Voodoo

[Debbie Meier]

I am so taken aback by the idea that referring someone to a dog behaviorist somehow equates with "not hurting their self esteem." Whose self esteem, the owner asking for help or the dog who has problems?

 

 

In some cases, not all, the owners need to make the changes, the dog is just being a dog and reacting to their enviroment based on how they are wired. It's not a matter of issuing a fix for the dog, it's a matter of getting the owner to look to themselves and many do not want to look in the mirror. By sending people to a behaivorist your just continuing to put the focus on the dog, which in many cases is not where the problem lies.

[bcnewe2]

I am so taken aback by the idea that referring someone to a dog behaviorist somehow equates with "not hurting their self esteem." Whose self esteem, the owner asking for help or the dog who has problems?

I think this is being taken out of content.

Ex: I walk in a friends house. She has a bratty dog. The dog insists on lunging at my dogs, jumping on me and generaly being a brat. Does this dog need to be put down or taken to a behaviorist? Probably not, but doG forbid I give it a stern correction or worse yet, Mick who has no tolerance for hyper inconsiderate dogs does his own form of correction. Now who's got the problem dog? Me? Mick may be a jerk but he's a well trained very controled jerk. I am very aware where I take him to keep ourselves out of trouble.

No, that dog doesn't need to be put down, it needs a swift kick (not literitaly except probably true) in the butt of it's self control. If you can't tell the difference then I guess you need to go to a behavorist to get a true diagnoisis.

Unless you are Kristine (or someone with the same patience and knowledge) all the cookies in the world are not going to fix jerkness. At least IMO.

 

These are to different kinds of issues we're discussing here. One is owner issue. The other is serious mental health issues.

 

The cancer analogy seems way off to me. If my dog needs surgury so be it, not going to slouch on that one. But how many mental health issues are looked at as just bad behaviors and the person or dog should buck up. I think about half is buck up and the other half is in need of serious help. Any amature dog owner who finds himself it the middle of owning a mentally disturbed dog is going to have a rough ride. One that might not end in a manner that we all hope for. And consulting a behaviorist is not a be all end all. Sometimes there is worse than PTS a dog. I feel for the amature owner not able to spend the money or have the knowledge to help a dog they might own with serious issues.

Totally different than the senario I described above. How does a behavorist tell the owner of a bratty misbehaved dog, it's them not the dog and stay in business?

 

And yes, I would recommend destroying dogs that are seriously mentally messed up. Least something happen where the dogs gets put down anyway and someone gets hurt. I am not all fluffy about saving all animals. sometimes things don't go the way we all would wish.

[Carlasl]

In some cases, not all, the owners need to make the changes, the dog is just being a dog and reacting to their enviroment based on how they are wired. It's not a matter of issuing a fix for the dog, it's a matter of getting the owner to look to themselves and many do not want to look in the mirror. By sending people to a behaivorist your just continuing to put the focus on the dog, which in many cases is not where the problem lies.

 

I am going to have to disagree with this......Behaviorist primary goal is to teach the owners how to better manage their dog, how is that focusing on the dogs problems? The medications and things used often are to get the dog to a point where the owner can actually get through to them and desensitize them and counter condition them to their triggers.

 

Whether or not someone actually follows through with the behavorist training protocol is the thing....they may go to a behavorist thinking I have got to find someone to "fix" this dog, but I guarantee that it is NOT the dog that is getting the lessons it is the owner. Medications only go so far, it takes a lot of work by the owner to truly rehabilitate a dog.

[Liz P]

And Liz, I'm not knocking vets or true behaviorists just saying there are some things that are being sent your way that really just need good common sense! Where do you send someone to learn that???

Some might say a good trainer, but how to tell the good from the bad when you know nothing...I guess we're right back to the licensed behaviorist as at least we know they have been accredited in the appropriate manner.

 

I have only referred one client to a veterinary behaviorist to date. The rest all had, as you say, common sense problems. I spoke with those clients during the exam or sent them to a local dog training club with a good record. All of these dogs, however, I met first hand and saw how they interacted with their owners. The only dog who I felt had serious issues and needed a behaviorist as opposed to a trainer bit me on the leg, leaving a deep scar. That dog was a 4 month old GSD who had already graduated from a puppy training class with flying colors (according to the owner). The behaviorist was more so that the owner would understand how deadly serious her dog's problem was going to become. This was a PUPPY that already had major aggression issues.

 

The internet is a dangerous place to ask for advice since we can't see how serious the problem is with the dog/owner pair in question. When giving advice over the internet I think it is best to take a policy of "better safe than sorry" if it sounds like humans or dogs might be put in danger. In other words, if someone asks how to teach their dog to sit/down/stay/come we should send them to a trainer. If someone says their dog is trying to bite I would feel much safer sending them to a behaviorist.

 

ETA: I don't know what some other behaviorists charge, but I can safely say that the ones I worked with cost less in the long run than private lessons with a trainer. Their initial consult lasted 2 hours. That consult included 6 months of over the phone/e-mail questions and advice. So for about $50 a month the client had a veterinary behaviorist ready and willing to answer all of their questions. Seems like a deal to me.

[Carlasl]

How does a behavorist tell the owner of a bratty misbehaved dog, it's them not the dog and stay in business?

 

But this IS exactly what they do......I have never been in any class be it a dog trainer or behaviorist and ever had them soley blame the dog....most of them put it point blank if you want ______ to stop then YOU need to stop doing ________ and start doing ______.

[Mark Billadeau]

Just depends on your perspective of "do no harm", personally from a breeders standpoint I would rather see the genetically defective dog destroyed so that it will in no way effect the gene pool or the reputation of the breed, even altering them and placing them in a pet home effects reputation. Sacrafice the one for the whole.

Generally speaking the phrase "do no harm" is applied to individuals not to how that individual may impact the population or a subset of the population.

 

Where do you draw the line between not genetically defective and defective?

 

Sound sensitive

Heat intollarance

Too soft for harsh corrections

Too hard for soft corrections

One sided

 

All of the above are genetically based but can be managed. Do these types of issues make the dog genetically defective and therefore a candidate for destruction (elimination from the gene pool and possibility of impacting breeder reputation) or does being able to manage the issue mean these dogs are not genetically defective?

[rushdoggie]

I think this is being taken out of content.

 

I sincerely apologize if you feel I took your comment out of context, however I replied to a post that seemed to be replying to teh topic of the thread. It sure seemed like you were saying that the reasons one might suggest that an owner of a dog with a behavior issue might go to a behaviorist were due to not wanting to hurt their dogs self esteem or the owners self esteem.

 

...all the cookies in the world are not going to fix jerkness. At least IMO.

 

I'm not even sure how to respond to this. I guess if you see a behaviorist as a "cookie pusher" its no wonder you don't like them.

 

The cancer analogy seems way off to me. If my dog needs surgury so be it, not going to slouch on that one. But how many mental health issues are looked at as just bad behaviors and the person or dog should buck up. I think about half is buck up and the other half is in need of serious help.

 

The cancer analogy was to point out of you had a serious issue that could result in a terrible consequence (and sometimes that is death of a dog), and you didn't know how to fix the issue, that you would choose to go to the person who was most qualified to treat said issue. If I had risk factors for cancer, or were afraid of cancer, I might see a nutritionist or a holistic doc, or even just hang out and take advice from a healthy friend to get ideas and inspiration as to how to prevent my health from deteriorating. However, if already had cancer, I would see an oncologist (and also maybe a nutritionist or holistic doc for a complementary treatment). I would want to treat that tumor with an expert and get all the help I could to resolve the issue.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a simple issue of training manners or housetraining needs to go to a behaviorist, or that every new puppy owner should seek pro help right away, but if you post here that your dog is lunging at people or other animals, or you can't control their behavior in teh car, then its time for professional help to step in.

[Journey]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that a simple issue of training manners or housetraining needs to go to a behaviorist, or that every new puppy owner should seek pro help right away, but if you post here that your dog is lunging at people or other animals, or you can't control their behavior in teh car, then its time for professional help to step in.

 

I do think quite a few are suggesting VB for cases that are pure common sense and manners. Why on earth is a VB needed for the 2 cases you site above?

[Mark Billadeau]

I have to wonder if Donald is finding Highland Co a bit dull right now and wanted to watch (read) a bit of drama.

I know how much Donald enjoys to rush in, stir the pot, and step back to watch the swirling.

[juliepoudrier]

^^ (was thinking the same thing myself earlier today, actually).

 

J.

[Shetlander]

As far as the "Experts" she took the dog to, they all told her the dog is traumatised and she should be gentle and use lots of cookies!!

 

Is that based on what the nice young lady says? Without being in the room hearing what the "experts" actually said, I'd think it would be hard to know just what they did recommend she do. People often hear what they want to hear or jumble up the instructions or are simply poor trainers/handlers. Without knowing anything about the dog beyond what you describe, the owner obviously has placed the dog in situations where it is way over threshold, not feeling safe and no doubt unable to learn anything even if the owner has any ability to train it. If she followed recommendations of so many experts, she did so poorly and/or did not go at a pace that worked for the dog. That doesn't make VB's, experts, gentleness or cookies the problem here.

 

Whatever the dog brought to the mix, the owner is unable to deal with it correctly. How many classes does she need to be asked to leave or how many incidents need to occur before she figures out the dog is at the very least not ready to be in certain situations, such as competition? She can't figure out something as basic as that, but the "experts" are the ones who gave her bad advice?

[Shetlander]

I have to wonder if Donald is finding Highland Co a bit dull right now and wanted to watch (read) a bit of drama.

I know how much Donald enjoys to rush in, stir the pot, and step back to watch the swirling.

 

And we rise so predictably to the bait!

[Debbie Meier]

Generally speaking the phrase "do no harm" is applied to individuals not to how that individual may impact the population or a subset of the population.

 

Where do you draw the line between not genetically defective and defective?

 

Sound sensitive

Heat intollarance

Too soft for harsh corrections

Too hard for soft corrections

One sided

 

All of the above are genetically based but can be managed. Do these types of issues make the dog genetically defective and therefore a candidate for destruction (elimination from the gene pool and possibility of impacting breeder reputation) or does being able to manage the issue mean these dogs are not genetically defective?

 

 

To some yes, it would be a candidate for destruction, others would just cull by placing them into a pet home or into a home that has a lower acceptance thresh hold. Problem is, are the pet homes going to continue to accept them? Or are some of the conditions unmanagable for a laymen and no longer acceptable as "pet quality"? Where as previously the dogs would have been fine as pets, pets are expected to do more now then they were in previous generations prior to dog parks, agility classes, doggy day care, etc.

[rushdoggie]

I do think quite a few are suggesting VB for cases that are pure common sense and manners. Why on earth is a VB needed for the 2 cases you site above?

 

On one hand you are absolutely right.

 

If a dog is lunging aggressively at humans or other animals, (and I should clarify that I don't mean just a dog with no leash manners straining to get to someone or something they want, I mean a dog showing a threat display, growling, or attempting to bite) I am going to suggest a behaviorist, not a trainer. Why?

 

Training a dog to stop lunging is possible...you can correct a dog until he learns that lunging toward said object. However, it won't stop him from being aggressive necessarily. Lets say that your dog tries to snark out and bite men wearing hats. You can train him that if he lunges at a man wearinga hat he will be corrected and he will stop. What then happens when the leash is off or the man with the hat comes around the corner and startles the dog and he can reach the man and take a bite without straining on his leash? How about if teh owners kid takes teh dog out and the dog knows teh kid won't correct a lunge?

 

What I would want to do is find out why the man with a hat elicits an aggressive display. Is it fear based? is it resource guarding? if it is fear is it a vision probelm or a lack of socialization? Rather than correct the lunge I would want to figure out why it happens and teach the dog men with hats are not scary and that he can trust his owner.

 

Now, this *is* common sense to me, because I don't assume my dog is being s "jerk" if he does something I don't like...maybe it is to you too. If I had my shingle hung out as a trainer and I got a dog like that, thats how I would address it.

 

But for many people its not common sense, and they would simply punish the dog for doing what dogs do when they are afraid, instead of helping the dog see men with hats are not something to be afraid of. I have seen time and time again dogs punished for growling who then learn not to growl...they go straight to biting! I have seen owners told their dogs are trying to be "alpha" so they must "dominate" the dog, so the owner acts aggressive and intimidating to a dog who is already terrified of something. I have seen some scary sh*t advised by "trainers" in the world...

 

I am not going to see that in a certified dog behaviorist.

 

If I know a good trainer with skills in an area I will cetainly suggest that particular trainer vs a behaviorist. But I only know a few people in a few places and we get posts from all over the country. Hence, the suggestion to see a behaviorist.

 

In addition, I know from experience that sometimes what gets described here in a post is a less than 360 picture, because the owners who post are sometimes not very dog savvy and also because there is a lot lost in a 2D written post. I would hate to see anyone get hurt or a dog escalate to an actual bite and get killed because of advise I may have given because I couldn't see how serious a situation was.

 

Does that make sense?

[Debbie Meier]

What I would want to do is find out why the man with a hat elicits an aggressive display. Is it fear based? is it resource guarding? if it is fear is it a vision probelm or a lack of socialization? Rather than correct the lunge I would want to figure out why it happens and teach the dog men with hats are not scary and that he can trust his owner.

 

Two words....culture clash.

[Ooky]

Training a dog to stop lunging is possible...you can correct a dog until he learns that lunging toward said object. However, it won't stop him from being aggressive necessarily. Lets say that your dog tries to snark out and bite men wearing hats. You can train him that if he lunges at a man wearinga hat he will be corrected and he will stop. What then happens when the leash is off or the man with the hat comes around the corner and startles the dog and he can reach the man and take a bite without straining on his leash? How about if teh owners kid takes teh dog out and the dog knows teh kid won't correct a lunge?

 

I think there is a logical fallacy inherent in this line of reasoning similar to when people claim that they don't think positive methods work in the long term; e.g. "I don't want to always have to give him a cookie and bribe him to get him to do everything I want!" Just like positive training done correctly does not lead to needing a constant stream of cookies in order to continue to achieve the desired training result, neither does correction-based training require a constant threat of correction.

 

Now, that's assuming each method is accomplished correctly. Just as there are many clueless owners who give treats as bribes and not as a trainig tool, and there are many clueless owners who cannot issue effective corrections that stick (and I can be one of these!) One thing I think is that positive training is actually a bit more forgiving to the average owner's ineptitude. In alot of cases to issue effective corrections you need to read the dog really well and have impeccable timing, both of which I am often lacking as a novice dog owner (at least I know this, unlike a lot of people I see).

 

Too hard typing one-handed so I'll cut it short and say I do think VBs are warrented in those situations where the dog is miserable due to biochemistry or could present a danger to people. But how do you know whether a dog is like this or not (esp over the internet) if the owner already may (or may not) lack common sense? Or maybe they just lack the right experience, as described by Mary, who luckily found a god non-V "behaviorist", although I think it's more foolproof to go with a VB. So the reccs make sense to me in many cases on this board.

[njnovice]

Now, this *is* common sense to me, because I don't assume my dog is being s "jerk" if he does something I don't like...maybe it is to you too. If I had my shingle hung out as a trainer and I got a dog like that, thats how I would address it.

 

But for many people its not common sense, and they would simply punish the dog for doing what dogs do when they are afraid, instead of helping the dog see men with hats are not something to be afraid of. I have seen time and time again dogs punished for growling who then learn not to growl...they go straight to biting! I have seen owners told their dogs are trying to be "alpha" so they must "dominate" the dog, so the owner acts aggressive and intimidating to a dog who is already terrified of something. I have seen some scary sh*t advised by "trainers" in the world...

 

Some dogs are just jerks, though.

 

Mick (I think I have the clone of bcnewe's Mick) isn't scared of other dogs. He just doesn't like them in his face or touching his stuff. He gets along fine with non-rude dogs. If a dog gets in his face, he will give that dog a correction. If the dog does it again, the dog is going to get a really harsh correction. Incidentally, he's gotten along great with every Border Collie he's met, but all the ones he's been around have been owned by pretty experienced people with dogs that know how to conduct themselves. And I'm fully aware that he resource guards toys and water with dogs he doesn't know. He's a jerk with stuff like that, but it's not worth spending the money on a behaviorist for that to me. He doesn't resource guard with Sinead (although he did the first few weeks I had her), and she's the only dog it's really a concern with.

 

Mick's a jerk and all the clickers and treats in the world won't change that. He doesn't like clickers and treats don't hold any real appeal to him. On the other hand, he'll walk at a heel through a pretty tight crowd of people and dogs, so he's not a total ass. Just a jerk sometimes.

[Journey]

If I know a good trainer with skills in an area I will certainly suggest that particular trainer vs a behaviorist. But I only know a few people in a few places and we get posts from all over the country. Hence, the suggestion to see a behaviorist.

 

In addition, I know from experience that sometimes what gets described here in a post is a less than 360 picture, because the owners who post are sometimes not very dog savvy and also because there is a lot lost in a 2D written post. I would hate to see anyone get hurt or a dog escalate to an actual bite and get killed because of advise I may have given because I couldn't see how serious a situation was.

 

Does that make sense?

 

To an extent yes. However, all you just wrote out may be the answer to Donald's question to begin with.

 

Yet, in posts on another topic, dogger after dogger advised a novice with a problem dog to seek a “behaviorist”.

 

Why?

 

Specifically he said a "novice" with a problem dog. Instead of sending them the way of VB why not try to hash out what the real situation is and help? And how did we go from VB to certified dog behaviorist? BTW, what is a CDB?

[rushdoggie]

Some dogs are just jerks, though.

 

Mick (I think I have the clone of bcnewe's Mick) isn't scared of other dogs. He just doesn't like them in his face or touching his stuff. He gets along fine with non-rude dogs. If a dog gets in his face, he will give that dog a correction. If the dog does it again, the dog is going to get a really harsh correction. Incidentally, he's gotten along great with every Border Collie he's met, but all the ones he's been around have been owned by pretty experienced people with dogs that know how to conduct themselves. And I'm fully aware that he resource guards toys and water with dogs he doesn't know. He's a jerk with stuff like that, but it's not worth spending the money on a behaviorist for that to me. He doesn't resource guard with Sinead (although he did the first few weeks I had her), and she's the only dog it's really a concern with.

 

Mick's a jerk and all the clickers and treats in the world won't change that. He doesn't like clickers and treats don't hold any real appeal to him. On the other hand, he'll walk at a heel through a pretty tight crowd of people and dogs, so he's not a total ass. Just a jerk sometimes.

 

See, I don't think Mick is a jerk. My guess if he "corrects" another dog he seldom causes real damage, he makes his point. And he probably says in his body language long before he snarks hes not interested in playing.

 

In addition, resourcing things from dogs he doesn't know makes him a normal dog. Just because he doesn't meet some human's idea of "friendly" doesn't make him a jerk. None of my dogs like dogs in their face or touching their stuff, and will react in some way of another dog rudely comes up and gets in their personal space (my Border Collie will run off and both my Paps will snark).

 

He would be a "jerk" if he decided that any dog that has the gall to look at him should die. He would be a jerk if he decided to take it upon himself to leave your side and go attack a dog minding their own business.

 

Mick is just a sensible dog who doesn't care for other dogs. Nothing wrong with that.

 

And while he may not be interested in a treat I bet theres something that makes him happy that he could be rewarded with....maybe just your tacit approval conveyed in a "good dog."

[geonni banner]

I have to wonder if Donald is finding Highland Co a bit dull right now and wanted to watch (read) a bit of drama.

I know how much Donald enjoys to rush in, stir the pot, and step back to watch the swirling.

 

Well, I say, go ahead on Donald. I learn more stuff from the controversies started by pot-stirring on these pages than just about anything. I also get to find a out lot about the people doing the posts - what they think/ feel. and why they think/ feel that way. It helps to explain lots of other posts by the same people that I didn't understand the first time around. I have a lot of , "Oh! That's what she/he was on about..." moments.

 

I like for people to be decent to each other, but sometimes people have to get a little worked up to say what they mean, instead of talking all the way around something, which can be quite confusing. I won't say I've never had my feelings hurt - but that's my look out.

[rushdoggie]

I think there is a logical fallacy inherent in this line of reasoning similar to when people claim that they don't think positive methods work in the long term; e.g. "I don't want to always have to give him a cookie and bribe him to get him to do everything I want!" Just like positive training done correctly does not lead to needing a constant stream of cookies in order to continue to achieve the desired training result, neither does correction-based training require a constant threat of correction.

 

Now, that's assuming each method is accomplished correctly. Just as there are many clueless owners who give treats as bribes and not as a trainig tool, and there are many clueless owners who cannot issue effective corrections that stick (and I can be one of these!) One thing I think is that positive training is actually a bit more forgiving to the average owner's ineptitude. In alot of cases to issue effective corrections you need to read the dog really well and have impeccable timing, both of which I am often lacking as a novice dog owner (at least I know this, unlike a lot of people I see).

 

Too hard typing one-handed so I'll cut it short and say I do think VBs are warrented in those situations where the dog is miserable due to biochemistry or could present a danger to people. But how do you know whether a dog is like this or not (esp over the internet) if the owner already may (or may not) lack common sense? Or maybe they just lack the right experience, as described by Mary, who luckily found a god non-V "behaviorist", although I think it's more foolproof to go with a VB. So the reccs make sense to me in many cases on this board.

 

 

In my case, its not so much a "logical fallacy" as it is personal experience of seeing so many "trainers" shut dogs down with harsh and inappropriate corrections to a dog that was just screaming for someone to listen. (And, FYI, I used to be one of those people...my initial foray into dog training was full of choke chain corrections, alpha rolls and showing a dog who was boss. Somewhere along the line my thoughts changed and I changed my perceptions and gradually, my actions).

 

Thats not very forgiving of me, or probably very nice of me to assume that so many trainers that I don't know will do something stupid, so I won't pretend that my advice is not tinged by personal bias.

 

I also don't find that a real behaviorist costs and more or is more of a hardship on an owner. In fact, most of the people that I would recommend in this area charge far less than the "board and train" guy up the road that specializes in shock collar training for all of his consults and classes.

[MrSnappy]

In my case, its not so much a "logical fallacy" as it is personal experience of seeing so many "trainers" shut dogs down with harsh and inappropriate corrections to a dog that was just screaming for someone to listen. (And, FYI, I used to be one of those people...my initial foray into dog training was full of choke chain corrections, alpha rolls and showing a dog who was boss. Somewhere along the line my thoughts changed and I changed my perceptions and gradually, my actions).

 

Thats not very forgiving of me, or probably very nice of me to assume that so many trainers that I don't know will do something stupid, so I won't pretend that my advice is not tinged by personal bias.

 

I actually find this one of the most thoughtful posts in this thread. I come from a culture of correction based training myself, and admittedly I still don't go the entirely positive route. Corrections still happen around here sometimes, but as I stepped out of one culture and into another, my training has evolved. It's a lot kinder. And I never would have said I was unkind 10 or 5 years ago either. While I practice a principle of common sense and expectation with my dogs, I find I get just as much appropriate behaviour out of my dogs by setting them up for success and positive reinforcement as I did barking commands at them and demanding compliance, except I like us both better when I'm doing the former. But I watch these threads sometimes with interest, because while they are generally predictable, I'm not a fanatic about one camp or the other and I find merit in both viewpoints.

 

I can manage dogs that other people can't. I'm not a professional, I'm just skilled from lots of practice. I can't TELL people what works, in part because I'm just being me and they can't be me. But mostly because what works for my dog may not work for their dog, or may not work for THEM.

 

I tell people they need a professional because professionals are what people seem to respect. If they can't muddle through on their own, and all they're doing is making their own dog worse, where's the harm in suggesting they hire someone with credentials to help them fix it? Any trainer or behaviourist, however you define behaviourist, worth their salt will admit that more than half the battle is training the handler, not the dog. I'd rather err on the side of caution and send people to someone with soup behind their name then send them to the B*rkB*ster franchise, where anyone who buys into it becomes a dog trainer. If there are no certifications for trainers OR behavourists, my experience is that a behaviourist is less likely to do more harm than a run of the mill trainer is.

 

It's so easy to say "just use common sense" but frankly, that's not helpful to someone who is really suffering with their dog's behaviour. It's pretty lofty and rude, actually - I'd rather help them than rub their noses in the fact that they aren't very good at handling or managing their dog, who is a problem for THEM - whether or not their problem makes you want to roll your eyes or not. At least they are looking for solutions. Why not offer them some?

 

RDM

[urge to herd]

I think there's definitely some stirring of the pot going on here, and I'm going to throw my few cents in.

 

Let me say first that I have enormous respect for Mr. McCaig and the experienced and gifted dog people who respond. But from that level of experience, giving a 'just use your common sense' type of response to someone who has little to no real experience with challenging dogs is the equivalent of let's say, Bill Gates saying to an entrepreneur, "Just work hard, you'll get there." Of course someone who has trained and/or trialed dogs for years makes it look easy, makes it look like just using common sense.

 

BUT, a lot of people come here and ask questions about something that they have no clue whatsoever how to deal with, or the techniques that worked with their previous dogs didn't work with this dog. They don't have years of learning to read dog body language, or subtle signals. They haven't lived with multiple dogs since they can remember, and they need a lot of help at very basic levels.

 

The level of expertise one needs depends on the kind of problem at hand, and on one's own experiences with that type of problem. If I have no experience, I need more of an expert, because I don't have a frame of reference to draw that 'common sense' response from.

 

I've used a highly skilled behaviorist, just like I've used other highly skilled specialist veterinarians, because I was outclassed by the issues my dogs were presenting me with. What the heck is wrong with that?

 

Ruth

[Lenajo]

Personally I don't think Donald was qualified to ask those questions.....anymore than any of us are qualified to answer. We simply lack the credentials, titles and a full college education on the subject. It's a wonder we can feed ourselves.

 

If a kid won't sit down and shut his yap in class, most likely he doesn't need drugs or a psychiatrist; he needs structure and consistency, as well as appropriate exercise after school to use up some of that wiggle.

 

If my dog won't behave, most likely he needs training, structure, and exercise - not a vet or medication.

 

Handle that basics first, using a reasonable local source who's methods and results suit your tastes, and if it doesn't work then run for the specialist. Own up to the source of most problems, and that just like good parenting, good training is common sense and follow-through, not degrees and protocols. It's not fast or fancy, just steady work. And yes, finding a training by interviewing and researching is part of that work.

 

I have next to no faith in most vet behaviorists. My experience with what they have to offer has been 100% negative. I find a few better general vets, but common sense and real world animal experience seems to be in significant shortage. LizP commented on the extra training for VB, but I find that lacking still. When they polled the students at the state vet school a few years ago, less than 5% of the class had even owned a dog, and none had any significant training experiencing. 8 years of books and clinical training does not make those type of people automatically into a savvy, real-life dog-fixer anymore than APDT or "xyz training school" makes a dog trainer. But hey, they can prescribe *drugs*...doesn't that make you feel safer?

[sweet_ceana]

Yet, in posts on another topic, dogger after dogger advised a novice with a problem dog to seek a “behaviorist”.

 

Why?

 

I would like to throw out a simple answer to Mr. McCaig's question. The reason he has seen so many reccomendations to see a "behaviorist" is because most people are only comfortable giving advice from their own experience, and ,generally speaking, most people enjoy giving advice. (I don't mean in an egotistical way, but the simple fact that people enjoy sharing knowledge with each other. I'd say that as a species we have faired quite well from the experience.) When someone suggests a "behaviorist" it is most often because they have had an experience that in their opinion

demonstrated their skills publicly and, as my old Philosophy teacher might have said, “verifiably”

When giving advice people offer what has worked for them or someone they know. IMHO the answer to his question is as simple as that.

 

Now, if there is concern/suprise/inquiry as to why more people do not suggest seeing an experienced sheepdog trainer/trialer I would suggest that there are two reasons why that suggestion isn't brought up more. Primarily, I would say that access to these experienced trainers is not readily available to some. Trainers can be far away, or people have unforgiving work schedules. Some trainers may just have busy schedules, etc. I am sure there are a slew of reasons why some people haven't sought help from an experienced open handler. Obviously the majority of people are not going to suggest going to such a trainer if they have no experience with one themselves. Secondly, I have read many times on these boards that a lot of the sheepdog trialing folk no longer comment as much. If you don't offer your advice people can't take it.

 

-Begining of rant-

As to my personal opinion on common sense vs. behaviorists it all boils down to the individual for me. Being the owner of a genetic loon as my first dog ever, as well as someone who admits my lack of knowledge and experience made things worse before they got better, I can say that some of her issues would have been corrected much earlier by someone who knew what they were doing. Espeically someone with experience with border collies. I have gotten wonderful advice and assistance from both behaviorists and trainers. I have also found terrible advice that will not work for her at all. That said, the girl is definetly a few cards short of a full deck and will never be a normal dog. Resource gaurding a sock at 5 weeks is a clue that experience would have picked up on. (WARNING GIRLIE ANALOGY) As far as I am concerned shopping advice is like shopping for swimsuits. What looks good on you might make me look like a troll. I'll try on your suit but I am only going to buy what works for me when I take a good long hard vulnerable look in the mirror.

 

-End of rant-