Jump to content

Talk:Dog behaviourist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.23.6.222 (talk) at 12:34, 22 April 2006 (Personal response to debate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

k9 dogs

I don't understand the reversion from "K9 dog trainers, who use" to "K9 Dogs, who uses". If it's referring to police dog trainers, it shd be "K9 dog trainers"--mmm, sorry, shd be [[police dog|K-9 dog]] trainers, and hence plural. If it's a reference to some other organization, I'm not familiar with it--like a police dog training academy or what? Elf | Talk 01:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of dog behaviorist

In my experience, this description " is a generic term for any professional who works towards modifying and managing the behaviour of dogs and behaviour problems such as aggression, separation anxiety, fears and phobias and obsessive compulsive behaviors." (which was just removed in favor of "the difference between a trainer and behaviorist is academic qualification") is a much more accurate one. It might be true that one or two organizations are attempting to come up with a standard that requires someone to have a degree in veterniary medicine to become certified through their organization, but most dog behaviorists whom I have encountered are far and above the standard dog trainer in their ability to solve problems with dogs, and not all of them have a special college degree; by far the largest component of a good dog behaviorist is experience.

Can the user who keeps putting back the very narrow definition please explain? Elf | Talk 08:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

This is a self-promotion definition of a fake organization with no members and it should be erased. You are the one misleading the public with your narrow definition. A behaviourist is a person that has some sort of academic degree. You said: "in my experience", well that does not qualify you to "create" a definition from the air, unless you can prove that you have an academic degree. What are your qualifications? From what I read in your site, you have no creadentials. Again, a behaviourist is not a dog trainer nor a whisperer. Cesar Millan was a groomer who in 1999 was calling different dog trainers in Los Angeles area because he wanted to become a trainer. He doesn't have 20 years plus of experience. He then hired a PR company (Jazzmyne PR, 2001) and they made up his background. He got lucky and hit the newspapers in 2001 thanks to the PR company, not to his experience. He only belongs to one organization that was founded by the manufacturers of electric collars and fences (dogpro), did you know that? He has been rejected by the APDT because of the usage of harsh methods. What you see on TV is edited video... Wake up! What you see on TV is not what is scientific.

You seem to be confusing two different editors. I am not promoting anything, but in my experience with solving problems with my dogs over the years through various professionals including the SPCA, a dog behaviorist is not inherently someone with a special degree, but someone with special skills in diagnosing and solving behavioral issues with dogs. Unlike "veterinarian", there is no requirement for a degree in anything. It seems to me that promoting that is promoting someone else's agenda, not the real world. I can easily see removing a specific name from the article and in fact will do so, but your narrow definition doesn't seem to fit most dog behaviorists that I've encountered. However, I will concede that I don't ask about academic degrees--I ask about experience and references and such. I will try contacting the local SPCA for more info. Elf | Talk 15:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Response This is absolute rubbish, firstly the organisation you are claiming is fake has recently added a website members are joining all the time, and some are published on the site. As it develops more will. They offer something others don’t, continuing development.

I wrote this article not elf, he asked a valid question since it has been published people like you have jumped on the band wagon. It wasn’t written to decry any one faction of this profession. But it would seem that a bunch of elitists wish to hijack it. The spirit of this article stands behaviourists come from all walks and all levels of education.

I know from experience that a dog behaviourist is not someone with a degree but that it can include this group, they are people who through skill, experience, research and in my case through formal study are able to assist in modifying behaviour. To suggest that you need a degree is insulting as most behaviourists with degrees seem to be cocky enough to think they know it all and don't bother with further research or study. Look at the APBC they teach one thing and promote another, one of their own top members is still spouting on about pack theory yet this is publicly decried by the rest. Is she wrong? Diversity is about accepting we have differences of opinions. So no I don’t think so. I don’t use this theory, its full of holes but has merits as well.

You seem to be very angry as a person I suggest you curb this before dealing with dogs, as they pick up on anger very quickly. This article is correct, some of the best behaviourists are empirical in nature and do not hold degrees, there are more out there who don’t than those who do hold degrees and they are paving the way. This is why PAACT has had so much interest; they recognise that diversity is important. Paulieraw

More editing discussion

I've removed some things like "hence behaviourist who are mobile and often far more effective than office bound practices" which is a blanket statement that I doubt can be proven; they might be more effective for certain types of issues, but for other types of issues someone who has an offsite working location or office might be far more effective. I've removed specific names from the body of the article because it's not clear that they are anything like typical behaviorists or trainers--they seem to be mostly TV personalities, which might be worth something but not a primary mention as examples of typical dog behaviorists. Note that I added links that have nothing to do with specific organizations to get outside opinions, please don't do blanket reverts like that. I did connect with a humane society behaviorist who said that academic background is important in becoming a behaviorist, but I'm sure that there are individuals who don't work for the SPCA or Humane Society who call themselves behaviorists anyway. Still, browsing as many humane society type links as I could find and job descriptions, they all seem to want specific training and certification. The article needs to reflect this and I have attempted to do so. Elf | Talk 20:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, by the way, personal attacks and insults at any level are right out as standard methods of discussion at Wikipedia. So please refrain and stick to a discussion of verifiable facts. Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet More editing discussion

Okay first let me take your last point, where are there personal attacks? Everything stated here is kept as a debate and debate can be honest, it may not be pleasant but nothing is made up, check these facts out for yourself. Be impartial or do not edit. Opinonated edit is the worst kind it belongs in the tabloids.

Next, let me ask why you chose to use SPCA or the Humane Society, both your links are un-representative and clearly lean towards opinion. As a friend once said to me "95% of statistics are made up on the spot" I hope the irony is not lost on you.

Look at The APDT in the UK and then in the USA you will find hundreds of members who call themselves behaviourists, are they wrong? If you think so then I think your editorial efforts are lost and Wikiopedia will eventually lose its credibility. These behaviourists outnumber the academics by 10 to 1. By popular numbers alone this discredits your suggestions. Normality is judged by the masses, not by individuals.

Those Behaviourists whom you call TV personalities, are so because of their effectiveness. Behaviour and modification is not just about academic endeavour its about a tertiary understanding of dogs and that comes from empirical evidence.

Would you call in a scientists to fix your pipes? No! you would call a plumber, the scientist may develop the materials that the plumber works with, but they couldnt fix your toilet, many may have difficulties flushing one.

Dog behaviour is an empirical skill, spend 20 years in university become a professor of behavioural studies and it doesn't make you a dog behaviourist because behaviourists work hand in paw with dogs, and a degree or doctorate will only take you part of the way on this journey.

The rubbish about Cesar Millan who wanted to be a dog trainer and hired a PR firm, how much do wannabe dog trainers earn? He is popular because he is effective and he gets the job done, there will always be someone who tries to bring down a success. Jealousy is such a strong emotion. he may have questionable techniques, but who is it that questions them?

Would you suggest Patrick Moore is not an astronomer? he is possibly the most well known in the UK ask 100 people and his name will be number one on your list. He is not a trained astronomer he is by definition an amateur. In the behavioural world its the people who come out of university with a degree in zoology then claim to be a dog behaviourist who are the amateurs, most have never owned a dog many have no idea how they behave until they get bitten. No I assure you in the behavioural world over 70% and probably more of the practising behaviourists hold no more than a certificate in dog behaviour, that has no real standing and many hold no qualifications.

I am a behaviourist, I hold a doctorate in educational philosophy, I am a qualified adult educator and I also hold qualifications in canine care and behaviour, I am at present well into a zoology course. If there is one thing I know from my qualifications, its that they give me an academic edge but matter not a whit when it comes to dealing with real people and real animals. You don't need a degree to be an observer of behaviour.

Its my skill with people and dogs that make me an expert, not a degree or my doctorate.

So please, when you edit use your empirical skills, if you dont have any. leave it to someone who does. Pauliraw

Yet More editing discussion

Ok, Paul. You got 6 members in your organization. APDT in the US has 5,000 plus. Who is right? As I said before, I checked your background and you don't have any credentials, there is no need for you to lie about having a PhD. This is not a personal attack, it is reality. Don't rush now to make changes to your site and lie saying that you have a PhD., the internet keeps track of everything you do.

Yet More More editing discussion

I am a member of the APDT in the US, I am also a memeber of PAACT when the APDT started it also had a few members,and just today several APDT memebers joined, their reason, you will have to ask them...

PAACT is here to stay, you pay your money and then get a whole lot more, hey we even talk to each other, and the more who join the more who talk. Talk, you do know what that is right?

I took my Phd off the web as I dont use it for behaviour work. So you should be able to find it if your that sad and lonely and I suspect you are. I notice you come here with no identity, that about sums you up. a nobody trying to be a somebody, rush of now to put your name on, it won't change your lack of identity as the internet doesn't forget. I also notice that you didn't put a description or article on about dog behaviour, just winged when someone else did. Thats life there are doer's and those who sit on the sidelines, I'm a doer and clearly your not. So here is the mantle, come up with something to back up your statements not unsuported facts but something with substance.

Also of the 5000 plus members in the APDT how many have a degree? You brought it up so now do a bit of research. just to help you a little this is quote from your favourite doggie association, "APDT does not necessarily ensure all members employ similar training methods, nor does the Association set standards of skill or competence. "

I rest my case.

Paul

PS claiming to have Doctorate when you don't is illegal both in the The UK and US, as I claim to have one you have all the amunititon you need to follow this up.....you have my blessing, go ahead.

Personal response to debate

I have several points. First, the policy, or rather, guideline of Wikipedia is not to post what you BELIEVE to be true, but rather, what the common belief is. And since there is no common criteria of what qualifies as a dog behaviourist, you shoud post this; not what you BELIEVE should qualify as a dog behaviourist. Most people do not set a criteria for what a dog behaviourist must go through to become one, unlike you; there are no established set of criterias. Second, you cite Cesar Millan as having little to no experience, no academic degrees, etc., and yet, based on video evidence, clearly, his methods work -- so citing Millan is detrimental to your case, since Millan lacks what you require is a criteria for a true dog behaviourist, but is probably more effective than a lot of "qualified" trainers/behaviourists. Your point about the video being edited is pointless; I'm a video editor, and although you can do a lot with editing, you can create something out of the blue -- at least, not to a degree where one would believe it. You can make magic happen. Another thing; they don't call Cesar Millan the Dog Whisperer because he "whispers" to dogs, or has some kind of telepathic communication or supernatural 6th sense going on -- he's just a very good behaviourist, with the ability to "read" a dog.