What proves "success"?

[IliamnasQuest]

A few threads here and on another forum have made me wonder how people judge a trainer's "success" - and therefore their ability. When you look for a trainer, what makes you feel the trainer is successful and capable of providing good, knowledgeable instruction for you and your dog?

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[houndlove]

For me success is defined not only in whether or not the dog can execute this or that behavior. You can create some pretty compliant well-behaved dogs just by shutting them down. But just precise behavior on cue to me is not the whole picture of successfully working with and training a dog.

Rather than discreet behaviors, I'm more interested in a dog who really knows how to learn, and if a trainer can demonstrate for me that he or she understands how to do that, I'm all ears/eyes. When it comes to whatever demo dog they have, I want to see a happy, operant, experimenting, exuberant dog (appropriate to breed temperament of course) who can learn a new behavior quickly and cleanly, because that is a dog who knows how to learn. I've never done it because I've used the same training center for all the classes I've taken, but I might ask the trainer to get their demo dog and start to teach some silly random new trick to see how they worked together, what the dog and trainer's attitudes were and how quickly and cleanly the dog was learning. I don't think a dog who can run through a set list of behaviors is going to give me the whole picture because I want to see how that dog learns in the moment, not just doing something that's already been rehearsed a million times and was trained who-knows-how.

My own trainer does one thing that I absolutely loathe and refuse to do because it just smacks of learned helplessness and seems to fly in the face of everything else she teaches. I'm working on getting the same result through different means. The fact that she can get a small dog or puppy to lay down and stay down by stepping on the leash near the collar does not impress me (and Marlowe won't stand for that anyway). Instead, I'm shaping the same behavior (it's supposed to be an "off switch" for the dog, which I understand the value of, but I completely hate how she teaches it)--lay down and put your head on your paws and don't look at me because we are not working right now. It's taking some time (mainly because it's not a huge high priority for me) but forcing a dog into a position and teaching it that resistance is futile is not successfully teaching that dog anything.

 

[MafiaPrincess]

I want to see that they are members of the clicker association, APDT, CCPDT.. I generally want to see titles in whatever sport I go to them for. But.. I've since learned, just because they can title their own dogs, doesn't mean they can teach others. Some of it has been a learning process of going to people and then moving on.. Now I ask other people I know in the dog world about trainers I'm thinking about. Generally the people I ask have been around far longer than me, and have a good pro and con list for most things I ask about.

I want to hear good reviews from people who are at higher levels than I am, and have have a good knowledge base now really. I've gotten a lot of random knowledge this way, and I wouldn't be afraid to ask about trainers now. I've also found that sometimes individuals have more of my interests at heart than a training school with a set curriculum, but that just seems to be the area I'm living in, not necessarily true for other places.

 

[pafla]

There is only one trainer I have seen that I think is the kind of trainer that I like.His dogs are very confident,happy,crazy about him,and very obedient.He has more success in competing with them in agility then anyone else from Croatia.I have seen him with pups and in park with other people dogs he seems to recognize the type of dog carachter and shape his behavior keeping in mind that.He is the same way in training he seems to recognize were the problem is.I dont think I would agree 100% with all his methods but I like most of the things I have seen.

I suppose the question would be what traits should an ideal dog trainer have or at least part of them:

-understanding of the way dogs learn
-theoretically and practical knowledge of dog training
-experience in training different dog breeds for different purposes
-as someone said the trainer dogs should have a close bond with him,to me it is when you see that they really understand each other and trust each other,that the dog is obedient is a must-but we all know that there are different ways of achieving this.
-the people I like seeing in training dogs are simple cunning-they find a way to teach a dog certain behavior by finding a way for each dogs personality that is not neccesserialy the way it is usually done but it can work out on specific dog.
-trainers who are very good in using body language or different facial expressions and different intonations of voice in training and who are good in teaching others how this is done.
-good trainer should also be-very patient-every trainer I have seen who had short temper and couldnt control it was a bad trainer,a positive type of person-most trainers who I have seen and liked belong in a group of people who dont hold grudges-at least not toward dog,and have a positive happy additude,selfconfident people usually do better in training,the more someone show insecurity the more mixed signals the dog is getting.
-they should love what they do and love dogs-usually the one who are intrested only in money arent good trainers.
-be honest with owners-in telling them what they can achieve,how long would it take them,what are the limits for them,how much would it cost,how much time they will have to have for doing it correctly.
-good trainer should also be able to transfer his knowledge to owners-and from what I have seen this can sometimes also be a problem it does ask for certain social skills in dealing with two-leggs.

 

[corgipower]

I like to see their dog and how he works. Is he confident, happy, enthusiastic? A little less than perfect but thoroughly enjoying his work is better than perfect but suppressed.

I want to know that the trainer is versatile in their approach. If one method doesn't work, what other suggestons can they offer. What temperaments have they worked with? If they've never trained a fearful dog, and mine is fearful, I'll go somewhere else. That doesn't necessarily mean the trainer's not good, it simply means the trainer's not suited for me and my dog. I don't expect a trainer to know everything, I do like to see that they will acknowledge when something comes up that they don't knw, and that they will either refer the client to someone else or they will learn possible solutions ASAP. I also want a trainer who has enough understanding of learning theory that they can handle most training issues.

The most important thing, though is their clients. I want to watch them work with cutomers and the customers' dogs. I want to see that the clients are learning, and that the people are just as happy and enthusiastic as the dogs. Just because a trainer can get results with a dog, doesn't mean they have the required people skills to teach.

 

[adojrts]

I look for a trainer that is still continuing on with their education, one that is keeping up with new methods and keeps an open mind. A trainer that is successful themselves but also has students that are successful. I think the mark of an excellent trainer is having knowledgable students that continue to train with that them over YEARS. I want to be able to see them compete and win and win often. I want them to encourage me to seek other opinions, and point me towards seminars/workshops etc that can benefit me. Or at the very least, try not to keep me from seeking info other than what they tell me. I don't want a trainer that feels like they 'own' their students.
I don't like trainers that have preconceived ideas of a breed, one that labels a dog by breed.
A successful trainer doesn't have to have an awesome training facility. I am not impressed just because someone could afford to purchase or build something new. To many people are impressed by that but the people running it and teaching can be very limited in their experience and knowledge.
I don't like being nickled and dimed to death either!!

 

[IliamnasQuest]

Thanks for the responses.

It's good to see people interested in more than just the end results- everyone who has posted seems to want to know about the process of teaching and that the trainer is knowledgeable in behavior and not just in producing obedient dogs.

When I consider going to a seminar, I like to know if the instructor has trained many different breeds and types of dogs. It seems that so many of the "successful" well-known trainers have concentrated primarily on breeds that are considered obedience-breeds. There's a huge difference between understanding a golden retriever and understanding a chow. They have some basic dog traits in common but their way of thinking is very different.

The titles earned are often impressive but I'm more interested in their philosophy of training. I think the titles help establish that they have obtained a certain level of expertise in training for the behaviors needed for the titles, but it doesn't tell me HOW they trained. I don't want to waste my money on any trainer that's going to tell me to put a prong collar on my dog and yank to make her sit faster, or to use a piece of dowling to smack her toes if she sits too far forward (I've seen this done). I want to know that a trainer will try the least invasive methods first and not just go for quick results by using a fear/pain-based method. I want a trainer to show that the relationship they have with their dogs is more than trainer/dog, more than competitor/competition dog - I want someone who understands when I say "she's my companion first, competition dog second".

And I absolutely want a trainer who doesn't discriminate or treat my dog differently just because she's a chow! I paid good money to go to a seminar with an English behaviorist a year or so ago and got screwed because (as far as I could tell) she only wanted to work with dogs that were easily trained. I paid for one-on-one time with her (which meant that she was supposed to use me and my dog for part of the demo hand's-on during the seminar) and she chose to have other dog/handlers come up (who hadn't paid for the one-on-one time) even though she was informed that I had paid for the extra part. And then she made a derogatory comment about my chow when she came by while we were all up and working our dogs and it really made me mad. I really think she didn't want to use a dog that she thought wouldn't make her look good as a trainer - and that's pathetic. If she's incapable of working with a chow then evidently I'm a better trainer than she is .. *L*

Okay, I feel better now that I've vented!

Anyhow, knowing a trainer's background, how they train, what kind of dogs they typically work with, etc. is vitally important to me. I've signed up for a seminar with a woman next March and it will be interesting as she's a herding breed person. I emailed her and asked about her experience with "non-obedience" breeds and she assured me that she's got some background with them, but I kind of wonder how she'll do. She's big into toy drive but then she's got dogs that HAVE toy drive. None of my chows have been tremendously interested in toys as rewards. If she can get Khana to think that chasing a toy is as good as getting a piece of meat, I will be TOTALLY impressed! *LOL*

Melanie and the gang in Alaska

 

[elegy]

one of the trainers i've worked with just passed her CPDT test, so she's now a certified pet dog trainer. she's a lousy trainer. lousy. nice lady, mind you, and apparently book smart enough, but she's not very good. i've taken two classes with her (CGC class with mushroom and beginner obedience with harv) and had two very traumatic experiences (nothing that happened to my own dog, just stuff that i witnessed). it wasn't good. and she's a 100% "pure positive" kind of trainer.

she has two mixed breed dogs, both nice dogs. at least one has her CGC but that's it. she's teaching a rally class starting next month and she's never trialed a dog. that just seems so.... off to me.

i like to know that trainers are doing something with their own dogs. i like to know that they're out there seeking more knowledge, more experience, and looking to learn from others. i really appreciated when my old trainer would tell me about what she was learning in the classes she was taking with her dog from a more advanced trainer, both because it told me that she was excited about learning and working with her dog, and because i was able to learn from it too.

 

[adojrts]

one of the trainers i've worked with just passed her CPDT test, so she's now a certified pet dog trainer. she's a lousy trainer. lousy. nice lady, mind you, and apparently book smart enough, but she's not very good. i've taken two classes with her (CGC class with mushroom and beginner obedience with harv) and had two very traumatic experiences (nothing that happened to my own dog, just stuff that i witnessed). it wasn't good. and she's a 100% "pure positive" kind of trainer.

she has two mixed breed dogs, both nice dogs. at least one has her CGC but that's it. she's teaching a rally class starting next month and she's never trialed a dog. that just seems so.... off to me.

i like to know that trainers are doing something with their own dogs. i like to know that they're out there seeking more knowledge, more experience, and looking to learn from others. i really appreciated when my old trainer would tell me about what she was learning in the classes she was taking with her dog from a more advanced trainer, both because it told me that she was excited about learning and working with her dog, and because i was able to learn from it too.

It's scary, so many people flock to someone who has no ring experience and limited knowledge and yet they have some letters behind their name. Therefore so many people believe that they have credentuials. There are 3 'trainers', near me, two have CDPT and they are scary!! Never competed in anything and the other one, used to compete on a very limited basis 20 years ago. They all turn out students and their dogs that have little or no skills!!
It just goes to prove that just because some people have a few letters attached to their name that doesn't make them a good trainer..........sadly people have to find that out by trial and error. And if you are a pure novice that is so difficult.
Also I dont understand why people focus on the lack of a trainers success when they are a PR trainer? Just because that person claims to be purely Positive, doesn't make them good. (gezz does that make sense????)
I know many many purely positive trainers that are hugely successful.
Personally I think it is far more difficult to be a PR trainer AND be successful, because if you don't have the knowledge and you don't do it right, it often doesn't work very well!!
Good grief, I don't think I am making an ounce of sense!!!!!! :lol-sign:
Lynn

 

[adojrts]

Thanks for the responses.


And I absolutely want a trainer who doesn't discriminate or treat my dog differently just because she's a chow! I paid good money to go to a seminar with an English behaviorist a year or so ago and got screwed because (as far as I could tell) she only wanted to work with dogs that were easily trained. I paid for one-on-one time with her (which meant that she was supposed to use me and my dog for part of the demo hand's-on during the seminar) and she chose to have other dog/handlers come up (who hadn't paid for the one-on-one time) even though she was informed that I had paid for the extra part. And then she made a derogatory comment about my chow when she came by while we were all up and working our dogs and it really made me mad. I really think she didn't want to use a dog that she thought wouldn't make her look good as a trainer - and that's pathetic. If she's incapable of working with a chow then evidently I'm a better trainer than she is .. *L*

Okay, I feel better now that I've vented!



Melanie and the gang in Alaska

Oh how I agree!!!!!!!! A few years ago, I signed up for a workshop with this guy. It was sickening how he picked one or two people within the workshop and they became his 'pets' for the weekend. They also had the most experience and even had accomplished more that he had in the ring!! They absolutely made him look good. He often was very dismissive of others there and often passed them onto his assistant!! That really p.o'd me. Everyone there had payed the same amount. This guy's arrogance far exceeded his credentials!!
Although I had my 'grin' at the end of the weekend. He had set up a course that was the Final Course from that years AKC Agility Nationals, we all walked the course and he told us how he 'thought' we should run it. At one point on the course I spoke up and said that I wanted to try to run a section of the course by layering a tunnel etc. He told me it wouldn't work, Period. He was wrong !! with my dog, it worked beautifully and it was the best way for me to run that section. He was not a happy camper. I have never gone back to a workshop with this person, not worth it.

 

[Zoom]

The examples given here are probably the best reasons as to why we can get the +P trainers in here saying that they've done so much more and succeeded where others have failed, etc. etc. People don't do their homework enough, only look at a few things and then when things go wrong, go to the other extreme.

I've quit telling people that I'm a 'trainer" per se, because I don't feel that I've had enough experience to warrent the title. I say that I've had experience training basic obedience and I know a decent amount of theory. While I would love to have classes again, I also know that I need to go through a lot more training and competing myself in order to be a successful trainer.

 

[corgipower]

IMO, the APDT is pretty useless as far as certs go. I don't know anything about the Canadian organization. I would prefer IACP or NADOI, as the requirements ask more of the trainers. But I don't look for a piece of paper, whether it's a cert or a title. There are many qualified trainers out there who have the experience and the knowlege without any piece of paper.

Although if I'm looking for a trainer specifically with the goal of training my dogs for titles, then yea, I like for the trainer to have multiple titles in that sport.

 

[adojrts]

And what if you are not thinking about competing? Not seeking any titles?
Lets take agility, sch., or Rally, should the quality of instruction be anything less for those not wanting to compete?

 

[IliamnasQuest]

The APDT (Association of Pet Dog Trainers) is simply an organization of trainers - no proof of their training ability is required. Everyone joining that group is supposed to agree to a code of ethics, but I've known many APDT members who were not all that positive with their training methods.

CPDT is "Certified Pet Dog Trainer" and you have to take a written test and sign that you have so many hours of instructing already. I haven't actually met any CPDT trainers here in Alaska. I've read through the information given and the practice questions and haven't seen anything that I felt would be any problem for me to pass. But in all honesty, I prefer people to see my dogs work, to come and watch a class I'm teaching, and to ask me about my methods than to just think I'm a great trainer because I have some letters behind my name. I know someone locally who was "certified" as a Master Trainer but it doesn't mean they can train well or use methods that are good. In all honesty, I could set up a school and take in students and certify them as Master Trainers or Certified Dog Trainers and they could put those initials behind their name and advertise themselves as such. And if they wanted to look even MORE impressive, they could come back and pay me more money and get certified as MTX (Master Trainer Excellent) .. *L*

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
... who wants to come to school? Let's do it in the summer when the salmon are running so you can be on the river half the time catching fish .. *G*

 

[corgipower]

And what if you are not thinking about competing? Not seeking any titles?
Lets take agility, sch., or Rally, should the quality of instruction be anything less for those not wanting to compete?

I never said the quality of instruction should or would be any less if the instructor didn't have titles. The only reason why I would want to see titles if I was interested in competing is that I don't see how someone can teach ring performance if they have never been in the ring. The titles themselves don't indicate to me anything about the quality of instruction, but they would indicate that the instructor has experience in the ring, has experience performing the necessary routines, has experience dealing with judges, etc.

Melanie and the gang in Alaska
... who wants to come to school? Let's do it in the summer when the salmon are running so you can be on the river half the time catching fish .. *G*

summer or not summer, i am not going to alaska!!!
now when you get it set up somewhere in the south east, then we'll talk

 

[adojrts]

Corgipower,
I wasn't replying to your last post. I just asking the question if the quality of instruction should less for those who have no desire to compete?

Lynn

 

[MafiaPrincess]

I had no desire to ever compete in rally.. It was a time filler honestly. But I went to a rally judge for classes.. Seemed to be an easy way to make sure the instruction was as good as possible out of the choices around.

 

[protodog]

No, the quality of instruction should not be any less for people who have no desire to compete, but sometimes the content should be somewhat different. A good trainer helps clients achieve their training goals, whatever they may be.

I've taken a number of classes from a number of trainers, most of them good. However, when I first got Venus (the borzoi), we took a bizarre beginning obedience class. The head trainer for the class had a number of impressive titles on both of his dogs, but I was the only person in the class with any interest in any sort of competition. The other people were taking the class because they were having problems at home with their dogs. The trainer only taught competiton exercises. We covered the left finish but not "off" or "leave it." We didn't cover "give" because dogs don't start retrieving until open, so the trainer was no help to the woman whose one major problem was that she couldn't get the TV remote back from her dog. And working on those snappy automatic sits on halt weren't any use to the woman whose dog would guard the food dish.

Quality matters, but so does content. Sometimes success means teaching a person how to get his or her incredibly fearful dog to walk comfortably through a room with people in it, even if the dog's sits are always crooked.

 

[IliamnasQuest]

Quality matters, but so does content. Sometimes success means teaching a person how to get his or her incredibly fearful dog to walk comfortably through a room with people in it, even if the dog's sits are always crooked.

Oh, I agree with you entirely on this point! The problem is trying to offer classes that cover what various people want. In my club, I have been teaching the competition obedience classes for the most part the last couple of years. I love beginning obedience and I honestly think that beginning obedience is one of the most important classes and should be taught by someone with a lot of experience (the behaviors being set at that point are the behaviors that ALL of the following training will build from). But since no one is teaching comp classes I stepped in - and it helps because I have a dog that's working toward open obedience and I can work her through parts of the class.

My goal in a beginning class is to assess each dog and handler and then provide what they need in order to advance. Advancement is different from one dog to the next. Some dogs are so eager to learn and the handlers have such excellent timing and instinct that they learn anything you hand them. Other dogs have issues but just because they have issues they shouldn't be considered any less important or even less able to learn than the other dogs. They just need to find their level of comfort and work from there. It's actually quite a challenge to teach a beginning class properly. I prefer my beginning classes to meet at least twice a week and preferably three times a week for 3 weeks. The dogs learn much more quickly with frequent classes, the owners tend to practice more religiously as they know they'll be heading back to class in a day or two, and any potential problems can be handled before they develop into a habit.

My comp classes have much higher criteria usually. I just taught a general competition behaviors class that allowed pretty much any behaviors a person was working on that would help them in their chosen sport. Some were all obedience, some were rally only, some were agility who just wanted a dog with more focus and more ability to work under distractions (and come when called). It was a pretty distracting class and good for those who needed that level of distraction. But my next class will be more focused with a higher level of criteria. Dogs must be started off-leash as we'll have the entire class working off-leash at times. Dogs must be trustworthy and not aggressive - this needs to be a safe class where no one is fearful of their dog being lunged at or grabbed by another dog. Everyone must be aiming toward higher than novice level so we can do jumps and retrieves. And everyone must be willing to play "judge" at times - running others through patterns and judging is a very big learning experience for anyone who is going to compete.

So classes really do need to be the proper type for each person, and the instructor needs to have the knowledge and ability to adapt to the needs of their class. I stopped teaching "heel" in beginning classes a long time ago - we do "walking on a loose leash" instead. We do stays, and sits/downs, and while we're doing various training activities I do tell them how I would teach it if I were planning on competing later (in case anyone in the class thinks they may go on). But for the down, if they want to teach a down from a sit first because they don't expect to ever do a drop on recall, that's up to them. Any dog going on into competition should learn a drop from a stand first, in my opinion.

Okay, enough babbling at 5 a.m. I fell asleep with the TV on earlier, woke up and needed to take the dogs out and the cold air woke me up! *L* Time to go back to bed.

Melanie and the gang

 

[adojrts]

No, the quality of instruction should not be any less for people who have no desire to compete, but sometimes the content should be somewhat different. A good trainer helps clients achieve their training goals, whatever they may be.

I've taken a number of classes from a number of trainers, most of them good. However, when I first got Venus (the borzoi), we took a bizarre beginning obedience class. The head trainer for the class had a number of impressive titles on both of his dogs, but I was the only person in the class with any interest in any sort of competition. The other people were taking the class because they were having problems at home with their dogs. The trainer only taught competiton exercises. We covered the left finish but not "off" or "leave it." We didn't cover "give" because dogs don't start retrieving until open, so the trainer was no help to the woman whose one major problem was that she couldn't get the TV remote back from her dog. And working on those snappy automatic sits on halt weren't any use to the woman whose dog would guard the food dish.

Quality matters, but so does content. Sometimes success means teaching a person how to get his or her incredibly fearful dog to walk comfortably through a room with people in it, even if the dog's sits are always crooked.

Well said