# UK Behaviourist Organisations - Making Sense of the "Wild West"



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

*Please note!*


RobD-BCactive said:


> please anyone wanting to post about individual dog trainers, dog training organisations & such start a different thread.
> 
> The aim is to explain, the *major Behavioural associations* who work on *vet referral*, and clarify. Any posts off topic are just clutter which won't help, the people with problem dogs who are advised to consult a good local behaviourist in future.


Thanks for your understanding and cooperation 

*Amended Post and Questions*

So I read the sticky, collected links but find no overview; this is as clear as mud, with various rivals and claims :

APBC - The APBC | Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors
CABT-COAPE - CAPBT - COAPE Association of Pet Behaviourists and Trainers
CFBA - Canine and Feline Behaviour Association *(added in response to new information)*
UKRCB - UK Registry of Canine Behaviourists

The fact that 2 of 4 of these organisations, have only last few days become visible on my radar, despite an interest in subject and frequently suggesting OP's consult professional behaviourists, highlights the lamentable accessibility of the information.



APBC said:


> The APBC is an international network of experienced and qualified pet behaviour counsellors who work on referral from veterinary surgeons to treat behaviour problems in dogs, ... , pets





CABT said:


> COAPE Association of Pet Behaviourists and Trainers, is the largest specifically qualified association for pet behaviourists and trainers in the UK. Membership offers all pet owners a guarantee of quality when seeking help with the treatment of behaviour problems, or in training your dog or puppy
> ..
> Practitioner Members have been further rigorously assessed and accredited, and tend to work in broader independent behaviour referral practice. Cases are treated strictly on referral from veterinary surgeons in general practice





CAFBA said:


> Our specialist behaviour practitioners select dogs with severe behaviour problems like dog on people and dog on dog aggression for teaching purposes and of course the rehabilitation of these dogs back into society. Only when you see experts demonstrating handling and rehabilitation techniques will you learn critical skills which you will need as you develop your knowledge and career. Theory cannot replace experience and practice





UK REGISTRY OF CANINE BEHAVIOURISTS said:


> Whilst the UKRCB, recommended by Dogs Trust, believes that it is essential for a member to be fully conversant with the scientific knowledge and up to date research appertaining to canine behaviour and have considerable communication skills, we do not believe that academic knowledge should be the only criteria to consider when looking at the credentials of a canine behaviourist. Indeed, we strongly believe that academic knowledge on its own, without the necessary hands on practical experience, does not bring the necessary depth of knowledge needed for a client to gain maximum benefit from a consultation. All our members, in addition to their specialised knowledge of canine behaviour, are also required to show that they have had and continue to have practical hands-on experience with a large variety of dogs, as well as a continuing commitment to ongoing professional development


The basic aims and membership qualifications seem to be fairly similar, so how are their rational criteria for preferring those belonging to one body, or another?

Should one use all 4 and select the best most suitable practitioner in the locality?

Presumably there's some history to all this, with a couple of the organisations being formed around 1992/1993, any good sources to help reduce confusion and understand how & why there's so many rivals organisations?


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

Hi Rob, COAPE when it was first set up was only for people who had completed the COAPE diploma, at the time you were asked to become an associate of one of the coape tutors, there was also another level of membership that was lower, but can't remember what it was.
One of the reasons I believe it was set up was to try to be recognised by insurance companies so they would pay out for behavioural consultations and follow up work, as many would only pay out back then if you were a member of the APBC, or an associate of one of their members.
the idea originally was also to give work experience, the practical side to newly qualifiied coape people with coape associates, don't know if they ever got this off the ground.
A yearly membership was paid.
My info may all be out of date now as it was from when they first set up approx 8 years ago


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

and my take on why there are so many
APBC - only accept membesr with a degree, I don't think it has to be animal related

CABT - only accept people who have been on their courses.

UKRCB - I know little about, but reading through the blurb above, accept people who are doing it and proving it regardless of paper qualifications.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

On CABT-COAPE rules that makes sense, so we need to evaluate the courses somehow required by other institutions and compared to COAPE.

I had a butchers earlier Membership Criteria



UKRCB said:


> Membership Criteria
> 
> Applicants for UKRCB affiliation come from all kinds of backgrounds and experience. The ultimate goals of UKRCB affiliation are members who are fully conversant with scientific knowledge and up to date research appertaining to canine behaviour, have considerable communication skills and hands on experience with a large number of dogs. This takes time and application which is why we have structured the UKRCB criteria for affiliation to encourage education, experience and growth
> ..
> ...


So the question then becomes whether the impressive sounding A.DipCBM NQF, Level 5 or above is meaningful, or is that type of course newfiesmum discovered fulfillinug such criteria.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Another member posted a link to the Guild of Dog Trainers - who are they & are they a recognised group? why set up another group if one is already in place - I'm new to all this so just wondered why so many


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Oh no!! I was trying to keep this simple, it's bad enough without Pet Dog Trainers to!

All those above work on vet referral.


----------



## Jenny Olley (Nov 2, 2007)

Cleo38 said:


> Another member posted a link to the Guild of Dog Trainers - who are they & are they a recognised group? why set up another group if one is already in place - I'm new to all this so just wondered why so many


Why there are so many and new ones popping up is that in the dog world people are always falling out, can't agree on things, training, behaviour, who is right, who should be paid the most out of the kitty, who invented what, whose idea it was. When there are rifts they run deep.


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> Another member posted a link to the Guild of Dog Trainers - who are they & are they a recognised group? why set up another group if one is already in place - I'm new to all this so just wondered why so many


You often find new 'Guilds' and 'Institutes' etc are set up by people who are either dissatisfied with the existing ones or who can't get accepted into them.  ANYONE can set up their own organisation. All they need is a business account (not even that with some of them!), a computer, a printer and a few likeminded friends to help.

It is confusing I admit.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

There is also the

GoDT

CFBA

Just to add to the increasing confusion of trained behaviourists member organisations :001_smile:


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

Not to forget 'Doglistner' - just another thats 'the best'

PAACT Professional Association of Applied Canine Trainers
.


----------



## SleepyBones (Apr 17, 2011)

> *ANYONE can set up their own organisation. All they need is a business account (not even that with some of them!), a computer, a printer and a few likeminded friends to help.*


Not often we agree on anything but thats the best & accurate summary so far.

They all manipulate/misuse, for commercial purposes, several words but the most commonly misused as a selling tool is the word 'qualification', it has no denotation & connotes anything, they just sell the concept to newbie pet owners, or forever naive pet owners, there is some form of qualification recognised by the goverment.

The reallity is that anyone can set up a business as a behaviourst or dog trainer, no qualifications needed but if you want to buy a private one theres loads available for sale.

If you have a bus ticket you are 'qualified' to travel on that bus & its quite legitimate to say "I have a qualification in travell".


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

SleepyBones said:


> They all manipulate/misuse, for commercial purposes, several words but *the most commonly misused as a selling tool is the word 'qualification', it has no denotation & connotes anything*, they just sell the concept to newbie pet owners, or forever naive pet owners, there is some form of qualification recognised by the goverment.


So really then Denis, by your reasoning, there is absolutely no point in children going to school, working hard, gaining qualifications so that they can go on to university to get more qualifications so that they can ultimately get a career?  Heaven forbid they should have aspirations to become doctors, teachers, nurses, electricians, police etc because 'qualifications' don't matter!

In my humble opinion, qualifications AND experience do matter as does the ability to learn, evaluate and evolve where animals and training are concerned.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

SleepyBones said:


> Not to forget 'Doglistner' - just another thats 'the best'


That URL to PAACT Professional Association of Applied Canine Trainers, is flagged up as "This site has a poor reputation." by some security software, I use! (See paact.co.uk | WOT Reputation Scorecard | WOT (Web of Trust)). It is rated as poor on privacy and vendor reliability, though OK on trustworthiness & child safety.

That's quite unusual, most often WoT catches spam links & phishing, I hardly ever have to ignore the warning to visit a site. IOW I do not get many false positives, there's generally a good reason for a warning.

The GoDT indeed does not appear to be a Behaviourists Organisation aimed for vet referrals, but dog training, so seems off topic.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

CarolineH said:


> In my humble opinion, qualifications AND experience do matter as does the ability to learn, evaluate and evolve where animals and training are concerned.


The thing is though, the quality of the qualifications matter. That's the heart of this discussion, we need some way for people to rationally choose.

Is it true to say? "CABT-COAPE, APBC & UKRCB all have members who ought to be qualified on a worthwhile course, so their observation, assessement and considered report ought to be useful (even if perfection will be impossible in practice)."

Even if one prefers a particular organisation, some areas won't have a good local professional, so as scientifically based methods are one of the expectations of all 3 as I read their sites; it would seem worthwhile to consider consulting members of another as an alternative option.


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Closing this briefly whilst I work out the reports. Give me a poke in an hour if it still hasn't been reopened


----------



## Tanya1989 (Dec 4, 2009)

Now reopened. A few irrelevant posts have been deleted


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Thread re-opened so quote further below


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Originally posted in other thread in response to ISG's post there, seems logical to move the posts back as the discussion was about behaviourist associations, qualifications and practice.

Now the quote's referring to ISG's following post, rather than one in other thread, it is a reply though written in response.



RobD-BCactive said:


> Yes, theoretical knowledge doesn't mean someone can perform.





Irish Setter Gal said:


> As I typed this reply to another thread it was closed - this thread seems to fill the chat gap.:001_smile:
> ..
> just seems to sum up what is wrong with the overall 'recognition' process. There are far too many 'recognised' bodies for people to be able to take a judgement on what's best...


Yes, theoretical knowledge doesn't mean someone can perform.

But peforming repetitively a method because it "works" over and over, without the discipline of study doesn't expose one to peers with better ways, providing advantages that weren't criteria for the "works" method.

There's also a place for theoreticians & research by those not at the coal face, who have advantage of different perspectives. Practitioners who dismiss new scientific findings out of hand, rather than look to integrate them to improve, are making a mistake.

Richard Curtis found it useful for instance, to be taught a new skill by someone else, to experience being taught from client perspective, despite being champion performer and teacher of his speciality himself. It shows being open to new experiences and looking to learn, to experiment. It would be easy to say.. oh taking a Crufts Heelwork to Music Champion to work sheep would be a crazy risk, they might get hurt, get bad habits or behavioural issues (chasing things) and restrict his dogs to the doggie dancefloor. He wrote it improved his relationship with his dog yet further.

It's an example of someone looking to learn and even at the summit of performance, try to improve by being open to new experiences.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

As I typed this reply to the thread it was closed - here's my reply copied from elsewhere.

[This thread] just seems to sum up what is wrong with the overall 'recognition' process. There are far too many 'recognised' bodies for people to be able to take a judgement on what's best. I really don't like it when a 'recognised' body requires membership to be based on having completed their own courses and fails to recognise other 'recognised' bodies courses too.

Where all recognised bodies fall down IMHO is the process of quality and assurance of practical skills.

Example: There are different training schools that can train you to be an Air Traffic Controller and provide you with a qualification. That qualification is then used to obtain further practical training leading to a licence to practice. This licence to practise is assessed on a dedicated practical level annually, and monitored monthly with feedback on performance forming the basis for a spot check. The external examining body which approved the course from where you obtained your qualification is also the approval body for the assessor scheme. Rigid and tough, but it is an extreme example of a disciplined approach to training a particular skill.

Now if this were translated to dog behaviourists being required to obtain a licence to practise then would that not be a better way to proceed. Retention of that licence would be based on continued practical assessment by an external governing body, not the body that gave you the qualification in the first place, and it could thus be a body that complaints could be made to and those not meeting the required standard be 'struck off the registry' like Doctors are when they fail to meet the practical requirements to retain their licence.

Yes I know both skill sets mentioned above involve human lives, and humans are considered the most valuable life form on the planet, but surely with the general increase in the popularity of turning to dog trainers to resolve an increasing level of 'bad' dog behaviour it couldn't be beyond the wit of man to set something milder up to reflect this growing market in the dog world. It strikes me that there are a lot of similarities in this argument to that the osteopaths went through a while back, this resolved itself in the UK with two recognised bodies being set up to provide accreditation to qualified practitioners.

Rant over, and yes before anyone asks I think they should bring back a licence to own a dog and grade it according to type of dog like driving lorries - pass a harder test to own a pit bull than you would to own a poodle


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

Having looked at site provided by ISG to CAFBA, I've amended question to include them, after looking at some of the known names featured on website, it would seem odd to neglect them.

Similarly I'll add both CAFBA & UKRCB Acronyms to the Glossary for reference purposes, as they seem to be established, behaviourist associations.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

The more I read about 'Behaviourists. dog therapists. psychoanalysts and the like the more I wonder how I've managed to successfully train some really good working dogs over the years. I've always believed, ( obviously erroneously. ) that dogs were fairly simple creatures who didn't require ' Meta reasoning.( I have no idea what that is, I saw it mentioned on one of the posts recently, ) I did try ordinary reasoning with my old retriever the other day but he obviously got bored and fell asleep. Perhaps I've had simple minded dogs but they have always responded to the simple method of, Do it right, earn my approval, misbehave, earn my dissaproval. This, I hasten to add does not involve any hard handling, that's not my way, a firm scolding is always enough.
Obviously as an 'Old codger, I've not kept up with all the current methods in dog training, I've got a new pup coming in a week or so, perhaps I should delve a bit more into this 'Meta reasoning.......................


----------



## CarolineH (Aug 4, 2009)

RobD-BCactive said:


> Even if one prefers a particular organisation, some areas won't have a good local professional, so as scientifically based methods are one of the expectations of all 3 as I read their sites; it would seem worthwhile to consider consulting members of another as an alternative option.


True. After all, some organisations do not require their members to prove that they have bothered to further their own canine education in any way. They don't deem it necessary to keep upgrading and evaluating your knowledge and they do not have any preferences as to what methods or equipment their members use. They have literally no standards. :nono: Hence I would only recommend people to reputable 'associations' etc.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

CarolineH said:


> Hence I would only recommend people to reputable 'associations' etc.


Which is what I don't do at the moment because of the confusion about standards that exists - I go by the trainer and never recommend anybody I haven't tried myself, regardless of which body they are registered with since as we all know once the tickets obtained who keeps the watchful eye on their performance and as already mentioned, their continued education in their field.

I had the pleasure of taking my pup, primarily for socialisation, to a lady who's recently started up by me - she has no formal qualifications (yet) but her approach was spot on. What research I did do was to attend a class to check her out first before asking her loads of questions, but my decision was also supported by my previous experience under other professional trainers. I knew what I wanted/needed from a trainer and I was surprised to find one without the qualifications (she's recently started a course).

Sadly a lot of owners don't have the luxury of previous 'professional' experience to draw on when making future training decisions and have no choice but to go by either others recommendations or letters after names - which may or may not meet peoples idea of 'nice' training. 
For some it comes too late in the day to realise they don't like what they see.

In my experience it can only pay to watch a class or two in action before selecting a training environment, however this is not an option necessarily available to those seeking/needing a one to one with a trained behaviourist.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2011)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Which is what I don't do at the moment because of the confusion about standards that exists - I go by the trainer and never recommend anybody I haven't tried myself, regardless of which body they are registered with since as we all know once the tickets obtained who keeps the watchful eye on their performance and as already mentioned, their continued education in their field.
> 
> I had the pleasure of taking my pup, primarily for socialisation, to a lady who's recently started up by me - she has no formal qualifications (yet) but her approach was spot on. What research I did do was to attend a class to check her out first before asking her loads of questions, but my decision was also supported by my previous experience under other professional trainers. I knew what I wanted/needed from a trainer and I was surprised to find one without the qualifications (she's recently started a course).
> 
> ...


Well said. We have a "professional" here that professes to be qualified and KC registered (whatever that means). He is just a dog torturer as far as I'm concerned


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Irish Setter Gal said:


> Which is what I don't do at the moment because of the confusion about standards that exists - I go by the trainer and never recommend anybody I haven't tried myself, regardless of which body they are registered with since as we all know once the tickets obtained who keeps the watchful eye on their performance and as already mentioned, their continued education in their field.
> 
> I had the pleasure of taking my pup, primarily for socialisation, to a lady who's recently started up by me - she has no formal qualifications (yet) but her approach was spot on. What research I did do was to attend a class to check her out first before asking her loads of questions, but my decision was also supported by my previous experience under other professional trainers. I knew what I wanted/needed from a trainer and I was surprised to find one without the qualifications (she's recently started a course).
> 
> ...


which is precisely why the need for this thread -

which is *not about trainers or classes*, but finding a credentialed behaviorist to consult - 
with both academic & practical credentials - to address serious problem behaviors: aggression 
toward humans or other dogs, predation, fears or phobias, compulsive habits, separation anxiety, 
& other extremely-problematic, dangerous or life-limiting behaviors.

membership in a 3rd-party certifying organization is one way to ensure we are not consulting Jo[e] Schmoh.


----------



## RobD-BCactive (Jul 1, 2010)

The problem is when you look locally 2 ways :

1) search listings.. many ppl fancy themselves as behaviourist aka Whisperer

2) vet referral.. but many of the owners either get poor advice eg) alpha roll a Spaniel that shows RG symptoms "assert PL status"; or they seem to have unrealistic expections, chop & change. There seems to be fashionable advice to, like "do agility", but without the caveat about socialising & avoiding reactivity and need for spot where other dogs are under control. So out of 4 who tried agility on behaviourist rec. it "worked" for only 1; the others complained about it and 2 found it counter productive, due to their dog actually being picked on by "pack of Collies" nipping etc

Shocking!

There's just some need to evaluate (partly by qualification & professional membership) and discover, who's likely a *real* behaviourist and who not. Most ppl just don't have the connections and unfortunately the layman may be satisfied by a smooth talking plausible person, who however gives poor advice (but what they expect to hear so are happy).


----------

