Nick wrote: Lou - we're talking training pet dogs here - not police dogs and not sport dogs. In case you missed the original post up top the individual asked about getting his pets trained
LC: Maybe you missed the part where Al said that he wanted a very high standard of OB. He said that he "would like to have 100% obedience." So we're not talking about someone who wants Fluffy to be housebroken.
Nick wrote: so your example of certain individuals within the community of police dog trainers doesn't really apply.
LC: Sure it does.
Nick wrote: That's not apples to apples... but feel free to digress if you must.
LC: No digression Nick. While the original poster is talking about getting his pet dog (whatever that means) trained you made the all encompassing statement that trainers must have demo dogs. That's not true at all, as I've clearly shown. Any of the police dog trainers mentioned are capable of and have trained "pet quality dogs" and none of us have demo dogs.
Nick wrote: Again - this doesn't apply since it is not the same realm of training.
LC: It applies perfectly. It's still not necessary for a dog trainer to have a demo dog in order for him to be capable as a trainer. You went so far as to call it a "red flag" if a trainer doesn't have one.
Nick wrote: You are referring to dogs for law enforcement
LC: No Nick. YOU THINK that I'm referring to dogs for LE but that's not the case. NO TRAINER "must have" a demo dog, no matter what kind of dogs he trains.
Nick wrote: And how would someone counsel someone raising a puppy for a family pet if they haven't done it themselves countless times?
LC: This has nothing to do with your requirement that a trainer have a demo dog. There's no indication that this poster is raising a puppy and I haven't seen anyone in this discussion asking about them either. Wondering why you've brought this up?
Nick wrote: I would venture to guess that there are ways for people to find out if they have reason to believe the person is less than honest.
LC: Now we're into the area that we agree on, personal recommendations.
Nick wrote: What with the internet and the fact that the dog training world isn't that big
LC: It's as big as the world. All that's necessary is a "straw man purchase" or is pay cash and use a false name. Not that hard at all.
Nick wrote: I am sure the person would be found out to be a fraud eventually.
LC: "Eventually" won't help the owner who's forked over his money based on a seeing a demo dog and now realizes that he's been taken.
Nick wrote: My opinion is that it is a testament to the person's abilities, especially if they have raised it from a puppy and done all the work themselves from the ground up.
LC: Since it's impossible to tell if they trained the dog or even raised it from a puppy, it's all but meaningless.
Nick wrote: Of course you'll say that some may be showing bought dogs - but that doesn't take away from those who have done the training themselves.
LC: Since it's impossible to tell if the trainer has trained his demo dog or if someone else did it for him and it's just as impossible to tell if he's raised the dog from a puppy or if someone else did it for him it's all but meaningless. RESULTS achieved consistently and humanely are the only thing that count.
Nick wrote: That's a rediculous statement. You are now inferring that eveyone out there with demo dog is using a dog that was bought already trained!
LC: Nonsense. I've never said such a thing. In any case I wouldn't "infer" that meaning, you would. If I were saying that I'd be "implying" it but I've done no such thing.
Nick wrote: Actually - that statment is a little suspect too - because as most know - even a well trained dog requires proper handling to bring out their best performance.
LC: More nonsense. A well trained dog even if he's not getting "proper handling" will still impress the average novice enough to get them to sign on the dotted line. An average handler can get pretty good performance for quite some time out of a well trained dog. The performance will start to go down hill soon but even then will still impress the "average pet owner."
Nick wrote: Unless the trainer is living with the dog - it isn't his work to get done it is the owners work to get done. You don't get the basic premise that the owner is responsible for doing their homework?
LC: I get that point perfectly. It's obvious that I get that point since I'm the one who said that training dogs is more often about training the handler/owner than about training the dog. But your point about having free lifetime maintenance training isn't worth a damn if the trainer isn't capable in the first place. Bad training on top of bad training won't get the dog trained.
Nick wrote: Lou - reading this it seems to me that you are down on trainers.
LC: Not at all. I'm a trainer, why would I be "down on trainers." What I'm down on is your insistence that a trainer must have a demo dog or "red flags" should go up.
Nick wrote: I know it might make one popular to be the protector of all dog owners and shout from the rooftops about how bad and dishonest others are
LC: Yeah that's always been my main motivation, being "popular" ROFLMAO.
Nick wrote: but you really should open your eyes to the people out there that are doing things right. They do exist.
LC: I'm sure that there are plenty of people doing it right. I'm just as sure that there are many people doing it wrong and basically robbing their clients. As Al (the original poster) said, "I'm finding out there's alot of people who call themselves trainers but don't have the philosophy of many on this board" And the advice that they must have a demo dog can easily lead someone down the wrong road.
LC: Earlier I wrote: 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.
Nick wrote: "best" according to whom? "best" for whom. I would think that a guarantee for a specific service should serve to protect both parties involved.
LC: My guarantee protects me because I know that I can get the job done. It protects the client because if I don't do my job, which includes teaching and motivating them, they get their money back.
Nick wrote: You are operating from the assumption that if the dog is not trained or not trained well enough that it is automatically the trainer's fault.
LC: The trainer has to be able to train BOTH the dog and their owner/handler. That includes teaching them BOTH what is necessary at each step and motivating the BOTH at each step as well.
Nick wrote: Funny perpective for a trainer to have.
LC: I don't think so. I think that it's the "perfect" attitude for a trainer to have. It all depends on me! If it works, it's me. If it doesn't work, it's me.
Nick wrote: Maybe you have been blessed by only having clients who follow everything they are told to do to a Tee
LC: LOL. Hardly. It's been my experience that if a client does something wrong it's because I wasn't clear enough in telling or showing them what to do. But earlier I wrote that perhaps I'm more choosy than you in picking my clients. But I've had some clients that were as dumb as a box of rocks. You can't make everyone perfect but you can (well maybe not all trainers can) make them as good as they can be.
Nick wrote: and maybe you just haven't trained enough people and dogs in a one on one format to form as rounded an opinion compared to someone who has trained thousands of dogs and owners who has more likely seen a lot more types of owners and had situations with more variables involved.
LC: I don't know. How many people and dogs would be enough to determine if I had "enough experience to form an opinion?" Just with Ecollars I've put them on over 1,000 dogs in one on one training situations. Many more have been trained with conventional tools before I started using the Ecollar for most of my work. Is that enough for me to "have formed an opinion?"
Nick wrote: Or maybe putting others down is a form of elevating ones self.
LC: It probably is to some. I don't do it so it isn't to me. But why would you even bring this up?
Nick wrote: Most trainers sell training... people who come to you get a two for one dog training and Anthony Robins motivational series.
LC: What was it that you just said about putting others down? This a perfect example of you doing just that! Since you've never been to one of my seminars and have never seen any dogs that I've trained you have no idea of what people get from me. Since I'm the one with the money back guarantee it sure looks to me as if I'm the one who's sure of his training. You've already got the "lazy client" excuse ready and waiting to go.
Nick wrote: I don't see the need to motivate someone - they have to bring that themselves.
LC: No wonder you don't offer anyone their money back. You don't even know your job! Or you're too burnt out to bother doing it. A good trainer has to be able to motivate the owner to want the dog that they can have. If you're not capable of that . . .
Nick wrote: If I am working with your children in the family - we can take that approach - but if I am working with adults - they are responsible for themselves. Just like the way the normal world works outside of dog training.
LC: A good part of the world doesn't work. Part of the reason is poor supervision. As a dog trainer you're the supervisor. If I get someone who's paid me money and the end result is that they want a trained dog; I've always thought that it's my job to give it to them. If they lose sight of the end picture that they want, it's my job to give it back to them. It would seem that you want to give them a formula and if it works OK. If it doesn't work that's OK with you too.
Nick wrote: Usually the motivation will come all on it's own with them seeing their dogs progress.
LC: If they're making progress, that's usually all it takes. My clients can see their progress quite quickly so really there's no Rah Rah necessary. If you're getting different results . . .
Nick wrote: A good trainer will definitely have the client's best interest at heart and will encourage them - but what if the person is lazy or there are other matters at hand in the owners/family dynamic that preclude them from bringing the best out of the dog?
LC: Don't know. I've never had these results. But again, perhaps I'm more choosy in who I take on as a client.
Nick wrote: Automatically the trainers fault. Like I said interesting perpective - but not one that makes very much sense.
LC: I can understand that it might not make sense to some. What's the saying? "If you can't get the job done, get out of the way of those who can."
Earlier I wrote: If the trainer hasn't motivated the client to do the necessary homework, he hasn't done his job.
Nick wrote: That pure BS... I know it sounds nice to people who may be reading this, and maybe it is a comforting thought for some to read
LC: It IS a comforting thought isn't it?
Nick wrote: that Uncle Lou claims that the dog trainer is responsible for not only educating but for motivating adults to do their homework... but ultimately you cannot make the horse drink the water.
LC: Odd but I've never had to "make" anyone "drink the water." Why is it that some trainers are constantly blaming everyone else for problems in dog training. "It's the dog." Or "it's the lazy owners." Or "The family dynamic isn't right." Next it will be the wrong phase of the moon.
Nick wrote: When dealing with kids this may apply - but when dealing with adults - really - you are responsible for their own motivation? That's silly.
LC: OK. Sounds like you've got the perfect excuse as to why the dog didn't get trained.
Nick wrote: What on earth is the client responsible for?
LC: Showing up for training, following the instructions provided and doing the homework.
Nick wrote: What if they don't follow your directions - whose fault is it?
LC: Mine for not being clear enough.
Nick wrote: What if you have repeated things over and over - whose fault is it?
LC: Still mine. Perhaps those people don't respond to "hearing" something over and over again. Perhaps they need to be shown. Perhaps they need another method of teaching it. Perhaps they need to be "danced with" (a technique where I put my hands on theirs and show them what's needed).
Nick wrote: You are a very vocal supporter of ecollars - correct?
LC: ROFL, Like that's some secret.
Nick wrote: What if someone purchases an ecollar and disgregards the manual and other included information... and leave the collar on the dog for a week - which causes neck cores and an infection? Whose fault is it?
LC: These aren't my clients. Based on what you've said they're no one's clients. They don't have a dog trainer. That makes them responsible for not following the written instructions that came with the Ecollar.
Nick wrote: According to your logic - the manufacturers.
LC: Nice try Nick, but this little diversion from the facts of this discussion isn't going to work. We're talking about hands on trainers here, not remote manufacturers who have little or nothing to do with dog training. There's a difference between selling a service and selling a product. Based on our respective attitudes displayed here we can see that you feel you're selling a product and that I'm selling a service. Nothing wrong with that, but I find this difference quite interesting.
Earlier I wrote: Perhaps I'm just more choosy about the clients that I take on.
Nick wrote: Maybe. You are a police officer correct?
LC: Nope not any more, I've retired.
Nick wrote: So I assume that you don't train as many private clients as someone who does this full time.
LC: Probably not. But over the years I've done it enough so that I have some idea of what I'm dealing with and what I'm talking about.
Earlier I wrote: 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?
Nick wrote: Knock wood it hasn't happened - he has had some decent days/ some better ones - but overall has been steady in his work:-)
LC: Nice try at evasion Nick. And so I'll just rephrase, At some point in his life your demo dog won't perform up to his usual standards; when it does what will you tell the clients who have just witnessed this "sub par" performance?
Nick wrote: Either you didn't read my post or you are selectively picking on the part you want to drag around. I made mention of many other things involved such as references, street buzz with vets local owners in the neighbourhood etc.. and other means of verifying someone's wortk and reputation. The demo was simply one aspect of the whole picture.
LC: From the start our disagreement has been about ONLY one thing, the necessity of having a demo dog. My question simply and logically follows, what happens when he falls on his face?
Earlier I wrote: 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!
Nick wrote: Different situation entirely - and your disdain for the trainer really clouds your logic here.
LC: He's someone else who thinks that having a demo dog is essential. If you parrot his beliefs expect to have the same discussion with me that he has.
Nick wrote: Here we are talking about someone who has invested no money and is hoping to get a glimpse of the best of your abilities. No financial commitment involved.
LC: I show this with a demo on their dog as to the results that they can expect. As I've said, how well my dog works shouldn't be on their mind. They're only concerned with how well their dog will work. I show them the possibilities with THEIR dog. I take a police or sport dog that won't out and have him doing so in 20 minutes. I take a dog that has no recall in the face of distractions and give him one in the same time.
Nick wrote: Also they are coming out specifically for a demo - in your example they paid a fee to learn about a specific topic and according to you were not bering given what they paid for. Doesn't really apply here.
LC: Think of it as a freebie. LOL.
Nick wrote: At the end of the day it all comes down to an old adage that who can do do and those who can't teach.
LC: ROFL. A dog trainer needs to be able to do both.
Nick wrote: In light of all the other criteria someone can check into the added bonus of a dog that has been trained by said trainer is yet one other means of verifying their talent.
LC: Watching a trainer with a demo dog is not a reliable method to assessing the quality of his training. It's too easy to fake with a dog that someone else has trained.
Nick wrote: If they want to spend time bad mouthing others - that is usually an indication at the very least of unprofssionalism - and in an even worse case a form of insecurity and cover up.
LC: Kinda like some of your statements above right?
Nick wrote: I would stay away from anyone in any profession who wants to bad mouth the competition.
LC: Sometimes it's not only appropriate, it's the right thing to do. The truth of the situation is that there are probably more average dog trainers than good dog trainers. The fact is that there are a number of bad dog trainers and there are a few monsters who abuse dogs in the name of training. If a potential client asks me about them, I'm going to tell them the truth. I'm not going to spend an inordinate amount of time but I'll tell them what I know and what I've seen.
Lou Castle has been kicked off this board. He is an OLD SCHOOL DOG TRAINER with little to offer.
Page 3 of 6 <<12345>>Last
Re: finding a suitable trainer
Top
Previous Topic
Index
Next Topic
