How Do You Choose A Trainer Or Behaviourist

[corvus]

Then go do a PhD on rehabilitating dogs. That's what the Constructional Aggression Treatment folks did.

I don't think its that simple?

What do you mean, a PhD isn't simple?

I'm objecting to the notion you don't get practical experience in degrees. You do if you want it. I mean, it's hard to draw any conclusions about dog behaviour without looking at the behaviour of a lot of dogs. I'm quite looking forward to spending next year watching a couple of hundred dogs learn the same task and measuring the differences.

Not for everyone, and sometimes it might be overkill, but it needn't be lacking on the practical experience front.

[4paws]

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.

Actually 4Paws has a point the NDTF graduates are not recognised as dog trainers unless they register themselves with one of these orginisations, being a memeber only with the NDTF and a qualified trainer will not get you far according to DPI :

Approved training organisations

The legislation requires Councils to charge a reduced registration fee for dogs that have undergone obedience training which complies with the Regulations.

Organisations whose dog obedience assessment programs are approved under the Domestic Animals Regulations 2005 are:

* Victorian Canine Association (VCA)

* Australian Association of Professional Dog Trainers Inc

* Australian Association of Gentle Modern Dog Training Instructors

* Delta Society Australia

* Top Dog K9 Trainers Academy

The program must be conducted by a qualified dog trainer who is a member of one of these organisations.

Dogs that have undergone an assessment program administered by the above and have been issued with the official ‘Dog Obedience Certificate' are eligible for the reduced registration fee in the Schedule to the Act. The other certificates that qualify a dog for the reduced registration fee are certificates of obedience titles that are recognised by the Australian National Kennel Control.

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.

Considering there is no law stating that only X qualifications can make you a behaviourist then thats not technically right. Even a veterinary behaviourist can make massive mistakes, the difference is they will have the AVA holding their hand when the poo hits the fan. They problem is THEY consider it out of your knowledge because you dont have a piece of paper stating that you managed to pass with enough knowledge to get you a wall ornament in a frame - no part of it states that they will get results or be good at their jobs. As for a PhD I would rather see them having practically solved problem dogs with success then written a thesis. I was asked to stay on at Uni and continue on but I would rather be out there with my sleeves rolled up then in a library tapping away on a keyboard... what do you think will get me better experience with animals. When you read a textbook you read someone elses point of view. When you read journal articles they are also a modified perspective on that subject (god knows I've read enough of them) When dealing with animals you need to get out there and learn, feel, experience, trial and error with your own dogs etc. That is what behaviour is about... and considering the domestic canine is not simply living in a 'wild' environment anymore but a man made, human first one well there is more then just the dogs primal behaviours to consider. We have different expectations from the domestic dog then we do any other creature on the planet. Saying you can treat any animal to me is a massive claim, considering 1) how many different species we keep as domestic pets and how in depth you would have to be with each and 2) many people I know who have been into that particular species for decades say 'you never stop learning'. I think the AVA is trying a stunt to corner the market and allow their members to feel 'special' and charge like wounded bulls.

I wont stop saying I deal with behaviour. Sue me for what little I have lying around if that makes the big organisations feel special. But pound for pound I'll take on any dog, and if I cant deal with it I'm not too proud to tell the owner to move onto someone who I know has the skills and experience for that particular problem because for me, the dog is #1, not my wallet. Saying that I dont state I have a degree in animal behaviour so there is no misrepresentation at all on my behalf. I already have 2 degrees and 10 years experience with animals, particularly dogs and have sucessfully used behavioural modification in solving aggression, fear, anxiety, unsocialised animals, trauma etc. If that doesnt count for anything it's sad really.

Nekhbet,

You don't claim to be a behaviourist or qualified in anything other than stating your experience and training background in your marketing material or mislead the public to claim something that you are not But having said in the general views of an average dog owner, the promotional material of others who do claim invalid qualifications to enhance their training business attractiveness and misconception of greater skills, probably costs you work in the selection process of who is chosen to train their dog.

[Staranais]

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?

By law Staranais.

Which law? Please quote it, or post a link to it.

[aussielover]

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?

By law Staranais.

I think that is only for a veterinary behaviourist.

The AVA does not regulate dog "trainers" or anyone who is not registered with them (ie non-vets)

[Staranais]

Yes Aussielover, that's what I suspect too.

The terms "Veterinary behaviourist" or "Veterinary specialist in behaviour" are terms that are legally protected and restricted to AVA members with appropriate qualifications.

Whereas the terms "behaviourist" or "dog behaviourist" are not legally restricted to AVA members or associate members.

But if 4Paws can quote a law saying that only people with AVA registration can or should be called a "behaviourist", then I guess I'll admit I'm wrong and be convinced otherwise.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Staranais

[JulesP]

The animal behaviorist I know has a degree in Zoology, a PhD in Animal Behavior and a diploma in counseling. I would still recommend someone with a bitey GSD to call K9Pro rather than them. I would recommend this person to someone with a naughty white fluffy that bites every time Mumsy tried to get Snookums off the bed.

I'm not doubting your recommendation, but I'm just wondering why you would make this distinction? (I have some ideas, but I'm interested in your answer).

I don't think the AB could deal effectively with a bitey GSD and K9pro would probably rather not deal with Snookums

K9Pro deals very effectively with Snookums.. I've seen him do great work with a timid poodle.

I have no doubt he does. I am doing him a favor though not inflicting him with Mumsy & Snookums

[Staff'n'Toller]

At any rate...I think these sorts of things influence choice of Trainer/School:

Price.

Location.

Availability of class times vs their current schedule.

Relevance of class exercises vs what they think they need to learn.

How good your website looks.

Recommendations from friends.

[Cosmolo]

Nek, being approved with the DPI or not doesn't mean the qualifications are there or not though. Until about 6 months ago, i wasn't a member of one of the approved DPI organisations, now i am- that doesn't mean i didn't have a qualification before then though which is i think what 4paws is saying- that there is no such thing as a qualified dog trainer.

I too would like to know where in law, it says the term dog behaviourist cannot be used except by vet behaviourists or similar.

I agree S+T- i can count on one hand how many times we have been asked about our qualifications.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Cosmolo

[corvus]

Did you have qualification or certification, Cosmolo? Perhaps there is a difference.

[Nekhbet]

Cosmolo it doesnt mean you are not a dog trainer - since there is no law about it anyone can be one with or without a course. The difference is who the government will recognise if owners want to say their dog has a certificate in obedience or their dog has seen a trainer when it becomes involved legally as in the above example. In the eyes of the DPI all the NDTF produces is people who have a recognised certificate, ie the content is consistent and approved as being able to be nationally recognised as an official course. As an example, tomorrow I can open a security college and make my own 'security studies' course. I can put it through an official course provider and hence the government will say, yep, anyone who does your course will hold a certificate III in whatever you're calling it. Now my graduates cannot be security guards unless I go to the relevent authority that recognises them, provide my course content and they tick it off going yup we'll recognise your graduates as security guards. Until that time I will be churning out people who simply hold a certificate III in security studies, but not be recognised by the government as guards.

As I said, the last lesson of the NDTF course we were told the course did not allow us to be recognised by the gov as dog trainers. They were still working on it. AFAIK they still are.

You don't claim to be a behaviourist or qualified in anything other than stating your experience and training background in your marketing material or mislead the public to claim something that you are not But having said in the general views of an average dog owner, the promotional material of others who do claim invalid qualifications to enhance their training business attractiveness and misconception of greater skills, probably costs you work in the selection process of who is chosen to train their dog.

Horses for courses. That is why I dont rely on my dog training to pay my rent and bills. It is unfortunate that people use mickey mouse training or heck, places they havnt even graduated from on their advertising. Invariably it comes down to hoping the advertiser is not that stupid as to further stuff up a poor dog but many see the dollars first. The biggest shame is usually people burned and broke from one trainer wont go bothering finding another or invariably think, oh well we spent X dollars on this professional its the dogs fault.

I'm objecting to the notion you don't get practical experience in degrees.

I've spent 5 years at university, and a couple of years doing various certificates and short courses. They are a foundation really not the be all and end all. I have learned a hell of a lot more being out and about then being in the classroom over the years. This last degree especially has been quite a lack of hands on experience comparably.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Nekhbet

[corvus]

I'm objecting to the notion you don't get practical experience in degrees.

I've spent 5 years at university, and a couple of years doing various certificates and short courses. They are a foundation really not the be all and end all. I have learned a hell of a lot more being out and about then being in the classroom over the years. This last degree especially has been quite a lack of hands on experience comparably.

I've spent 5 years at university, and a few years out and about doing what I learnt in university. Degrees vary in their practical experience, as I'm sure you realise. Even the same degrees vary from university to university. I have never said university is the be all and end all, but I don't see why it should be written off on the basis of not offering enough practical experience. The point I was making is it's not an inherent problem with all university degrees. I had field-based courses every year of my undergrad, and I am so glad the uni I went to offered so many of those. They were by far the most valuable courses I did in my whole degree. Nothing prepares you for field work except field work.

As I've said before, I agree that degrees are meant to be a broad foundation to build on. They don't teach you specific skills. You learn those later if you keep going. But where you keep going to is anywhere you like, really. The only limitations are time and money. And maybe finding a supervisor. Not that it will necessarily make you better at anything in particular, but a valuable experience in my opinion. Particularly if you like problem solving.

[Nekhbet]

as I said Corvus I'm happy doing what I'm doing how I'm doing it. I can give practical advice based on real life examples and have also learned people skills and how owners think which is most of what dog training is. Thats what I'm interested in not blabbering text book phrases at people who have no hope of understanding.

[alpha bet]

Feel a little the same Nekhbet..... 18 years ago I looked around for courses.... not much available then and only a few fledgling associations and no-body had any accreditation with the government..... Didn't seem to make sense to possibly waste money or time (years in fact) on something that might not go anywhere.

Instead been busy spending the last 15 years building a business along with learning how to teach .... and still manage to find the time to learn more and more about dogs.... mostly from working direct with them and their owners......

I'm not saying there isn't a place for the academic within this industry - but history has shown very few academics will fit in with the general public as they will generally stay within the academic areas.

[Staranais]

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.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Staranais

[JulesP]

Cool so I personally think that Behaviorist-trainer-that-works-with-bitey-dogs is a good title!

[persephone]

Thanks for the update, staranais

[Jeff Jones]

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.

Thanks for posting the reply.

[corvus]

Thats what I'm interested in not blabbering text book phrases at people who have no hope of understanding.

I'll be sure to speak liberally in text book phrases once I've finished my PhD. 'Cause you know, that's what you do when you're edumacated.

[Erny]

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.

Thanks Staranais.

[Nekhbet]

Thats OK corvus you already do now.

Helping dogs is about helping the owners more then the dogs at times. They need to understand in terms they can relate to, it has to be simple to be achievable and to ensure long term compliance for the sake of themselves and the dog. 99% of dog owners are not DOLers.