Sussing Out A Dog Trainer. What Questions Would You

[Rom]

I don't always believe that someone needs to have had a utility titled dog in order to be a good instructor. Someone may be an excellent trainer, but just not have the communication/people skills to be able to pass their knowledge on effectively. Others may have utility level dogs, but just do not trial because of family or work commitments etc or no interest in competition or titles. Others are just breed blind and totally write off any dog in their class that isn't of a specific breed. Have actually heard one such instructor say to a beginner 'That dog will never be any good so you might as well just get rid of it!'

But if you were trying to figure out a persons level of knowledge about dog training to sort the wannabes from the reallyares what sort of specific questions would you ask them before you set them loose on a class?

[wheres my rock]

are you talking from a maybe going to them for help or they want to instruct at your school.

Its a tough one maybe ask them about how they would deal with certain problems say an aggressive dog take them out onto the field and get them to work with a small group of volunteers under supervision. Watch how they interact with their own dog.

Ask where their trianing influences come from does this sit with the way your club trains

If yo are thinking of going to their classes

Ask to come watch see what they do in a class

Ask people who have attended classes and see what results they are getting watch how they communicate with epople

have they done any formal tinaing not necessarily a dog trianing course but a people trining one so they knwo how to impart knowledge

[Rom]

are you talking from a maybe going to them for help or they want to instruct at your school.

Well, as mentioned in another thread, its always hard to get instructors at club, and at my club, instructors are generally recruited from those members who seem to have a good fit with the club and do well with their dogs and or indicate that they have had lots of experience with other dogs. But we still get caught out. And there are the instructors who instruct because they have done so for a very long time, but they make no headway with their own dogs, their methods are questionable, and rather than work with the issues that the dog has, they talk about getting rid of the dog because its useless and getting another one. So you'd replace them if you could, take them out of class situation and say put them on ring run out practice where they are probably more suited because they know the ins and outs of the ring, but I just would like to be able to be sure that if you are going to replace them, you replace them with quality instead of more than the same....Am I making sense?

So just want some help to compose a list of specific questions. I have some running around in my mind, but I don't want to miss out on something that could perhaps make a big difference if rather than being in situation where you're looking back, bugger, I should have asked x before I asked if they'd like to instruct.

[wheres my rock]

this is another interesting thread and certainly a point in the right direction for clubs to gain some ideas

Our club just seems to have taken anyone who will volunteer onto the instructor board not ideal but we have been running classes for the instructors doing workshops and trying to get speakers in to educate this has made a huge diferce so far

[whatevah]

People who have had more than one breed so are able to trouble shoot problems with the different breeds.

People who have good people skills.

People whose own dog is pretty good, in life skills and obedience.

People who are fun, and willing to take on new ideas and new training techniques and make the class fun.

[Erny]

People who have had more than one breed so are able to trouble shoot problems with the different breeds.

People whose own dog is pretty good, in life skills and obedience.

I agree - although don't write-off the instructor/trainer who has a dog NOT good in "life skills" .... could be that instructor has adopted a dog with issues that can't all be completely made 100% right. Quite often those people possess a very good sound knowledge in areas that others don't, simply because they have had to deal with those issues first hand. Of course, having experience working with a diverse range of dogs (their own and/or others) and issues can be a good indicator of competancy liklihood.

It's not necessarily the case that "experience" = "has owned".

Nor is it necessarily the case that an instructor's own dog must be good at obedience - could be they've only just acquired it.

Edited July 14, 2006 by Erny

[poodlefan]

What you are looking for in an instructor is a good HUMAN communciator with problem solving skills and some ability to motivate their class.

I'd want to know their basic training philosophy and then I'd be wanting to SEE them with a class.

I know brilliant dog trainers with high achieving dogs who are lousy instructors and I know people whose dogs ain't got a title that are brilliant instructors. If you can't communicate the methods to handlers you aren't going to be a good instructor - having to take a handlers dog from them is not helping handlers to train and its something you see some instructors constantly fall back on.

Not all instructors have worked with all kinds of dog training issues before. Its their ability to think outside the square of their own personal training experiences that sorts the wheat from the chaff for me.

[wheres my rock]

hehe thats me my dogs are great and i can train a dog very easily but teaching others forget it i need to work the dog to show them what to do im hopeless at communication

[Erny]

Being able to teach by explanation only does have a certain dependance, as well, on what the 'learning styles' are of the students.

Some learn by reading it and then hearing it.

Some by hearing it and then seeing it.

Etc.

So even an instructor who is very talented in the field of communicative explanation might be needed to demonstrate a technique to complement the learning style of his/her student.

[wheres my rock]

that is true Erny

[poodlefan]

Erny:

So even an instructor who is very talented in the field of communicative explanation might be needed to demonstrate a technique to complement the learning style of his/her student.

Totally agree Erny and I definitely try to demonstrate an exercise to people who haven't seen it. However, what I'm talking about is the kind of instructor who when a handler says "I can't get Fido to sit " instinctively reacts with "here, give ME the dog".

The fact that I can get Fido to sit doesn't necessarily help Fido's owner to get Fido to sit unless I watch what's going on and help the handler to get it right.

[Erny]

I hear you, PF, and agree. A good instructor should be able to explain well and demonstrate where necessary.

[Herr Rottweiler]

Good thread

I have a philosophy on things like this;

I wouldn't get financial advice from someone unless they started from nothing, got wealthy, kept it, maintained their integrity and could successfully obtain wealth for their clients.

I wouldn't take diet advice from someone unless they lost weight and managed to successfully keep it off and showed others how it could be done with the same success that they benefitted from.

I know so many dog trainers around Australia and in my opinion, only a small percentage are brilliant, some are good, most are mediocre. I have met with and trained with people who have handled their own dogs to Australian Obedience Champions, yet they can't instruct people to save themselves. Getting titles means nothing! Most people can do it if they stick at it long enough or even get a sympathetic judge. I've seen that happen once to often believe me.

I know trainers that have never trained one competition dog in their life and they are astounding. I would never judge a person on the ribbon and tin they have but the results that their people get and the passion they still have years after. That's truely inspiring.

[wheres my rock]

Only thing i'd add to that R is if yu are looking for someone to instruct you to an obedience title it does help if they have actually done it and preferably this century lol.

If i decided to get into schutzhund id only go to someone who has traind and had consistent success and their students have ahd the same

If i wanted my dog to have good manners i'd be a bit suss if the instrucotrs classes were producing poorly mannered dogs and yes a i know a couple that do

[ReXy]

hehe thats me my dogs are great and i can train a dog very easily but teaching others forget it i need to work the dog to show them what to do im hopeless at communication

stella give yourself some credit... u are good at communication to others,.. from my point of view and many others..

[wyvernblade]

I would also go back to basics, i.e what are the main goals of your club? Do you have a club 'philosophy'? If you sit down and evaluate what your club wants to actually provide to it's members, then it will also help you to pick an instructor (Kind of like hiring employees I suppose!) If you are training well mannered pets with novice handlers, then you'd want a trainer that made it fun, and simple. The qualifications wouldn't be so important as the communication skills. If you are training more experienced dog people, with the view to having them compete, then maybe someone with more 'across the board' experience that has some titles with various dogs behind them. It comes down to what your club's goals and position is. Good luck, it's hard finding a good trainer to help train your own dogs,let alone trying to find someone to train everyone else's as well!

[Erny]

If you are training well mannered pets with novice handlers, then you'd want a trainer that made it fun, and simple. The qualifications wouldn't be so important as the communication skills.

Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I would refute the above statement, Wyv. Even the most well mannered pets can develop unwanted behaviours as a RESULT of the handlers being novice. The instructor needs to be sufficiently knowledgeable to identify the early warning signs of behaviour issues and be able to explain and help the novice owner nip these in the bud straight off.

It is FAR better to do so then, than wait until the behaviour becomes full blown .... which is when, on many occasions people usually think to call on a higher level of expertise. By that stage, it is more difficult to turn the behaviour around, assuming it can be turned around completely.

At the club where I train, the puppy/young dog instructors (and remember, puppies and young dogs are commonly with novice handlers) are very important instructors indeed.

Prevention is the best medicine.

ETA: IMO, the easiest class level to instruct is the Advance Level. By this stage, most of the dogs having come up through the ranks at my school, have had any behavioural issues sorted. It then requires an instructor with the imagination and enthusiasm to make the class fun and interesting. Not to suggest, though, that the instructor doesn't need a solid background in training so that obedience probs can't be worked out to resolution.

Being a good instructor, IMO, is not simply about teaching clients the mechanics of how to teach their dogs to sit, drop, heel etc. It's about many other dog related matters on a deeper plain. Admittedly that's how it is at the school I'm with and I guess that's the expectable difference between a professional dog training school and those that are volunteer based. It is from these latter clubs I've seen more than numerous clients and their dogs looking for the help they need to address and fix issues that, after investigation, often began when their dog was only a pup, but went unrecognised and unaddressed.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Erny

[wheres my rock]

i agree have just had this discussion why are our trainees taking beginners they would be better of takign the hgher levels where most of the handlers have been around

[Rom]

Excellent points Erny & CC!

Now that IS important, but something that we seem to have back the front!

The other things is that the advanced class could help to educate the beginner instructor!

[wheres my rock]

The best player doesnt necessarily make the best coach from the book real coaching and feedback by jk smart

instinctive players

are competent but dont know how they do it these include some real genius people for whom things just flow and includes those who have done something so long that they can do it in their sleep called unconciously competet. People like this often dont make good coaches as they cant analyse their performance so dont know what makes it competent

analytical Players

who are competent and can analyse what the are doing and explain i to someone elseIf need to find a way to shift fromunconcious to cnscious competence you can then show wahat a competent performance looks like but cant pick up the bad points

Coaching players

not alway best at the game. However they can watch someone play and tell you wats wrong . they can analyse good and bad perfrmance and shift someone from one to the other

Edited July 15, 2006 by caninecoach