JulesP Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Ummm Animal science, zoology and one is a vet. I should point out that this is my criteria if I don't know the person! I have passed both Erny & Cosmolo's details on to other people that have been having behaviour issues as I 'know' you. And I usually suggest Steve if the person is in Sydney. The guy I worked with today at club is one of the best handlers in Vic so I really don't care what his qualifications are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colliewood Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 My biggest worry Cosmolo, and I'm sure you see this too, are some people who complete either their Delta or NDTF courses, who have all of 5 mins experience, yet they go out and call themselves dog trainers. I don't know about you, but this absolutely terrifies me. I think you get this with any industry when people "complete" a course. I am starting my course this year, by no means will I be the "be all and end all" at the end. I have years ahead of me of watching, listening, reading and learning. It is something I have wanted to do for a long time but I realise where my limits will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 It all seems a bit hypocritical, now, in light of just being slammed for suggesting that a certain celebrity trainer could do with some formal training. Incidentally, I don't think VS has any, either. Although I could be wrong. I thought I heard she was an actor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paganman Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 It all seems a bit hypocritical, now, in light of just being slammed for suggesting that a certain celebrity trainer could do with some formal training. No offence meant but I think most people were wondering what qualified you to make a suggestion like that.Arnt you a zoologist who just owns a couple of dogs your not a dog trainer are you?From what Ive read of your posts you dont seem to be an expert on dogs just your everyday dog owner.Sure your probably pretty cluey on whatever animals you work with but dogs dont come across as your strong point.JMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Midol Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Does anyone have links to relevant dog behaviour uni degrees- i have never been able to find any? There are none. Even the science degrees only have a few subjects on animal behaviour. In fact, last I looked into zooloogy there was only 2 subjects on animal behaviour. This is why I don't see how a degree is relevant in dog training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corvus Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Even the science degrees only have a few subjects on animal behaviour. In fact, last I looked into zooloogy there was only 2 subjects on animal behaviour. This is why I don't see how a degree is relevant in dog training. It's not. How many times do I have to say it? You don't need one. It'd probably help, but you don't need one. I am not a dog expert and have never painted myself as one, but when everyone says that a behaviourist should have some sort of credentials/formal training one wonders why this doesn't seem to apply to celebrities. I don't understand why I have to be a dog expert to say that a dog behaviourist that takes people's money for helping their dogs ought to have some kind of formal training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 (edited) I am not a dog expert and have never painted myself as one, but when everyone says that a behaviourist should have some sort of credentials/formal training one wonders why this doesn't seem to apply to celebrities. I don't understand why I have to be a dog expert to say that a dog behaviourist that takes people's money for helping their dogs ought to have some kind of formal training. People who have seen good behaviourists 'at work' or have heard of and been recommended them via reliable sources don't usually worry about papered credentials either. "Celebrities" are those whose work is seen. People already have some knowledge of what they do and how they do it. It's the behaviourists who are new to people where they will often be asked about their background experience and knowledge. There are many of such people (who ring up 'blind') and having some reputable formal training in the field helps to a point, given that any joe blow could hang up the "behaviourist" shingle on their front door. Edited February 1, 2009 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't understand why I have to be a dog expert to say that a dog behaviourist that takes people's money for helping their dogs ought to have some kind of formal training. I plan to do a full report when I have the time, but one of the most useful things I got out of the Dunbar conference this weekend is that arguing with other trainers online is worse than pointless. He caned the positive people as hard (if not harder) for this as anyone else. People are in entrenched positions, and if they are in an anti-intellectual position as well they will be even less inclined to have a worthwhile discussion about it. Dunbar suggested demo'ing methods for people (by video if necessary) if it's important to convince them, but otherwise not bothering with online back and forth. Think he described most list and board discussions as "bullshit". With the benefit of 3 days away from the computer, I agree with him. I plan to go and train my dogs instead the next time I get an urge to argue about theory. I know which will be a more useful way to spend my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't see it as a waste of time - I like to hear what other people have to say and to try to see it from their point of view Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I agree Kavik! Also about respecting other people's opinions even when we don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I don't see it as a waste of time - I like to hear what other people have to say and to try to see it from their point of view Do you like to hear it 20 times tho'? What about the same discussion 20 times? We do that here all the time. I think there comes a point when it ceases to be a productive use of one's time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmolo Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I get what you're saying Anita. But- in a recent discussion a trainer gave me her opinion in a different way to what i had heard before which prompted me to ask a few questions etc. I can't see how this is a bad thing. Although- i do think demos are the best way to get a point across. And when we get a new video camera, i might do just that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucylotto Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 I think you could apply the same question to many professions.If we take the veterinary profession as a parallel, there are 2 factors: skill/expertise and complexity of issue presented. the skills that a vet nurse will have in diagnosing an issue will vary according to experience. Some will be able to recognise & treat minor uncomplicated issues & some won't. Many will try & they will be right sometimes & wrong other times. Some will have more training and experience than others. It is unlikely that they could diagnose a complex set of symptoms or perform a major operation. A vet will obviously be more likely to successfully diagnose & treat an issue than a vet nurse, due to their training & experience...but there will still be cases that stump them. A complex series of symptoms and little or no background information would make it hard for most vets to treat successfully first time. They can also have areas they specialise in, so will appear more successful in some areas than in others. Doesn't the same apply for dog trainers/behaviouralists? Anyone can call themselves a dog trainer & for a basic issue with an uncomplicated dog, they can be. It would take someone with a whole lot more experience & training/qualifications to achieve something complex and /or with a dog who has many or unknown serious issues. I always find word of mouth the best recommendation for anything. yes I agree, same applies to any profession. I see it all the time in the 'human' medical world and all trades. I have seen people with more certificates than others so more qualified on paper that I wouldn't let near me for them to practise on. Word of mouth is best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Errr we discuss stuff because we like doing so. If you don't like it then you don't have to get involved. Mr Dunbar sounds like he needs to take a chill pill. Some people like to discuss, debate until the cows come home, some don't. I don't care if people don't like to do this but will stand up for my right to do so! Even discussions that I don't agree about I find interesting and usually get something of value out of them. Edited February 2, 2009 by JulesP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Errr we discuss stuff because we like doing so. If you don't like it then you don't have to get involved. Mr Dunbar sounds like he needs to take a chill pill. Some people like to discuss, debate until the cows come home, some don't. I don't care if people don't like to do this but will stand up for my right to do so! He did NOT say that discussing stuff is bad, he's all for using the internet as a tool to share training ideas and he has a very large website with video and information on it. He said that arguing about theory and whose way is better is a waste of time - which is where this thread was going like so many others before it. Some subjects here are not so much a dead horse as a greasy mark on the concrete. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying anyone else should do what I'm planning to do - however, I thought it was worth throwing it out as an idea for those who might be feeling frustrated. Corvus was sounding frustrated by the time I chimed in, perhaps I'm wrong and she finds the discussions energising. In which case, more power to her (and you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I don't think the definition of behaviourist has been discussed much really - not nearly as much as many other training topics. I think Corvus is just frustrated due to the Cesar Milan thread which has gotten a bit heated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) I don't think the definition of behaviourist has been discussed much really - not nearly as much as many other training topics. I think Corvus is just frustrated due to the Cesar Milan thread which has gotten a bit heated. My take: Behaviourist: A person who analyses and develops methods for modifying a dog's unwanted behaviour. Trainer: A person who teaches dogs (and/or handlers) cued behaviours. Clearly cued behaviours can be used for modifying unwanted behaviour but the two hats don't always overlap. Whether or not a person should hold qualifications or be accredited is a whole different argument IMO. Edited February 2, 2009 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quickasyoucan Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 I don't think the definition of behaviourist has been discussed much really - not nearly as much as many other training topics. I think Corvus is just frustrated due to the Cesar Milan thread which has gotten a bit heated. My take: Behaviourist: A person who analyses and develops methods for modifying a dog's unwanted behaviour. Trainer: A person who teaches dogs (and/or handlers) cued behaviours. Clearly cued behaviours can be used for modifying unwanted behaviour but the two hats don't always overlap. Whether or not a person should hold qualifications or be accredited is a whole different argument IMO. For me if I had a serious or complicated problem I would want to see a behaviourist. If I wanted to learn a particular method of training my puppy and have a formal program to do that, I might go to a trainer, I might also go to a trainer for basic things like loose lead walking, etc. I would think one might also see a trainer if one wanted to learn to do agility/obedience to a high level to refine a methodology, then again maybe I am wrong. Luckily for us a few of our specialists here wear both hats But I agree with PF, I don't believe the two always overlap. ETA: even if the discussions do sometimes cover old ground, I always find I get something new out of them. I have learned heaps by dipping into the training forum. The only thing that does annoy me sometimes is when personal grudges start being aired which does sometimes occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) ... one of the most useful things I got out of the Dunbar conference this weekend is that arguing with other trainers online is worse than pointless. He caned the positive people as hard (if not harder) for this as anyone else. People are in entrenched positions, and if they are in an anti-intellectual position as well they will be even less inclined to have a worthwhile discussion about it. Dunbar suggested demo'ing methods for people (by video if necessary) if it's important to convince them, but otherwise not bothering with online back and forth. Think he described most list and board discussions as "bullshit". With the benefit of 3 days away from the computer, I agree with him. I plan to go and train my dogs instead the next time I get an urge to argue about theory. I know which will be a more useful way to spend my time. Wow! I think discussing and debating things (on-line or not) is one excellent way to learn. No-one says there has to be a "winner" in a debate or discussion or for that matter, an argument. Both 'sides' can learn from the different views expressed. It doesn't mean they have to 'cross over'. TBH, what Ian Dunbar has said (going by your post) sounds more like a cop-out to me. Similar to his line relating to an article he wrote on adopting adult dogs from shelters (and dealing with problematic behaviours that come with them) ..... "The best time to adopt an adult dog is as a puppy". I can't put my hands on the actual edition of the APDT newsletter that article was written in/for, so I need to include a disclaimer that my quote might be a bit 'off', although I think it is accurate. Sorry Anita, but if I were you and Ian's advice to "not discuss things with trainers online as it's worse than pointless" is the "best thing" I got out of the Dunbar conference, then I'd not be very satisfied and would probably want my money back. Edited February 2, 2009 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erny Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) Dunbar suggested demo'ing methods for people (by video if necessary) ... I'd like to see (unedited) video footage of "red-zone" dogs being rehabilitated using only the positive methods that Ian Dunbar and others prescribe. Even for some of the not so "red-zone" dogs. I often don't or can't get answers from PP's of "what they would or might do when" (giving fairly curly situations). I've asked and the question is either skirted around or, as in one instance at a "PP seminar", was told "that's a subject for another seminar". I've been waiting for that seminar ever since (ie years). I love using positives. It makes me feel good. Sure as eggs makes me feel less "guilty" which is what I sometimes end up feeling when amongst a crowd of PP's who suggest ANYTHING else is cruel (even though I know that one or more of those people use corrections themselves when they think it is necessary). These are some of the links to video footage that have been put up .... but surely there's got to be far better, because in my opinion, these are exta-ordinary low quality and on the most basic of things .... How to Teach a Border Collie Their Name Determine If Your Dog Is Too Nervous to Train (BTW the fellow in this video is wrong .... horses are traditionally worked on the handler's right; dogs on the left, but that's besides the point) ... if it's important to convince them, but otherwise not bothering with online back and forth. If the use of aversives is cruel, wrong and so on and so forth, why wouldn't it ever NOT be important to convince us? I'd like to be convinced, because I feel nicer using positives than I do including aversives in training. But what I feel and what's best for the dog in its circumstances isn't always the same thing. Edited February 2, 2009 by Erny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now