Nick wrote: I can't imagine a trainer not having a demo dog.
That's interesting, but it doesn't change the fact that many don't. When Donn Yarnall was head trainer for the LAPD he didn't have a demo dog. He's retired now and still doesn't have a demo dog. Yet he manages to do LE seminars around the world. Wendell Nope is head of training for Utah POST, he doesn't have a demo dog either, yet he's all over the US too. I have a dog that is trained for patrol work. His search work is exemplary but his OB is not. I'd use him as a demo dog for law enforcement, personal protection or SAR (absent the alert – he bites) anytime but for OB, he's not a show dog.
Especially one they raised from a puppy.
Neither of those trainers had dogs raised from puppies. The dogs they trained were not raised from puppies.
I think it goes a long way towards someone credibility.
It may, but it also may be a front that totally hides the fact that they have absolutely no credibility. You can't tell by looking at a trainer's dog how good of a trainer he is. As has been said, he may not have even trained the dog himself. The ONLY way to tell the quality of a trainer is by how well the dogs of his clients respond. Even if he's trained his demo dog himself he may have just hit on the right combination of tools and techniques to get THAT dog to work. He may not have the right answer for all the dogs that are brought to him. Since you have no way of knowing if the trainer has done the work on his own dog, a demo dog should be taken with a grain of salt.
there are still honest trainers out there with great demo dogs who are proud to strutt their stuff.
That doesn't change your original statement that if a trainer can't show you his own dog working it's a red flag. It's neither necessary nor is it proof of anything.
Usually the ones who scream the loudest about a demo dog not being a valuable asset - or guide to the trainers abilities are the ones who have their own reasons and agendas for doing so.
It may be that they simply don't feel the need. It only proves that one is capable of buying a trained dog. It proves nothing about the abilities of that trainer.
I would think that a written guarantee which protects you in the form of free follow up training until you are satisfied with your dog's performance is a fair one. Also free mainteneance traiing for the life of your dog is something that I offer - which I think is fair to the client as well - since the training does have to be maintained - it isn't a one shot deal.
"Free follow up training" or lifetime "free maintenance training" are often a waste of time if the trainer hasn't gotten the work done in the first place. Sometimes the client is NEVER able to be "satisfied with (the) dog's performance" because the trainer isn't capable. So more (poor training) lessons aren't going to be of any help. The best guarantee is one that offers all of your money back if you're not satisfied. No one should have to continue to train with someone who's not capable of getting the work done.
If you find the saint of all saints that is willing to give you your money back - by all means be my guest.
Then I must be the "saint of all saints!" That's my guarantee for seminars and one on one training. I've refunded money once and that's when I decided to terminate the training.
Lou - since you brought this up - is this how you do things?
That's exactly how I do things!
If you do private lessons with someone and they fail to practice or show up to lesons and take up your time and expertise - you will give them back their money after they have failed to commit to actually training their dog? I couldn't imagine working this way.
I can understand why many trainers don't work this way. Training dogs really is often more about training and motivating the owners/handlers than it is about training the dogs. If you can't motivate them to do the work and give them the necessary skills, you've failed.
What if the client doesn't practice or follow directions? Do you really think that the trainer should be penalized financially - even though they did their job?
If the trainer hasn't motivated the client to do the necessary homework, he hasn't done his job. Perhaps I'm just more choosy about the clients that I take on.
It'd be pretty interesting if other things worked this way too.
I can't speak for others or other industries. That's how I've always worked and that's how I'll continue.
(Chris) And even though I do agree with Lou that sometimes there's not enough time to train your own dog, I do believe you've got to make the time.
I don't need to make the time and neither do the trainers I mentioned earlier in this post. Since both of you think that a demo dog is necessary what do you do when your demo dog, for whatever reason, doesn't work to the best of his abilities? Maybe it's health, maybe he's not in the mood, maybe it's an off day. What then? Do you make excuses? Whip out a DVD player and show some edited video?
Some have been doing this long enough that a reputation of "getting the job done" is sufficient. I've done 27 seminars, have numerous private clients, have worked with well over a hundred police departments and never has anyone seen me with a "demo dog."
I've been to a seminar where the trainer worked his demo dog for two hours while the attendees stood around waiting for our turn to work our dogs and learn. It wasted time and proved nothing. It was especially entertaining when the dog refused a command repeatedly. THAT part of the seminar proved a lot!
(Chris) It's like going back to your analogy and having the fitness instructor who looks like a slob. Yeah, he can direct and coach but he's not going to be totally convincing if he looks like he doesn't do what he preaches.
Convincing isn't training. Bela Karolyi couldn't do the things he coached Nadia Comaneci to do. Herb Brooks couldn't play hockey as well as the "miracle" US ice hockey team he coached. No coach in the NBA could stop a "Shaq drive." Those people didn't need to be "totally convincing." They need to be able to transfer knowledge and motivate their "clients." Dog trainers don't need to have to have demo dogs. It proves nothing. Having a best demo dog in the world or being the fittest guy at the gym doesn't give anyone the ability to transfer that knowledge to someone else. I know many greats in many fields who can't help someone else a lick. They can do it but they can't teach it to someone else. Having the skill to do it is great! Being able to transfer it to someone else is what training dogs and their handlers/owners is all about and it's quite something different.
Lou Castle has been kicked off this board. He is an OLD SCHOOL DOG TRAINER with little to offer. 
Page 1 of 6 123>>Last
finding a suitable trainer
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
