlawful to do so.

[Cosmolo]

Thanks for that clarification Staranais.

4paws, i don't see what the application of aversives has to do with anything. Do you think that everyone who calls themselves a behaviourist and is not a qualified behaviourist by your definition does what you have said and has no clue? One of the issues is the perception of what is an error in training too- i have had many cases where i believe errors have been made with previous qualified and unqualified behaviourists but i am sure they would not think they were incorrect- this has nothing to do with their qualifications or not.

[4paws]

No, I don't think trainers should lace themselves with self appointed behaviourist titles because ultimately, it provides a misconception to the public regarding their level of actual competences.

I thought your point was that it was unlawful to do so.

No, that was Staranais's misinterpretation which I corrected in an earlier response

[Kelpie-i]

Thanks for that clarification Staranais.

4paws, i don't see what the application of aversives has to do with anything. Do you think that everyone who calls themselves a behaviourist and is not a qualified behaviourist by your definition does what you have said and has no clue? One of the issues is the perception of what is an error in training too- i have had many cases where i believe errors have been made with previous qualified and unqualified behaviourists but i am sure they would not think they were incorrect- this has nothing to do with their qualifications or not.

Firstly, thanks Staranais for that information.

Secondly, I will agree with Cosmolo here too.

[4paws]

Thanks for that clarification Staranais.

4paws, i don't see what the application of aversives has to do with anything. Do you think that everyone who calls themselves a behaviourist and is not a qualified behaviourist by your definition does what you have said and has no clue? One of the issues is the perception of what is an error in training too- i have had many cases where i believe errors have been made with previous qualified and unqualified behaviourists but i am sure they would not think they were incorrect- this has nothing to do with their qualifications or not.

The application of aversives has nothing to do with it, I merely provided an example. The problem is, an unqualified behaviourst can neither provide a recognised level of achievement to determine they have any knowledge of animal behaviour at all. They may have, they may not which is not the point when trying to choose a trainer/behaviourist when their self appointed titles can influence your decision as a customer. It's human nature as a lay person looking for a trainer/behaviourist scanning websites and advertising material seeing that some claim to be qualified and some don't, and human nature tells us that people claiming qualifications and titles appear to be the most knowledged on the subject. But when a training establisment is allowed quite legally to plaster up any bulldust they like, it makes a mockery of the industry is what I am saying from a customer perspective. Some of the franchise establishments practice this and quite often the area trainer/behaviourst attached to the franchise has a substandard knowledge of dogs in general, let alone training and behaviour modification.

[Aidan]

What I am pointing out is that too often people are quoting "behaviorist" too readily for any hiccup a dog may have which can easily be dealt with successfully by a trainer.

Wouldn't the same issues apply for trainers?

[Erny]

4Paws - it seems to me that you are unable to clarify what your definition of "Behaviourist" is and where that definition comes from. WHO or WHAT is telling you that we are all wrong in calling "behaviourists" "behaviourists" (given that they deal with behaviour). Is this just your opinion, because some of your statements are as though you have some knowledge about the status of "behaviourist" label that the rest of us don't.

I don't know why you are 'ing Staranais . I think you did strongly indicate/say that the AVA was somehow involved in the regulated use of the label "behaviourist". If you didn't mean for us to think the AVA had any part or control in the use of the label "behaviourist" then I'm not sure why you brought them into this. I think Staranais really helped to clear up a lot of doubt and confusion in relation to the AVA's stance on the use of the word "behaviourist", confusion that only arose because of what you stated in (at least) one of your posts.

If it is just your (unqualified?? ) opinion, then that's fair enough - we can discuss (although I think the posts here, and in particular, Staranais' posts evidencing AVA's stance on it - which seems very contrary to your earlier claims are fairly clear in expressing our own opinions) and if we're going to do this, the first thing I would ask you is what description you would give someone who does more than only "train" but also works with and helps to rehabilitate "behaviour", but doesn't have what you would regard as the 'right' to label themselves as a "behaviourist"?

And I agree with Cosmolo. And Aidan.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Erny

[Staranais]

No, I don't think trainers should lace themselves with self appointed behaviourist titles because ultimately, it provides a misconception to the public regarding their level of actual competences.

I thought your point was that it was unlawful to do so.

No, that was Staranais's misinterpretation which I corrected in an earlier response

Er, no. I asked who decided that the "accepted definition" of an animal behaviourist is a person registered by the AVA, and you replied "by law".

I asked this in post #28, and you answered in post #57, of this thread.

You claimed:

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.

This is false. You might not personally like the fact that trainers who deal with behaviour can call themselves "behaviourists", and you might think that the only proper behaviourists are Veterinary Behaviourists with AVA registration, but the AVA themselves don't appear to have an issue with non-AVA members calling themselves "dog behaviourists".

The AVA does not think that trainers are implying AVA membership by calling themselves "behaviourists" and they do not think that trainers are misrepresenting themselves by calling themselves "behaviourists". I asked this specifically so there could be no confusion.

And like I said, the president of AVBIG pretty much has the final word on the topic so far as I'm concerned. After checking with the AVA, I will continue to call trainers who deal with behaviour, "behaviourists". And I will continue to call Veterinary Behaviourists, "Veterinary behaviourists".

Edited December 21, 2010 by Staranais

[Quickasyoucan]

I agree with Staranais.

To me (apart from the fact that the one veterinary behaviourist i know about is about 3 times the price of a non-veterinary one per session ) it is a bit like the difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. Both deal with mental health issues, but only one can prescribe medication (and yes I am well aware these are both nationally recognised professions).

Besides I know plenty of people who only call themselves trainers and who would refer to a behaviourist rather than deal with issues that they didn't consider themselves capable of doing. That is what any good professional would do (nationally recognised or no)

Anyway there are some dodgy doctors, vets, teachers as there are in any type of profession that is not the preserve of the "behaviourist", that is mankind unfortunately. I don't think because there are some well-known franchises that may claim to deal with behaviour problems that we should throw all non-veterinary behaviourists out "with the bathwater".

[corvus]

Thats OK corvus you already do now.

Oh, that's just code for the Legion of the Purely Positive. I think they want to take over the world or something.

[JulesP]

I think this started as a good topic. It is interesting to see how people pick a trainer. What criteria they have.

4paws I am going to ask you straight out what your agenda is here? You are a new DOL member. What are you trying to achieve?

[Aidan3]

4paws I am going to ask you straight out what your agenda is here? You are a new DOL member. What are you trying to achieve?

Not a new DOL member, check the phase of the moon

[abed]

Are we saying that it's good for the dog training industry for anyone to call themselves a behaviourist on their own self assessment which is the message I am getting reading this thread???.

[Cosmolo]

I think what most people are alluding to abed is the fact that practical experience in resolving behaviour problems has to come into play when deciding what to call a person who deals with behaviour problems.

Personally i think that a person who has a dog training qualification, relevant experience with a wide range of dogs, owners and problems and a good, real success rate can call themselves a dog behaviourist. Doesn't mean every one of them is going to be brilliant- there are varying abilties in every profession and dog behaviour and training is no different.

[corvus]

Are we saying that it's good for the dog training industry for anyone to call themselves a behaviourist on their own self assessment which is the message I am getting reading this thread???.

*punches the air*

You know that dopamine rush when the piece of the pattern you were half-expecting to appear next suddenly does?? Yessss!

[Nekhbet]

Oh, that's just code for the Legion of the Purely Positive. I think they want to take over the world or something.

har har har

positive, negative or upside down, if you want to end up helping people with their dogs you need to come across like you have real life experience with animals and can explain it simply not like you're regurgitating a text book. All is shows is that you can read, not that you can train dogs.

[abed]

I think what most people are alluding to abed is the fact that practical experience in resolving behaviour problems has to come into play when deciding what to call a person who deals with behaviour problems.

Personally i think that a person who has a dog training qualification, relevant experience with a wide range of dogs, owners and problems and a good, real success rate can call themselves a dog behaviourist. Doesn't mean every one of them is going to be brilliant- there are varying abilties in every profession and dog behaviour and training is no different.

I always think of a behaviourist as someone specialising in the treatment of strange behaviour where the dog doesn't respond well to normal training practices, perhaps a dog that is exceptionally timid, fear aggressive, compulsive tail chasers that type of condition where there is a fine line between the wrong methods being used to treat the dog having high potential to cause further detriment if the dog isn't assessed correctly. I couldn't call myself a behaviourist as I wouldn't train a dog in working disciplines that displayed unusual behaviour and therefore have little experience in that area. Having said that, I have trained working breeds that behaviourists had previously treated for a particular behaviour unseccessfully that they couldn't have been more wrong in their assessment and treatment plan???.

If trainers are honest about their experience levels and have track record of working with behaviour issues successfully I don't see that presenting a problem, but I guess there are always the one's who will over sensationalise their abilty and experience to make their business sound better which could be a worry

[Erny]

I'm thinking that the majority of people who are having the problem about "behaviourists" who have no degree to tell them they are behaviourists, calling themselves "behaviourists" are the people who think they should have a degree to be able to call themselves "behaviourists", not the actual people who call them out to assist them with their dog's behaviour.

I don't know of anyone who has said "OMG, I called a person who said s/he was a behaviourist bust s/he wasn't, s/he was a trainer".

Sure - I've heard of a few people who have been unsatisfied with the advice/assistance of the behaviourist called out to see them. And that could have been because of bad advice; not advising them something that suited them/their situation; not suiting their preferences; or some other reason. But that could also occur with someone who has a degree but little profound experience about what they are doing.

I've met some really crappy Vets and also crappy human Doctors in my lifetime (I've also met some good ones). I've had wrong diagnosis and bad advice. When I didn't like them, I scouted around to find another.