Umm-I think the course the GSD breed has taken under American guidance would be a pretty good warning sign as to what the AKC mongers and other assorted clueless dolts would do with your proposed plan.

Umm-I think this notion has been flamed out of existence.

Ummm......HSUS has already started to attempt to create a "Code of Conduct" for "proper training of dogs. UKC rejected it.... They felt that there may be some need for things like correction collars. The UKC stated in their letter rejecting the idea that not all dogs can be trained w/o physical corrections (i.e. "clicker training).

Oh yeah lets let HSUS or ASPCA determine what is the "proper" method for training a dog. Let them and AKC also determine what are "proper activities" to engage in with your dogs. Thats right AKC has already done that.... and forbiden any activity that involves the dog biting a person, NO DOG SPORTS (Sch, Ring in any form, PSA, etc).

Sorry ..Germans.

You see it is a great place to swing on each other’s nuts and rattle a few sabers about nothing but it undermines the discussion some.

Still I think there is room for a group of dedicated people to get together and hold a higher standard that can be accepted.

I was never talking about on technique over another just looking forward some. Like I said it is difficult to change.

Dennis wrote: "Still I think there is room for a group of dedicated people to get together and hold a higher standard that can be accepted."

Accepted by who? What is to be accepted? What happens to those not accepted?

There is no good answer to those questions.

I absolutely disagree with that comment. If a voluntary organization wants to form up and hold it's members to a certain standard, I'm all for it. It happens all over the place, just about every dog related club in the country does it.

I am certainly NOT for any type of regulation that the organization would then attempt to impose on others. Legal, moral, political. . .whatever.

We already have the AKC trying to do that, who needs another dedicated group of individuals to tell others what to accept.

Dennis, I also don't see how you can make a comment like this.

"I was never talking about on technique over another just looking forward some."

Considering the topic and discussion, it is plainly about one method over another. It has to be, because what is going to be the prevailing methodology that will be regulated? What methods will be regulated against? How can you possibley seperate that aspect from a discussion about regulated dog training?

I understand it's not about your method vs. my method, or whatever. But it is clearly about someones method vs. someone elses, otherwise what is there to regulate?

As a retired contractor let me say the Cap is right, Bad idea. The public. Not all or the smart ones, but most will hire the cheepest no matter weather they are licensed or not. Then they will bitch about the results. We do not want regulation. What we need is education of the public.They need to be educated on what to look for in a trainer. Maybe some type of organization that would work in conjunction with the SPCA, the county dog pounds Etc. To recomend the proper trainers for the individual situation.
One type of training today that get BBBIIIIGGGG bucks and is recognized and accepted today used cattle prods.Sling shots and alligator clips from 12 volt batterys to the dogs ears. Every one knows it and no one does anything about them.
When it comes to animals most people want results with out paying the price. So they go to the cheapest trainer, and then regreat it later.

I can see how a contractor would have that perspective. I've seen the same thing over and over-people won't pay for quality, or can't wait when quality takes time. I agree with you that far.

But I still think a separate association, group-call it whatever you want-is a bad idea. If it involves the pound, it involves government, which has a budget and paperwork to answer for, etc. Nothing good can come from this. Besides, SPCA and city/private shelters often have clauses in their adoption paperwork which prohibits training the dog in any type of bitework. This gives some clues as to what types of training they would consider "acceptable".

There are many stable, established organizations committed not only to training but also breeding. They have among their members extremely experienced people with impressive backgrounds to their credit. True, some of these organizations are at odds with each other on certain issues, but in the main they would be great avenues for education efforts, trainer recommendation services, breeder referrals and the like.

I don't care what you call it, or who runs the show-any new organization will be plagued by the same problems current ones are. And if this new group has any substantive powers to police the actions of dog owners/trainers/breeders, it will make matters worse. A better course of action is to use the laws and organizations already in place.

That's the "analytical", diplomatic version. The simple way of saying this is that I don't want some new fool standing in line to tell me how I gotta do it his way, or else... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />

I totally agree with Van on this one. I don't see how it is possible for ANY government agency or "national standard" to be set for how a dog trainer does his job. It's normally pretty clear who gets the job done well, and who does not.

My facility is inspected (at random) several times a year. They don't come watch training, but make sure the area, buildings etc meet state guidelines and have all the bells and whistles that go with it. It is run by the State Department of Agriculture. They are also the state level Animal Control. I have a training license from the state, but it is for the facility and not really for me. As long as the facility meets state code and laws, I pay my $200 a year and they give me a license. That being said, I still have problems with how the state DEFINES different training.

The state defines ANY, ANY bitework training done by a professional facility and I quote "guard and attack training." I don't train "attack" dogs. I don't train guard dogs, we train POLICE DOGS! As I can not get them to see the difference, there are sections of my property that could be used for other training that I can not use. By the state LAW any area on our property where dogs are trained must be surrounded by a 6 foot fence and have a full "sight barrier" around it. This is to stop "guard and attack" dogs from getting loose or being able to see what is on the other side of the fence. I can not train obedience anywhere I do not have such a fence. Even if the dog we are working is a 15 pound Pug who wouldn't bite you if you were rolled in steak. Now if I was a facility that did not do bitework, i could train any dog anywhere even without a fence. So now I can have a 150 pound Rotti with a 90 pound owner and a dog who with no training and no fence break loose and run off property and bite someone...that would be fine by the state, all except for the bite part.

When a state agency in the 21st century can not make difference in PSDs and "guard and attack" dog, do I really want them setting up a guideline for what is or is not a qualified dog trainer?

There is not one single standard in this country ANY group can agree upon for just how the dogs work. Do you honestly think we'd establish one for how people train? Lets see just here in New England for PSDs we have NAPWDA, USPCA, ESPCA, NESPAC (two different states), NHPK9A, NEPK9A and CTPWDA. This is not counting individual departmental certifications and training. In fact, I'm sure I'm forgetting a few. No one can even agree on a regional standard.. and you know what I AGREE! Departments must choose the standard that fits their departmental needs and dog they deploy. A city of 200k with a very high crime rate will probably have a slightly different K-9 use and policy than a town of 1200 in rural Vermont. Should the dog in the small town be held to less of a standard, no, this is not what I'm saying! I'm only saying the certification should reflect the type of work the dogs do. If a dog never tracks but does area searches, why should they take a cert that requires them to track in order to pass?...see my point. Even some states that have minimum POST requirements have them set very low so any department can do the minimum and then go on and do what they wish do do from there.

If we can't agree with what a dog should do, how are we going to agree on who or how the person training it should train?

Lets see, if I use and e-collar on a very low setting I'm "abusive" but if I withhold food for 2 days or more to get a dog food motivated enough to sit, I'm not abusive and just being operant? PLEASE!

I don't need some government idiot who's probably never trained more than handful of dogs, but knows how to write eloquently telling all of us how to be good 'qualified" dog trainers. Or someone with a Ph.D. in "dog behavior" setting a standard for the dog trainers when the person has not seen a dog work outside of the lab.

Dennis, if you feel so strongly that it's needed, why not just appoint yourself President and start your own dog trainers union. I'm sure people will join. Hell, APDT has people joining all the time. What is it $50 or so and you can be a "certified" APDT. All that without filling out a background of what you've done in dog training....amazing...I think I found somewhere on the net where I can become a certified rocket scientist engineer in just a two short week home study program...comes with a video and a certificate when I graduate...

I'm all for standards, but I would rather that any trainer I choose to utilize had their own set of written standards that I could view before accepting their services. As a consumer, I want to know that I am getting exactly what it is I am paying for. Fortunately, in my area, there are a variety of trainers who choose different training philosophies, from clicker training to police dog style training, and are happy to share those with me before I sign up for their services. I think I would prefer to see consumers educating themselves more before they choose a trainer. I think many people think training is training, and sign up for things that they don't really understand.

But what about plainly abusive training? I mean by that, training that falls within accepted legal standards of animal cruelty. Is there any recourse for that?

As for puppy mills, I do think they're easily defined, and I would like to see puppy mills shut down. Puppy mills are disgusting. I may take some heat for this, but I also don't think pet stores should be allowed to sell puppies and kittens.

Josh, I'm glad to hear someone who's already strapped down by similar BS speak up on this. It's no surprise to find out that the regulatory brain shuts down when bitework is involved (or even when it isn't-good thing you've got a fence around that pug!).

Lisa, you kind of answer your own question. If it's "training that falls within accepted legal standardes of animal cruelty," then you contact whatever agency has proper juridiction to handle the issue, and make a complaint. But your definition makes clear the fact that no new regulation is necessary to prosecute people who use methods already recognized as cruel.