I have it from a friend who used to know her grandmother (I believe this is correct) that she used to work with rescued dogs in India as a child.
Or was helpful with them or something like that. Ie she's been "working" with dogs for a long time.

If your a fan of Victoria's then your not likely to question qualifications to closely.

I'd rather a pilot that ferried me to my holiday destination had hours in the air rather then hours on the simulator.

I stand to be corrected but until fairly recently Victoria had fostered an unspecified number of dogs but had never owned one.

If I were to use a behaviourist then qualifications would be called in to question along with relevant experience, being on telly doesn't really count on my tick list, I'd much rather see one that doesn't have the encumbrance of busy filming schedules encroaching on their time actually working with dogs.

Nothing against Victoria, I'm sure her programme is very entertaining in it's own way.

I'm with you Robert K - and while I'm delighted VS is taking a very much more positive route in dog training this was not the image or advice for that matter to be seen in her early programmes.

I remember being appalled at some of the things she initially suggested and thankfully she appears to have turned full circle on the dominance approach but it doesn't mean her earlier recommendations didn't go on to be detrimental to many dogs and their relationships with their owners.

I also recall that during the time of her initial TV shows there was much talk about her having never owned a dog and in fact was an out of work actress going down a new route .....

At least that's in the past - unfortunately the DB and CM lot are still very active - and that's a major concern IMO :(

> Shame that particular paper didnt have the balls to name the likes of Robert Alleyne, Mic Martin

Am i in the minority then? i really like them

If your a fan of Victoria's then your not likely to question qualifications to closely.

On the contrary - I find that quite amusing although to be fair you'd not know why :) . You don't know me Robert obviously but don't assume that because I like VS I don't question a lot about trainers and behaviourists. I have very high standards.
The thing about VS is that she is about the only tv trainer/behaviourist who really uses scientific knowledge to work with dogs. The others just use a bash 'em and make 'em method. She uses fair methods, knowledge and science. I like her for that. I'd qualify that by saying that her first series or two was not so good, but the rest are fine as she herself educated herself. Good for her I say :)

If I were to use a behaviourist then qualifications would be called in to question along with relevant experience,

For good or for bad, there are no specific dog training or behavioural qualifications as such, only science degrees, etc.
I'm studying to be one of those highly qualified people  (yes, with hands on too) as those are the only people I'd ever suggest dog owners go to myself. It's a hard slog but will hopefully be worth it.

Lindsay
x

I remember being appalled at some of the things she initially suggested and thankfully she appears to have turned full circle on the dominance approach but it doesn't mean her earlier recommendations didn't go on to be detrimental to many dogs and their relationships with their owners.

I also recall that during the time of her initial TV shows there was much talk about her having never owned a dog and in fact was an out of work actress going down a new route .....

I agree with all this and a few years ago I was not happy with VS at all. I was the one on forums saying I disliked her use of air horns and pack leadership models. However, she's moved on now and is openly very much pro positive methods, even to the point of throwing away shock collars etc so because of that she now gets my vote.

Not everyone has the courage to learn and change, I applaud her for her openness and what she now does for dogs.

.......working with dogs, and even fostering dogs, is different from owning the same dog for a good ten to 15 to 20 years. When you own, live with, train, walk, feed the same animal for that length of time you have a enormous bond and they become part of the family, so much so that you grieve painfully at their loss. She may understand dogs but does she understand the humans she is working with alongside them?

On the contrary - I find that quite amusing although to be fair you'd not know why :-) . You don't know me Robert obviously but don't assume that because I like VS

That's why I said "Likely"  and not wouldn't ;)

For good or for bad, there are no specific dog training or behavioural qualifications as such, only science degrees, etc.

There are  some qualifications that carry more weight then others.

Not sure what you mean by no specific dog training or behavioural qualifications?

I'm with Lindsay on that one. Having just finished a 3 year course to become one of the "qualifieds" she using many methods that i would use myself as i have been taught by some of the best in the country. I think she is certainly one of the better ones who talks alot of sense and gets the message across. Her recent shows have shown her to be a great teacher of people as well as dogs imo.
I still think that having lots of experience of training problem foster dogs holds a lot more weight that your average person that has lmaybe had a couple of collies or labs during their lifetime for example. One of the biggest names in dog training today doesn't even have a dog, but he is still very well respected.

I wasn't talking about your average person, would the average person make a good behaviourist. The point I make is that any one can become a behaviourist, not every one can become a good behaviourist, for that a depth of knowledge that comes from owning and having contact with many dogs is needed.

Depth of knowledge gives you life experience, courses give you theory and some hands on if it's one of the better courses.

> I'm scared to leave the laptop on with the dogs around - goodness knows what they'd buy.

LOL!:)

You don't really need to own a dog to observe the behaviour of dogs.You need to understand them and to have a vocation to help them,though.You need a rapport with the owner too,because helping the owner to understand is part of helping the dog.You can love dogs without owning them,for instance my brother-in-law adores dogs but is allergic.You need to have seen many dogs and been in the company of many dogs to get to know about how they tick,but owning one is not a prerequisite of being a good behaviourist.After all you don't have to own an elephant to help it with behavioural problems.

Thought this link from a couple of years back may interest the posters on this thread

http://www.dogpages.org.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=101451

Kat

I think the "qualifications" are the problem.

Paying an organisation £70 pounds per year and filling in a 4 question sheet, so you can then have an organisations name after your own, really must make someone an expert.

I would be very interested at the pass rate of organisations who consider themselves association's in their fields, I would guess the pass rates at 100%, E.G hand over some money and get some fake letters after your name.

Or even a franchise that you pay a few hundred pounds to get send 5 sheets on the most common problems then your an expert..

In fact I run training classes for informal obedience and agility, and I must of had 1000 people come to us who have been to "behaviourists" not one single person has ever been happy with the service they received or had any issue they went about cured, all for the sum of about £200! and a lorry load of gimmick products.

It just seems crazy to me that people pay for something they don't received, if you go to a restaurant, order food and it never arrives you don't pay. So why are people paying these behaviourists for not solving any of the issues.

--

In my opinion dog training and behaviour work is not something you learn from a book, and it's not something you learn from a 2 hour seminar.

It takes a long of time being around a lot of different dogs and working with them. Dogs respond so differently to things and need different approaches.

I don't think anyone should ever set out to become a dog trainer or behaviourist, I don't think qualifications of any kind will ever work.

Working with dogs should be something you've been doing for years and love doing and then take the next natural step of doing it as a job.

Sometimes I think that if someone is having difficulty with their animal and they pay someone to "fix" it,and then if the problem remains,they think it's their fault as the owner and they aren't following the recommendations of the "expert" properly. frustration and guilt sets in and they may look for another behaviourist and pay them and get the same results.I reckon it's observation and connection first,practice,practice ,practice,practice next and the ability to pass on your knowledge to the animal and it's owners.There's a lot to know i'm sure.