Dog Training Courses

[Pretty Miss Emma]

So becoming a dog trainer (well I sort of think of it as owner training!) - unregulated industry where qualification are not essential, however I'm of the belief that they're pretty important. Anyway, once I'm financially viable to be doing a course I'm considering it.

I know of NDTF and Delta and have thoroughly assessed the pros and cons of both with several people who have done one or the other.

But, are there other courses out there? Particularly that are held with some "esteem". Am happy with distance ed but otherwise looking at Melb based. Am interested to know what people interested in this area have done in terms of becoming qualified.

Probably also a question to ask - what do people think about becoming qualified? Is it essential? Would you deal with someone who didn't have a formal qualification?

Just interested!

[Cosmolo]

I think there is a DL course that is Canadian based that is meant to be quite good but haven't actually done it, will see if i can find the link. I think qualifications are very important- especially if you aim to make a career out of training- it is a VERY competitive industry.

[JulesP]

My suggestion would be to do a course at a local dog club first and become a volunteer instructor. This would give you an idea whether you want to be an instructor before forking out heaps of cash.

I don't care at all whether the person has qualifications when I am looking at a trainer. I care about what they have done and what their pupils are doing.

[corvus]

There's also CASI: http://www.casinstitute.com/behaviordep.html Might be worth a look. I always got the impression the CASI courses were highly regarded, but maybe that's a bias on my part. I am impressed with their advertised course content.

The question of qualifications is a difficult one IMO. On the one hand, I've met a lot of rubbish trainers with qualifications. On the other hand, I'd be unlikely to pay for a trainer without any qualifications. It seems a bit dishonest to me. I know lots of people with no qualifications whose advice I would take over some trainers with qualifications I have met, but I'd consider it dodgy if they expected to be paid for that advice. Unless they are some kind of world renowned expert.

[JulesP]

I know lots of people with no qualifications whose advice I would take over some trainers with qualifications I have met, but I'd consider it dodgy if they expected to be paid for that advice. Unless they are some kind of world renowned expert.

I find that quite strange. Would you not pay anyone for anything if they didn't have a qualification?

I've just realised that my view on qualifications comes from my horsey background. The qualifications to be an instructor in riding aren't much chop. Really the only benefit is you get cheaper insurance. It doesn't normally impress anyone greatly. I picked riding instructors based on their methodology and how their other students rode. I was also impressed if they trained with someone really good.

[corvus]

I know lots of people with no qualifications whose advice I would take over some trainers with qualifications I have met, but I'd consider it dodgy if they expected to be paid for that advice. Unless they are some kind of world renowned expert.

I find that quite strange. Would you not pay anyone for anything if they didn't have a qualification?

I think it's irresponsible to ask to be paid to pass on specialised information if you don't have any training in that area. How do you know you are passing on correct information? Isn't the whole point of a qualification to say that you have been taught some kind of specialised skill or have access to specialised knowledge?

[Yesmaam]

Probably also a question to ask - what do people think about becoming qualified? Is it essential? Would you deal with someone who didn't have a formal qualification?

Just interested!

I don't think a course or qualification makes a person a better dog trainer over someone who isn’t formally "qualified", usually quite the opposite in my experience.

“Hands on experience” is what counts. Anyone can talk the talk but how many of those people can actually walk the walk as well???

Is it essential - no, not at all.

I know lots of people with no qualifications whose advice I would take over some trainers with qualifications

Me 2. I would go there as my first stop over anything else. Very very very last resort would be to pay someone.............

[Staranais]

I've answered in the other thread, but yes, I'd happily deal with someone with no formal qualification. Some of the best trainers I know in their own field have no qualifications - or to put it another way, their qualifications are the things they've achieved, and the dogs and handler they've trained over the years. If I'm impressed by what someone's achieved by with their dogs and with other handlers, and they seem competent & compassionate, I'll listen to them.

That doesn't mean I'd employ any old trainer without qualifications. If I didn't know the trainer from a bar of soap, I'd put much more weight on qualifications since they're one way of telling that the trainer might know what they're doing.

In your position, I think it's a good idea to do a qualification, or at least an apprenticeship if you could find one with a trainer that you admire.

[Aidan3]

I know lots of people with no qualifications whose advice I would take over some trainers with qualifications I have met, but I'd consider it dodgy if they expected to be paid for that advice. Unless they are some kind of world renowned expert.

I find that quite strange. Would you not pay anyone for anything if they didn't have a qualification?

I think it's irresponsible to ask to be paid to pass on specialised information if you don't have any training in that area. How do you know you are passing on correct information? Isn't the whole point of a qualification to say that you have been taught some kind of specialised skill or have access to specialised knowledge?

I don't have any formal qualifications and I expect clients to pay

However I agree with the sentiment. These are dogs and peoples lives and they deserve genuine expertise supported by evidence.

[corvus]

I know lots of people with no qualifications whose advice I would take over some trainers with qualifications I have met, but I'd consider it dodgy if they expected to be paid for that advice. Unless they are some kind of world renowned expert.

I find that quite strange. Would you not pay anyone for anything if they didn't have a qualification?

I think it's irresponsible to ask to be paid to pass on specialised information if you don't have any training in that area. How do you know you are passing on correct information? Isn't the whole point of a qualification to say that you have been taught some kind of specialised skill or have access to specialised knowledge?

I don't have any formal qualifications and I expect clients to pay

However I agree with the sentiment. These are dogs and peoples lives and they deserve genuine expertise supported by evidence.

But if I asked you "how do you know you are passing on correct information?" I'm guessing you'd give me an answer that would thoroughly satisfy my suspicious little sciencey demands for objectivity. I've met professional trainers that wouldn't be able to answer that question to my satisfaction. I'm guessing. I've never been provocative enough to ask! Those kinds of trainers somehow make me feel like I'm 11 years old in a netball team with a coach who has a little turd of a daughter my age and seems to think every second thing I do is motivated by calculated vengeance for being told I can't have things exactly the way I want them.

[aussielover]

How to you know you're passing on the correct information?

In terms of dog training=

Results

If what you do seems to be working in all your cases, you must be doing something right!

I personally think experience and achieving good results outweigh formal qualifications. I would much rather pay someone who has loads of people recommending them because they were happy with the results than someone with a lot of qualifications but limited personal recommendations.

[Aidan3]

How to you know you're passing on the correct information?

In terms of dog training=

Results

If what you do seems to be working in all your cases, you must be doing something right!

I personally think experience and achieving good results outweigh formal qualifications. I would much rather pay someone who has loads of people recommending them because they were happy with the results than someone with a lot of qualifications but limited personal recommendations.

The flip-side here is bias in it's many forms, particularly confirmation bias and attribution errors. People believe all sorts of things, often in the face of alarming evidence to the contrary.

Then we have the issue of getting the intended result, but with a lot of unintended results. For e.g, it's fairly easy to punish growling or barking, and then things might tick along nicely for a year or two, then the dog is pushed a little too far and bites "without warning".

So I think we should be careful with results alone as an indicator that the advice is sound or appropriate. I think practitioners should have a good understanding of the arguments for and against a particular approach and be able to support their decisions with evidence (whether they share that with the client or not, usually not although I have clients who are interested). That does require some formal training or at least a good degree of honest self-education.

There were no formal qualifications in dog training when I started learning about it, and even the internet wasn't much help. You couldn't go to an obedience club and learn anything resembling a scientific approach to behaviour modification. Yet there were lots of people figuring it out and I think that is because we had to use scientific principles rather than methods.

[Pretty Miss Emma]

Thanks for all info/advice thus far!!

My suggestion would be to do a course at a local dog club first and become a volunteer instructor. This would give you an idea whether you want to be an instructor before forking out heaps of cash.

This I'm already doing, and that's what has spurred me to think slightly more broadly about this. Where I train we have an in-house training program which took me about 12 months to complete with observations, supervised instructing, reading, homework, etc!! And for a while now I've been a "proper instructor"! And I really think doing this has given me some great background. When I started training with Em I loved it, and then I moved on to this and love it even more and it has definitely made me a much better trainer with Kenzie who has a few issues that we are still working on - but I feel I'm much more equipped to deal with her (and not lose my patience!!!). But I do also really love dealing with the classes I teach and helping them with their dogs. Really it's just good alround!!

That doesn't mean I'd employ any old trainer without qualifications. If I didn't know the trainer from a bar of soap, I'd put much more weight on qualifications since they're one way of telling that the trainer might know what they're doing.

I think that we think along similar lines here! I guess in my head I sort of think if some one has quals it at least means they've gone to some effort to do some learning about the field they are in. Not to say that someone without quals hasn't, as has also been said word of mouth is also very significant (and as a school teacher I see plenty of people with quals who are really useless at the job!!) as is previous experience - you can do a lot of learning without actually having a piece of paper to say that you did it! I guess I also see training as one of those fields where there are people who "just can", there are some who "can learn to" and there are people who no matter how much study they do/want to do it "just never will be able to"!!

I personally think experience and achieving good results outweigh formal qualifications. I would much rather pay someone who has loads of people recommending them because they were happy with the results than someone with a lot of qualifications but limited personal recommendations.

I think I tend to agree, although once formal quals become available there does seem to be a lot more importance placed on them within the public eye. And I think that is where some of my dilemas come in!!

As it is, I'm not in the financial situation to start doing something particularly soon (damn those emergency vets - even though we love them!!). So I will keep plodding along where I train do my instructing and reading every book in our training library!! But I am finding everyone's thoughts most interesting!!

[corvus]

How to you know you're passing on the correct information?

In terms of dog training=

Results

If what you do seems to be working in all your cases, you must be doing something right!

In addition to what Aidan said, I think it's valuable to know how to objectively judge whether what you're doing is working and be able to reason out why. It may not have a huge bearing on what you do, but IMO it gives you the flexibility to make small adjustments and the knowledge base to make seemingly novel changes to a method to suit a different dog or a different issue. And I REALLY HATE the spread of misinformation. It's like the antithesis of everything that matters to me. And the training world is absolutely rife with it. And it certainly leads to poor training decisions and confirmation bias.

You hear a lot the idea that some people are just naturally good at training and others will never be good at it. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. I think that training is mostly good timing and clean delivery and clear cues. I think that anyone can learn to be an effective trainer if they put the time and effort in to honing their timing, delivery and cues. What makes an excellent trainer is someone that can read the dog and anticipate potential problems or see them coming early. I think that it is possible that if you don't have 'it' you can make up for it by keeping good records. The numbers should tell you whether your reward is the problem, or your cue, or your timing. They tell you when to change criteria, when to put a behaviour on cue, and when to take a step back. For pure training and no serious behaviour modification, I think that's all you need. And perhaps the ability to pick an inhibited dog and a basic understanding of counter-conditioning.

[rastus_froggy]

I would deal with someone without formal qualifications if I liked the results they had with their own dogs and if I had seen or been told about what they had achieved with someone else's dog.

It is hard to know when there are no 'strictly' right or wrong ways of dog training, if I felt comfortable with the person and their methods and they had no qualifications I think I would be ok with them training me and my dog.

[Vickie]

Probably also a question to ask - what do people think about becoming qualified? Is it essential? Would you deal with someone who didn't have a formal qualification?

I don't think it's essential, but if I wanted to make a living out of training dogs & I had the means to do so, I think I would do a course. Why wouldn't you?

I wouldnt hesitate to take lessons from someone without qualifications & have done so many times. Some of the best dog trainers I know have no qualifications & a wealth of experience. Some of the worst have qualifications & little experience.

Experience & results will always count more for me and it is within most peoples means to get. Volunteering at a local pound provides a range of dogs, backgrounds, temperaments & behavioural issues.

[Guest Panzer Attack!]

Keeping an eye on this thread as training is something I would KILL to do... in a few years... when I have the right amount of experience.

I agree with whoever said that qualifications don't automatically = best. I've worked with some groomers that have learned from training in a shop or self-teaching that have pooped all over the ones who have done courses.

[corvus]

I agree with whoever said that qualifications don't automatically = best.

That was everyone!

But I think it's beside the point if you're deciding whether to become qualified or not. Qualifications aren't meant to tell anyone that the holder is 'the best' or that they are gifted or even that they are good. They just tell you that the holder has a standard education of some sort in the area indicated and has proven they understand the information that was taught and are proficient in the skills that were taught.