I wasn't sure where to post but this looked like a good place to start. I recently visited a site where a gentleman was discussing how proud he was of working with a Senator of his state in requiring trainers to be certified in his state. He did state that he was with the canine section in the military and some other organization but, he never stated where he received his formal training. My question is this: who will determine which traing theory is to be followed or what schools will be acceptable? Would it be Tom Rose's School or perhaps the tapes that Ed sells, who will be the authority on training. I think we should all take a close look at what some con artist are trying to pull off for their own gain. By the way this man stated he was the president of this and that but never mentioned his formal training. Where might I go to receive this all empowering knowledge and training to qualify for the (state certification). Where does this leave you guys who've learned the hard way?

I don't know man. On one hand there are a lot of bozos out there. On the other, like you said, who writes the rules.

I don't like it.

I've seen Ed say that there are as many methods to train dogs out there as there are dog trainers. With that being said, a piece of paper is just that...a piece of paper. There is no substitute for experience and results.

Dog training is as much an art as it is science, it requires intelligence and intuition. If Gov't wants to regulate that,by virtue of a worthless document, we have greater worries on the horizon than dog training certification. And this comes from a gov't employee. Do not let this happen; PETA, ALF and the like are very afluent and with afluence comes political leverage.......follow the progression. Besides, what does one certificate versus another allow one trainer to do and not to do? Have your Senator work on welfare reduction and reformation so you'll have more time to work with your dog.

Defining a "Trainer" should not be the business of the state or anyone else. I do think, however, there should be a state certification. A certification has nothing to do with how a dog is trained, it measures whether or not a dog can do the tasks the trainer has trained it to perform. It doesn't have to be an involved process even. the standard can be basic, for example: pursue, on command, bite and hold until commanded to release. Set a minimum distance this task has to be performed. With drug dogs, even the simple certification procedure used by USPCA would be better than nothing. All that read these boards know that there are a lot of trainers out there. The dogs they train range from the best to those that couldn't find thier butt with a search warrant. Just a few simple standards, would help a lot of departments that don't have the expertise to buy a dog. Until then it is "buyer beware".

DFrost

Defining a Trainer should not be the business of the state or anyone else.

Here is where the problem lies. States don't usually have an in house trainers program. In police work some states have made policy that include what amount to private organizations written into the loop. Like WI pharmaceutical people won't issue the requisite controlled substance license unless you're a member and have a dog certified by NAPWDA. Now I'm a supporter of NAPWDA and several other organizations but why would a governmnet entity put somehting they have no control over in the loop?
We had a push back in the 80's here in my state to make a vender from CA the sole trainer/certifying agent for all police dogs in the state (if I were the vender I'd be eccstatic!). It didn't fly but you would not believe how close it came to being a reality.
In the mid 90's the same push occured but the agent/certfying body was to be the JTF6 (national guard assigned to drug interdiction efforts falling loosly under federal agencies with the same mission using federal narcotics funding). They had a proposal to do the same and the advanced training board almost went with it. The funny thing about that is that the U.S. Congress on Police Service Dogs had just conveined and the representative from DoD had stated that the standards they proposed were antiquated and that the instructors who were involved and claimed their expertise from Lackland were declared unqualified!
It is amazing how political dog stuff can become. The very worst case scenario though is when the standards become legislated in the state. Then they are there and yoiu are stuck with 'em regardless of whether they address the civilian world or the law enforcement functions of the community.

 Quote:

Now I'm a supporter of NAPWDA and several other organizations but why would a governmnet entity put somehting they have no control over in the loop?

I can't remember they name for this, but it has to do with the gov't providing for private sector competion. I used to live in Corvallis (when I want to OSU), and one of the ISP there was PEAK. Anyway Peak used to be part of Oregon State and offered really really cheap internet access to the residents of Corvallis along with the students. Well it turns out that this is illegal because the gov't 'crowed out' the private sector. There is no way AOL can compete with $5 a month unlimited internet. Anyway, they became a private non-profit organization. Same thing happens all over the country.

Plus it doesn't hurt for a group to lobby <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> (read bribe) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> politicians.

Robert

The politics of it is indeed ugly. The POST Commission of our state attempted certification standards but it was the private trainers that blocked it. It's difficult for me to understand why the word standard is so frightening to so many people. It has nothing to do with the method used to train a dog. It reflects solely on the ability of the dog to meet the minimum standards. It's like my mentor was fond of saying. "You know what they call a person that graduates last in his class at medical schoool???? It's funny that people can go to medical schools all over the world, and recieve trainig that differs in many respects. But those that meet the standards, are able to be employed.

By the way the answer to that silly question is "Doctor"!

DFrost

DFrost Wrote: "The POST Commission of our state attempted certification standards but it was the private trainers that blocked it."

Hey Frost, why did they "block" it and how did they do that? I don't quite get it. You are talking about a PSD certification standard right? Were they the vendors for the PDs?