Some people have already spent much time, effort & money on buying KC & COAPE accreditation courses, as well as various uni diplomas & degrees. Most who spent the time and money on these courses probably were trying to build a futour for themselves as dog behaviorists selling their services to the pet dog owning public.

It now seems that very soon the same people selling themselves & their services and using the term behaviorist, based a KC accreditation or a COAPE 3 year higher diploma course, will be committing a criminal offence if they do use the term 'Behaviorist' as a description of their professional service offered for money.

I am making this post in case anyone thinking about buying the above courses in the futour may be unaware that to use the term Behaviourist, based on the courses mentioned (I think there are others), may think they can legally set up a small buisness as a canine behaviourist, if they do sell such a service they will end up on a criminal charge.

For more info read the post at the link below, the info starts appx half way down

http://www.champdogsforum.co.uk/board/topic/143526.html
.

HP,
COAPE are already signed up to the ABTC. Their 2 year advanced course is level 5, if you go on to the third year it is level 6, so those doing either will be ok.

Just to clarify, those already level 5 as of 2014 can use term Accredited Animal Behaviourist, as opposed to level 6 who will be Clinical Animal Behaviourist. AAB's can continue to use that title until 2020. For those at level 5 anyone coming after 2014 and everyone else after 2020 will be known as Behaviour Technicians.

It is only the KCAI which, to the best of my knowledge, has not signed up to the ABTC, perhaps with the view that they should be the regulator in future. I am not aware of the level of the KCAI qualifications but my understanding they do not have a level 6, though with tweaking in future this may well change. Think the ball is in the KC park, it would be quite easy for them to just say okay we''ll go with the ABTC since all the other major players are. The question is why they are choosing not to at the moment....

Edited to say this is my understanding thus far. I doubt anything is written in stone just yet. It would be disastrous if the KC chose to stay separate but I fear they want to be the regulator and will put rather large blocks up. Is this a good thing? I rather doubt it.

Just to clarify, those already level 5 as of 2014 can use term Accredited Animal Behaviourist, as opposed to level 6 who will be Clinical Animal Behaviourist.

AAB's can continue to use that title until 2020. For those at level 5 anyone coming after 2014 and everyone else after 2020 will be known as Behaviour Technicians

I am confused again & need clarification - the way the above is written is that laws have already been passed by House of Lords & become law on certain future dates already accepted by House of Lords -

My confusion is that prior to the above post I thought we were talking about a law making Behaviorist a reserved title on law >>were envisaged<< by some, NOT that had been agreed & voted on in the commons and then ratified in the Lords which is the way your post is written comes across.

Just so my position is clear - I have no commercial interests of any kind in dog training types.
.

I think it is a bit confusing. I am trying to make sense if it all myself.

My understanding thus far - The ABTC is actioning all I have described thus far, so those who have signed up to the ABTC will adhere to its stipulations on a voluntary basis for now.

Simultaneously the ABTC is in discussion with the govt about regulating the industry and the proposals being discussed are those I have set forth. At the moment it does seem that the ABTC is the most likely body to be the regulator and it seems like discussions are quite advanced. organisations like Dogs Trust etc..  also on board with ABTC so if there is to be regulation that is most likely route.

However, there has not been a green or white paper, so we are some way off from those practising as behaviourists without levels 5/6 or APDT accreditation being criminalised.

No doubt we will all learn more in the coming months and I am sure there will be plenty of discussion/ argument within dog circles, just as there should be.

OK thats clearer now on most parts except the APDT ref below

"or APDT accreditation being criminalised."

APDT members are commercial trainers not behaviourists.

They started in 1995, 18 years ago in all that time they have only got a total of 497 members in April this year, I looked on ABTC site and my estimate of APDT members of ABTC, without counting, looked to be no more than 100, a fith of APDT members.

There is no way any gov would even dare to attempt to make 'canine trainer' a reserved title, how on earth could they, training covers numerous different objectives, HTM or agility are hobby things but there are trainers suitable to teach those things, Sch is another example, but all those sort of training goal types are confined to insignificant in numbers of the dog owning population which, according to a Bristol uni survey of 2006 was in the region of 10.5 million dogs.

Now, all that would mean that would mean only appx 100 APDT members with the reserved 'dog trainer' title would be allowed to train dogs commercialy and the estimated 10 million pet owners would all have to go to that 100 or so APDT trainers, is that what you mean??.
.

Simultaneously the ABTC is in discussion with the govt about regulating the industry and the proposals being discussed are those I have set forth. At the moment it does seem that the ABTC is the most likely body to be the regulator and it seems like discussions are quite advanced. organisations like Dogs Trust etc..  also on board with ABTC so if there is to be regulation that is most likely route.

As far as I understand whats going on (has been for some time) DEFRA want self regulation of the industry NOT legislative regulation of the industry, which seems to be the impression your putting forwards.
.

Reference to criminalisation of APDT was a slip on my part, a mixing up if acronyms if you will, I meant ABTC. Should have added that my reference to green and white papers was tongue in cheek, but I am sure you knew that. Cannot see that non adherents will be criminalised but, in future, the ABTC will be sufficiently well known that the public know that accreditation by this body stands for quality.

The point about trainers is well made. However, for any type of regulation to occur, whether self regulation or by some kind of legislation there would have to be some kind of agreed criteria as to what consitutes a trainer. I guess a certain level of knowledge as well as a level of practical experience are starting points. Accreditation might also involve types of training.

Whether, in the end, regulation is by legislation or self regulation time will tell.

KCAI. Stands for Kennel club Accredited Instructors, (whatever field that might be, Obedience, working Trials, field Trails, Agility, etc) this is for a certificate as TRAINERS not behaviourists.

There are a lot of people running all manner of training classes one to one etc with no qualifications at all, some will be good and sharing own experience, some know virtually nothing, but see a way of making some money.

would have to be some kind of agreed criteria as to what consitutes a trainer

That would be impossible as stated, mountain rescue SAR dogs are not empty or collapsed building SAR dogs, they come under the general term 'search' dogs, search dogs are not trained to herd sheep, neither are sheep herd dogs trained to apprehend suspects, dogs trained apprehend suspects are not trained to guide blind people, dogs trained to guide people are not trained to aid deaf people..... they are all trained by trainers who can carry out the relevant training & probably select dogs which have a probability of passing the work test after training, very few trainers could work the relevant standard without themselves being trained first, the main criteria for that is usually an interest in the relevant goals.

They are all dog trainers.
.

Brainless,

There is a KCAI b or behav, but very few gave it...only John Rogerson and Carolyn Monteith, I think.

HP, take your point but assume remit of ABTC would be for trainers who take dog classes for the ordinary owner as opposed to specialist training like SAR, Dogs for the Blind, police dogs etc..

Anyway, we'll have to see what changes/initiatives come to fruition.

Brainless, just checked and KCAI Accreditation is for a behavioural trainer- there are about 5 listed. So I would think that fir the moment accreditation is not level 6, possibly not level 5. Though with someone like John Rogerson listed that distinction become slightly ridiculous as most students of behaviour would jump at the chance to learn from him. Still, for regulation to work lines have to be drawn somewhere at some point and I think most would welcome that.

remit of ABTC

OK, now tell me if I understand/think what ABTC are trying to achieve correctly.

I >'think'< They want to be the Ofqual recognised governing body for recognising all academic qualifications for.......what specificaly?

What I was surprised at on the Ofqual site is that I cant find NOCN as a recognised accreditation body.

Ofqual
http://register.ofqual.gov.uk
.

HP-What I was surprised at on the Ofqual site is that I cant find NOCN as a recognised accreditation body.

Correction I found it on the Ofqual site, they cover all kinds (hundreds) of subjects at local and national level.
.

Though with someone like John Rogerson listed that distinction become slightly ridiculous as most students of behaviour would jump at the chance to learn from him.

I dont know him but from what I have heard about him over the years he would first have to see the organization as something outstanding to him personally & had something to other which he had not already got - otherwise he might (just might) see it as an organization trying to manipulate & use him for agendas not readily seen on the surface.

What do you think of that notion?
.