# Do we need a certification body for dog trainers and behaviourists?



## Indiana

I think some sort of certifying board that recognizes a wide variety of methods (but none of them cruel or involving punishment) would be a good thing. I would just hate it to be limited to someone's narrowly defined ideas because so many good things come from experimentation and imagination...like clicker training.


----------



## Rowan

fjm said:


> ...
> The lack of recognised qualifications seems to me to be a very widespread problem, especially if you want to be assured as to the methods a "trainer" advocates. Without some sort of certification, anyone can - and does - describe themselves as a "trainer" or "behaviourist" or "whisperer" or "listener" or other form of expert, and without a lot of research it is impossible to tell whether their qualifications involve many years of education, research and experience, or a few hours watching television. ...
> ...So - do you think there should be more emphasis on qualifications for dog trainers, IMO, YES or is it enough to be a "gifted amateur"? IMO, NO Do you pay a "gifted amateur" to service your car, or install your central heating, or teach your children? NO What makes for a good dog trainer - and do the same attributes make for a good dog training instructor? And how do we ensure that when we go looking for help in raising and educating our dogs, we get a professional service - especially if we are new to dog ownership, or our experience is many years out of date?


Personally, I feel there _should_ be a standardized certification for quality control if for no other reason. It would be nice if there was one lead certification agency that established the required education, practical experience, interships, qualifications, etc. in order to earn a specific title, whether it's Dog Trainer or Dog Behavioural Specialist. On that note, perhaps all dog trainers should start as trainees and apprentice under an experienced, licensed trainer. 

As it stands now, pretty much anyone can claim the title of "dog trainer" and work with dogs. I personally wouldn't let anyone work with my dogs until I'd checked their education, experience, references, training protocol--their qualifications--and observed them in action a number of times. 

Unfortunately, novice and sometimes desperate dog owners often don't know what to look for in a reputable trainer and a certifying agency would reduce the chances of such an owner falling prey to an unscrupulous or irresponsible trainer. It could be as simple as establishing a "tier system" of certifications that correlate with education and experience. Such a system would clearly outline what is expected of a trainer, to include accepted training methods such as positive reinforcement and clicker training (etc.), thus helping consumers make informed decisions when it comes to their beloved companions.


----------



## JE-UK

I would love to see something like the scheme that the British Horse Society run for trainer qualifications. It doesn't guarantee a good trainer, necessarily, but does at least ensure the trainer has a good foundation in the basics, has demonstrated practical skills, and has been exposed to the "right" theories of training horses and riders.


----------



## Rowan

Of interest, a friend brought the print version of this magazine to work today and it had an article on this very topic. 

Love Your Pets: Tips On Training - Homes - Washingtonian
(BF mine)


> Trainer, behaviorist, positive reinforcement--the lexicon of dog training can be baffling. To complicate matters, there's debate within the training profession about which methods are most effective. *Add in the fact that there are no state or federal legal requirements or agreed-upon standards for what constitutes a dog trainer or behaviorist--anybody can claim to be qualified.*


----------



## Leooonie

I think certification is key to quality in a job with many 'so-called' trainers treating dogs like creatures to be dominated.

I myself am doing a BSc in animal behaviour science, witha view to do a MSc In clinical anima behaviour... then registering with APDT and CCAB etc...
I have had quite a bit of experience helping people with simple dog problems... such as barking, leash issues etc... and it is truly amazing the sort of awful experience soem people are given!
I have seen so many gorgeous dogs on the road to ruin because people constantly punish their dogs instead of seeing them as simply doing what comes naturally.


----------



## tortoise

I don't think it will ever work.

Has anyone here worked with a dog that can and will kill you? How many times have you been attacked? How many dog bites scars do you have? Have you ever trained a dog that must bite people in a controlled manner?

Nope, didn't think so.

Dog training is far to wide of a scope. In areas where there are limitations on dog training equipment, the police K9 and search and rescue trainers are having problems trying to get the work done without the equipment they need.

Universal regulations on dog training won't work. Perhaps an organization with a range of certifications with different guidelines for each. Like one for pets, one for behavioral problems, one for service dogs, one for SAR/HRD, one for scenting, one for gun dog, one for PPD/PSD, etc. Within each group there could be agreement, but to get one standard for all will never work. There would be too much force allowed in the pet dog areas, and not enough control allowed in the working areas.

I'm not going to worry about it. I will work on making mself the best I can be, and not worry about what other people think is correct. Instead of limiting myself to a certain repetiore, I will learn everything I can and apply it (or not) to the best result.


----------



## Rowan

tortoise said:


> I don't think it will ever work.
> 
> Has anyone here worked with a dog that can and will kill you? Have you? How many times have you been attacked? And you? How many dog bites scars do you have? Care to show us yours? Have you ever trained a dog that must bite people in a controlled manner? Have you?
> 
> Nope, didn't think so. And once again you're not only flippant but presumptuous. Do you think you're the only "dog trainer" who has been attacked, bitten or worked with dangerous dogs or police dogs? Srsly? Is there a reason you're so defensive? You jump to a lot of conclusions considering you know next to nothing about your fellow forum members.
> 
> Dog training is far to wide of a scope. In areas where there are limitations on dog training equipment, the police K9 and search and rescue trainers are having problems trying to get the work done without the equipment they need.
> 
> Universal regulations on dog training won't work. Perhaps an organization with a range of certifications with different guidelines for each. Like one for pets, one for behavioral problems, one for service dogs, one for SAR/HRD, one for scenting, one for gun dog, one for PPD/PSD, etc. Within each group there could be agreement, but to get one standard for all will never work. There would be too much force allowed in the pet dog areas, and not enough control allowed in the working areas.
> 
> *I'm not going to worry about it. I will work on making mself the best I can be, and not worry about what other people think is correct. Instead of limiting myself to a certain repetiore, I will learn everything I can and apply it (or not) to the best result*.


red font = mine

So what you're saying is that you hold no certification from a professional organization? Please enlighten us--what schools or training courses _have_ you attended? You've claimed to be an expert in a number of dog training fields so I'm curious.

BF = mine.
Herein lies the problem. Who says you're applying what you've "learned" (learned _how_?) correctly? Where are the checks and balances? It would appear there are none.


----------



## tortoise

I've trained under some of the best, either as mentee, employee or at seminars. I worked for a company that makes dog training videos. I logged their raw video footage, so in addition to hands-on experience, I've watched hundreds of hours of training and seminars from the best out there. 

Y'all know Anne Braue? USA World Agility team for several years. She learned through seminars and is a successful trainer (with an AMAZING facility). I took my agility classes from her. 

But it is unacceptable for another trainer to learn from seminars?

Yes, I have worked with dogs who could kill. I mean they had the aggression, training, and sharpness to kill. Yes, I've raised police dog prospects. I've been a decoy (ther person who gets bitten). I raised a personal protection dog from a puppy. Yes, I have multiple dog bites, one attack left 7 puncture wounds on my right hand.

My point is that the scope of experience that is represented on this forum is narrow compared to the complete range of dog training. How can you suggest regulating all dog training when you don't even know what is or how it can get done? This forum is for one breed of dog that is typically trainable and social, and almost all the training is for household manners and tricks. Don't forget the dog and dog trainnig world is BIGGER.

Checks and balances come from knowing many training methods and staying in contact with other dogs trainers - especially those that train differently. Review, relearn, reread. Practice, viderecord, analyze. I re-re-re-read Quick Clicks this weekend and have a pages of notes (again) to apply to my puppy and developing free shaping with him.


----------



## Countryboy

tortoise said:


> I'm not going to worry about it. I will work on making mself the best I can be, and not worry about what other people think is correct. Instead of limiting myself to a certain repertoire, I will learn everything I can and apply it (or not) to the best result.


LOL, Tortise. From what I see in this forum I'm not gonna please everybody with my training methods either. I guess I'll just carry on doing what I think is best. 

But everybody else is welcome to train how they like.


----------



## fjm

When I think of certification, I think in terms of a generic foundation level, with further specialisation built upon that. A vet specialising in obstetrics, or opthalmology, or T&O would be expected to first qualify as a vet, and then to take further qualifications and experience to gain a specialist qualification. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the same person who is brilliant at teaching people how to raise their pet puppies is necessarily also going to be able to train a service dog and their owner, or a SAR dog - perhaps that is exactly why we need a better way of understanding qualifications and experience.

At the moment anyone - regardless of their level of training, qualifications and experience - can set up as any kind of dog or owner trainer. Surely a benchmarking system that enables clients to distinguish between someone qualified to take a puppy class and someone qualified as a behaviourist is a good thing? And similarly helps them to find a specialist in agility, or SAR, or any other specialty? 

Without getting into the issue of methods, the UK Police Force seems to be doing a pretty good job of training their dogs without using coercive methods - and I recently read an article on the use of reward based methods with dogs in the military, used because they had been proved to be the most effective way of training the dogs. But this is not about using only a limited set of methods - it is about ensuring that whatever methods are chosen, they are based on a thorough, and tested, understanding of both the theory and practice of dog behaviour and learning. That understnding can be gained in many ways - formal courses, seminars (essential for continuing professional education, I would say), reflective practice - but surely if people are offering a service to the public, their qualification to provide that service to a good standard need to be tested and documented in some way? Otherwise how do we distinguish those who have many ears of experience, and have worked with the top people in their field, from those who have just watched a series or two of He-Who-Cannot-Be-Gainsaid?


----------



## Rowan

tortoise said:


> I've trained under some of the best, either as mentee, employee or at seminars. I worked for a company that makes dog training videos. I logged their raw video footage, so in addition to hands-on experience, I've watched hundreds of hours of training and seminars from the best out there.
> ...
> But it is unacceptable for another trainer to learn from seminars?
> ...
> My point is that the scope of experience that is represented on this forum is narrow compared to the complete range of dog training. And how do you know this for a fact? *How can you suggest regulating all dog training when you don't even know what is or how it can get done?* So you're saying we can't watch a hundred videos, attended a dozen seminars or read numerous books to understand dog training? You can't have it both ways. *This forum is for one breed of dog that is typically trainable and social*, and almost all the training is for household manners and tricks. Ironically, numerous members have repeatedly had to remind you of the fact in BF. Don't forget the dog and dog trainnig world is BIGGER.
> ...
> Checks and balances come from knowing many training methods and staying in contact with other dogs trainers - especially those that train differently. ...


So by the same token, in order to perform a splenectomy, all one must do is watch a few dozen videos, read a medical manual and perhaps spend some quality time with a surgeon? Or attend a few seminars? That's where I have a problem. _Anyone_ can read a book, watch a TV show or attend a seminar and parrot the information back. If I hire a lawyer, I want to see their creds--proof of their education and demonstrated ability to practice law. If I hire a dog trainer, I also want to see proof that they have met some established criteria to perform the function. I don't merely want to hear "I watched an entire season of TDW" or "I read x number of titles and attended x number of seminars."

There currently isn't any method for those calling themselves dog trainers, behaviourists, etc., to demonstrate they actually possess the requisite skills to perform the job. There are no benchmarks to evaluate performance and no set criteria regarding educational requirements, practical experience, internships, or basic qualifications. This concerns me. 

Watching and observing shouldn't be a substitute for practical application, rigorous testing and the aforementioned benchmarks. As *fjm *said, this would be a good thing because it would separate the mediocre from the truly adept. It would help the public choose the right trainer for the job, whether that's housetraining a poodle or a SAR dog.

Anyone--from the twelve-year-old kid next door to the village idiot--can claim the title of "dog trainer." 

By _checks and balances_, I'm referring to a system of quality assurance, or a control mechanism to ensure consistency, safe practices and to guard against fraud.


----------



## JE-UK

Rowan said:


> There currently isn't any method for those calling themselves dog trainers, behaviourists, etc., to demonstrate they actually possess the requisite skills to perform the job. There are no benchmarks to evaluate performance and no set criteria regarding educational requirements, practical experience, internships, or basic qualifications.


Rowan, you've hit on the crux of it. Without independent verification of skills and knowledge and experience, there is no way to distinguish one trainer from another. Oddly, in this country, I think there are more hurdles in the way of becoming a nail technician than a dog trainer :smile:.


----------



## Chagall's mom

JE-UK said:


> Rowan, you've hit on the crux of it. Without independent verification of skills and knowledge and experience, there is no way to distinguish one trainer from another. Oddly, in this country, I think there are more hurdles in the way of becoming a nail technician than a dog trainer :smile:.


*JE-UK*: You took the words out of my mouth and hit the proverbial nail on the head! I just had the thought that here even manicurists need to be certified and licensed. I think it would provide a very important service to the pubic if there were some transparency and standard certification for dog trainers. I was always pleased to know the lifeguards at the pool where my children swam as youngsters were tested and certified. Sure, there may have been lots of experienced, strong swimmers nearby, but knowing someone specifically trained to do water rescues and CPR was on watch made me feel much more confident.

It holds no sway with me how boastful someone may be about their supposed dog training experience. Our local 19 year old pizza delivery boy now hands out his "King Dog Training, Rule Your Dog!" business card with each delivery. I'd like tangible, verifiable evidence that someone professing to be a dog trainer has met some baseline standards. And yes, I long ago "ruled out" using King Dog Training's services! :nod:


ETA: I asked the pizza delivery boy "dog trainer" were he studied dog training, his answer, "On Animal Planet.":doh:


----------



## liljaker

I wonder how many pet owners would knowingly try any methods of training without understanding the risks of following advice from an "uncertified/credentialed" trainer -- since it is very difficult to "undo" wrong training and I would think most people would not want to randomly try this or that on their poodles, but instead, would trust the judgment and resulting behaviors of someone who has taken the time to get credentialed. Maybe I am wrong, and maybe people will willingly listen to posts by uncertified trainers on an online forum --- I would hope that people will read what others suggest, but before trying any of them, check them out with a credentialed or accomplished trainer first to be sure this is the right way to go for you and your pet. You notice I say "pet owners" -- that is an important point here, and I would assume most of our members have poodles that are companion/pets and are looking for help on normal behavior issues.


----------



## petitpie

Some local obedience trainers work for a show trainer/handler, who learned in the military, but they do not recommend him to other owners for dog training. I'm not sure his certification would change their opinions.

Who will set standards and how will these people be chosen?


----------



## liljaker

I was researching some training information and came across this link. Thought this is an appropriate place to post it since it pretty much covers what we have been discussing here. Obviously, there are lots of opinions here, but this is pretty straightforward and is authored by Jean Donaldson, Director of The SF/SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers,
_" Talk Softly and Carry a Carrot or a Big Stick?"_

Modern Dog Training vs. Cesar Millan


----------



## Rowan

_Interesting_ article, liljaker! I think she sums up this thread nicely:

*BF /red font mine.*


> *Dog training is a divided profession.* We are not like plumbers, orthodontists or termite exterminators who, if you put six in a room, will pretty much agree on how to do their jobs. Dog training camps are more like Republicans and Democrats, all agreeing that the job needs to be done but wildly differing on how to do it.
> 
> *The big watershed in dog training is whether or not to include pain and fear as means of motivation.* In the last twenty years the pendulum swing has been toward methods that use minimal pain, fear or intimidation - or none at all.
> 
> *The force-free movement has been partly driven by improved communication from the top. Applied behaviorists, those with advanced degrees in behavior, and veterinary behaviorists, veterinarians who have completed residencies specializing in behavior problems are in greater abundance than in previous decades, and there is much more collaboration between these fields and trainers on the front lines. These two professions are quite unified on the point that the use of physical confrontation and pain is unnecessary, often detrimental and, importantly, unsafe.*
> 
> On a more grassroots level, trainers have found more benign and sophisticated tools by boning up on applied behavior science themselves. Seminal books like marine mammal trainer Karen Pryor's Don't Shoot the Dog made the case that training and behavior modification can be achieved without any force whatsoever.
> 
> *But dog training is currently an unregulated profession: there are no laws governing practices. Prosecutions under general anti-cruelty statutes are occasionally successful but greatly hampered by the absence of legal standards pertaining specifically to training practices. Provided it's in the name of training, someone with no formal education or certification can strangle your dog quite literally to death and conceivably get off scot-free.*
> ...


----------



## Leooonie

these methods you seem to like tortoise, are disproven by scientific backing and studies. 2 of my lecturers are leading veterinary animal behaviourists. and the masters i hope to do is the only one of its kind in the UK.
most of the people that take it tend to be mature and have lots of life experience with people and animals. for example one student has been a police psychologist for 10 years and is now doing the masters.
these people are true professionals in every sense of the word.

dog behaviour is a science. using methods which have no backing ethologically or psychologically in the end are not as effective as those that do.


----------



## tortoise

Leooonie said:


> these methods you seem to like tortoise, are disproven by scientific backing and studies. 2 of my lecturers are leading veterinary animal behaviourists. and the masters i hope to do is the only one of its kind in the UK.
> most of the people that take it tend to be mature and have lots of life experience with people and animals. for example one student has been a police psychologist for 10 years and is now doing the masters.
> these people are true professionals in every sense of the word.
> 
> dog behaviour is a science. using methods which have no backing ethologically or psychologically in the end are not as effective as those that do.


Have you read the Handbook of Applied Dog Training? All three volumes? Did you notice all the research to support the text? Pages of citations for each chapter, and each of those citations leading to fascinating reading. I may favor cynopraxic training, but it is because of the research behind it and the obvious results. While I favor cynopraxic training, I'm also heavy into clicker training.


It doesn't matter what I LIKE, it matters what WORKS.  Results are not only measured in compliance, but in the dog's attitude as well.


----------



## tortoise

liljaker said:


> I was researching some training information and came across this link. Thought this is an appropriate place to post it since it pretty much covers what we have been discussing here. Obviously, there are lots of opinions here, but this is pretty straightforward and is authored by Jean Donaldson, Director of The SF/SPCA Academy for Dog Trainers,
> _" Talk Softly and Carry a Carrot or a Big Stick?"_
> 
> Modern Dog Training vs. Cesar Millan


How about BOTH?

I can explain it like a fence. Inside the fence all good things happen. The dog gets to play, play with other dogs, swim, go fishing, go shopping for dog treats every weekend. The dog is catered to, the best food possible, the dogs favorite toys, treats, games. But if the dog jumps the fence, all the good things are gone and bad things happen. When the dog is young is it gently taught that if it jumps the fence by accident, it can jump back in and nothing bad happens. The dog always gets a warning if it gets to close to the fence or jumps it, and the dog gets the opportunity to revise its behavior. If the dog crosses the line and recieves punishment, we immediately go back to happy in the fence. There's no human frustration or anger.

The dog has a free choice. That is my personal crux of training is that the dog always has the freedom of choice. I'm not pushing training onto the dog. The dog is choosing to interact with me.

Sorry, getting off topic. I just though the "carry a big stick or a big carrot" title/comment didn't leave option for the majority of trainers that balance the reward for good behavior with a consequence for misbehavior.


----------



## Rowan

tortoise said:


> ...
> Sorry, getting off topic. I just though the "carry a big stick or a big carrot" title/comment didn't leave option for the majority of trainers that balance the reward for good behavior with a consequence for misbehavior.


Did you actually read the linked article in *liljaker's* post? :confused2: Did you not get the title's reference to _Cesar Millan_, or the overall theme of the article? (And it's actually: "Talk Softly and Carry a Carrot or a Big Stick?")


----------



## fjm

I don't have any problems with the concept of consequences for actions - there are very, very few reward-based trainers who do not use negative punishment (withholding the treat, ignoring the dog ... ). I have used it very successfully on Poppy to teach her not to jump up at me at the top of the stairs - every time she moved to jump, I stepped back from the stairs, as soon as she stepped back, I went forward again. Since we were on our way down for breakfast, or to go for a walk, it took about 15 seconds for her to curb her enthusiasm and wait politely. After a few repetitions she had got the point. The issue between CM-style trainers and reward-based trainers is the scale and frequency of the negative consequences - there is a huge difference between taking a step back, and using a painful shock, or collar yank, or kick, just as there is a huge difference between setting a dog up to get something right, and repeatedly punishing him for getting it wrong.

Which is surely why we need certification - both of basic qualifications and of training methods? In the UK, the British branch of the APDT goes some way to doing this for reward-based trainers, but I believe the concept of checking qualifications of trainers and "whisperers" and "murmurers" and other gurus needs to be mainstream. I would even welcome a certification body for e-collar trainers, if they are to remain legal - far, far better to use one under the eye of someone who really understands the issues with using them than someone who sees them as a quick way to zap "bad" behaviour out of the dog.


----------



## fjm

Very interesting research study into methods owners use, the source of the advice, and the results (particularly whether they lead to increased aggression to humans). 

http://www.friendsofthedog.co.za/uploads/6/0/9/1/6091047/trainingarticle.pdf


----------



## Rowan

fjm said:


> Very interesting research study into methods owners use, the source of the advice, and the results (particularly whether they lead to increased aggression to humans).
> 
> http://www.friendsofthedog.co.za/uploads/6/0/9/1/6091047/trainingarticle.pdf


_Excellent_ read! Thanks, *fjm*.


----------



## Countryboy

Instead of throwing away one training method and concentrating on reward only, why not carry a carrot AND a 'big' stick?


----------



## liljaker

Countryboy said:


> Instead of throwing away one training method and concentrating on reward only, why not carry a carrot AND a 'big' stick?


I don't think anyone is advocating throwing away one method for another, but this discussion is (IMO) more about which method is more humane and will get you the same results. I guess you could put a e-collar on a dog and zap them everytime they walked on the Oriental rug and they'd get it; but is that your only option? Again, we are talking pet poodles here for the most part and we seem to be forgetting this. I don't think anyone here is saying one method does not work --- I think the danger is having people getting on a soapbox advocating this or that on a forum of primarily companion animals, without being backed up by real studies by experts who have behavioral studies under their belt, certifications, credentials, etc. -- that's why I posted in the first place, CB. I won't try to address training methods for dogs that could kill someone or bite their head off, and I don't think most people on this forum have that kind of poodle at home.

Honestly, if someone wants to put a shock collar on a 4 month old miniature poodle puppy because it is whining or barking too much (hate to bring it up, but a member advocated that on this thread), I can't stop them and understand that it DID solve the problem -- so does that make it right or humane; neither can I stop someone from yanking their child's arm in a grocery store and hitting them in a manner which I feel was inappropriate. However, I CAN and I WILL say that I will take the kinder, gentler methods always and work for the results I want -- especially armed with knowledge that the methods work. Sometimes people with little patience want immediate gratification or results; I am sure there are methods to achieve the same results but may take more time and effort.

I just think there are some very good points being made on this thread regarding training and behavior, as well as some good links to well-written articles authored by experts and accredited trainers, so I do hope people take the time to read them and not just react to a statement.

People will advocate what has worked for them -- I get it -- and can't argue it didn't or won't work, since I was not there. Having something work for you is a far stone's throw from being an expert in your field and advocating the same is the preferred method even if it goes against current studies and research. If you look hard enough, you can always find people who will backup your position. I will always take the humane, positive and yes, gentler way of training and, if it does not work for me, I will seek out an accredited behaviorist or trainer who has done more than watch videos and take notes. This is not a personal attack on anyone here; I would feel the same way about it if I was looking for someone to deal with human behavior issues for a family member or myself. 

I have owned poodles for 30 years, probably longer than some of our PF members have been alive -- I have never had to resort to any training methods other than positive reinforcement and am not about to change now.


----------



## fjm

I think everyone knows where I sit when it comes to training methods, but can I suggest we start a thread on research into the effectiveness/adverse effects of different methods, and avoid getting too far into debating the issue here? Any minute now someone will say they really love He-Who-Cannot-Be-Gainsaid, and then, as we know, all hope of sensible discussion is gone forever more! Liljaker's post linking to Jean Donaldson's paper is highly relevant to the topic under discussion here, as the paper is making the point that dog training is still an unregulated profession, in which "Provided it's in the name of training, someone with no formal education or certification can strangle your dog quite literally to death and conceivably get off scot-free."

So - to gently lead us back on topic (not a yank on the leash, honest!) - is there anyone who is actually against regulating dog trainers, instructors and behaviourists, who are charging for their services? What are their reasons? And what should we be looking for in qualifications, certification and regulation?


----------



## tortoise

I NEVER "advocated" ecollar use in that way. I used it on my dog because of a particular situation that made longer training processes impractical. I did use clicker training before, during, and after. I have never told anyone to do it with their dog and never will.

My puppy is quiet in the crate, but not afraid to make noise (like when an automatic shock bark collar is used). He gallops into his crate as fast as you can imagine, is quiet unless he needs to potty (then he whines). He accepts food and treats in the crate. And it had no impact on our relationship, he's attentive and biddable, loves to play and train.

I've shocked myself and my neighbor's kids at higher levels than I used on my puppy. :lol: Ecollars are very precise tools that can give a stimulation that is less upsetting to a young dog than other methods. On a scale of 1 - 127, I cannot feel below 14 on the palm of my hand. I used 20 with my puppy. A stimulation that is barely noticeable. It's not intended to cause pain, but to interrupt. Like having an infinitely long arm to reach out an touch. When barking is a self-rewarding behavior, negative punishment will NOT work. That's why I went to positive punishment paired with positive reinforcment.

NOW, back to topic, there is HUGE range in how ecollars are used. Even low-stimulation training can be escape training. So some governing agency could not define humane use of electronic trainers by the level of stimulation used. IF you're only talking about pet dogs without severe behavior problems, the training can be done without ecollars (I prefer these ways). But if you're talking about some universal standards for all dog trainers you will run into frustration and dead ends. If all dogs were the same, it would work.

To ban positive punishment in dog training is signing a death sentence to thousands of dogs.


----------



## fjm

I think the universal standards we are discussing are about education and qualifications to ensure a sound base for decisions made about training methods. Additional qualifications in the use of specific methods would of course be very helpful for potential clients (as I said above, one for e-collar instructors would be particularly useful to ensure they fully understood all the ramifications of using shock collars - at whatever level of shock was used). Disentangling the roles of trainers of dogs, instructors of dog owners, behaviourists and clinical behaviourists would also be very valuable for dog owners.

Bodies regulating the medical and veterinary professions seem to be able to come up with universal standards, although all people are different, and animals vary even more. There are nationally and internationally recognised teaching qualifications, although all children are different. I certainly don't despair of standards for dog trainers and behaviourists, although there may be some practitioners who will balk at the idea. 

And to answer your final point, I wonder just how many of the behavioural problems that you are advocating curing or controlling with positive punishment were caused by such punishment in the first place. I suspect more dogs are PTS because of issues stemming from excessively harsh and confrontational training methods than are rescued by the limited use of further positive punishment.


----------



## Rowan

We appear to be circling the drain here.............

Back to the OP: I'm still 100% behind some method for those calling themselves dog trainers, behaviourists, etc., to demonstrate they actually _possess _the requisite skills to perform the job. I see no reason for someone to balk at the idea of benchmarks to evaluate performance, and for a certifying agency to set guidelines regarding educational requirements, practical experience, internships, or basic qualifications before claiming the title "dog trainer," "animal behaviourist," etc. 

This protects dog owners from potentially dangerous 'trainers'/practices which could result in the death of their dog or make the behaviour even worse. Or to use *fjm's *quote from the Donaldson article:


> Provided it's in the name of training, *someone with no formal education or certification* can strangle your dog quite literally to death and conceivably get off scot-free.


_Anyone _can read a book, watch some video footage, or attend a seminar and then market themselves as a dog trainer. Even if their intentions are good, which isn't always the case, don't our dogs deserve more? :confused2:

As someone pointed out in an earlier post, even nail technicians have to obtain a certification. Psychologists, dentists, attorneys, nurses, doctors, teachers, etc. all have to abide by the above. So why not those who work with dogs? 

These top "dog trainers" all have _credentials _to demonstrate their knowledge in the field:
*Patricia McConnell*: PhD, *Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist*
positive vs. negative dog training TheOtherEndoftheLeash

*Dr. Ian Dunbar*: *Veterinarian, animal behaviorist, and dog trainer,* Dr. Ian Dunbar received his veterinary degree and a Special Honors degree in Physiology & Biochemistry from the Royal Veterinary College (London University) plus *a doctorate in animal behavior from the Psychology Department at UC Berkeley, where he researched the development of social hierarchies and aggression in domestic dogs*.
Sirius Dog Training

*Jean Donaldson*
Welcome to the JeanDonaldson.com
The San Francisco SPCA-Director of The Academy for Dog Trainers
Born in Montreal, Canada, where she studied at McGill, Jean founded both the Montreal Flyball Association and Renaissance Dog Training, the first positive reinforcement based school and counseling service in the province. ...While a student, she worked as an adoption counselor at the Montreal SPCA and later served on its Board of Directors. Her background in science and keen interest in evolutionary biology, *the subject in which she is currently pursuing a doctorate degree*, uniquely suit her to view behavior as an evolutionary adaptation.

*Karen Pryor*: A pioneer in ethology and behavior and the leading spokesperson for clicker training, *Karen is a scientist with an international reputation in two fields: marine mammal biology and behavioral psychology.* Through her work with dolphins in the 1960s, she developed modern, force-free animal training methods. Karen is the author of many scientific papers and monographs and seven books.
About Us | Karen Pryor Clickertraining

From the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior:
Position statement on Dominance Training: http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonline/images/stories/Position_Statements/dominance statement.pdf
Position statement on Punishment: http://www.avsabonline.org/avsabonl...Statements/Combined_Punishment_Statements.pdf



> Posted by *fjm*:
> And to answer your final point, I wonder just how many of the behavioural problems that you are advocating curing or controlling with positive punishment were caused by such punishment in the first place. I suspect more dogs are PTS because of issues stemming from excessively harsh and confrontational training methods than are rescued by the limited use of further positive punishment.


Excellent point and something that was addressed in the study you linked to in a previous post.


----------



## tortoise

Sooo... now you want dog training to be such an elite that it is inaccessible?


----------



## fjm

Interesting response, Tortoise. Is there no middle ground between allowing anyone, no matter how unqualified and inexperienced, to put up a sign calling themselves a dog trainer and charge people for their services, and creating an inaccessible elite? We are not saying all dog trainers should be qualified to PhD level - the people Rowan describes are probably near the very top of the profession - but it is to everyone's benefit for clients to be assured that dog trainers (and even more, behaviourists) are experienced, qualified professionals, and that their capabilities have been measured against a consistent external standard. It benefits the clients, by giving them basic quality assurance, and it benefits the professionals, by ensuring their expertise is recognised and valued.

Note that I say qualified AND experienced - just as the greatest experts are not always the greatest teachers, so those who are most adept at passing exams are not always the greatest practitioners.


----------



## Rowan

tortoise said:


> Sooo... now you want dog training to be such an elite that it is inaccessible?


No, I want dog trainers held accountable for their actions. I want benchmarks to prove that those who claim the title are _qualified _to perform the task. I think *fjm *covered the rest.


----------



## Chagall's mom

tortoise said:


> Sooo... now you want dog training to be such an elite that it is inaccessible?



??? You've lost me here. Most professions, especially those dealing with life and limb (and no one wants theirs bitten off), require proof of a certain level of education and proficiency in the field. I mean sure, Sleepy's has "mattress professionals," and I suppose they get a pass. But why wouldn't you want others who hold your title, "dog trainer," to be verifiably worthy to do so? To undergo the scrutiny to demonstrate they measure up? As I've said, the local pizza delivery boy professes to be a dog trainer, same as you. How does the public have informed access to reliable, proven training methods without some sort of standardized credential? As someone whose passion seems to lie in training dogs, I'd think you'd want to be at the forefront of such an effort. I guess your thinking on the matter is just inaccessible to me. I think *fjm* has outlined a very well-reasoned path to consider.


----------



## petitpie

Responsible poodle breeders call themselves "amateurs" and no one wants to regulate them. Dog clubs have always been well-served by local, amateur (for the love of), volunteer dog trainers with 30-plus years experience training their own dogs. I don't believe these dog club members, as in UGA and Uga enthusiasts, will stand for meddling with the status quo from anyone in this country, at the very least.

A good dog trainer will not necessarily be credentialed, and a credentialed dog trainer will not necessarily be good.


----------



## cavon

I'm joining this conversation late, but I am a bit confused as to why anyone would NOT want there to be a governing body and accreditation program for dog trainers.

If, like Tortoise, someone has dedicated a great deal of time reading, watching instructional videos and attending seminars, then it would seem to me that if a base standard level of skill was determined and some form of examination developed to test that that skill level has been achieved, then this person would have no difficulty in completing the accreditation. So I don't understand what the issue is.

I am an accountant. My university degree was not in business, in fact it was in psychology and therapeutic recreation. My desire was to work with developmentally challenged children.

I finished university in the early 80's when there was a great recession going on. Despite good grades and a very successful internship, I was not able to secure a position in my chosen profession. 

I have always had an aptitude for numbers, so accounting seemed like a logical alternative to me; however, I could not just hang out a shingle and expect people to put their accounts into my hands. I worked at entry level accounting department positions and I went back to school at night. I took regulated courses and wrote regulated exams until I reached a level of accepted skill and knowledge that allowed me to, no, not say I was an accountant, but to study more and write more regulated exams so that I was accepted by an accredited accounting body so that I could study some more and write more regulated exams until I achieved the status of a Certified Management Accountant.

Now if I make a decision involving millions of dollars for my company, they have the security of knowing that I have achieved successfully a certain set of standards that indicates that I have the knowledge and ability to make that decision.

I just had dental surgery a week and a half ago and you can bet that I made sure the dental surgeon that did the procedure had successfully completed accredited training and examination.

We have witnessed in the past several years the effects of the US having an unregulated banking system.

Now I know that we are not talking about million dollar contracts or medical procedures or the livelihood and homes of hundreds of millions of people, but I, for one, am just as interested in confirming that the person who is helping me to train my pet to behave in ways that will ensure my, his and anyone else that we might come in contact with's safety has been trained and is accredited to do so.

I don't think it has to be a Phd or nothing issue, but I do believe that there should be a base level that all should pass and then specialty training for whatever specific area of training that one chooses to participate in. Much the same as all doctors first obtains a medical degree and then must become further accredited in the area of specialization that they choose. I wouldn't want a GP doing open heart survey on me any more than I would want a trainer who specializes in guard dog training to be teaching my dog to do rally.


----------



## liljaker

I see there have been almost 700 viewings of this thread, yet only the small handful of us (6 maybe?) have been commenting. I would be interested to know what others, and other senior members think and especially some of the breeders? Any takers???


----------



## petitpie

The problems in this country are in implementation and effectiveness, before even discussing any benefits.


----------



## tortoise

Middle ground is awfully difficult to define.

There is a local "trainer" who teaches 4H dog project classes. Her qualifications are having been in the 4H dog project for 10+ years, since she was in 3rd grade, I think. 

My neighbor was training one of my in-training service dogs for her 4H project. We went to one of this lady's classes. I was HORRIFIED. Talk about animal abuse. No teaching kids how or why, just put a chain collar on and jerk it around.

My neighbor made a handling mistake and my dog refused the stand command. I let this clueless "trainer" dink around with my dog for a while until she decided to put a leash under his belly and jerk him up. I stepped in and we left. They asked us to not come back.

And we took first place easily. :aetsch: My neighbor learned A LOT about dog training. It took her about 6 months to learn how to reward and motivate a dog. She did all the training herself, and did a good job. 

It was SAD to watch the obedience competition. It was so obvious the dog had been jerked around. Y'all know I'm not against using leash corrections, but NOT like that! My dog was the only in dozens of dogs that was cheerful and attentive.

They're all young and clumsy, but this is the pair of them getting ready for a fun show: 




And the same dog with me: 




Anyhow, I have the same number of years of experience as this other lady who is teaching dozens of kids to beat their dogs. So how do you define safe, humane and effective? There is research out there to prove anything and everything.

It seems extremely difficult, even if there were a group of certification tests to accomodate the differences in training in different venues.


----------



## tortoise

liljaker said:


> I see there have been almost 700 viewings of this thread, yet only the small handful of us (6 maybe?) have been commenting. I would be interested to know what others, and other senior members thing and especially some of the breeders? Any takers???


I get lots of PM's from members who agree with me on whatever issue but are afraid to post because of the hostile nature of some of the "6" posters on this thread.

I'm happy to know it's just the internet and if it bothers me, I can unplug. NBD. Not everyone is able to "unplug" mentally and they don't feel comfortable contributing.

Having an opinion, a topic you are passionate about is good. But overconfidence and railroading others is not. We all grow and learn as pet owners, trainers, and groomers by reading different points of view.


----------



## cavon

petitpie said:


> The problem is in implementation in this country, not necessarily benefits.


I don't think that difficulty should be the defining factor, do you honestly? To say well it would be hard to do, so let's not do it and take what we can get?

If everyone researched the trainers they are taking their dogs to and only chose to attend the classes and pay the accredited ones, the situation would correct itself. There would be a shrinking market for unaccredited trainers and they would eventually go out of business, but as long as we, the paying public are willing to accept the situation, nothing will change.

I go to two different trainers with Finnegan and I researched both, spoke with people who have utilized them in the past, asked for professional references, attended classes before participating and had lengthly conversations about their accreditations, what I was aiming to achieve and what methodologies I was and was not willing to implement in order to achieve our goals.


----------



## cavon

tortoise said:


> I get lots of PM's from members who agree with me on whatever issue but are afraid to post because of the hostile nature of some of the "6" posters on this thread.
> 
> I'm happy to know it's just the internet and if it bothers me, I can unplug. NBD. Not everyone is able to "unplug" mentally and they don't feel comfortable contributing.
> 
> Having an opinion, a topic you are passionate about is good. But overconfidence and railroading others is not. We all grow and learn as pet owners, trainers, and groomers by reading different points of view.



I just read the whole thread before adding a post and I did not see anything that I would consider "hostile". In fact, I think that this is becoming one of the most open discussions that I have seen on the PF in a long time. 

it seems to me that everyone has been entitled to their opinion and also to disagree or agree with the opinions of others. Isn't that what a debate is? :alberteinstein:


----------



## petitpie

Credentials tied to market seem to bring with them the usual unsavory implications in an amateur setting, as in the Olympics. Potential credentialed abuses.......


----------



## cavon

Would you explain that a bit? I don't really understand what you are saying.


----------



## Rowan

petitpie said:


> Credentials tied to market seem to bring with it the usual unsavory implications in an amateur setting, as in the Olympics.


Double :confused2:


----------



## liljaker

petitpie said:


> Credentials tied to market seem to bring with it the usual unsavory implications in an amateur setting, as in the Olympics.


I don't get that..."credentials tied to market...." what do you mean? You are questioning credentialing????


----------



## tortoise

cavon said:


> If everyone researched the trainers they are taking their dogs to and only chose to attend the classes and pay the accredited ones, the situation would correct itself. There would be a shrinking market for unaccredited trainers and they would eventually go out of business, but as long as we, the paying public are willing to accept the situation, nothing will change.
> 
> I go to two different trainers with Finnegan and I researched both, spoke with people who have utilized them in the past, asked for professional references, attended classes before participating and had lengthly conversations about their accreditations, what I was aiming to achieve and what methodologies I was and was not willing to implement in order to achieve our goals.


Or only go to humane trainers. Unfortunately, people like fast results and some "trainers" are willing to give them, using punishment.

When I was training professionally, I liked when people wanted to talk, get a free demo or free class, compare to others in the area. People who care are the best clients because they actually do their homework and get results. Plus it's a huge confidence boost to be picked over the competition. 

As consumers, we do control who gets paid and who stays in business. Although it is easier to accredit trainers then educate billions of people. 

I just don't think that the dog world will settle for it. Some will love it - it will boost their business. But it would probably hurt the trainers we NEED the most. I don't trust a dog to save my life unless it has been finished off with compulsion. Meaning the dog is first taught through play, and then taught with correction that disobedience is impossible. This applies to working dogs - the search and rescue, tracking, narcotics, some types of service dogs, police dogs, personal protection dogs. This is difficult training, little money in it. It's usually volunteers owner/trainer/handler working with law enforcement. These intensive training starts off the same as pet training, but takes a turn at the point the dog has to be reliable.

If a pet dog doesn't roll over or go in the crate, nothing happens except a little frustration. But if a service dog decides to disobey, the handler might die.

This is how I've come around to holistic training. Looking at the entire situation. I will never use a correction for training a dog tricks or games. It's no appropriate. But if I'm training a dog to save a life, I need 100% confidence in that dog.

Let's say you teach a dog a trick to pull a string. Cute. Now you have a service dog trained to pull an emergency pull-cord. If you don't finish it off with correction, the dog will pull the cord when it wants the reward. And you can't have emergency response team coming out for a not-completely-trained dog!

I agree with most of what is said - when applied to pet dogs. But trying to apply it to working dogs isn't going to fly. Having a separate accredidation for differing types of working dogs *might* work.


----------



## liljaker

T: A question, and this is not a hostile question. You say, "...when I was training professionally." How did you do that without credentials? That is my question.


----------



## Rowan

tortoise said:


> I get lots of PM's from members who agree with me on whatever issue but are afraid to post because of the hostile nature of some of the "6" posters on this thread.
> 
> I'm happy to know it's just the internet and if it bothers me, I can unplug. NBD. Not everyone is able to "unplug" mentally and they don't feel comfortable contributing.
> 
> Having an opinion, a topic you are passionate about is good. But overconfidence and railroading others is not. We all grow and learn as pet owners, trainers, and groomers by reading different points of view.


Tortoise: 
If any of these members feel 'threatened' by posts within this thread they're welcome to use the "report post" button and advise a Mod. However, nobody has been railroaded or forced to agree with an opposing view. It's called a discussion. I re-read the thread and found nothing out of line or remotely hostile. 

I also get a lot of PMs / e-mails by members who are horrified by some of your posts. *shrug* 

_Overconfident_? Why, because we're discussing statements and claims _you've_ made on this forum? Both sides are passionate about their views as is evident by the posts, but to refer to the opposition as "overconfident'' is actually quite...._arrogant_. 

And I agree, everyone can learn by reading and considering different points of view, including what not to do.


----------



## liljaker

I do think there has been some good discussion on this thread and clearly exposed people who are not certified yet expound training methods, and for those of us who would enlist the help of a trainer or behaviorist, I think there is some good food for thought. For others who really don't have any behavior issues with their poodles and have just been lurking on this thread, you can see that there are two schools of thought in this discussion. 

One side believes that there should be accreditation and certification for trainers and behaviorists and the other believes it does not matter, and is not an important consideration when looking for a trainer or behaviorist. Just remember this debate if and when you need to find someone to help you out of a situation you are in and know that you have a choice of whose methods to use, since one size does not fit all and what works in one situation may not work for you, so do your homework before you hire someone.


----------



## tortoise

liljaker said:


> T: A question, and this is not a hostile question. You say, "...when I was training professionally." How did you do that without credentials? That is my question.


I started training at the animal shelters when I was 18, got a reputation. Got a dog and trained it.... got a reputation. Got on TV, all over the internet, performed with a stunt dog show. I transformed an "untrainable" death row dog into a stunt dog, therapy dog. 

Then after my son was born I had a turn of heart. Instead of doing it for my pride and ego, I started doing it to help people. I had worked with service dogs before, and I started doing that and specialized. 

I excel with training psychiatric service dogs because I have mental illnesses myself - the reason why I don't train for money anymore. I am disabled. I work with people ... and the dog ... and we accomplish good things together. Their therapists/psychiatrists see the change in them. A lot of trainers can learn to train psychiatric service dogs - but can't learn to work with the people.

My credentials are my results. In a city of 60,000, people often recognized me from training my dogs at the dog park, having my dog pick up litter and throw it in the trash cans , winning little animal shelter trick competitions, things like that. And that was before I started training the service dogs - that definitely gets attention! :/

My credentials are my dogs, past and present. 

No offense taken.


----------



## liljaker

All without a degree, credentials or certifications? Wow. Good for you!! Let me know you make the TV circuit again as I would like to tune in!!! This is getting too weird for me and Sunny needs his walk. Just hope little Jet doesn't decide to whine tonight.....


----------



## Rowan

This thread brings to mind an old saying: "_The end justifies the means._" 

Thankfully a large majority don't believe this to be true when it comes to certain training methods. This will be an "agree to disagree" thread. 

And, in closing, *Tortoise*, your last post answered a lot of my questions and confirmed a lot of my suspicions. Thanks for that. 

I'm off to spend some time with my poodles!


----------



## petitpie

Word of mouth can be the best credentials.....Ph.d's who write books and amateurs who love what they do and do it well.


----------



## cavon

tortoise said:


> Or only go to humane trainers. I agree with only going to humane trainers, but I still want them to be accredited, have references and open to discuss methodology. Unfortunately, people like fast results and some "trainers" are willing to give them, using punishment. I agree with people wanting fast results, but you get what you pay for. You don't go through the drive through at McD's and expect to open the bag and find a Michelin star dinner.
> 
> When I was training professionally, I liked when people wanted to talk, get a free demo or free class, compare to others in the area. People who care are the best clients because they actually do their homework and get results. Plus it's a huge confidence boost to be picked over the competition.
> 
> As consumers, we do control who gets paid and who stays in business. Although it is easier to accredit trainers then educate billions of people. Not sure I understand - education could start with our own forum. If everyone reading thinks about it and does a little research when choosing their trainer, that's a start. We have members all over the world. Every member has friends with dogs, poodles and other breeds. If they research their trainers, are pleased with the results, or not pleased, share their experience with their friends, then before long, there are a whole lot of folks making educated choices.
> 
> I just don't think that the dog world will settle for it. I think the only dog people who would put up much of a fuss would be the unaccredited trainers whose source of income is being dried up by the newly educated masses. They have a choice, get accredited or find a new job.Some will love it - it will boost their business. I think the right people's business would be being boosted, don't you?But it would probably hurt the trainers we NEED the most. I don't trust a dog to save my life unless it has been finished off with compulsion. Meaning the dog is first taught through play, and then taught with correction that disobedience is impossible. This applies to working dogs - the search and rescue, tracking, narcotics, some types of service dogs, police dogs, personal protection dogs. This is difficult training, little money in it. It's usually volunteers owner/trainer/handler working with law enforcement. These intensive training starts off the same as pet training, but takes a turn at the point the dog has to be reliable.
> 
> If a pet dog doesn't roll over or go in the crate, nothing happens except a little frustration. But if a service dog decides to disobey, the handler might die.
> 
> This is how I've come around to holistic training. Looking at the entire situation. I will never use a correction for training a dog tricks or games. It's no appropriate. But if I'm training a dog to save a life, I need 100% confidence in that dog.
> 
> Let's say you teach a dog a trick to pull a string. Cute. Now you have a service dog trained to pull an emergency pull-cord. If you don't finish it off with correction, the dog will pull the cord when it wants the reward. And you can't have emergency response team coming out for a not-completely-trained dog!
> 
> I agree with most of what is said - when applied to pet dogs. But trying to apply it to working dogs isn't going to fly. Having a separate accredidation for differing types of working dogs *might* work.WEll, I have no experience with training other than for pets and then only as an end user, not a trainer, but I think your comments after my last post :act-up: speak to my point about there needing to be a base level of accreditaion and then areas of specialization that would require further accreditation. Am I misunderstanding you?



my posts in red.


----------



## tortoise

liljaker said:


> All without a degree, credentials or certifications? Wow. Good for you!! Let me know you make the TV circuit again as I would like to tune in!!! This is getting too weird for me and Sunny needs his walk. Just hope little Jet doesn't decide to whine tonight.....


aww.. the little guy has been ecollar free for at least a month. I used it for about a week. Sometimes he wakes and whines at 3:30 a.m. to go out. :drop:

I got lucky to be good at something I tried. I had dropped out of college because of my disability. I was working in dog kennels, and started grooming about then. It has worked out about as well as possible given my limitations.


----------



## tortoise

Rowan said:


> This thread brings to mind an old saying: "_The end justifies the means._"
> 
> Thankfully a large majority don't believe this to be true when it comes to certain training methods. This will be an "agree to disagree" thread.
> 
> And, in closing, *Tortoise*, your last post answered a lot of my questions and confirmed a lot of my suspicions. Thanks for that.
> 
> I'm off to spend some time with my poodles!


Does anyone know where the ignore button is? :angel:


----------



## liljaker

Yep, because you have been on my IGNORE for quite some time. I made an exception today -- guess I had a dull Saturday.


----------



## cavon

petitpie said:


> Word of mouth can be the best credentials.


Well, for me it depends who the info is coming from. After all, If I don't agree with their outlook, I would not put much credit into the person they were referring me to.


----------



## Rowan

tortoise said:


> Does anyone know where the ignore button is? :angel:


ound:
Mental illnesses indeed!

You're such a genius, I'm sure you can figure it out! :angel:

(Like *liljaker*, I've had you on ignore since you joined but I was bored today.)


----------



## Keithsomething

Rowan said:


> ound:
> Mental illnesses indeed!
> 
> You're such a genius, I'm sure you can figure it out! :angel:
> 
> (Like *liljaker*, I've had you on ignore since you joined but I was bored today.)


Sure I see nothing wrong with mentioning someone has a mental illness, what's good for one member is good for the others BANNNNNNNNNNNNN


----------



## tortoise

I hope your future weekends are much more eventful.


----------



## Countryboy

I don't have anybody on Ignore...

I don't wanna miss a thing!


----------



## Keithsomething

tortoise said:


> I hope your future weekends are much more eventful.


Lol I doubt that'll happen they seem to be spent on the poodle forum most often than not... :3

(the irony of my comment isn't lost on me...but in my defense I'm on my phone at a party >.>)


----------



## cavon

:rofl:


----------



## liljaker

Keithsomething said:


> Lol I doubt that'll happen they seem to be spent on the poodle forum most often than not... :3
> 
> (the irony of my comment isn't lost on me...but in my defense I'm on my phone at a party >.>)


I guess I am part of the "they" and since my smartphone provides me with notifications on emails on my posts, I get them real time and yes, usually will post back. Honestly, I had a life before PF and have found it, for the most part, very helpful to me and also pretty entertaining. But, since I am not on FB or Twitter, I guess most of my posting is here. 

Did you have any comments on the accreditation or certification for professional dog trainers or behaviorists?


----------



## Keithsomething

Though I would like to say I understand both sides of this, I think a governing body could be set up something like the AKC...you have clubs underneath a particular body...so the AKC works that they rule over the breed clubs but the breed clubs are allowed to designate rules and regulations and have ownership of the standards
SO if something like that were set up and called something generic they could then have people establish different clubs under them of the varying training methods which could then dole out credentials...but that seems super involved and I like Tortoise idea working hard at something makes you pretty proficient there isn't a class to become a professional handler ;D

not in particular I'm more of a leap in and defend the under dog kind of guy ask Chagalls Mom ;D 
for everyones viewing pleasure a post (to the best of my knowledge she wasn't even warned for...) where she called me out on my snarky ways c;


----------



## cavon

:dancing2: that must be one rocking party.......:dancing2:

:couch2:


----------



## cavon

*repercussions*



Keithsomething said:


> not in particular I'm more of a leap in and defend the under dog kind of guy ask Chagalls Mom ;D
> for everyones viewing pleasure a post (to the best of my knowledge she wasn't even warned for...) where she called me out on my snarky ways c;


Moderator, didn't you mention that there would be repercussions if anyone resurected that thread????


----------



## Keithsomething

oh you know it Chrystal ;D pretty happening place to be, open invitation for all you lovely poodle ladies c;[


----------



## cavon

Thanks for the invite, Kythe.

:bolt:


----------



## Keithsomething

No problem :cheers:


----------



## Keithsomething

cavon said:


> Moderator, didn't you mention that there would be repercussions if anyone resurected that thread????


I apologize for skimming over your post Chrystal, but thats a good point...lets all forget that there was only ONE punishment dolled out for a bunch of mean spirited comments ;D (when I'm unbanned I'll post the photo again...oh and heres her comment about Olie, the one who was banned )


----------



## fjm

Good heavens - I go to bed and you lot party - with something pretty potent at the bar by the sound of it! 

Can I summarise the arguments against so far:
A certification method or body that recognised only reward based methods would not meet all needs
Response: I don't think this was ever suggested. Tortoise has emphasised again and again that force methods need very, very careful handling to be safe and effective. I am not convinced of their necessity, even for service and other dogs that are not primarily pets, but I am convinced that they need to be taught by an instructor who is both fully informed and very experienced. And the only way the public can be assured of that is through some form of certification and regulation.

Certification would drive out the gifted amateurs
Answer: No, certification would provide a route for genuinely gifted amateurs to gain a recognised qualification. Like Tortoise, and many others, I went to a class run by amateur trainers with many years experience (one, a near contemporary of Barbara Woodhouse, appeared to be channeling her!). I left after seeing how unhappy all the dogs and most of the owners were with the methods used, the bullying of owners and dogs, and how ineffective the training was - ever tried forcing a dog through weave poles? (I lured - and so did every single person who did it after me!) The next class I went to had one fully qualified, APDT registered trainer, and a second who was working full time while taking her degree and working towards APDT membership. The difference in terms of professionalism, lowered stress levels, and speed of trainiing was palpable.

Passing written exams does not make you a good dog trainer
Answer: I agree absolutely - but there is no need for certification and regulation to be based on written exams. We have, in the UK at least, a test that must be passed before anyone is allowed to drive a car on the public highway (I would LOVE to see a similar test established before anyone could own a dog!). Certification could - and should - be based upon testing of knowledge, and observation of capability. It should also be a path or set of steps - just as Cavon described in her excellent post on her route to fully qualified status as an accountant.

Finally, can I make a plea to keep personal issues out of the thread. Too many good discussions have been spoiled on here by what can seem like cliques taking sides and resurrecting old disagreements, and I suspect it is the fear of getting caught in the crossfire that stops many new and occasional members from joining in (I know there were threads I was afraid to open when I first joined!).


----------



## petitpie

Ineffective beaurocracy and market-driven abuse because of credentialing professionals are inherent problems in this country.


----------



## cavon

petitpie said:


> Ineffective beaurocracy and market abuse because of credentialed professionals.......


Sorry, I still don't really understand what you are saying about either the bureaucracy or the professionals with credentials. Could you expand on your thoughts?:confused2:


----------



## petitpie

Ideally, people working with dogs should not have to be credentialed to be safe and effective; also, ideally, ponderous rules and regulations, money and power should not have to be considered. Good amateurs will not care if they are credentialed and not see a reason to have anyone else so designated. Everything should be weighed carefully, beforehand, that's all I mean.


----------



## fjm

I'm not sure I agree with your, petitpie - in an ideal world, perhaps everyone working with dogs would be safe and effective, and so would those acting as instructors to others, but we know that we live in a far from ideal world, where there are many, many trainers - like the woman running the 4H class described by Tortoise - who are amateurs and far from effective. Some degree of bureaucracy seems to me a small price to pay for ensuring that dogs do not suffer as the dogs in that class did, and that people are taught by people who really know what they are doing, and how to transfer their skills. In my experience good amateurs are usually in favour of certification and regulation - they know how much effort goes into gaining the skills and experience involved, and believe that effort should be recognised and rewarded. 

The difference between an amateur and a professional is that professionals are paid - and it is the certification and regulation of those charging for their services that has been the focus of this thread. Anyone who continues to prefer to seek advice from an unregulated, uninsured amateur, for free, is of course at liberty to do so - perhaps the crux of the matter is whether dog training is to be viewed as a professional career, with the concomitant status and earnings, or an amateur hobby, performed for free.


----------



## Fond of Poodles

Interesting thread, and some wonderful links.

My question is who would be the governing body? Who would set the standards to establish someone as a "certified professional trainer". Who would the enforcing body be? Would trainers be subject to inspections, mandatory training to keep their knowledge base up to date? Would they be required to learn to apply multiple different training techniques, eg: for each breed? You don't train a terrier, working breed, toy breed the same way.

Government? Breed Clubs? Kennel Clubs?

I think giving governing bodies too much power can be just as "dangerous" as having an uncredited trainer.

New trend in evaluating Good Canine Citizens for example. Recently I've seen more and more perfectly good dogs failing for the most ridiculous of reasons, such as sniffing the ground (this is a temperament test, not Obedience!). Of course this is followed by the judge giving the failed dog's owner a business card while inviting them to participate in the 8 week CGC training class at $100+ that they are offering.


----------



## fjm

Excellent point, Fond of Poodles, but it is a problem that other professional bodies seem to have solved - perhaps not to everyone's satisfaction, but certainly to most. It is the old, old issue of quis custodiet ipsos custodes - who guards the guards - and if we took it to its logical conclusion we would not bother to have any laws, or any regulations, since those who enforce them are always prone to corruption ....

The approach being taken in the UK is to build upon the existing professional organisations - the UK APDT, the Kennel Club trainer certification scheme, etc, - and to define a set of basic competencies and standards that they can all agree upon. From there, foundation and continuing development courses can be evaluated against these standards. Many of the various bodies already have inspection procedures in place - which must, of course, be moderated. The downside is that there is a cost involved - the upside is that most people are prepared to pay for a quality assured service. The "governing body" in this case is a Council drawn from all those relevant associations that expressed an interest when invited to participate, with the option for more to join over time.


----------



## Kloliver

liljaker said:


> I see there have been almost 700 viewings of this thread, yet only the small handful of us (6 maybe?) have been commenting. I would be interested to know what others, and other senior members think and especially some of the breeders? Any takers???


Ok, I'll wade into the water.

Here are the certifications held by my dog school trainers:
NADOI endorsed instructor. Nat'l Assoc of Dog Obedience Trainers
Certified Professional Dog Trainer
Associate Member of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants
APDT member- Association of Pet Dog Trainers
Certified Delta Pet Partner 
IAABC member- Int'l Assoc of Animal Behaviour Consultants
AKC Canine Good Citizen evaluator​
Would I take classes from some guy down the street who's "owned dogs all my life" over these professionals? ..... No I would not. 
_WHY?_
Because certification means that one has undeniably demonstrated the skills necessary (to other trained professionals) to do the job in question.

If you already have the aptitude, skills & experience &/or wish to make your living from dog training, why _*wouldn't *_ you pursue certification? It's a no- brainer. You can't practice a chosen profession & expect to charge money based on a _promise_ of "No, it's OK, I'm really good; just ask my mom, she'll tell you"

I guess I'm a little confused. There are standards. These titles are granted by governing bodies of dog training organisations. Are we suggesting that there should be _one_ umbrella governing org? I don't see how since there are so many sub-sects to training & a variety of demands placed on the dogs. IE/ Search & Rescue, Therapy, Service, Police, Pet Companion, etc. I believe the starting point for all of these is the CGC- Canine Good Citizen- which demonstrates both the dogs aptitude & handlers skill. 

Perhaps if shelters & breeders started making the CGC a condition for adoption.... but who/ how on earth cld that be regulated?!? 

In a nutshell- you cannot regulate those that don't wish to be regulated.


----------



## tortoise

Kloliver said:


> Ok, I'll wade into the water.
> 
> Here are the certifications held by my dog school trainers:
> NADOI endorsed instructor. Nat'l Assoc of Dog Obedience Trainers
> Certified Professional Dog Trainer
> Associate Member of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants
> APDT member- Association of Pet Dog Trainers
> Certified Delta Pet Partner
> IAABC member- Int'l Assoc of Animal Behaviour Consultants
> AKC Canine Good Citizen evaluator​


APDT means nothing, really. You pay them money and get it. Delta only means that the person has a therapy dog. "Certified Professional Trainer" - certified by whom? IABBC "member". See my note for APDT. AKC CGC evaluator is also meaningless, as it only requires 2 years of working with animals, a fee and an open-book quiz. NADOI and IAABC I don't know anything about.

I think it looks like someone insecure trying to inflate credentials. It goes to show how weak the few "tests" of a good trainer are. I'm not saying that a trainer should or should not have accredidation or certification. I'm saying that these are lousy excuses for it.

I go to the trainer with the happy, confident, obedient dog. While you can BUY memberships, you can't fake good training.


----------



## tortoise

Kloliver said:


> Perhaps if shelters & breeders started making the CGC a condition for adoption.... but who/ how on earth cld that be regulated?!?


You're right about "how on earth." Shelters don't do CGC because 1/2 of it is an owner pledge. Can't do an owner pledge before adoption. Some shelters advertise dogs as "CGC-ready" or "pre-tested for CGC".


----------



## Kloliver

liljaker said:


> I see there have been almost 700 viewings of this thread, yet only the small handful of us (6 maybe?) have been commenting. I would be interested to know what others, and other senior members think and especially some of the breeders? Any takers???


Well liljaker, I think the following response is enough to scare off less confident posters :act-up:



tortoise said:


> APDT means nothing, really. You pay them money and get it. Delta only means that the person has a therapy dog. "Certified Professional Trainer" - certified by whom? IABBC "member". See my note for APDT. AKC CGC evaluator is also meaningless, as it only requires 2 years of working with animals, a fee and an open-book quiz. NADOI and IAABC I don't know anything about.


Tortoise, thank you for admitting that you have gaps in knowledge. If you take the time to read & _absorb_ the info instead of simply_ reacting_ to my post you'll see that I explained that NADOI stands for Nat'l Assoc of Dog Obedience Trainers & that IAABC for the Int'l Assoc of Animal Behaviour Consultants. If you're too busy to research the information before commenting upon it, I offer the following:

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors - NADOI | dog trainer | endorsed instructors | find trainers | educational resources
*WELCOME!

The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors was founded in 1965 when a small group of highly experienced dog trainers gathered together and resolved to promote modern, humane training methods and at the same time elevate the standards of the dog obedience instructing profession. To accomplish these goals, it was decided that members of the organization should be designated as having attained certain skills and knowledge of dog training and obedience instructing. NADOI is not only the oldest group of its kind in the world, it is the only professional organization to require that all applicants demonstrate proficiency in their craft, as tested and measured by their peers, before membership is granted. NADOI members are found all across the USA and in many foreign countries.

OUR MISSION today remains unchanged: To certify dog obedience instructors of the highest caliber, to provide continuing education and learning resources to those instructors, and to continue to promote humane, effective training methods and competent instruction.*



tortoise said:


> I think it looks like someone insecure trying to inflate credentials. It goes to show how weak the few "tests" of a good trainer are. I'm not saying that a trainer should or should not have accredidation or certification. I'm saying that these are lousy excuses for it.
> 
> I go to the trainer with the happy, confident, obedient dog. While you can BUY memberships, you can't fake good training.


Tortoise, I'm a little disconcerted by your rather high-handed dismissal of the certifications of these extremely well trained instructors, (plural) that have logged _years upon years_ of experiential hours & who seek continued education. I wonder, are you dismissing credentials in defensive favour of experience because you lack the former, yourself? 

But to be fair, instead of making assumptions, I will extend the courtesy of asking you directly: In addition to your (1) experience, do you have (2) _accreditation_? If not, then I wonder how you feel comfortable passing judgement on those that have both?

That said, no matter how many credentials a person has, I would not continue to take classes if I felt the expertise wasn't of excellent standard.


----------



## tortoise

I will never "get" an accredidation from any organization that passes them out for a membership fee. It's deceptive to pet owners and robbery to the trainers who feel pressured to join.

I am a CGC evaluator. Which means nothing as far as my training ability or method. It just means I know how to conduct a specific test. I'll do the Delta thing when my dog is old enough to test, but that means nothing of my ability to train my dog or anyone else's dog. It just means my DOG passed a test and I've committed to doing some volunteer work. I'm a member of 3 dog clubs for 3 different training venues - again, no relevance to my training ability. 

I can read. And if I wanted to know more about those organizations, I would google it. But, I don't really care to know more. It could not affect my comments on the others I have experience with, so it's completely irrelevant.

1/2 of the "accredidations" you listed have no bearing on the person's ability to train dogs with any method or the person's ability to teach others to train their dogs. People can BUY meaningless memberships and such to look like they are more experienced/knowledgable/trustworthy than they are. I have a serious issue with that.

For the type of "background check" that's being discussed, there would have to be a standard of training method, the new trainer takes a pledge or oath, passes written and practical tests that include training their own dog and someone else's dog. 

The only titles that I value is graduation from Triple Crown Academy (for all positive and pet stuff), or Mike Ellis School of Dog Training (this guy is A.M.A.Z.I.N.G. but it is for working dogs), or Tom Rose School (which has a little bit more old-school flavor to it, but still good for working dogs. not so much for pets).


----------



## fjm

tortoise said:


> For the type of "background check" that's being discussed, there would have to be a standard of training method, the new trainer takes a pledge or oath, passes written and practical tests that include training their own dog and someone else's dog.


I would expect a great deal more than this, frankly. The ABTC has a set of standards for performance, and knowledge and understanding (not, note, just methods) that describe what it expects in each category (too long to copy here - Standards for Practitioners of Animal Training and Behaviour). All of the organisations that have come together to form it expect their full members to have experience with many dogs in many environments, and to undertake recognised continuing professional development.

I think it is important to distinguish between membership of a professional body that does not vet its members, and quality assured certification - the APDT in the US is very open about the fact that it is an educational network, _not_ a certifying body - "Membership in the APDT does not necessarily ensure all members employ similar training methods, nor does the Association set standards of skill or competence". (The UK is rather different, in that members of the APDT here are expected to abide by its rules on which training methods are taught.) In some cases - the medical profession in the UK is an example - the professional association is also the certifying body, but that is not necessarily the case in dog training.

Nor does completion of a course, no matter how good the teacher, imply any level of competence in applying what has been taught, unless there is some form of valid testing. 

I think this illustrates the difficulty dog owners have when choosing and evaluating a trainer - I could invent the Worldwide University of Really Brilliant Dog Trainers Ltd tomorrow, and award myself an advanced Diploma the next and it would mean precisely nowt.

What we are proposing is a robust, recognised qualification for dog trainers, either awarded by the dreaded "umbrella organisation", which would have the advantage of instant recognisability for the public, or through some similar group providing quality assurance for existing certification methods. As Kloliver says, why would any competent dog trainer/instructor/behaviourist NOT want that qualification, when it instantly distinguishes them from those with just a WURBDT Dip(Advanced)?


----------



## tortoise

Dog trainers tend to be a stubborn lot, I think it would get huge opposition only because it is change.

It almost sounds like there could be a commercial, for-profit business (umbrella) that has dog training schools around the country. Existing trainers should be able to test out somehow, in my opinion. 

The "Globe University" of dog training. 

But it would take such enormous resources to be successful, it seems like it would have to be started by AKC or UKC.


----------



## Kloliver

tortoise said:


> I can read. And if I wanted to know more about those organizations, I would google it. But, I don't really care to know more. It could not affect my comments on the others I have experience with, so it's completely irrelevant.
> 
> The only titles that I value is graduation from Triple Crown Academy (for all positive and pet stuff), or Mike Ellis School of Dog Training (this guy is A.M.A.Z.I.N.G. but it is for working dogs), or Tom Rose School (which has a little bit more old-school flavor to it, but still good for working dogs. not so much for pets).


Thank you for admitting your unwillingness to expand your knowledge base. You must feel very comfortable knowing what you 'know' & rejecting all else. Again, no matter how many credentials a person has, I would not continue to take classes if I felt the training methodology wasn't of excellent standard. 

I add this: In my experience, the most amazing teachers are the ones who are also willing to be students.


----------



## tortoise

Not ignorance. But valueing time. I will never use the organizations. I stopped training for profit 2 years ago when I became disabled. My health problems will never magically go away and I have no expectation of training professionally in the pet sector in my lifetime. That doesn't mean that I am not constantly learning training ideas, applications.

Saying "this is irrelevant, I'm not interested" is not saying "I'm refusing to learn anything ever". If someone can dig up the citation to a breifly mentioned study about Golden Retrevers, dominance and tug play, I'd be a fascinated reader. Dog training = interesting. People that decide they are superior in dog training = not interesting. They'll have my interest when they start publishing research in journals or explore new applications of accepted/humane trianing methods.

I'm all about the "do", not the "name", as you probably already gathered from my posts.




fjm already expanded on my concern and frustration with APDT in the USA. We've already discussed how most of some trainers "credentials" are BS. Whether 1 or 2 are valid is irrelevant to my point.




Part of that is because trainers don't have any other options. Which is probably how this thread got started.


----------



## fjm

tortoise said:


> fjm already expanded on my concern and frustration with APDT in the USA. We've already discussed how most of some trainers "credentials" are BS. Whether 1 or 2 are valid is irrelevant to my point.


Irrelevant to someone who has already picked their way through the morass, chosen their gurus and is happy with them, Tortoise, but surely not irrelevant to the vast numbers of dog owners looking for someone to advise them on training their dog? This thread is about what constitutes a valid qualification, and how we can enable people to recognise the valid qualifications from the meaningless ones. It still seems to me that some form of quality assurance and certification is needed. 

I think it is a huge shame that the APDT in the US chose to admit anyone as a member, in the hope of leading them towards a closer appreciation of the methods it advocates, and I think that disappointment is shared by many of its members. The UK branch - and many of the others worldwide - do provide an element of reassurance for clients that trainers listed on its site have a reasonable level of knowledge and experience, and a shared commitment to reward based, non confrontational training methods.

So people - which existing qualifications/organisations/certifying bodies can be considered as providing genuine qualifications in dog training in your country, which professional bodies are useful indicators of a member's training philosophy, and which would people not touch with a barge pole?


----------



## tortoise

I think over here, the only thing that has meaning is graduation from a specific dog training school. I'm not sure how the consumer views it. 

There must be a lot of confusion. That "delta" one sounds awfully good until you learn it just means the person has a therapy dog. (And that therapy dogs are largely born, not trained, so even that means about nothing). These sound like "wow this person is really active, dedicated, must know their stuff, etc." 

Who actually checks those things anyway? Do consumers actually go find out what it takes to be a member? Do they actually check if the trainer really IS a member?

Again, the consumer $ has power to change which businesses are successful. But if the consumer never checks... could be throwing money away to undeserving hands.

Can I add to the loose models of a certifcation body that have begun on this thread, that there must be a way the consumer can easily check if the trainer really is certified? Like a license number for yout hairdresser, electrician or veterinarian. Do people check those? It can be very interesting to find out which licensed professionals have documented "problems" for lack of a better word. Licensure goes through the state for these and other professions and can be verified online on the state's website. Something similar would be important.


----------



## tortoise

Here's a different idea.

What if there is a (huge) website like Angie's List, but only for dog training. Dog trainers can list themselves and whatever their training method is. So instead of saying "all trainers need to follow these rules", it's putting trainers into a category. So I would fall into a category that would be something like "Reward based training that incorporates corrections" and some trainers would be "postive techniques only", and I don't know how far towards punitive training could be included while keeping the training correct. Each category has it's on trainer's pledge/ethics. 

The CONSUMER review would be the power. People would write reviews - and they WILL say if a trainer is not upholding the pledge/ethic that they claim to uphold. Consumers could search by location, training venue, and method. If you want all positive training, you will get it. The trainers that are good teachers, are caring, etc, will get good reviews and therefore more business, while the trainers that don't follow the rules of the category they've chosen or are inhumane will get bad reviews and less business.

Let the market sort itself out. Maybe charge a fee to join and search but give the person and equal value gift card after they post a review, as an incentive to post the (valuable) reviews.


----------



## petitpie

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Tortoise*
"I'm not going to worry about it. I will work on making mself the best I can be, and not worry about what other people think is correct. Instead of limiting myself to a certain repertoire, I will learn everything I can and apply it (or not) to the best result."

*Countryboy* 
"LOL, Tortise. From what I see in this forum I'm not gonna please everybody with my training methods either. I guess I'll just carry on doing what I think is best. 

But everybody else is welcome to train how they like." 

*Fond of Poodles*
"I think giving governing bodies too much power can be just as "dangerous" as having an uncredited trainer."


If the point of certification is to protect the public and charge for services, who will protect the public from bad certified dog trainers, in which bunch there will always be a few? Certification tends to unduly protect those under its auspices. Look at the history of teacher certification. More hours of study, more tests, and more oversight have not improved the public school system in this country.


----------



## tortoise

petitpie said:


> If the point of certification is to protect the public and charge for services, who will protect the public from bad certified dog trainers, in which bunch there will always be a few? Certification tends to unduly protect those under its auspices. Look at the history of teacher certification. More hours of study, more tests, and more oversight has not improved the public school system in this country.


That's a really good point. My dad says the way to improve schools is to lower teacher salary because only the people that love it will be teachers. Obviously that will never happen and he's not advocating it. But it does give you something to think about. Sorry, off topic.

Any feedback on a consumer-driven method of approval versus and organization-driven method. I like that consumer-driven can give constant feedback. It a trainer has a change of method, people will know right away, not wait 5 - 10 years for re-certification.

And there is the issue of people who play the system and aren't good/safe trainers, that has been brought up a few times. Some could be "reported" with a web review, unlike with organization-driven method that these people would fall through the cracks.


----------



## cavon

petitpie said:


> If the point of certification is to protect the public and charge for services, who will protect the public from bad certified dog trainers, in which bunch there will always be a few? Certification tends to unduly protect those under its auspices. Look at the history of teacher certification. More hours of study, more tests, and more oversight have not improved the public school system in this country.


Who will protect the public from completely uncertified dog trainers? If a trainer has a vail accreditain from an organizatin and you are unhappy with that trainer, you have to option of contacting the organization and reporting your concerns. 

Who would you contact if you were unhappy with an uncertified trainer?


----------



## petitpie

"Certification tends to unduly protect those under its auspices. Look at the history of teacher certification. More hours of study, more tests, and more oversight have not improved the public school system in this country."
_

I tell my dog friends and walk away. Word gets around.


----------



## Countryboy

petitpie said:


> If the point of certification is to protect the public and charge for services, who will protect the public from bad certified dog trainers, in which bunch there will always be a few?





cavon said:


> Who will protect the public from completely uncertified dog trainers?


Not me...

Natural selection is becoming passé. We are protecting the silly and the plain stupid from every single mistake that they could make . . thus ensuring their survival . . and continuing ability to breed. That's not good for the human race...

I've seen the Ontario Building Code go thru years of changes . . simply to protect the silly from themselves. This is paid for by everybody, including people with the common sense to keep their toddlers from squeezing out thru 10th storey windows.

Accreditation is great! 'Til it leads to more rules and regulations on who I can use to train my dogs. I would treat a recent graduate from a dog trainer training school with the same distain that I would a recently appointed Building Inspector with nothing but an Engineering Certificate. 'Cept I am *compelled* to work with the Inspector. 

It would be interesting to take a peek into the future . . maybe 30 or 40 years from now. What will be the morés involving pet ownership? They will certainly show changes in attitudes and knowledge of dog training. 

Will there be more regulations??? :/


----------



## tortoise

cavon said:


> Who would you contact if you were unhappy with an uncertified trainer?


EVERYONE! Tell the public, not the organization that will not tell the public. You can do it right now with Facebook, Twitter, email, text message. I'm sorta thinking about making my website idea, expect I am not sure my html coding skills are that good.


----------



## Kloliver

fjm said:


> I think it is a huge shame that the APDT in the US chose to admit anyone as a member, in the hope of leading them towards a closer appreciation of the methods it advocates, and I think that disappointment is shared by many of its members.


Yes, in the hands of the wrong people it can be misleading. It isn't proof of competence. In the right hands it's a wonderful tool for continuing their education & experience.



fjm said:


> So people - which existing qualifications/organisations/certifying bodies can be considered as providing genuine qualifications in dog training in your country, which professional bodies are useful indicators of a member's training philosophy, and which would people not touch with a barge pole?


Thumps up to NADOI- 
NADOI is the only organization that is exclusive to dog trainers/instructors, and that requires a minimum level of expertise for their lowest level membership (Provisional). The other organizations will take a person’s money without requiring proof of any expertise at their entry level membership option.​
Agree or disagree, it seems to be all we've got & a step in the right direction.

Tortoise is right, it will take a juggernaut like AKC or UKC to implement standardised testing & for each category of training type.

As to a people's choice award- we have a yearly *Best of *City Name** in which the public gets to nominate & vote on a variety of businesses & services. At the end each business is ranked 1-20 in each category & it's published via the local media.


----------



## fjm

The idea of certification-by-social-media is certainly an interesting one, but I suspect it would be very prone to bias at the least - I hesitate to say corruption! Everywhere I go on the internet I trip over "Vote for me!" messages, ranging from the serious (major political and social issues) to the trivial (cat with the longest tail, fluffiest puppy ... ). Online reviews are a useful source of information, but I still choose a gas fitter who is registered as being qualified, certified and insured - if only because work done by anyone without those qualifications would negate my own household insurance! And also because I do not know enough about fitting gas appliances to be able to look at someone's work and know whether they have done a good job or not, unless it is so obviously incompetent that it explodes within the first 24 hours. 

And that, perhaps, is the problem with customer reviews as the main form of quality assurance of services - many people will be using a trainer for the first time - how do they evaluate something without any basis of comparison? And some dire products, services - and dog trainers - acquire glowing online reviews, for whatever reason - certainly good enough to lure in the unwary.

I really like the idea of constant review, and of annual local "Best of ...", but I do think there needs to be a base level qualification to be achieved before anyone can set up as a dog trainer (and a considerably higher level for a behaviourist). I would not let someone who had not passed their driving test drive my car down the motorway, no matter how many people told me they were a brilliant driver!


----------



## Kloliver

fjm said:


> The idea of certification-by-social-media is certainly an interesting one, but I suspect it would be very prone to bias at the least - I hesitate to say corruption! Everywhere I go on the internet I trip over "Vote for me!" messages, ranging from the serious (major political and social issues) to the trivial (cat with the longest tail, fluffiest puppy ... ).


Trolling for votes is disallowed. I had no idea that my local dog boutique store was in the running until I saw it online, same with my training school. My point is that they didn't even mention it & I see these people all the time. They are relying solely on word of mouth. Will others? sometimes not.



fjm said:


> I really like the idea of constant review, and of annual local "Best of ...", but I do think there needs to be a base level qualification to be achieved before anyone can set up as a dog trainer (and a considerably higher level for a behaviourist). I would not let someone who had not passed their driving test drive my car down the motorway, no matter how many people told me they were a brilliant driver!


 Interestingly, only 'certified' &- here we chase our tail once again- training schools end up in the top 5. Anyone can be nominated but it's the schools with a variety of trained/ experienced teachers that rise to the top. You can also reference past years to see who has risen/ fallen in standing or stayed at the top of their game.

Yes, fjm, Behaviourists are a whole different kettle of fish- or is that kennel of dogs? :smile:

Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists have:
* Obtained an undergraduate degree, usually requiring 4 years, at an accreditated college or university.
* Gained admission to an accredited graduate school or veterinary school through a highly competitive admission process.
* Completed post-graduate education receiving a Master’s (2-year full time) or Ph.D.(4-year full time) degree in a behavioral science, or DVM or VMD degree with a behavioral residency.
* Passed rigorous oral and written examinations given by their faculty committees.
* Published articles in scientific journals.
* Supervised hands-on experience with animals.
* Met the course work and experience requirements for certification as set forth by the Animal Behavior Society.​


----------



## cavon

fjm said:


> The idea of certification-by-social-media is certainly an interesting one, but I suspect it would be very prone to bias at the least - I hesitate to say corruption! Everywhere I go on the internet I trip over "Vote for me!" messages, ranging from the serious (major political and social issues) to the trivial (cat with the longest tail, fluffiest puppy ... ). Online reviews are a useful source of information, but I still choose a gas fitter who is registered as being qualified, certified and insured - if only because work done by anyone without those qualifications would negate my own household insurance! And also because I do not know enough about fitting gas appliances to be able to look at someone's work and know whether they have done a good job or not, unless it is so obviously incompetent that it explodes within the first 24 hours.
> 
> And that, perhaps, is the problem with customer reviews as the main form of quality assurance of services - many people will be using a trainer for the first time - how do they evaluate something without any basis of comparison? And some dire products, services - and dog trainers - acquire glowing online reviews, for whatever reason - certainly good enough to lure in the unwary.
> 
> I really like the idea of constant review, and of annual local "Best of ...", but I do think there needs to be a base level qualification to be achieved before anyone can set up as a dog trainer (and a considerably higher level for a behaviourist). I would not let someone who had not passed their driving test drive my car down the motorway, no matter how many people told me they were a brilliant driver!


Agree completely. Another issue related to a "social media" related reporting system is that the person/people that post negative reviews of a trainer, even though the review might be well warranted, could potentially leave themselves open to litigation. If a trainer is unethical in their training techniques and they refulse to be certified by a recognized body, why would anyone assume that they wouldn't try to sue anyone who might post disparaging comments publicly. You can be held legally accountable for everything that you post publicly, even if it is your opinion. 

On the other hand, if a trainer is a member of a recognized body and they use unethical methods - even if this is only in the perception of the end user - a complaint can be filed and investigated. Most organizations or any sort have a code of ethics that their members must adhere to and in my experience, reported infractions against said code are taken quite seriously. Most organizations are quite vigilant about their public perception in this day and age of "social media"


----------



## liljaker

Social media reporting system? So, when I am deciding which kind of obedience class I want to enroll in for Sunny -- I will check social media sites to see if people have liked the techniques (or not?) or check Angie's list? I suppose that could be helpful -- but then when I find out the ones that people raved about, I then want to read about their education, degrees, accreditations, etc., too.

As with any type of "expertise", established accreditations are key. Granted, there may be people who are more effective than someone who has credentials, and I am sure there are, but I believe you still need to have some kind of benchmark -- or you will never be able to make an educated decision -- if that is your goal. As it stands, I have been checking local trainers for some basic obedience classes -- so am looking at websites, then searching for reviews (social media), etc., but I am also keenly interested if the trainers have training in behavioral studies, so if my dog perhaps does not respond as the trainer expects, they will understand why and how to alter the training for my pup rather than try to force a method that did not work. I know everyone will teach what they believe works, but at the end of the day, I will make a choice of trainers based on my personal beliefs and desires. 

I am going to need foot surgery soon, and well, I would look at social media to find out which podiatrists/surgeons to stay away from, however, I think I would prefer to look at credentials, etc. 

I believe it also depends on how much value one puts on a companion animal, too, and I think for those of us who consider our pets part of the family, we may have higher standards and put more thought into the decision, than someone who considers the pet a "dog" and not a "family member dog" -- and there are people like that, just don't think they are here on PF. Just my opinion. I don't think everyone will agree here -- but social media has some value, just not in accreditation.


----------



## petitpie

I still use recommendations and word of mouth as the bottom line with accredited groups or non-accredited groups to choose someone to help me. 
Traditionally, dog training is not an accredited profession in the strictest sense, whereas animal behaviorists have degrees from colleges and universities and generally work in research. If an accredited university will add a four-year dog training program, then I might be interested to learn more about it. Now, I think there are more downsides than benefits to setting this up.


----------



## Chagall's mom

liljaker said:


> ...As with any type of "expertise", established accreditations are key. Granted, there may be people who are more effective than someone who has credentials, and I am sure there are, but I believe you still need to have some kind of benchmark -- or you will never be able to make an educated decision -- if that is your goal...


_Bingo!_:thumb:



> I am going to need foot surgery soon, and well, I would look at social media to find out which podiatrists/surgeons to stay away from, however, I think I would prefer to look at credentials, etc. ...


Best of luck with your upcoming surgery!:nurse:



> I don't think everyone will agree here -- but social media has some value, just not in accreditation.


Yup!:nod:


----------



## Rayah-QualitySPs

fjm said:


> The issue of some sort of general certification for dog trainers has come up on the e-collar thread, and I know that over the years there have been numerous threads describing how people have had poor (or outright dangerous) advice from those describing themselves as professional dog trainers, or have encountered problems in training classes.
> 
> The lack of recognised qualifications seems to me to be a very widespread problem, especially if you want to be assured as to the methods a "trainer" advocates. Without some sort of certification, anyone can - and does - describe themselves as a "trainer" or "behaviourist" or "whisperer" or "listener" or other form of expert, and without a lot of research it is impossible to tell whether their qualifications involve many years of education, research and experience, or a few hours watching television.


I know I am coming in very late in this thread but if all the dog trainers needed 4 years of education to be a trainer - none of us regular people could afford to use them!

People who own dogs are always going to make mistakes with their dogs. The best start for dog and owner are puppy socialization classes. 

No one needs a four year degree for these classes but I would not take classes from people I do not know or can assess. Some common sense should be used by people who want to take classes. Use references. Get the phonenumbers and call the references. 

A little common sense goes a long way! 

If we were going to have any sort of mandatory dertifications here in Canada I would like to see applied to parents who may breed children. I would like to see a written test that you must pass on child care, properly feeding and training methods that are good and bad.

Night now.


----------



## fjm

I think a four year degree for basic level training may be excessive (although most of the trainers I use are probably close to that), but the advantage of a certifying body would be that there would be many routes to qualification. I mentioned earlier the trainer I know who has built upon her experience of working with her own dogs, in boarding and rescue kennels and with an experienced trainer running a range of classes, taken a part time degree in animal behaviour, and become a member of the UK APDT. There are a whole range of courses available in the UK at least - part time, full time, on line, NVQ to postgrad level ... one very useful service I hope the ABTC will provide is to give some external QA to these. 

I do find it interesting that so many of us are so undemanding of the people we ask to teach us how to educate our dogs. I know that if I am paying to learn any other skill I expect the teacher to be fully qualified in both their subject and with an experienced teacher (preferably with a teaching certificate) before I reach for the cheque book - yet the first dog training classes I signed up years ago were with a local club, chosen more on the basis of convenience and because it was then the only game in town than because I had confidence in the instructors. Ah well, one lives and learns - and I quickly learned the importance of being more discriminating!


----------



## liljaker

Well, I agree if there were certifications necessary to breed children, my guess is there'd be lots of childless families out there --- and more room for puppies!!! LOL


----------



## Chagall's mom

Rayah-QualitySPs said:


> ....A little common sense goes a long way!
> 
> ...If we were going to have any sort of mandatory dertifications here in Canada I would like to see applied to parents who may breed children. I would like to see a written test that you must pass on child care, properly feeding and training methods that are good and bad.


Dear Rayah,
Your post cracked me up! :laugh: If you get that human breeding scheme up and running in Canada, let me know. I'd expect to see people running across the border, in _both_ directions! 

I'm with you as an advocate of common sense, in all things! I chose a purebred dog because I wanted some reasonable assurance of temperament, health, appearance and size. I wanted a breeder who did health testing, and was happy to verify that testing because the results were available through recognized registries. I wouldn't rely on a breeder simply telling me their breeding stock was health tested, just as I wouldn't rely on a friend/family member/social media site singing the breeder's praises; that's too "hearsay" for me. I want the ability to verify and substantiate it. To me, that's just common sense and not some elitist regulatory mechanism. 

Similarly, I want the same option when endeavoring to locate a competent and responsible dog trainer, the method and credentialing authority of such being under discussion here. To my way of thinking, there is an absolute benefit to dealing with someone who has demonstrated their knowledge and ability to meet a universal standard of proficiency, which isn't to say this individual must attain a college degree. 

Naturally, common sense dictates checking references and doing a bit of research, as it's always useful to hear others experiences, and prudent to know who you're dealing with. As has been stated previously, it's not a call for dog trainers to earn Ph.d's. It's a desire to have a benchmark of basic knowledge about canine behavior and how dogs learn, and the various proven techniques a trainer might have as part of his/her repertoire. This IMO would be a step forward in shoring up the category of "dog trainer," and a true public service. Why wouldn't dog trainers welcome an accreditation that elevates their profession? 

As common sense again tells us, there would still be "amateur" dog trainers, who would be well entitled to try to earn their living or donate their services as they wish. But for those wanting the assurance and benefits a credentialing body can offer, I do think, however controversial, it is worth considering. 

I'm glad it's being discussed here, and it's interesting to hear the varying viewpoints. Recognizing some will always be resistance to change, and will bristle at the thought of what they may see as "the man" or "big brother" over complicating or intruding into their their lives and livelihoods, it seems to me it's still possible to run on parallel tracks and foster a profession of credentialed dog trainers, while allowing amateurs to carry on as well.


----------



## cavon

Here, here!!


----------

