Lab growled and nipped for 1st time

Angelmangle

I have to be honest here, some people will think brutally so but I believe I'm being honest.

I think it is the height of negligence to allow a three year old child to put their hands in a dogs food bowl whilst the animal is eating. It is unfair on the dog but ultimately dangerous for the child, as we have seen. I don't care how placid your dog is I still would never allow a child to do that.

That to me is just blatant common sense and I am simply astonished at the lack if it in this situation and consequently the danger you are allowing your child to be placed in, never mind the poor dog being harassed. The fact that this has to be pointed out to your is incredible to me, it should be obvious and I'm very disturbed that it is not .........

I have mentioned this thread to a few people that I know, some are dog owners and others have no experience of dogs and across the board they all agreed that it is simply madness to allow a toddler to play with (under the guise of hand feeding) ANY dog's food at that animals feeding time.

I really am flabbergasted by this!

gozunda

DBB wrote: »

What behaviourists have you met with 6 month courses? I'm thinking you haven't met a properly qualified behaviourist yet!
If you had, you'd change your tune about getting your big brush out to tar everyone with it.You're right in saying that in Ireland, anyone can call themselves a behaviourist at the moment. However, every "behaviourist" I can think of in Ireland falls into one of two groups. There are those who have gone down the route of getting significant undergrad and post-grad training in animal behaviour so that they conform with standards which will eventually come into play in other parts of the world. They have also achieved significant practical experience and proved to professional bodies that they're suitably equipped to practice. Then there are the other "behaviourists" who have not done 6 month courses either. In fact, they have done no behavioural courses at all.To make it easier for owners to find out who's genuinely qualified: look for third-level education to degree or equivalent, and look for membership of a professional body which requires high standards (professional and ethical) amongst their members, and who can and will discipline breaches of their charters. The only professional body which accredits qualified behaviourists worldwide is the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors (APBC). More about that later.FYI, APDT Ireland was formed precisely to introduce standards within the dog training field. No academic achievement is required, the candidates have to exhibit an ability to train dogs effectively without resorting to punitive techniques, and must exhibit a decent understanding of the basics of dog behaviour, learning theory etc.
Also FYI, the assessment is designed and overseen by members of the association who are not only highly experienced trainers, but fully certified, qualified, and insured behaviourists. Some lecture within the field, and others already provide courses for other external agencies. The assessments are also overseen by an extern from the UK APDT, whose own assessments are certified by NOCN. The assessment procedure is based on that of APDT UK because it works very well: it is not an easy assessment, but it is a fair way of finding some very good trainers for the public to put their trust in. External accreditation will eventually be sought by APDT Ireland, but as it stands, as a very young organisation, I think the fact that the organisation is overseen by a highly respected external body is pretty good for now. You give out about the field being unregulated, yet grouse about an organisation who trainers can voluntarily approach to become a member of as long as they make the grade. Nobody's forcing anybody to join! Up-and-coming trainers out there know that being in such an organisation is good for them, good for their professional development, and good for the dog-owning public because the public can see that this person has been assessed and met minimum criteria, has signed up to ethical dog training, and can be removed from the organisation for breaches of the code of practice. I think you'll find this is how many professional bodies work in all spheres!
You make it sound like a person pays their money, and gets onto a list. Well, you're wrong. The assessment procedure takes a huge amount of organisation, meetings, giving up of free time unpaid, to organise. For the candidates, it is pretty gruelling, from start to finish it takes some weeks to complete. I don't know any certification agency that doesn't charge a fee? Admin, venues for assessment to be hired, advertisement, all have to be paid for somehow, no matter who the organisation is! Like I said above, you'll find that many professions have a non-statutory professional organisation which imposes standards on their members, and I don't think any of them are free, because it costs money to do what they do.
Now, as for behaviourists. It is absolutely right to say that APDT Ireland is a dog trainer's association, not a behvaiourist's one. However, I think the reason people posted the APDT link here was because, as suggested above, some of the members of the association also happen to be fully certified behaviourists, so it's a pretty good place to start for the uninitiated dog owner who needs more serious help
I don't know any fully qualified/certified behaviourist who did a 6 month course. In fact, the umbrella group for behaviourists, the Association of Pet Behaviour Counsellors, and indeed the certifying body for behaviourists across the world (ASAB: Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour), require that practitioners not only have a minimum of a degree in the field of animal behaviour, but that they also have sufficient practical experience. They also have to keep their education up to date via CPD, or they lose their membership. Many, including those that also happen to be trainers accredited by APDT Ireland, are more highly qualified in the field of behaviour than degree level, and indeed, more highly qualified in their field than any vet or GP is in theirs.
It is no coincidence that insurance companies only pay out for consultations given by properly qualified behaviourists, ie APBC members. Clearly, in the eyes of such companies, a properly qualified behavioural consultant is just as professional in their field as a vet is in veterinary matters. Indeed, members of the APBC are listed by the UK Veterinary Council as being suitable for vets to refer clients to for behavioural consultation, just as members of certain organisation can be referred to for physiotherapy, acupuncture and other paraveterinary fields. So, I think you'll find that properly qualified behaviourists are highly respected by other related professionals, due to the level of education and experience demanded by their profesisonal bodies. To say that such behaviourists have simply gone and done a 6 month piss-ant course is seriously disingenuous to those, who are growing in number in Ireland, who have put a lot of blood, sweat, tears and money into ensuring they are properly qualified to assume the considerable responsibilities of a behaviourist.
Vets have no behavioural training: there are a couple of lectures in basic behaviour made availavble to them in college, but as they're not compulsory, they're poorly attended. Therefore, vets are not qualified to give animal behaviour advice. Simple as. Actually, there is one vet in Ireland who has done a post-grad in animal behaviour, and as such is the only vet in Ireland qualified to give behavioural advice.
As AJ says, a vet has no more right to give behavioural advice than a GP has to assume a role as a psychological counsellor, or a speech therapist, or a physiotherapist. That's because they're simply not qualified to, and to mix the fields of scientific expertise up and assume ethereal skills to a vet in all matters animal just because they're a vet is just... laughable.
It's a strange thing, that some seem themselves to think it's appropriate to dish out advice on a topic they know no more about than anyone else. GPs don't seem to do this... probably because they know fine well they'll be called on it. The fact that many owners are still of the belief that their vet is infallible is sad, because I have come across so many cases where vets gave out terrible behavioural advice, which resulted in further aggression, further suffering, diminished animal and human welfare, and often, the eventual death of the dog. Had they the proper training in behaviour, they wouldn't give out terrible advice, and would at least know their limits, and know when to refer their clients onto those who are qualified to give advice. The better vets do, and happily, their numbers are growing.Anyway, to get this back on topic: OP, I would strongly recommend you bring your dog to the vet to get a full behavioural panel done: bloods, skeletal, sources of pain, neurology, because although the dog may appear healthy and fine, they can be tremendously stoical about pain or discomfort. One of the clearest ways of discerning an underlying medical problem in an animal is when they exhibit a sudden change in behaviour. As your dog has suddenly started doing things he never did before, I think your first absolute priority is to rule out an underlying medical condition.If the work-up reveals nothing, I'd then suggest, for all the reasons I've listed above, that you consider getting a qualified behaviourist in, as although your vet may be very good at veterinary things, the behavioural advice given to you was a little wide of the mark.

Wow! Thats all lot of detail.....

To reiterate my Opinions are as follows. (Your opinion of course stands as is...)

Before engaging a behaviourist - beware that Some claiming to be such do not have nationally recognised qualifications. There are others that do have proper qualifications . I do not "grouse" but have simply stated that it is important for the buyer to be aware where such services are offered. There is no "big Brush to tar with" - (not to sure what this refers to btw). Thi is simply statement of of my experience. Your experience May be different.

I note that some replies refer to Animal Trainers - as opposed to behaviorists - I believe this whole area has become somewhat mixed up on this Thread. The OP post concerned a change in behaviour - so my replies were directed accordingly. If others then wish to ask about training instead of behaviour then I am sure they are free to do so if they believe that is relevant to their opinion. Regarding behaviour - A Vet who should know your dog best, who is professionally trained and qualified to a nationally recognised standard is in my opinion the best first port of call for problems and areas of concern regarding behaviour- they (just like a GP) should refer a dog to another professional if they believe this is the required. I cant see why anyone would have a problem with this. DBB - May I ask if you are involved with ADTP? - I ask because of your apparent knowledge of this organisation

DBB

gozunda wrote: »

A Vet who should know your dog best, who is professionally trained and qualified to a nationally recognised standard is in my opinion the best first port of call for problems and areas of concern regarding behaviour- they (just like a GP) should refer a dog to another professional if they believe this is the required. I cant see why anyone would have a problem with this. DBB - May I ask if you are involved with ADTP? - I ask because of your apparent knowledge of this organisation

It's APDT: Association of Pet Dog Trainers.
As a rule, I don't think (but could be wrong) that it's not really appropriate to ask users here questions which can "out" our identities. That said, I think at this stage that regular users here know that I am indeed an APDT member, amongst other things. However, everything I described above about how the assessments are structured is freely available on the website and/or on the membership application form. It's no secret!

Nobody has said they have a problem with a vet referring an owner on to a behaviourist... have they? I didn't read that into any posts, but maybe I missed something. I have no problem with any owner going to their vet if they feel their dog has a behavioural problem.. as long as the vet does refer them to a qualified behaviourist. Problem is, many vets don't, and instead take on to give out awful, dangerous, utterly unresearched advice, or send owners to some quack who left business cards at the reception desk but who the vet hasn't bothered checking out.
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of owners do not know that their vet has no behavioural training, and take their advice as gospel on the assumption that they must know what they're talking about... right? It's a pity that there are vets out there who don't mind owners having such misconceptions about their skills.
Vets and behaviourists can and should work closely together on behavioural cases, and indeed, for owners to claim for a behavioural consult from their pet insurance, they need to have been referred to the behaviourist by their vet.
For the record, both vets and qualified behaviourists are qualified to internationally recognised standards.
If I may say, I think you got the responses you got throughout this thread because what you said in some of your intial posts, e.g.

And in my experience most animal behaviouists have a 6 month certificate from A.N. Other college if you are lucky. This area is completely unregulated

At least Vets are properly qualified in veterinary science (LINK) and achieve proper accreditation .

Such statements are disingenuous and unfair to qualified animal behaviourists: I know I certainly read the word "most" (animal behaviourists) as you pretty much tarring almost everyone with the one brush. It took you a fair old while to state anything positive about any behaviourist, or to qualify your own position after making a couple of sweeping statments.
I will also reiterate something that has already been pointed out in this thread: there is a growing number of animal behaviourists in Ireland who are more highly qualified in behaviour than any vet is in veterinary science. The second of the above quotes suggests that you don't believe that any behaviourist has a proper qualification or accreditation at all.
I think the tone of your past few posts has changed somewhat, presumably in light of the information you received following your sometimes inaccurate statements.

gozunda

DBB wrote: »

It's APDT: Association of Pet Dog Trainers.
As a rule, I don't think (but could be wrong) that it's not really appropriate to ask users here questions which can "out" our identities. That said, I think at this stage that regular users here know that I am indeed an APDT member, amongst other things. However, everything I described above about how the assessments are structured is freely available on the website and/or on the membership application form. It's no secret!

Typo - mucho apoligicto! as said the training thing appears to be appended from other posters. Ref APDT membership - good to know. Dont read every post but ethought you would mention this.

DBB wrote: »

Nobody has said they have a problem with a vet referring an owner on to a behaviourist... have they? I didn't read that into any posts, but maybe I missed something. I have no problem with any owner going to their vet if they feel their dog has a behavioural problem.. as long as the vet does refer them to a qualified behaviourist. Problem is, many vets don't, and instead take on to give out awful, dangerous, utterly unresearched advice, or send owners to some quack who left business cards at the reception desk but who the vet hasn't bothered checking out.
I can guarantee you that the vast majority of owners do not know that their vet has no behavioural training, and take their advice as gospel on the assumption that they must know what they're talking about... right? It's a pity that there are vets out there who don't mind owners having such misconceptions about their skills.
Vets and behaviourists can and should work closely together on behavioural cases, and indeed, for owners to claim for a behavioural consult from their pet insurance, they need to have been referred to the behaviourist by their vet.
For the record, both vets and qualified behaviourists are qualified to internationally recognised standards.
If I may say, I think you got the responses you got throughout this thread because what you said in some of your intial posts, e.g.

was refering back to your post hence reply. As said my Opinion is that I prefer to refer to my vet who knows my dog as a first point of reference. I believe this is good practice. The vet should be able to refer owners to specialists if required regarding any specific problem.. My posts are quite clear imo.

DBB wrote: »

Such statements are disingenuous and unfair to qualified animal behaviourists: I know I certainly read the word "most" (animal behaviourists) as you pretty much tarring almost everyone with the one brush. It took you a fair old while to state anything positive about any behaviourist, or to qualify your own position after making a couple of sweeping statments.
I will also reiterate something that has already been pointed out in this thread: there is a growing number of animal behaviourists in Ireland who are more highly qualified in behaviour than any vet is in veterinary science. The second of the above quotes suggests that you don't believe that any behaviourist has a proper qualification or accreditation at all.
I think the tone of your past few posts has changed somewhat, presumably in light of the information you received following your sometimes inaccurate statements.

Really? As said these are my opinions and experiences. Hence Caveat Emptor. I have read yours detailed above. I therefore dont offer qualification. Never said that there there are no properly qualified Behaviorist just that this area is yet to be nationally regulated and I maintain my stance ref my first post. Nothing inaccurate btw. If you misinterpreted any of the former then thats ok.

Anyway this is getting out of context and waaay off topic from OPs post so I will leave as is.

SingItOut

Zapperzy wrote: »

The nursing course I'm doing covers behaviour as a module for 6 weeks, I'm not sure of the contact hours each week or the level of detail it'l be covered in as it's not until next year but I certainly wouldn't feel capable or knowledgable enough to give behavioural advice to a client with a troubled dog.

Well certainly not if its only over a period of 6 weeks, There is alot more information to be known on behavior than I expected so trying to cram it all into 6 weeks is madness. We had it three/four times a week for the entire two years. I didn't go on to study nursing on its own as it's not what I wanted to do, I stuck with the A & P. Alot of people in that course went on to study nursing so there are a good few vets who have the knowledge