Loaded question, I know. It's not concerning me, personally. I am not the one wanting to become a trainer/instructor.

Let's say we're talking about a general dog training facility that offers activities like obedience, agility, rally, nosework, tracking, CGC, etc. No IPO or ring sport. Let's also say that this is not a place where you send your dog to be trained; this is a place where you take classes with your dog, and all the instructors are non-paid, working as volunteers in exchange for receiving reduced class rates and a few other perks.

For example:

Do you think there is a certain number of years one should be involved in training dogs, both their own and helping others train theirs? Is there a minimum number of different dogs you should have trained and titled in some venue? Should you have to have titles at all? Should you have to have knowledge working with a variety of breeds and temperaments, and a variety of handlers of different abilities and temperaments?

Should the requirements be different for teaching puppy socialization classes, household manners classes, different levels of obedience, different levels of agility, etc.?

Would you place any importance on any of the various certifications that are available out there, like APTD, CCPDT, etc.?

Would you take classes at a facility like this where the instructors are not professionals but may have decades of experience training and titling their own dogs and helping others and have good people skills to be able to teach handlers of different levels of ability to train their dogs?

I would be very interested in hearing thoughts and opinions from the members of LB.

I have no qualms about suggesting the Michael Ellis school even though I have no idea if his trainers are beginning level or not.

I don't think he would just toss them in the mix unless they were capable.

I've met and competed against student trainers of another school and in general I didn't like what I saw in the performances with their dogs.

In going to this school the students must title different dogs in different areas of dog training but that doesn't make them good at training OR teaching.

That being said I do know a graduate of this particular school that has graduated and has successfully become an excellent trainer on her own.

I also believe this person was a good dog person before the school.

Very valid question, Cheri.

I think there are several variables to consider. First, cost: I would expect to pay much less for a class on basics led by a volunteer than an advanced class led by someone who has titled with their dogs in that specific area.

Next, 'education': although there is no guarantee that certificates mean an individual will be a good instructor, I think it is a favorable characteristic, implying that the trainer cares enough about their profession to go get certified. I would expect to see this for a full time trainer in competitive markets (bigger cities perhaps) and for more advanced classes.

Related to education, titles: if an instructor is teaching a class specifically to assist someone in getting a CGC or in a specific sport, I would expect that they had already accomplished this on their own. Regardless of their teaching ability, it is difficult to describe what to expect if you haven't been down that path.

Last, experience and people skills: I agree with Bob that titling your dog and/or attending a school doesn't necessarily make you a good teacher. We've all probably been to a doctor that was extremely intelligent, has all sorts of specialties and certifications yet has terrible bedside manner. Teaching and working with people is an art. In that case, an experienced teacher who doesn't have any certifications and hasn't competed with their dogs may still be better at generally teaching someone how to teach their dog than someone with those things. In any case, someone with many years of experience should also be able to describe to you how dog training has changed over time and/or about other methods out there. That would tell me that they have chosen this training method on purpose because it has value rather than as a default.

One thing I found a bit off-putting when I was shopping for puppy classes is that I was not allowed to come and audit one class to see what the instructor was like beforehand. If you are making a multi-class commitment, you should be able to do this. It's not like you are going to get a bunch of free info out of one session- especially without your dog- and not have to come back. A several hour, specialized workshop maybe, but not a 45 min. puppy intro class.

Maybe this is unreasonable, but I also wish volunteer level training classes were more flexible in methodology. In our area, the vast majority of classes are all positive with the martingale style collar being the most aggressive type acceptable. I was berated by someone from a local shelter for asking if I could use a prong in their class. I'm sure everyone here agrees that there is a time and place for different tools and training methods. What is great for a 9 week old puppy is not the same for an unruly two year old working breed. Maybe it's CYA in going with the most gentle training method but its also not very helpful.

Sorry this ended up being such a long post- hope some of it was valuable.

Thanks, Bob and Carolyn for your replies.

Bob, I agree with your praise of the Michael Ellis school. In a perfect world, I would love it if all the instructors I took lessons from had graduated from his classes. I think it's financially and logistically out of the reach of many, though. You also make an important point that just graduating from a good school and/or titling a dog or dogs of your own in a particular sport or activity does not necessarily make one a good dog trainer or class instructor. I think those natural skills to read dogs of many temperaments and to handle the different personalities of the handlers involved is something that cannot be taught; it requires some basic instinct to begin with, along with years of hands-on experience.

Carolyn, what a great post! I really appreciate the comprehensive and thoughtful nature of your comments. It seems like common sense that a training facility would allow a prospective client to sit in on one class (without a dog, of course). They aren't giving away any secrets and may end up with a new client or two or three. Win-win. You also make a great point about flexibility in methodology and determining what kind of training equipment may work best for each dog/handler team, instead of hard-and-fast rules that you must use this type of device and you cannot use that type.

Anybody else want to weigh in?

I do agree with your great and thoughtful responses. I only don't agree fully, Cheri, that reading different dogs can't be taught. I wasn't able to read my dogs and of course not unknown ones some years ago. But thanks to communicating with experienced people, reading a lot and taking courses I learned it much better in between, though it's far from really done. If someone hasn't learned a good part of it already during childhood it will take years and years, I guess. I think it needs the wish to learn it, then you'll open your eyes, listen to other people and compare.

About Michael. yes, I agree enthusiastically. If I were younger I'd certainly enroll in his course. Although I don't want to become a dog trainer, it would be a fabulous education. I already love his DVDs immensely. At the moment I'd have to live from bananas for quite a while in order to save the money for his course. Probably it would be worth it, I'm anyway too fat.

 Quote: Christina Stockinger

I do agree with your great and thoughtful responses. I only don't agree fully, Cheri, that reading different dogs can't be taught. I wasn't able to read my dogs and of course not unknown ones some years ago. But thanks to communicating with experienced people, reading a lot and taking courses I learned it much better in between, though it's far from really done. If someone hasn't learned a good part of it already during childhood it will take years and years, I guess. I think it needs the wish to learn it, then you'll open your eyes, listen to other people and compare.

Thanks for your comments, Christina. You phrased it nicely, and I think we are mostly in agreement. I may have worded my comments in my previous post poorly. I do believe people can learn to read dogs, and most people who are good at it probably spent years in the learning process. Having a natural talent for it is definitely helpful, but I didn't mean to suggest that only people who are lucky enough to be born that way could be successful trainers/instructors.

Well, I wasn't born that way, unfortunately. But I had a rather good start when I was about 4 yrs old. Long way to the kindergarden, even much longer the way back, because I had to stop at every yard with dogs ,had to greet them and talk with them. I knew the name of each one and still remember most. Once a tiny one, I think it was a Pinscher managed to break out of his yard and followed me. Of course I also lured him. I read: "I want to be with you." and so was sure it was his own decision, which I had to respect. I hid him in our laundry, but two or three days later my mother saw him and I had to go back with her and him to his owner. She broke out in tears to have her dog back. Only then I realized that I had done a very bad thing, but she wasn't angry with me. She even allowed me to visit and walk him a bit. So this was the beginning of my relationship with dogs and perhaps also the beginning of a very late start (71) for having my own dogs.

" I had a rather good start when I was about 4 yrs old. Long way to the kindergarden, even much longer the way back, because I had to stop at every yard with dogs ,had to greet them and talk with them. I knew the name of each one and still remember most. Once a tiny one, I think it was a Pinscher managed to break out of his yard and followed me. Of course I also lured him. I read: "I want to be with you." and so was sure it was his own decision, which I had to respect."

This made me laugh out loud -- although sad for the scared owner, of course.



PS
I used to read my pre-verbal baby sister very well, too. I would say "She wants a cookie. And I'll have one too."

 Quote: Connie Sutherland

" I had a rather good start when I was about 4 yrs old. Long way to the kindergarden, even much longer the way back, because I had to stop at every yard with dogs ,had to greet them and talk with them. I knew the name of each one and still remember most. Once a tiny one, I think it was a Pinscher managed to break out of his yard and followed me. Of course I also lured him. I read: "I want to be with you." and so was sure it was his own decision, which I had to respect."

This made me laugh out loud -- although sad for the scared owner, of course.



PS
I used to read my pre-verbal baby sister very well, too. I would say "She wants a cookie. And I'll have one too."

YOU TOO?!

I still do that with all the grandkids but I get two for me . They know better then go right to Gam cause she'll tell them it's to close to meal time.

Not me!

Like most grand-parents! They undermine the authority of others. At least sometimes. Sly fox! But it has certainly good side effects too.