# The elusive "professional" dog trainer



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> There's no such thing as a "professional" dog trainer. A four year old teaching her puppy how to sit is recognized as a dog trainer as much as a Cesar Milan. Therefore, there are no requirements on what a dog trainer is.
> 
> Regardless, as a dog trainer I'm not hiring you for what you can train your dogs, I'm hiring you to help train me and mine. Big difference.


CP
I understand your reply, a simple rule of thumb is that a professional anything is the step up from amateur anything to somebody that makes that actually makes money from the service. Whatever the service happens to be.

"Engaged in a profession or engaging in as a profession or means of livelihood"

I'm not getting into the multitudes of certification/licensing etc that I know you hope for in the future. Just stating that there are creatures known as professional dog trainers in this world, licensed or not.

Kearrow
I have stated this many times that there is only one way to learn dog training and that is to train as many dogs as possible. Licenses, certificates and all that entails is super and when you start actual hands on dog work you can let the different dogs to be trained read your certificates and go on from there.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> I'm not getting into the multitudes of certification/licensing etc that I know you hope for in the future. Just stating that there are creatures known as professional dog trainers in this world, licensed or not.


I never said the absence of the title "professional" does not allow us to differentiated between those who act professionally and those who do not. However, anyone who calls themselves a "professional" dog trainer is being misleading. This is a statement of fact, and not to be confused with a manifestation of today's ideal.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> I never said the absence of the title "professional" does not allow us to differentiated between those who act professionally and those who do not. However, anyone who calls themselves a "professional" dog trainer is being misleading. This is a statement of fact, and not to be confused with a manifestation of today's ideal.


I have to disagree. Anyone who makes a living training dogs has the right to call themselves a professional dog trainer IMO. This goes for everyone from those who train dogs to perform in movies to those who do basic dog training in their city.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> I have to disagree. Anyone who makes a living training dogs has the right to call themselves a professional dog trainer IMO. This goes for everyone from those who train dogs to perform in movies to those who do basic dog training in their city.


I don't see where you're disagreeing. I said exactly the same thing in my first post (4 year old v. CM). My point is "legally" there is no difference, and that comes with inherent problems. Seriously, who wants an uninsured CM wannabe training your dog and calling themselves "professional"? Not me. If you're too ignorant to know the difference you're vulnerable to their unprofessionalism. If it were legally defined, you would be afforded protections you don't have in place now.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> I don't see where you're disagreeing. I said exactly the same thing in my first post (4 year old v. CM). My point is "legally" there is no difference, and that comes with inherent problems. Seriously, who wants an uninsured CM wannabe training your dog and calling themselves "professional"? Not me. If you're too ignorant to know the difference you're vulnerable to their unprofessionalism. If it were legally defined, you would be afforded protections you don't have in place now.


I'm going to go with "The Miracle On 34th Street" movie where they bring all of Santa's letters in from the post office to prove the government recognized there was a Santa. On my tax returns for the last 45 years I have entered dog trainer as my occupation and the same government recognized me as actually being a dog trainer. (at least the IRS did)  State Farm has been my kennel and occupation insurance also for more years than I can remember. I can't believe I'm the only one who has been insured as a dog trainer. It was necessary as we would put on Protection dog exhibitions in different counties/towns and had to have a special insured for the day/exhibition rider for the days involved. CP these are facts. I also had insurance during bird dog training trips. This actually is a no-brainer if you are going to be in any business venture. While I do agree if I were going to have a dog trained by somebody, I would want them to be insured so I sure have no argument there. I'm just doing my usual dump info on DF so newbies can understand what a professional dog trainer should have.


----------



## rogueslg71 (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> I have to disagree. Anyone who makes a living training dogs has the right to call themselves a professional dog trainer IMO. This goes for everyone from those who train dogs to perform in movies to those who do basic dog training in their city.


i think that is what he is saying. the point is hes not stopping anyone from CALLING themselves "professional dog trainer", so you're right - anyone who trains dogs (or doesn't train dogs!) can call themselves that. the confusion comes in where people equate 'professional' with a lot of different things and in the field of 'dog training' there isn't any standard to regulate the use of the term 'professional dog trainer' yet. calling yourself a professional is kind of misleading since I could go out and call myself a professional dog trainer just because I have decided to train dogs for money and that title isnt regulated (unlike dr, md...)


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> On my tax returns for the last 45 years I have entered dog trainer as my occupation and the same government recognized me as actually being a dog trainer.


The government isn't concerned what title you use for your legal business...they only care about your taxes. 

Again, acting professionally and calling yourself one are two different things, especially in dogdom. As a licensed "professional" Engineer I can practice as an Engineer in my state, legally. A recent graduate from an accredited Engineering program can not, and they can not use the title "professional"...not until serving as an "apprenticeship" and not until testing as one. The same can not be said of dog professionals, so using such a title is misleading. Kinda like how many food companies plaster the word "natural" on their product and consumers are led to believe that title adds some intrinsic value. It usually does not, and titles certainly do not in differentiating dog trainers...at least not currently.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



rogueslg71 said:


> i think that is what he is saying. the point is hes not stopping anyone from CALLING themselves "professional dog trainer", so you're right - anyone who trains dogs (or doesn't train dogs!) can call themselves that. the confusion comes in where people equate 'professional' with a lot of different things and in the field of 'dog training' there isn't any standard to regulate the use of the term 'professional dog trainer' yet. calling yourself a professional is kind of misleading since I could go out and call myself a professional dog trainer just because I have decided to train dogs for money and that title isnt regulated (unlike dr, md...)


The same thing could be said for a lot of fields though. I would call myself a professional computer technician. I fix computers for a living. I have never, ever, ever had a client ask what kind of training and/or certifications I have that give me the right to that title. (I do hold several certifications BTW.) I've had plumbers do work for me and electricians as well and I've never really asked what licenses/certifications they have and to my knowledge it's not illegal for me to start calling myself a professional plumber tomorrow despite having little experience/training. Personally, if I hire a plumber, I want someone who can fix my sink regardless of whether they call themselves a plumber or a hydraulic technician. 

I, personally, apply the same thing to dog training. I couldn't care less myself if you call yourself a professional dog trainer, I want to see a dog that you have trained. If you show up with no dog, I'm going to be skeptical initially of your dog training skills. If you show up with a well trained dog to me that speaks volumes for your skill. Again, this is me. Everyone's going to be different.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> The same thing could be said for a lot of fields though.


The terms are more important to professions that serve public health and safety. I consider dog trainers in that group.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Well this is another stickler on semantics for me.

I think the term professional dog trainer is only misleading if one used it and could not train dogs. It's another one of those agree to disagree issues. 

Originally I was going to use the term professional poop-scooper but it just wasn't as catchy in a phrase. You know the "there's wvasko he sure is a good professional poop-scooper" it just doesn't have the right sound to it.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

How about "Certified Dog Trainer"? I think that sounds at least a little better lol. I think "Certified Animal Behaviorist" sounds even better.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Cheetah said:


> How about "Certified Dog Trainer"? I think that sounds at least a little better lol. I think "Certified Animal Behaviorist" sounds even better.


Oh! Oh!
Yes I got it
Certified Poop-Scooper.
Just kidding they had no such titles when I started dog training and when I talk to possible clients on phone, there are some that I recommend an animal behaviorist
to help them. 

A professional dog trainer should know his/her limitations.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Licensure, for most professions, exists primarily to protect the economic interests of licensees. I'm not some wild-eyed libertarian...not that there's anything wrong with that...and I believe that even though I personally benefit from such competition-limiting wall paper.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Marsh Muppet said:


> Licensure, for most professions, exists primarily to protect the economic interests of licensees.


Actually, I find the stories behind the fines levied against those in my profession amusing. I wouldn't read our quarterly newsletter otherwise.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> I never said the absence of the title "professional" does not allow us to differentiated between those who act professionally and those who do not. However, anyone who calls themselves a "professional" dog trainer is being misleading. This is a statement of fact, and not to be confused with a manifestation of today's ideal.


Actually, I have to disagree to an extent. The use of the word "professional" merely means you accept a fee payment in return for a service product. In some professions there is a requirement for licensure (such as Engineering, Land Surveying etc.). 

However, for those occupations with NO licensure requirement, the term "professional" may be used as an indication of money exchanged for services rendered. 

I am a professional photographer. It is not my only occupation (thank goodness or I would starve). However, I do photography in exchange for money and that makes me a professional. Do all "professional" photographers behave in a manner that is beoming to their profession? NO. Absolutely NOT. I would like to think many do, but in working thru photo forums and forums that hire photographers for jobs, there are a lot who do not behave in a manner becoming to their profession (which hurts all their professional colleagues). 

You can be a professional Automobile mechanic if you own a garage and repair Automobiles. You may be a credit to your profession. You may be ASE Certified (not required.. a private certification outfit). You may be ASE certified and a total loser and unable to fix anything... and yet, if you accept money for services, you are a "professional." Of course, if you don't get things fixed you will be out of business pretty quick. 

LICENSED Professionals is a whole 'nother ball game. Typically a license requires a combination of education, experience and testing to obtain a license. Some states require anyone accepting monetary exchange for certain services to be a licensed professional (beautician, pet groomer etc.). Some licensure processes are out there attempting to force a level of excellance in the profession. Other licensure processes are out there to limit the number of professionals to protect the income of those who have licenses already. 

"Professional Licensed Engineer" I think is an attempt to insure the person holding the license is qualified to do the work thru a combination of education, testing and experience (same with Licensed Professional Land Surveyor). However, having worked for many years in engineering designing bridges and highways, I ran into a lot of licensed PE's that I swear got their papers from a Cracker Jacks box.. (same with surveyors). I also was blessed to have worked under some extremely gifted Licensed PE's and Licensed LS's who gave me the love I have to this day for engineering (especially bridges). I was not licensed, but I did full designs which were reviewed and stamped by a Licensed PE (and the challenge was to hand in a design and drawings that got no 'red marks'  )

_Licensure in many professions is no insurance of professional behavior._ 

Now.. back to the original question: Do you need to own a dog to be a Professional dog Trainer? No. You don't need to own one. But, to help your credibility (and your bottom line) you probably need to have trained a dog (more than one) to some sort of title requiring a fairly stiff degree of work, training and time. This can be in a wide variety of dog related things from Dog Sports (such as Agility) to obedience to Herding.... 

If you are interested in retraining dogs that have been spoiled, then you need to references who are willing to support your abilities. IOW's if you are looking to train Joe's Dog who has No Recall, then you need to have trained a few dogs with poor recalls to recall reliably and when you talk to Joe, handing him those refs will help. 

Volunteering at a shelter may be a good way to get that reference thing going. Just some ideas.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Wow!
After reading elana's reply I have decided to drop the certified self-regulated poop-scooper's title. I am now going back to using my self-regulated professional dog trainer's Nom De Plume.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Don't get me going on Civil Engineers.


Elana55 said:


> However, for those occupations with NO licensure requirement, the term "professional" may be used as an indication of money exchanged for services rendered.


Not really. Again if my 6 year old cousin can call herself a professional dog trainer and wvasko can call himself a professional dog trainer, not only does money not need to exchange hands, the title has no meaning. When a dog trainer uses such a title they do so for the perceived value it has to the customer...it is a marketing gimmick. A licensed professional Civil Engineer uses such a title because it is the law. Big difference. 

But again, I view dog trainers as servants of public health and safety. I'm not concerned with a photographer's title, I'm not likely to get bitten by that person snapping a photo.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

I knew it, it was short lived, I'm back to certified poop-scooper. Wait a minute, I wonder if poop-scooping could be a profession? I don't care I'm gonna be a pro poop-scooper(certified don't make much money) Is your cousin making any money at dog training? If so I could use tips.

CP
I wonder why it is that if you are a professional trainer/handler you cannot enter dogs in an amateur stake/trial etc. You must enter dogs in open competition. That's probably the reason I called myself a professional because I was not allowed to compete in amateur stuff. I knew there had to be a reason. AKC uses the being paid for dog training made a person a professional. Are they silly or what.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

While you KNOW I typically don't engage CP by taking a contrary position I do on this one thing by definition (I really don't want to lock horns with you CP.. it is just that for many of the same reasons you find it unpalatable I have had to deal with this business of 'professionalism' and the results of work that is.. cough cough.. less than a credit to a profession... and I wish your definition was the ONLY one in the dictionary):

pro⋅fes⋅sion⋅al Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-fesh-uh-nl] Show IPA 
–adjective 
1. *following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain*: a professional builder. 

This is the FIRST definition of Professional (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Professional)

If your 6 year old cousin could collect money for dog training as an occupation or for gain (and people would pay him to do so) he could be a professional dog trainer _by definition._

Could he do it? Maybe. Younger children than this have been _professional_ actors. _By definition_. 

Miriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Professional) has this as the second definition of professional, but one can STILL call themselves a professional if they accept money for services as noted here:

1pro·fes·sion·al 
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈfesh-nəl, -ˈfe-shə-nəl\ 
Function: adjective 
Date: 1606 
1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b: engaged in one of the learned professions c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2 a: *participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>*3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>

Most people who train dogs do so for their own reasons and are amateurs by definition No paycheck). If they collect money to do this (and can get people to pay them) they can call themselve professionals _by definition_. 

While you personally may not consider them professionals, that is your choice. The Dictionary sees it a bit differently (and so do the courts.. but I really don't want to go there!). 

PS: My point is that while Dog Training or Photography are not Legally Licensed professions under law like Engineers, they can be professions nevertheless. 

[BTW in engineering I also do (part time) ME work under a licensed PE for the recertification of Steam Locomotives in passenger service. If I find errors I am required to recalculate and move on from there. It is precise and fascinating work. I am the last signature on the Form 4 for the FRA. ]


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Elana55 said:


> pro⋅fes⋅sion⋅al Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-fesh-uh-nl] Show IPA
> –adjective
> 1. *following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain*: a professional builder.
> 
> If your 6 year old cousin could collect money for dog training as an occupation or for gain (and people would pay him to do so) he could be a professional dog trainer _by definition._


Your definition says nothing about being paid money for a livelihood. You obviously don't know the livilihood and gain a cupcake has to a 6 year old. 

My point is simple, as a consumer it is my responsibility to identify the professionalism in a dog trainer. Therefore only my perception of a trainer's professionalism is what matters. What the trainer calls him or herself has no bearing on that. The current system is as such that this responsibility is solely mine - buyer beware, so beware of who uses the title "professional". The State determines who a Professional Engineer is, not the customer. Liability dictates this. 

My cousin Vinny who watched a few episodes of DW wants to train your dog, and he wants you to pay him for alpha rolling your dog. He'll put it on his business card that he is a "professional dog trainer". Legally he has the right to do so, but you and I both know anyone who's watched a few episodes of DW and wants to call himself a professional is not. 

Dictionary definitions are nice in supporting arguments, but when they do not exist or apply, legally, what value do they really have?

I have no problem calling wvasko a professional. But it's my perception we're speaking of, not wvasko's. In fact I'm wondering why he doesn't go the other end of the spectrum and use all the titles - master professional doggy extraordinaire has a nice ring to it.



wvasko said:


> I wonder why it is that if you are a professional trainer/handler you cannot enter dogs in an amateur stake/trial etc. You must enter dogs in open competition. That's probably the reason I called myself a professional because I was not allowed to compete in amateur stuff. I knew there had to be a reason. AKC uses the being paid for dog training made a person a professional. Are they silly or what.


The AKC is a private entity, not a public entity like your State. So, the AKC makes their own rules and use their own definitions. You're essentially asking why is it I can't play a few rounds at Agusta even though I can hit it pretty straight.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Well, I like to call myself the Holy Roman Emperor of Dog Trainers (oddly, nobody else does), but I am still an amateur. That's because the one time I contracted to work with a guy's dog, in exchange for legal tender, the bum stiffed me. C'est la vie.

In some states--such as one who's initials are "NY"--you might suffer stiffer penalties for competently cutting hair without a license, than you would as a consistently malpracticing physician.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Don't get me going on Civil Engineers.
> 
> Not really. Again if my 6 year old cousin can call herself a professional dog trainer and wvasko can call himself a professional dog trainer, not only does money not need to exchange hands, the title has no meaning. When a dog trainer uses such a title they do so for the perceived value it has to the customer...it is a marketing gimmick. A licensed professional Civil Engineer uses such a title because it is the law. Big difference.
> 
> But again, I view dog trainers as servants of public health and safety. I'm not concerned with a photographer's title, I'm not likely to get bitten by that person snapping a photo.


Any title is a marketing gimmick. Again, I call myself a professional computer tech. There is no regulating agency that states whether I can use that title or not. If you open the phone book and see an entry that says - "Hulkamaniac - Professional Computer Tech" It's a total marketing gimmick, but there's nothing wrong with it legally, morally or otherwise. You may call me before or after the next guy listed there, but in any case your main concern is whether I can actually fix your computer. I could list my various certifications after my name, but to the average person, they mean nothing. 

Doctors are something that requires licensure and lots of training. My doctor says he is licensed and board certified. Never have I actually called around to see if this is really the case or if he's making it up. I want good medical advice and good people skills when I visit him. 

To me if someone calls themselves a "professional dog trainer" my only concern is whether they can train my dog. Having your own dog that is trained is a big selling point to me. Having won various training related is a plus also, but if you can't train *my* dog I'm not interested. Again, this is just me and everyone is going to look for something different in a trainer.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> To me if someone calls themselves a "professional dog trainer" my only concern is whether they can train my dog.


And if they fail, or worse, ruin your dog, do you want this person using the title "professional" with their next costumer? Currently they legally can without repercussion. Liability remains with you, regardless of the trainer's training methodology. If there's no proof of physical harm, he'll get off free and clear to ruin another dog. 

If a Structural Engineer designs a building structure and it fails, guess who's liable. Certainly not the customer, as long as the customer has a contract assigning liability according to current laws. If the Engineer is found liable, he better have insurance, and he can have his title stripped.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

I just wanted to dumb everything down, my perception of professional was that I received payment. Dog training is what I do. hence professional dog trainer.

*master professional doggy extraordinaire has a nice ring to it.*

This is way to much especially since I have always considered myself just a good dog trainer. Definitely not extraordinary and master of nothing or nobody. I'm wondering, we have golf-pros, tennis-pros and I could go on and on with that list of assorted pros. The AKC recognizes dog-pros and I know there are all over the country pro-dog trainers. I hope that a professional dog trainer has not dumped on you to bias you on the subject. I know there are good dog trainers out there that are not C M wannabees who alpha roll at the drop of a hat or yanking dogs heads off their shoulders or frying them with assorted electrical toys. You seem to think that all professional dog trainers are like that. Yes when I hire a plumber or an engineer or ditch digger I have to be consumer conscious on all choices I make. I'm sure with the rash of crane collapses that have happened there could be some faulty engineering problems. Maybe yes, maybe no, but I would not want to throw all engineers in the toilet or rename their profession. I'm afraid to ask what you would call the good dog trainers that accept money for their work


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> I'm sure with the rash of crane collapses that have happened there could be some faulty engineering problems...but I would not want to throw all engineers in the toilet or rename their profession.


There would be no reason for that, the decision would not be yours to make. The certifying Board of Professional Engineers in your State makes the call whether an Engineer is or is not a Professional. There is no identifiable, certifying board for dog trainers, so yes, the title can be debated. 



> I'm afraid to ask what you would call the good dog trainers that accept money for their work


Well, those I've employed I consider friends, so I call them by their given name. Interestingly though, none of them advertised a title.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> And if they fail, or worse, ruin your dog, do you want this person using the title "professional" with their next costumer? Currently they legally can without repercussion. Liability remains with you, regardless of the trainer's training methodology. If there's no proof of physical harm, he'll get off free and clear to ruin another dog.
> 
> If a Structural Engineer designs a building structure and it fails, guess who's liable. Certainly not the customer, as long as the customer has a contract assigning liability according to current laws. If the Engineer is found liable, he better have insurance, and he can have his title stripped.


I don't see how liability remains with me. If I have a fearful dog and the trainer leaves me with an aggressive dog it's the same thing as if I had a leaky faucet and the plumber left me with a flooded bathroom. In either case I can civilly pursue the other guy. If he's found liable he owes me restitution. I just don't have a problem with people adding whatever titles they want before or after their names as long as they're legally entitled to those titles. There currently are not any legal restrictions on the title "professional" nor should there be IMO. I've run into people who claimed they were professional poker players. Turns out they actually made a living (somewhat) playing poker. To which I say, "more power to 'em."

I am curious though. If I make a living training dogs, own several dogs who have been titled in various AKC obedience and agility events and have a long string of successes in rehabilitating aggressive/fearful dogs as well as teaching puppies and other dogs basic manners and training (sit/stay/leash walking/etc...) what would you have me call myself if this is what I do for a living?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

CP
First off the decision/perception could be mine to make since I was not talking about throwing them in a legal toilet, just the in my mind (perception toilet.

*There would be no reason for that, the decision would not be yours to make. The certifying Board of Professional Engineers in your State makes the call whether an Engineer is or is not a Professional. There is no identifiable, certifying board for dog trainers, so yes, the title can be debated.*

I would definitely agree the title of professional dog trainer can be debated. Way back when I first started on DF I had a very strong opinion(and still do) on dog trainers that should not be allowed near a dog leash. But a few replies back you stated there was no such thing as a professional dog trainer and that was a fact.
My argument is that if you had said it was a fact that there was no such animal as a State/Gov licensed professional dog trainer I would have been in full agreement. I am like Hulk curious as to what you would call sombody who trains dogs. What do your friends who you have hired called themselves when advertising their skills.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> I don't see how liability remains with me. If I have a fearful dog and the trainer leaves me with an aggressive dog it's the same thing as if I had a leaky faucet and the plumber left me with a flooded bathroom.


Again, you're equating an occupation that is not involved with public health and safety, a plumber, with an occupation that is involved with public health and safety - the Mechanical Engineer who designed the plumbing system. There's no reason for a plumber to flood a bathroom, where it affects your health and safety, if the designing Engineer included a shut-off valve at the main. Absent in the plans and specifications, guess what? Your plumber ain't installing one...it's not his problem. Inclusive of one, and your plumber floods your bathroom, you have a crappy plumber, and yes, he is responsible for damaging your goods. 

However, if your "professional" dog trainer makes your dog aggressive, and his lawyer proves he used methods common among dog trainers, nope, you're SOL. Only if dog trainers had a well defined code, like those Engineers must adhere to, could a dog trainer be found liable for his methodology. Unless of course he has a crappy lawyer, or physically harmed the dog. 



> I am curious though. If I make a living training dogs, own several dogs who have been titled in various AKC obedience and agility events and have a long string of successes in rehabilitating aggressive/fearful dogs as well as teaching puppies and other dogs basic manners and training (sit/stay/leash walking/etc...) what would you have me call myself if this is what I do for a living?


If I don't know you, would you be offended if I called you a "dog trainer". Otherwise, why does it matter if such a title is not defined anywhere?



wvasko said:


> What do your friends who you have hired called themselves when advertising their skills.


Their reputation was their advertisement. They didn't have to call themselves anything.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Plumber's work certainly has a direct impact on public health and safety.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

aaaaAAAHHHH!
Here we are back to beating up all dog trainers. The dog trainer below is not much of a dog trainer, He has 2 brothers, one is a plumber that floods a lot of homes, the other is an engineer who's bridges keep falling down. They are both licensed/certified though so all is well.

*However, if your "professional" dog trainer makes your dog aggressive, and his lawyer proves he used methods common among dog trainers, nope, you're SOL. Only if dog trainers had a well defined code, like those Engineers must adhere to, could a dog trainer be found liable for his methodology. Unless of course he has a crappy lawyer, or physically harmed the dog.*

There is a well defined code among professional dog trainers (at least the competent ones) It's called the "When dog leaves me he is a better dog than when he was dropped off" code.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Actually, if you take money for training a dog and the dog bites someone AFTER the owner gets the dog back.. AND the attorney can link the bite with the trainer and the trainer has been paid money or given something of value (even a cupcake.. ), the court will, by definition consider the trainer a professional. 

And that can change the entire playing field for said dog trainer. 

If you are training dogs for money (or even taking photographs for money) you would be wise to have insurance. Living here in the great state of NY (land of the litigous and lawyers) you can find yourself in a liability suit as a professional photographer if one of your customers can get an "expert witness" (engineer?) to prove fault when your light stand falls over and damages Aunt Bettie's $100,000 antique Low boy Table..... (or worse, damages Aunt Betty who thought the Light Stand was a grab bar!).

...and Gosh help you if you are a professional plumber and you make a mistake and flood the bathroom and it wets the wires and your customer gets a shock.... (actually, in NY we have what are known as 'license' counties.. my county is a license county for all electrical work.. you have to use a licensed electrician to do anything short of changing a light bulb OR you have to apply for a home owners permit and if that is denied, you have to hire a licensed professional electrician.. and if you DON't Hire the electrician and there is no permit on file and your house burns down due to faulty wiring.. guess who the insurance won't pay. Meanwhile, the adjoining county is a license county for plumbers (not electricians).. and when the bathroom situation happened over there and a person died, the home owner was liable and the insurance would not pay). 

The point is if your State does not license a service and there is no requirement for a license for a service, and you take money for that service, you are a professional whether YOU call yourself that or not. Just louse up and get dragged into court... it is not pretty. 

Meanwhile, the world is one of "consumer beware" and whether or not there is a licensure procedure or standards (even the strict licensure standards for Engineers or Veterinarians or Doctors) for the service you are hiring, you need to check out the credentials and background and references of the person being hired. Just because someone can call themselves a professional either by license or gains received for services, is no guarantee they ARE professionals in a manner becoming their profession. 

Personally, I want to know the person is insured, has training, has experience that is verifiable and has references. Otherwise, you don't get to design my anything, fix my plumbing, my wiring or my dog...... 

Phew.. this is getting long. 

If you are paying in cupcakes CP, I will come and work for you. I will even let Elsa train me and I won't whine if you make me use A-Cad instead of Microstation.... just please go easy on the Positive punishments....


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Again, you're equating an occupation that is not involved with public health and safety, a plumber, with an occupation that is involved with public health and safety - the Mechanical Engineer who designed the plumbing system. There's no reason for a plumber to flood a bathroom, where it affects your health and safety, if the designing Engineer included a shut-off valve at the main. Absent in the plans and specifications, guess what? Your plumber ain't installing one...it's not his problem. Inclusive of one, and your plumber floods your bathroom, you have a crappy plumber, and yes, he is responsible for damaging your goods.
> 
> However, if your "professional" dog trainer makes your dog aggressive, and his lawyer proves he used methods common among dog trainers, nope, you're SOL. Only if dog trainers had a well defined code, like those Engineers must adhere to, could a dog trainer be found liable for his methodology. Unless of course he has a crappy lawyer, or physically harmed the dog.


I would argue that commonly accepted and used methods are not going to turn a fearful dog into an aggressive one. There are several dog training organizations that have laid out methods of training dogs. Unfortunately, unlike plumbing every dog is different. Fixing one leaky toilet is the same as fixing another leaky toilet, but dogs are all different. The similarity would be closer to medicine. Every person is a little different and may require different means and methods to cure them. Yet there are accepted procedures laid out by various medical organizations. There are organizations of dog trainers that function in similar fashion.



> If I don't know you, would you be offended if I called you a "dog trainer". Otherwise, why does it matter if such a title is not defined anywhere?


Because if I'm making a living training dogs then just having my name in the phone book under dog trainers won't get me as much notoriety as my name followed by "Professional dog trainer". Marketing ploy? Sure. But have you ever seen a plumber (who is required to have a license) advertise without "license plumber" or "professional plumber" or something similar after their name?



> Their reputation was their advertisement. They didn't have to call themselves anything.


That's great if you're doing just word of mouth advertising, but you won't reach a lot of brand new dog owners (the type who would typically consider hiring a trainer) that way. If I'm a new dog owner who is clueless and needs help, where am I going to find a trainer? My vet would be one place, the web would be another and the phone book would probably be my third option. Only one of them (the vet) relies on word of mouth and reputation.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Marsh Muppet said:


> Plumber's work certainly has a direct impact on public health and safety.


Is the main open or closed? If it is closed, his workmanship has zero impact on public health and safety. If it is open, why is he working with an open main? If there is no shut-off valve at the main, the designing Engineer is liable.



Elana55 said:


> Actually, if you take money for training a dog and the dog bites someone AFTER the owner gets the dog back.. AND the attorney can link the bite with the trainer and the trainer has been paid money or given something of value (even a cupcake.. ), the court will, by definition consider the trainer a professional.


And how does a court definition help me, the consumer? 



> And that can change the entire playing field for said dog trainer.


It changes what the penalties can be, but again, how does that help me, the consumer? 



> If you are training dogs for money (or even taking photographs for money) you would be wise to have insurance. Living here in the great state of NY (land of the litigous and lawyers) you can find yourself in a liability suit as a professional photographer if one of your customers can get an "expert witness" (engineer?) to prove fault when your light stand falls over and damages Aunt Bettie's $100,000 antique Low boy Table..... (or worse, damages Aunt Betty who thought the Light Stand was a grab bar!).


I don't think I've excluded the possibility of litigious society finding fault any any service, Engineering and dog training services included. But if you used bad light one day, who will tell you you can't take pictures again tomorrow for another client? The court? 



> ...and Gosh help you if you are a professional plumber and you make a mistake and flood the bathroom and it wets the wires and your customer gets a shock....


Where's the GFI? Why did it fail? 



> Meanwhile, the world is one of "consumer beware" and whether or not there is a licensure procedure or standards (even the strict licensure standards for Engineers or Veterinarians or Doctors) for the service you are hiring, you need to check out the credentials and background and references of the person being hired. Just because someone can call themselves a professional either by license or gains received for services, is no guarantee they ARE professionals in a manner becoming their profession.


Absolutely, and more to your point...


> I want to know the person is insured, has training, has experience that is verifiable and has references. Otherwise, you don't get to design my anything, fix my plumbing, my wiring or my dog......


Anyone can look to see if I am licensed professional engineer. No one can look to see if I am professional dog trainer, not even if I have a tax stub saying I am.



hulkamaniac said:


> I would argue that commonly accepted and used methods are not going to turn a fearful dog into an aggressive one.


You haven't met a lawyer have you. That's probably a good thing. An argument is only as good as your lawyer. 



> There are several dog training organizations that have laid out methods of training dogs. Unfortunately, unlike plumbing every dog is different. Fixing one leaky toilet is the same as fixing another leaky toilet, but dogs are all different.


I'm sure plumbers would beg to differ with you but have you ever been in a high rise where the upper floor toilets just don't flush like the lower floor toilets? Guess who's responsible for that? Not the installing plumber...the Engineer who designed the system. And yes there are means and methods which the Engineer must adhere to. The means and methods which a dog trainer can use are not dependent on the individuality of dogs. They are dependent on proof of effectiveness, which any dog trainer can record. The similarities are closer than you suggest, so yes, it's unfortunate dog trainers haven't organized their own code, to protect not only themselves, but you. 



> But have you ever seen a plumber (who is required to have a license) advertise without "license plumber" or "professional plumber" or something similar after their name?


A plumbing license is not required for public health and safety. The license is to help you, the consumer, define the contractor's competence. "Professional" is just an adjective for plumbers.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Well not exactly, anybody can look to see if you're a licensed engineer, the term professional may not apply. But it would with my perception because it just means you're getting paid. You're argument that you have to be licensed to be professional does not fly with me. Nobody has to look anywhere to see if the trainers are professional as they will have more references than the future client has time to call, or even word of mouth and the good reputations that your trainers/?/friends have. Wasn't sure what to call them. 

*Anyone can look to see if I am licensed professional engineer. No one can look to see if I am professional dog trainer, not even if I have a tax stub saying I am.*

*And if they fail, or worse, ruin your dog, do you want this person using the title "professional" with their next costumer? *

Does not the above also apply to engineers etc.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> "Professional" is just an adjective for plumbers.


Professional is an adjective for any field. It can be claimed by anyone who makes a living in a field regardless of whether they really are good or not. There are lots of people who are classified as "Professional Athletes" yet I would not call them professional in any sense other than that they earn a living in athletics. They have horrible attitudes, worth ethic, character, etc... Yet, in spite of that, I have no problem with them calling themselves "Professional Athletes." 

Are there people running around calling themselves professional dog trainers who are flat out incompetent? Yes there are. But there are people calling themselves professional physicians who are equally incompetent. It's the responsibility of the person hiring these people to figure out whether they're actually any good or not.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> Well not exactly, anybody can look to see if you're a licensed engineer, the term professional may not apply.


It absolutely does apply, it is legally defined. Remember a recent grad with an engineering degree can not put "P.E." on his business card (he can be fined by the State if he does). A mechanical contractor who's been working in the field for 50 years can't stamp a set of drawing saying he is a P.E.. I legally can. 



> But it would with my perception because it just means you're getting paid.


Having "P.E" on my business card does not indicate whether I've received income or not. It indicates that I'm certified by the Board of Professional Engineers to practice engineering in my state. Whether you value the Board of Professional Engineers or not doesn't matter to me or my State. 



> You're argument that you have to be licensed to be professional does not fly with me.


My argument is that the term is not defined for dog trainers. Whether you agree with me or not doesn't change this fact. 



> Nobody has to look anywhere to see if the trainers are professional as they will have more references than the future client has time to call, or even word of mouth and the good reputations that your trainers/?/friends have. Wasn't sure what to call them.


Again, in terms of public health and safety, the term "professional" is meant to distinguish liability. Apparently you need lawyers and court to determine the liability for a dog trainer. Good luck, I hope you have a good lawyer. 



> Does not the above also apply to engineers etc.


I'm not sure what you're asking. If an Engineer is found to be at fault it is reviewed by the Board. The Board can levy a monetary fine, or suspend the engineer's license. This is in addition to whatever a court may rule.



hulkamaniac said:


> Professional is an adjective for any field. It can be claimed by anyone who makes a living in a field regardless of whether they really are good or not.


Again, being an engineer and ACTING professionally, and being a PROFESSIONAL engineer are two different things. The acting professional can not legally use the title unless he's certified as one. So no, not everyone can claim the title. 



> There are lots of people who are classified as "Professional Athletes" yet I would not call them professional in any sense other than that they earn a living in athletics. They have horrible attitudes, worth ethic, character, etc... Yet, in spite of that, I have no problem with them calling themselves "Professional Athletes."


And when McNabb throws a pass to...jeez, do the Eagles have any receivers?...that effects my health and safety how? Ok, bad example if they are playing the Cowboys. Really though, it doesn't effect my health and safety so why should I care about the title? 



> Are there people running around calling themselves professional dog trainers who are flat out incompetent? Yes there are.


And these people DO affect public health and safety and anyone who may come in contact with the dog. 



> It's the responsibility of the person hiring these people to figure out whether they're actually any good or not.


Absolutely, except there is a Board who can strip a doctor's license away, should he be found incompetent. There is no such board for dog trainers. Your recourse is limited to a court ruling, not what the dog trainer's title is.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



> My argument is that the term is not defined for dog trainers. Whether you agree with me or not doesn't change this fact.


Ok the above is your fact, I for my sanity am going to stick with the bottom explanation as it was what I was pushing for in the 1st place. I believe I have as much right as anybody else to use the professional term. Why would you hope I have a good lawyer. If I did need one my insurance company would handle it, as a professional dog trainer I have always had insurance. Never had to use it but have always had it and I don't think that I am unique, I'm sure there are many insured dog trainers out in the world. (least I hope there are)



> Miriam Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Professional) has this as the second definition of professional, but one can STILL call themselves a professional if they accept money for services as noted here:
> 
> 1pro·fes·sion·al
> Pronunciation: \prə-ˈfesh-nəl, -ˈfe-shə-nəl\
> ...


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Is the main open or closed? If it is closed, his workmanship has zero impact on public health and safety. If it is open, why is he working with an open main? If there is no shut-off valve at the main, the designing Engineer is liable.


Replacing an existing dishwasher or hydronics heating system can cause waste water or treated, recirculated water to be siphoned into the potable water system. Neglect to install a proper check, anti-siphon loop, or air gap and you can make people sick. Every remodel and retrofit does not require an architect or engineer to be involved.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> Ok the above is your fact, I for my sanity am going to stick with the bottom explanation as it was what I was pushing for in the 1st place. I believe I have as much right as anybody else to use the professional term.


Wvasko there's a difference in me saying you can't use the term and me saying the term has no meaning for dog trainers. I never said you couldn't use the term, all I've said is that it would be misleading to do so. I've qualified that with fact - by using the title you're hoping I perceive such a title has some value. The fact is it has zero value. I don't really care if you use the title or not. When I call you for help I'll do so with knowledge that has nothing to do with what you call yourself. But I'll also do so knowing I assume all risk from your training. 



> Why would you hope I have a good lawyer. If I did need one my insurance company would handle it, as a professional dog trainer I have always had insurance.


If you're paying for insurance on what someone can sue you for, are you in fact Bill Gates? No one but he could afford such insurance. You're covered for x, y, and z, not everything, and only for x amount of dollars. Beyond that, I hope you have a good lawyer.


----------



## Marsh Muppet (Nov 29, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> What happened to the back-flow preventor?


That's a question the plumber would have to answer at deposition.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Marsh Muppet said:


> That's a question the plumber would have to answer at deposition.


Not the plumber. The designing Engineer. If the plumber is acting as the Engineer, I've stated already he can be held liable for the damages. He'll also live to plumb another day. If I, the engineer, is found liable, I may not be able to design a plumbing system again. That is the protection professional licensing affords the public.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



> Wvasko there's a difference in me saying you can't use the term and me saying the term has no meaning for dog trainers. I never said you couldn't use the term, all I've said is that it would be misleading to do so. I've qualified that with fact - by using the title you're hoping I perceive such a title has some value. The fact is it has zero value. I don't really care if you use the title or not. When I call you for help I'll do so with knowledge that has nothing to do with what you call yourself. But I'll also do so knowing I assume all risk from your training.


No, no, no, It is not misleading, If Webster states the making money and also acting professionally is proper, what is it that knocks a dog trainer out of that program. The P.E. on your cards does not mean you make money, that's fine. I actually don't have a title on my cards at all. In my case professional means making money and having a professional attitude is that hard to believe.



> If you're paying for insurance on what someone can sue you for, are you in fact Bill Gates? No one but he could afford such insurance. You're covered for x, y, and z, not everything, and only for x amount of dollars. Beyond that, I hope you have a good lawyer.


By those standards nobody has enough insurance. I insure against loss of dog, dogs are considered property and have a value and the insurance is as it should be for my business. Medical/liability is also setup as we think is needed. Over 45 years of work with 15 in the protection type work and have never used it for anything. Of course I think the best insurance is preventing problems and admit to being lucky as accidents can always happen. 

I do believe I am done now, as the OP is 3 yrs older since this thread started and is probably seeking another profession now.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> No, no, no, It is not misleading, If Webster states the making money and also acting professionally is proper, what is it that knocks a dog trainer out of that program.


Do you think for a second I'm going to reference Webster to qualify you as a dog trainer? Not even Webster tells me what a professional dog trainer is. Webster does a heck of job defining professional, dog, and trainer, but they have no application to what I'm speaking of. 



> I actually don't have a title on my cards at all. In my case professional means making money and having a professional attitude is that hard to believe.


Those are all good things wvasko, I trust you do conduct yourself professionally. Advertising yourself as one has no meaning to me. <insert dead horse here>


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> My argument is that the term is not defined for dog trainers. Whether you agree with me or not doesn't change this fact.


To which I say, "So what?" Just because a term is not legally defined does not mean it has no value. If someone claims to be a "professional dog trainer" to me that means more than if someone says, "Well, I know this guy over here who trains dogs." Just because there is no certifying body or legal definition doesn't mean the turn has no value.



> I'm not sure what you're asking. If an Engineer is found to be at fault it is reviewed by the Board. The Board can levy a monetary fine, or suspend the engineer's license. This is in addition to whatever a court may rule.


Why go back to engineers? You're talking apples and oranges here. Yeah, I have to be board certified to be a professional physician, but that doesn't stop me from being a professional mechanic with no certifications at all and even no formal training. And please don't tell me that if a mechanic jacks up the brakes on a bus that it doesn't pose a health and safety hazard. You're talking completely different fields.



> Again, being an engineer and ACTING professionally, and being a PROFESSIONAL engineer are two different things. The acting professional can not legally use the title unless he's certified as one. So no, not everyone can claim the title.


Again, you're talking engineering vs Dog training. Completely different things.



> And these people DO affect public health and safety and anyone who may come in contact with the dog.


So do dog owners but there is no licensure to become one.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> To which I say, "So what?" Just because a term is not legally defined does not mean it has no value.


Your State disagrees with you. Why else would they go the lengths they did to define it for Engineers? 



> Why go back to engineers?


Because the term *IS* defined for Engineers. 



> You're talking apples and oranges here.


Precisely. A definition of liability to the public vs. no definition of liability to the public. There shouldn't be a contrast, IMO.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Bah.

Licenses and stuff - what do they really prove? You passed a test or something to get it? It certainly doesn't guarantee any level of ability, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone bad at what they do having a license.

I certainly don't want to have to get a license to train my dog in public because the law says I need to have one due to "risk to health and human safety". I'm doing just fine without any law defining what I am, thank you. 

What would be a "real" definition of a "professional dog trainer"? Someone who trained a dog and paid for some test and passed it? What would be the difference between me training a dog to sit and someone who got a license to train a dog to sit? Why would I need a license to do that?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



KBLover said:


> Licenses and stuff - what do they really prove?


A profession engineering license is a claim by the State that I have the rights and privileges to practice as an engineer. They afford me these rights and privileges because I HAVE PROVEN some level of competence. 



> You passed a test or something to get it?


Not just a test. I passed an exam testing my knowledge prerequisite to an apprenticeship. After serving two years under a Professional Engineer, submitting references from other Professional Engineers, who could vouch for my work, I qualified to take a comprehensive exam testing both my knowledge in the application of my practice and conduct within my practice. 



> It certainly doesn't guarantee any level of ability, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone bad at what they do having a license.


It guarantees that I'm bound by law to follow the state and local codes. It also guarantees that the State can act to exclude me from practicing as an engineer when I've failed to protect the public's health and safety. You may not see the value in this but there is a reason why this system is in place. 



> I certainly don't want to have to get a license to train my dog in public because the law says I need to have one due to "risk to health and human safety". I'm doing just fine without any law defining what I am, thank you.


There are laws in place to prevent you from harming the public (leash laws, etc.). There are no laws (or codes) in place to prevent a dog trainer from ruining one dog and training the next. As a pet guardian it is assumed you are not teaching your dog sit to serve the public. How you train your dog is your business. How a trainer conducts his business, who's clients are the public, different story. 



> What would be a "real" definition of a "professional dog trainer"? Someone who trained a dog and paid for some test and passed it? What would be the difference between me training a dog to sit and someone who got a license to train a dog to sit? Why would I need a license to do that?


If we're modeling it after what an Engineer does, no, not just an exam - apprenticeship, and you'd need to pass a comprehensive exam from a certifying body. You wouldn't need a license to train a dog sit anymore than I need a license to calculate the air conditioning load of a commercial building. You'd need a license to ensure that I've demonstrated a knowledge in applying my calculations and that I'll conform to the latest codes. Codes and licenses are in place to protect you, the end user. There are codes in dog training too, dog trainers just like to argue about them for stupid reasons.

OT: Whoever left me this comment...


> Stop nitpicking. CHRIST! Are you offended that you'd be considered an amateur? Just back away from the keyboard and leave it be.


Please note that I'm answering questions and comments posed for my reply...and many of my replies were in response to you. No one if forcing you to read this thread, or to even agree with my comments. I've read nothing that would offend me, and I've said nothing that should offend anyone. If you have a problem with anything I've said have the gall to own your own comments.


----------



## TooneyDogs (Aug 6, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Craft guilds were formed back in the 13th century because anyone/everyone could hang out a shingle and proclaim they were a professional. The losses to the people and the kingdom were huge due to massive incompetence. The king (sorry, I don't remember who) declared that guilds would be formed, appenticeships would be required for all trades and only after learning certain skills could they hang out a shingle.
The unusual part of that guild organization was that painters were put into the same union/guild as physicians. Because of that association painters/artists hold a certain prestige in society even today.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that because there is no licensing/governing body in the dog training world that professional dog trainers therefore do not exist. The term "professional dog trainer" means nothing because there is no licensing or certifying body behind it. I could not disagree more. (If I misunderstand you, please correct me.)

If someone claims to be a professional I expect a certain level of service/expertise from them. This goes for whether they call themselves a professional plumber, a professional engineer, a professional manager, a professional accountant or a professional mechanic or anything in between. 

I'm a professional computer tech. I fix computers for a living and it's how I put food on my table. If you bring your computer to me you expect more than if you got the high school kid from next door to fix your computer. I am not a professional plumber. I know how to replace a sink and I've done it before. That being said, if you hire me to replace your sink be prepared to have water on your floor, swear words said in your house and a mess to clean up afterwards. You'll get your sink replaced, but it will take much, much longer than if you did call a professional plumber. Of course a professional plumber would charge you more than I would, but the job would be done better, nicer and you would expect a much higher level of service and expertise. That's what professional means. It means that you are promising a level of expertise, experience and service that is above the average person. Whether you can deliver that or not is another thing. You are simply promising it.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Was that supposed to say "Elusive" or is "Allusive" a word I haven't learned yet? >^^;<

*Is no longer in this debate lol*


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> If I understand your argument correctly you are saying that because there is no licensing/governing body in the dog training world that professional dog trainers therefore do not exist.


No, I'm saying the title does not exist. There are many dog trainers who are professionals at what they do. Confused? Title does not = professionalism. That's been stated many times and not just by me. 



> If someone claims to be a professional I expect a certain level of service/expertise from them.


What level? What service? What expertise? As a professional engineer you know I have at least 2 years working in the field under a professional. You know what services I can legally provide as defined by my State, with restriction. Expertise? There are very few people, if any, who could pass the PE exam off the street. The passing rate in my State is about 20%. 



> This goes for whether they call themselves a professional plumber, a professional engineer, a professional manager, a professional accountant or a professional mechanic or anything in between.


The State is only concerned with such titles where public health and safety are a concern. Otherwise you are free to call yourself whatever you want. That is a problem for dog trainers who want to distinguish themselves from your "average" dog trainer. 



> I'm a professional computer tech. I fix computers for a living and it's how I put food on my table. If you bring your computer to me you expect more than if you got the high school kid from next door to fix your computer.


If my computer is working we don't have an issue, do we? If you can't fix my computer, guess what? I'm not paying your for services that aren't rendered. I may pay you for your diagnosis, but if you can't even give me that...NO SOUP FOR YOU! 



> I am not a professional plumber. I know how to replace a sink and I've done it before. That being said, if you hire me to replace your sink be prepared to have water on your floor, swear words said in your house and a mess to clean up afterwards. You'll get your sink replaced, but it will take much, much longer than if you did call a professional plumber. Of course a professional plumber would charge you more than I would, but the job would be done better, nicer and you would expect a much higher level of service and expertise. That's what professional means.


That's your definition. How is your definition relevant to my definition of "professional" plumber? You're not a plumber, I'm not a plumber, how are we, non-plumbers, suppose to qualify the plumber's professionalism if there's no legal definition of what a "professional" plumber is? If there were a certifying body for plumbers, would that not tell us a level of professionalism the plumber accomplished? 



> It means that you are promising a level of expertise, experience and service that is above the average person. Whether you can deliver that or not is another thing. You are simply promising it.


Where is this promise written? I can show you the code of conduct a professional engineer must adhere to. The code is definite, clear, and can be referenced. The Board has this code available for your review. The promise you assume plumbers offer is perceived, on a disjointed continuum, and can not be verified in any one legal text, nor is it applicable to all "professional" plumbers.



Cheetah said:


> Was that supposed to say "Elusive" or is "Allusive" a word I haven't learned yet? >^^;<
> 
> *Is no longer in this debate lol*


Ya, you better run! 


Seriously, thank you.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

*Giggles* No problem! I play on words too much for my own good sometimes LOL.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

We have a woman here that is a "certified dog trainer" I can honestly say "I wouldn't let her train my stuffed animals." I think she got her certification on-line or something. She is horrid with dogs. I have watched her make some wonderful but fearful dogs into aggressive messes. I have watched her recommend dog be put to sleep for being a breed she doesn't personally care for. 

Which ever term is used, I think at the end of the day, it is how the person actually deals with the animal and the owner that matters. I know of a lot of "professional dog trainers" that might not have a certification or license but have more knowledge about dog training in their little toe then the woman who holds the certificate. Don't worry, I know that not all certified trainers are alike either. I do wish there was some type of regulation for dog trainers also. Hands on Experience, under the supervision of a skilled "professional" is really the best way. IMO


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Inga said:


> I do wish there was some type of regulation for dog trainers also. Hands on Experience, under the supervision of a skilled "professional" is really the best way. IMO


There is some movement towards this. How real that movement is or whether the public wants this profession regulated is a different story.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

I think when one thinks of a professional dog trainer one thinks of Cesar Milan or some other TV personality. My wish for regulation stems more from seeing people like Fred Hassen from "sit means sit" dog training. In my opinion that is "dog abusing" vs. training. People would argue that he is a professional and has managed to get rich on his training/abusing methods. He could argue that he has "trained hundreds of dogs" He could state he has "trained hundreds of people" He could also say that he has many happy customers (fools born every day) but in my opinion, that doesn't make him or his methods any less abusive. In my opinion, regulations should in some way dictate use of equipment and the training or education the "trainer" has to undergo to become a "professional trainer."


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Holy Moley
I went to sleep on another thread and woke up on here, I feel like Alice in wonderland. Who put me here, Who am I, Why am I? I'm so confused


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

The whole issue.. the bottom of the issue.. (sort of what Cheetah pointed out) is the English Language and what we do to insure that someone understands what meaning we are alluding to when we say a word. Some words (many in English) have several meanings.

Professional means money or gains for services rendered in its simplest form (#2 below). Accepting money for services rendered is what separates an amateur from a professional. If you have accepted money for showing a dog, you may be blocked from amateur competitions on various show circuits (as an example).

However, because there were people doing less than scrupulous work in various fields and that less than scrupulous work ended up costing others health or life or money, the use of the word professional was required to be tied to licensure or proof of some level of skills or ability and following codes both local, State and National (meaning #1, C(1) below). 

The problem is, the the word "professional" is also tied to the meaning of 1C(2) which indicates a specific type of ethical behavior. 

Now, in an ideal world, the word "professional" would always be tied to not only the business of getting money or gain for services but also tied to an ethical standard of behavior with or without lincensure or codes. Problem is, we are dealing with humanity and humanity has a less than stellar record of being consistantly ethical. 

Beyond that, while licensure with stringent requirements SHOULD insure a level of competancy as in the Engineering Professions (licensed) and Meidcal Professions (also licensed) it sadly does not. There are incompetant Licensed Professinal Engineers who practice for years doing less than acceptable work and they stay in business. There are also Doctors and Veterinarians who are licensed who practice and who are not terribly competant (no one here has EVER had a bad vet, right???). (The tests for getting licensure are typically pass fail.. so the student from the bottom of the class and the student at the top of the class can BOTH be licensed with vastly different levels of competancy and knowledge). 

In Engineering if a person passes in College, passes the first test for their PE (called the FE and it used to be the EIT) and then they work under a Licensed PE for a specified number of years and then they pass the PE test (now a multiple choice test.. don't even get me started on THAT), they can have a licesne to be an engineer... and in spite of all of that they may not be competant. Fact is, a very good engineer told me once that gaining your PE licesne means you are now at the start of your "real" education in the field.... I do not doubt him. I have heard dimilar comments from Vets and Doctors and, yes, 'professional' tractor trailer drivers.... 

In all of this the bottom line is that there are some professions which require licensure with education and apprenticship and testing, and there are profession with only testing and there are professions with no testing. It is up to the person doing the hiring to be astute enough to recognize incompetance through their own research. IOW's is the person who is listed in the Yellow Pages as a "professional Dog Trainer" truly a professional the way the person doing the hiring expects??

It is up to the person doing the hiring to recognize the multifaceted meaning of this single word with respect to the often very imperfect and difficult venue of the English language....

Websters definition of Professional below (adjective) for those who want to read it....

1 a: of, relating to, or characteristic of a profession b: engaged in one of the learned professions c (1): characterized by or conforming to the technical or ethical standards of a profession (2): exhibiting a courteous, conscientious, and generally businesslike manner in the workplace
2 a: participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs <a professional golfer> b: having a particular profession as a permanent career <a professional soldier> c: engaged in by persons receiving financial return <professional football>
3: following a line of conduct as though it were a profession <a professional patriot>

OK.. carry on!


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> No, I'm saying the title does not exist. There are many dog trainers who are professionals at what they do. Confused? Title does not = professionalism. That's been stated many times and not just by me.


Just because there's no certifying authority the title doesn't exist? An no, title doesn't = professionalism, but so what. 



> What level? What service? What expertise? As a professional engineer you know I have at least 2 years working in the field under a professional. You know what services I can legally provide as defined by my State, with restriction. Expertise? There are very few people, if any, who could pass the PE exam off the street. The passing rate in my State is about 20%.


A level of service and expertise above and beyond that of the average man off the street. I'm a layman. I know nothing about engineering. I have no clue what you as a "professional engineer" can legally provide to me. I expect that you can provide me more expertise than my next door neighbor. 



> Otherwise you are free to call yourself whatever you want. That is a problem for dog trainers who want to distinguish themselves from your "average" dog trainer.


You don't distinguish yourself from an average trainer with *just* a title. You distinguish yourself with your behavior, your knowledge and most of all your results.



> If my computer is working we don't have an issue, do we? If you can't fix my computer, guess what? I'm not paying your for services that aren't rendered. I may pay you for your diagnosis, but if you can't even give me that...NO SOUP FOR YOU!


Umm, if my dog has no problems I'm not going to consult a professional dog trainer so no, if your computer isn't broken you're not going to call me. Not sure what point you're trying to make.



> That's your definition. How is your definition relevant to my definition of "professional" plumber? You're not a plumber, I'm not a plumber, how are we, non-plumbers, suppose to qualify the plumber's professionalism if there's no legal definition of what a "professional" plumber is? If there were a certifying body for plumbers, would that not tell us a level of professionalism the plumber accomplished?


Actually there is a certifying body for plumbers, but that's beside the point. I am not a mechanic so you'd argue that I have no idea if a guy working on my car is a professional or not? I'm not a doctor so you think I have no clue if my doctor is competent or not? Come on. People aren't idiots. I can tell if someone knows what they're talking about or they're blowing smoke up my ass.



> Where is this promise written? I can show you the code of conduct a professional engineer must adhere to. The code is definite, clear, and can be referenced. The Board has this code available for your review. The promise you assume plumbers offer is perceived, on a disjointed continuum, and can not be verified in any one legal text, nor is it applicable to all "professional" plumbers.


And the average person has never read this code of conduct and never, ever will. To the average man on the street it is meaningless and claiming you are a professional engineer means no more to him than me claiming to be a professional computer tech or someone else claiming to be a professional dog trainer. To the average joe, all these claims are equally valid.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> And the average person has never read this code of conduct and never, ever will. To the average man on the street it is meaningless and claiming you are a professional engineer means no more to him than me claiming to be a professional computer tech or someone else claiming to be a professional dog trainer. To the average joe, all these claims are equally valid.


In each State the laws are different for Engineers, plumbers etc. 

CP is from Ca and there is a board and ethics rules. In NY there are "guidelines" which are suggestions and not rules and here is the link to their license requirements: http://www.op.nysed.gov/pelic.htm 

In North Carolina if you practice Engineering under Licensed PE's for 20 years and they will attest to that you can get your PE without taking a test. 

Now, the other interesting thing is reciprocity.. If you have your PE in one State, most other States will allow for reciprocity even tho obtaining licensure varies State by State.

So, ultimately, you still need to be a careful consumer when hiring a "professional" for anything.

Beyond that, do I think dog trainers should have to jump thru the hoops an engineer does to be allowed to train dogs for money? NO. Absolutely NOT. 

Who is going to enforce this if it is emplaced, why should I, as a taxpayer have to pay for the lcensure examinations and enforcement if it is and, ultimately, it seems there are more politicians happy to make laws than there are politicians willing to pay for enforcement. 

I, as an individual, believe humans need to take responsibility for their behaviors; be they good, bad or just plain stupid. I don't think we should litigate every thing nor regulate everything. It makes me tired to think about it. 

Pressing on!!!


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> Just because there's no certifying authority the title doesn't exist?


It exists in idea alone. Without a "legal" definition it has no "legal" use...for the 1,000th time. 



> I have no clue what you as a "professional engineer" can legally provide to me.


And that's a good thing because it means we aren't creating headlines that are important to you. 



> You don't distinguish yourself from an average trainer with *just* a title.


In Engineering, a title absolutely distinguishes me from someone without a title. It distinguishes my right to practice as an Engineer. You don't care about titles, so, what harm would it have to you if the State distinguished dog trainers? 

You want to build a home without permits...no one can stop you from doing that. If that home tumbles down guess who's responsible? Not the unlicensed engineer you perceived was a professional. He's in Cabo drinking margaritas on your dime. 



> Umm, if my dog has no problems I'm not going to consult a professional dog trainer so no, if your computer isn't broken you're not going to call me. Not sure what point you're trying to make.


I meant if my computer is working AFTER you've fixed it. I'd only bring you my computer if something were wrong with it, no? 



> Actually there is a certifying body for plumbers, but that's beside the point.


Actually, its not. There are certifying bodies for dog trainers too. Their significance is irrelevant to the public as they are not yet recognized by the State, nor have the authority to protect the public. 



> I am not a mechanic so you'd argue that I have no idea if a guy working on my car is a professional or not? I'm not a doctor so you think I have no clue if my doctor is competent or not? Come on. People aren't idiots. I can tell if someone knows what they're talking about or they're blowing smoke up my ass.


And yet the expression exits, _a sucker is born every minute_. Good, intelligent and wise people are hurt everyday by those who know how to cheat the system. Deny that if you will, every village needs one. But your State wants to protect you from the unscrupulous. 



> And the average person has never read this code of conduct and never, ever will. To the average man on the street it is meaningless and claiming you are a professional engineer means no more to him than me claiming to be a professional computer tech or someone else claiming to be a professional dog trainer. To the average joe, all these claims are equally valid.


The State doesn't care what the average person knows, thinks, or does. The State has already decided what your minimums will be, as it relates to public health and safety. These minimums are not meant to protect just your individual concerns, they are meant to protect everyone. It's not my fault the State doesn't recognize "professional" computer technicians and their impact on public health and safety like they do engineers. There must be a valid reason for them to do so with engineers, no?

Elena has mentioned a few times now the inadequate Engineers she's dealt with...they do exist. I receive an informative newsletter, quarterly from the Board. A section is dedicated to those who've violated the Code. This is public information, these Engineers are named, the incidence recorded, and any disciplinary action taken by the Board noted. A prudent consumer would verify a license with the Board. You say it's not important to you, it's there for you when you need it. 

What Elena says about the system is true...it does not eliminate the unscrupulous. No system really can. But the next time you drive over a bridge safely, thank an Engineer for your safe passage. The next time you take a shower with adequate water pressure, thank an Engineer. The next time you land safely in another state, thank an Engineer. I guarantee between you and Elena you'll have more to be thankful for than a few wayward Engineers in title alone.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

I think what irked me was that it was almost a touch of snobbery the word professional is excellent if used before an Engineer, a Doctor, a Lawyer so on and so forth. But not to be used before a dog trainer. I never thought that by using the word professional it would elevate all dog trainers to some lofty position in life beyond reproach. I just thought (and still do) it just meant that dog trainers got paid for the work they do. No more, no less.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> I never thought that by using the word professional it would elevate all dog trainers to some lofty position in life beyond reproach.


Of course you didn't think it would, you don't use the title, and haven't thought to use the title. And now it's snobbish? You didn't care before, why would you care now? 

If my cousin Vinny (the CM wannabe) moves next to you and takes away all your business, because he advertises that he is a "professional" dog trainer, what are you irked about now? Snobbery? Or your loss of livelihood?

BTW, no one said you can't use it. I've said it has no value or meaning.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Elana55 said:


> Beyond that, do I think dog trainers should have to jump thru the hoops an engineer does to be allowed to train dogs for money? NO. Absolutely NOT.
> 
> Who is going to enforce this if it is emplaced, why should I, as a taxpayer have to pay for the lcensure examinations and enforcement if it is and, ultimately, it seems there are more politicians happy to make laws than there are politicians willing to pay for enforcement.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% The nanny state is bad enough as it is. We don't need to make it worse by giving the state more things to regulate. It's a ridiculous idea. 

I'm also mildly offended by the argument that because I'm not a professional mechanic I can't judge someone's expertise on cars therefore I need the State to judge that for me. I'm offended by the idea that I'm some walking idiot who needs someone to protect me from myself.



wvasko said:


> I think what irked me was that it was almost a touch of snobbery the word professional is excellent if used before an Engineer, a Doctor, a Lawyer so on and so forth. But not to be used before a dog trainer. I never thought that by using the word professional it would elevate all dog trainers to some lofty position in life beyond reproach. I just thought (and still do) it just meant that dog trainers got paid for the work they do. No more, no less.


As I said before. If you put yourself out as a professional dog trainer I (speaking as a consumer here) expect you to have a level of expertise, knowledge and, more importantly, success rate than I who am a professed amateur. This is what professional means when it's in front of any title from dog trainer to factory worker to mechanic to airplane pilot. At least it is in my mind.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> I'm also mildly offended by the argument that because I'm not a professional mechanic I can't judge someone's expertise on cars therefore I need the State to judge that for me. I'm offended by the idea that I'm some walking idiot who needs someone to protect me from myself.


You certainly have a knack for misconstruing what I've said. I did not once say you couldn't judge someone's expertise. I did not once say you need to rely on the State to make that judgment for you. You have no reason to be offended by my arguments, when my arguments are statements of fact. 

What I did say it the the State is not concerned with your individual judgment where PUBLIC (that means everyone's) health and safety is a concern. What I did say is the State defines the minimum you must meet when the public's health and safety are a concern. If you are offended by that, and if you find this need unnecessary, your State disagrees with you.



Elana55 said:


> Who is going to enforce this if it is emplaced, why should I, as a taxpayer have to pay for the lcensure examinations and enforcement if it is and, ultimately, it seems there are more politicians happy to make laws than there are politicians willing to pay for enforcement.


Being that I paid for my exam, and assuming professional dog trainers would pay for their own, these costs don't impact taxpayers. Yet, as a taxpayer, you are already paying for the casualties of bad dog trainers...it's called your municipal shelter system. A license for a dog trainer would be in place to minimize your financial risk in this regard. It's all about money and it is assumed that qualified dog trainers pose less risk than non-qualified dog owners. It works for the structures built around you, in spite of politicians, I think it can work for dog trainers too.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> What I did say it the the State is not concerned with your individual judgment where PUBLIC (that means everyone's) health and safety is a concern. What I did say is the State defines the minimum you must meet when the public's health and safety are a concern. If you are offended by that, and if you find this need unnecessary, your State disagrees with you.


But dog training is *not* a public health and safety issue as far as the state is concerned. It's just not. If it were, then I would be required to meet certain guidelines and have certain training just to own a dog. If I didn't I would be punished, fined and possibly jailed. That's just not the case. It's not a crime to have an untrained dog and no license is required to train a dog. Nor should it.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

CP:
Having worked in the Practice of engineering and having designed bridges under the watchful eye of a good PE, I surely do understand and know of what you speak. I can share with you a few bridges that are safe and driven over that I designed and inspected during construction (design work checked/stamped by a PE; Inspection work signed and stamped by me). 

I am also thankful when I fire or photograph a steam locomotive that I have done the check on that does not explode.... and will be in service another 15 years reintroducing the young and uninitiated to the magical world of Steam Engines. 

We have a LOT to thank good engineers for. Someone had to design it someplace and some time.. be it the zipper on your jacket or the safety shut down on your oil boiler. I respect you now for both being a PE AND a great discussion leader of dog training methodology/learning theory. 

If some things had been just a little bit different by today I would have sat for my PE.. but life is a twisting stream and ya know.. all the stuff about the best laid plans of mice and men... Engineering is an honorable profession and the Engineers I hang with to this day are good folks.. and they ALL ride HARLEY's!!!!  Besides, engineers are the only ones who can you give a good discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of galvanized Re-rod vs. Epoxy re rod in concrete exposed to salts when your 3 sheets to the wind New Years eve? Lets not run those numbers again..... 

WVasko is correct tho.. in the face or no licensure he is a professional dog trainer because he accepts money for services rendered. The fact that he is a Dinosaur dog trainer and probably started training dogs before the invention of the wheel, and is still deriving a living from it to this day, says to me he must do more as a "professional"
than just take money for services rendered. 

In fact, considering his seniority here, they were probably still fording streams and using out houses when he started in this business... and the fact that he is still in business says to me that he can call him self the King of Dog Trainers and Grand Puba of Pooper Scoopers and it won't take a nick out of him being a professional. 

Is this horse good and dead yet? Oh wait.. he just flicked his tail.. maybe not...


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> BTW, no one said you can't use it. I've said it has no value or meaning.



Well, it might have no value or meaning to you Curb but I assure you many people find value and meaning in the simple word "professional."
Right or wrong much of the general public does see the word professional as "being better then Joe Blow"

I agree that the simple term adds nothing to the quality of "trainer" a person is or is not. That must be proved through ones actions and reputation. IMO



Elana55 said:


> CP:
> 
> 
> WVasko is correct tho.. in the face or no licensure he is a professional dog trainer because he accepts money for services rendered. The fact that he is a Dinosaur dog trainer and probably started training dogs before the invention of the wheel, and is still deriving a living from it to this day, says to me he must do more as a "professional"
> ...


LOL Yes, I agree. I love it. I am all for giving Wvasko the title of "Grand Puba" or any other title he wishes.  Longevity in business does say something to me.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Inga said:


> Well, it might have no value or meaning to you Curb but I assure you many people find value and meaning in the simple word "professional."
> Right or wrong much of the general public does see the word professional as "being better then Joe Blow"
> 
> I agree that the simple term adds nothing to the quality of "trainer" a person is or is not. That must be proved through ones actions and reputation. IMO
> ...


This is my point and put much more eloquently then I've been able to.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Being that I paid for my exam, and assuming professional dog trainers would pay for their own, these costs don't impact taxpayers. Yet, as a taxpayer, you are already paying for the casualties of bad dog trainers...it's called your municipal shelter system. A license for a dog trainer would be in place to minimize your financial risk in this regard. It's all about money and it is assumed that qualified dog trainers pose less risk than non-qualified dog owners. It works for the structures built around you, in spite of politicians, I think it can work for dog trainers too.


I would venture that most dogs in shelters are not there by virtue of bad professional trainers but are their by virtue or bad and unknowledgeable owners. Unless you are going to REQUIRE all dogs between the ages of 16 weeks and 8 months go to the fictitious (at this point anyway) licensed professional dog trainer, it won't matter who examines or pays for the exams. 

Joe and jane who want a puppy and know nothing but Lassie and the dogs in Homeward Bound are going to get a puppy and when the dog poops on the floor, chews on the furniture, snaps at kids, snarls at people and dogs on the end of its leash.. the dog will be relegated to the shelter. 

It isn't the dog trainer who puts most dogs in shelters.. it is people who should never have had a dog in the first place who do. Licesning dog trainers won't stop this.... 

The folks who over see licensing of engineers here in the Great State of NY get paid a wage with good benefits at the taxpayers expense and the license fees (as far as I know) only offset part of the expense of the licensing body. Now.. this is NY not CA and there is no requirement for license fees to entirely pay for the licensing and governing body.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> But dog training is *not* a public health and safety issue as far as the state is concerned. It's just not. If it were, then I would be required to meet certain guidelines and have certain training just to own a dog. If I didn't I would be punished, fined and possibly jailed. That's just not the case. It's not a crime to have an untrained dog and no license is required to train a dog. Nor should it.


Actually you are required by law to maintain the welfare of your pet, and if your training impedes upon the welfare of your pet, you can be fined, and jailed. However, it is assumed you keep a pet for your own gain, not the public's. Who do dog trainer's serve? Maybe the PUBLIC.

You are correct in stating that dog training is not currently a public health and safety concern. I'm glad you're finally understanding my argument...I've been saying this all along when I've said the term "professional" is not defined in dog training. If it were a concern it would be defined. 

My opinion, separate from the facts, is that it should be defined. It benefits you (the consuming public), it benefits wvasko (the professional dog trainer), and it dis-benefits my cousin Vinny.



Inga said:


> Well, it might have no value or meaning to you Curb but I assure you many people find value and meaning in the simple word "professional."


Yes, those who perceive it has some value. Kinda like the word "organic" on dog food labels. Consumers perceive that organic adds some nutritional value to the food...we've learned time and time again it does not. I would place a wager that if we looked into all the dog trainers who advertise the term "professional", time and time again we'd find such a title added no value. 

So if "much" of the general public do perceive it adds value, "much" of the public is wrong...I would wager. 



> I agree that the simple term adds nothing to the quality of "trainer" a person is or is not. That must be proved through ones actions and reputation. IMO


It would add value it there were a certifying body, as the trainers actions and reputation would need to be certified on some level prior...that's been my argument thus far.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Actually you are required by law to maintain the welfare of your pet, and if your training impedes upon the welfare of your pet, you can be fined, and jailed. However, it is assumed you keep a pet for your own gain, not the public's. Who do dog trainer's serve? Maybe the PUBLIC.


Legally, my dog is my property just as much as my car, my silverware or the clothes on my back are. A dog trainer serves me in the same sense that a mechanic working on my car or a dry cleaner washing my clothes serves me. All serve me at my leisure. I have the right to terminate their services at any point and they have the right to demand payment for services rendered. Me being required to maintain the welfare of my pet is no different than me being required to maintain my car or my house. My dog is just as much my property (legally speaking) as my car or house is. Dog trainers do not serve the public. They serve individuals. Whether they're training my dog to sit/stay because I am too ignorant or too apathetic to do so if they're training a service dog or they're training a border collie for an upcoming Lassie movie (you know they'll re-make it sooner or later they're doing everything else), the dog trainer is serving an individual, not the public.



Curbside Prophet said:


> It would add value it there were a certifying body, as the trainers actions and reputation would need to be certified on some level prior...that's been my argument thus far.


No it really wouldn't. I'm a computer tech as I stated earlier. I'm A+ certified. Chances are that means nothing to you as it's an industry certification and most people aren't familiar with certifications specific to individual industries. If I told you that Comptia is the certifying body does it mean more? Probably not as you've likely not heard of that company. I'm also an MCSE/MCSA. Mean something? Probably not to you. What if I told you it's a Microsoft certification? Does that make it mean more? Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard of Microsoft, but the average person on the street knows nothing about their certification process. Do they require rigorous tests and exercises? or do they simply issue a certification to anyone who sends them $100? 

My certifications add nothing to my value to the average person other than looking impressive after my name. They open doors to me inside the IT industry, but to the average person they mean nothing because the average person knows nothing about the certification process. You mentioned that you were a professional engineer certified by the state. That impresses me to the same extent as someone who's an ASE certified mechanic. I, as a layperson, have no idea what certification process is involved. There are some state licenses you can get by just sending them a check and others you have to test for. The certification process is unknown to me so the certification holds little meaning to me, the average Joe, other than that it sets you apart in my mind from those who don't hold those certifications. The same could be said (and I speak for myself here) for someone who proclaims to be a professional at something.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Elana55 said:


> Unless you are going to REQUIRE all dogs between the ages of 16 weeks and 8 months go to the fictitious (at this point anyway) licensed professional dog trainer, it won't matter who examines or pays for the exams.


Yes, I've argued for required training on the purchase of any dog. 



> Joe and jane who want a puppy and know nothing but Lassie and the dogs in Homeward Bound are going to get a puppy and when the dog poops on the floor, chews on the furniture, snaps at kids, snarls at people and dogs on the end of its leash.. the dog will be relegated to the shelter.


Yes, and had Joe and Jane taken their pup to a licensed professional dog trainer (in my Utopia) circumstances would likely be different, no? 



> It isn't the dog trainer who puts most dogs in shelters.. it is people who should never have had a dog in the first place who do. Licesning dog trainers won't stop this....


Not at all? I think we both know we can only go as far as opinion on this, I wholeheartedly disagree. If good dog trainers do a lot to keep dogs out of shelters, certainly they do influence shelter populations. 



> The folks who over see licensing of engineers here in the Great State of NY get paid a wage with good benefits at the taxpayers expense and the license fees (as far as I know) only offset part of the expense of the licensing body. Now.. this is NY not CA and there is no requirement for license fees to entirely pay for the licensing and governing body.


I'm not going to speak to what the people of NY vote for, but I trust that if the people of NY didn't find value in this system they wouldn't have it.



hulkamaniac said:


> Dog trainers do not serve the public.


You've just offended every dog trainer who acts as a professional. 



> They serve individuals.


And the public is composed of what? You aren't seriously using this as your argument. 



> No it really wouldn't.


Again, your State disagrees with you otherwise they wouldn't have such a system in place for Engineers. I trust the State over your opinion. 



> My certifications add nothing to my value to the average person other than looking impressive after my name.


Okay, you're confusing me. You've argued that the term "professional" adds value, and now you're arguing that your titles do not add value? And you're now arguing that such titles are meant to impress? Wasn't it my argument that the the term "professional" among dog trainers was meant to add some perceived value? If that perceived value is to just impress me, I don't see where the value is, are you agreeing it has no meaning for dog trainers?


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



> Of course you didn't think it would, you don't use the title, and haven't thought to use the title. And now it's snobbish? You didn't care before, why would you care now?


The answer is obvious, When somebody say that it is not a fact, it makes me care about something I've done most of my life. I think that's where you and I differ. You are calling it a title, I have never thought of it as a title but just an adjective before my job description of dog trainer.

Now Grand Puba, that's a title



> You have no reason to be offended by my arguments, when my arguments are statements of fact.


How come everything you write is absolute fact and other statements from learned members of DF are not facts up to and including descriptions of the word professional from Webster's dictionary.

I would surely hope nobody is being offended by any of this stuff as it's not going to solve any world problems and helps time pass pleasantly.



> If my cousin Vinny (the CM wannabe) moves next to you and takes away all your business, because he advertises that he is a "professional" dog trainer, what are you irked about now? Snobbery? Or your loss of livelihood?


Trust me through the years I have met and watched a few Cousin Vinny's come and go in the dog training business. They didn't last long, maybe the competition was too tough.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

I am just curious as to who the "governing body" would be that might regulate such training and or certifying of such professionals?

Heck it seems that people cannot decide or agree upon the simple things

* What methods of training are correct
* which training methods are humane and which are not
* Which methods are most effective either short of long term

Can you even imagine the discussions involved in trying to regulate something like that? LOL


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

my two cents...


so in anything....there are two things im looking for as verification...

a. references
I want to hear from others who have utilized the services of said "professional"(in any field) and have been satisfied that they have not only gotten their money's worth but have gotten more than their money's worth.

b. willingness to volunteer information and explain exactly what is going on.
I want to be able to say "Why did you do that?" and have said "professional" go into detail and tell me exactly why they did that.


a certification isn't going to show me that I will get that. so I couldn't care less about it.


I think of a professional in terms of their actual conduct. I will evaluate that conduct based on my criteria and if the person falls short then they will no longer receive my business. I see no better governing body than the consumer. if I receive exceptionally poor service I will inform EVERYONE I come across of said poor service. word of mouth is a powerful force in business and word will spread...

anyway..im done.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, I've argued for required training on the purchase of any dog.


Ridiculous. Shall we require training for anything that could potentially be dangerous?



> Yes, and had Joe and Jane taken their pup to a licensed professional dog trainer (in my Utopia) circumstances would likely be different, no?


Not the trainer's fault. Joe and Jane's fault.



> Not at all? I think we both know we can only go as far as opinion on this, I wholeheartedly disagree. If good dog trainers do a lot to keep dogs out of shelters, certainly they do influence shelter populations.


Not really because as pointed out earlier, the clueless dog owner who never should have a dog in the first place never even considers hiring a trainer.



> You've just offended every dog trainer who acts as a professional.


How so? By pointing out that they serve individuals and not the public?



> And the public is composed of what? You aren't seriously using this as your argument.


Now you're splitting hairs. By your argument every single person on the planet serves the public because they also serve individuals. If I fix someone's computer I'm serving an individual, not the general public. There's a big difference.



> Again, your State disagrees with you otherwise they wouldn't have such a system in place for Engineers. I trust the State over your opinion.


Given the State's track record that is far less than illustrious I trust the State as far as much as I trust an unsupervised 9 month old pup. Maybe a little less.



> Okay, you're confusing me. You've argued that the term "professional" adds value, and now you're arguing that your titles do not add value? And you're now arguing that such titles are meant to impress? Wasn't it my argument that the the term "professional" among dog trainers was meant to add some perceived value? If that perceived value is to just impress me, I don't see where the value is, are you agreeing it has no meaning for dog trainers?


My certifications add value within my field. Other computer people know what the certification process is like, therefore it adds value. They add little value to the average Joe who has no idea what the process is like. Perceived value is still value. Perception is reality whether we like it or not. A title that gives perceived value is just as good as one that gives real value in the eyes of John Q Public.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> How come everything you write is absolute fact and other statements from learned members of DF are not facts up to and including descriptions of the word professional from Webster's dictionary.


Simple, the dictionary definition doesn't suffice for the argument being posed.

When I typed in P.E. at dictionary.com one of the definitions was "Professional Engineer". When I typed in P.D.T. (Professional Dog Trainer) it asked me if I had made a mistake. I have to assume anyone using a dictionary definition in this argument is also making a mistake.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

This is why I wish there were some type of governing body for dog trainers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiohmGqNgK0

This in my opinion is cruel and not really as effective as the general public might think. This man is teaching "fetch" but the dog at not time actually fetches something. He at no point takes any item willingly. The dog is showing all kinds of stress signals yet the ignorant owners are just amazed at the "success" of this trainer and his abilities.

I don't know what it would take or if it is even possible but I wish there were regulations that would make training like this illegal.

That said, that man is a "professional dog trainer."


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> Shall we require training for anything that could potentially be dangerous?


That's a very good idea.



> Not really because as pointed out earlier, the clueless dog owner who never should have a dog in the first place never even considers hiring a trainer.


And if it were required upon the sale of the dog? Or are you now going to argue that education is not important to dog owners? 



> How so? By pointing out that they serve individuals and not the public?


No, by overlooking the obvious that the public is composed of individuals. 



> Now you're splitting hairs. By your argument every single person on the planet serves the public because they also serve individuals. If I fix someone's computer I'm serving an individual, not the general public. There's a big difference.


As I've stated numerous times, the hair I'm splitting is where the public's health and safety are a concern. Convince me how fixing a computer effects the public's health and safety and I might consider your argument. 



> Given the State's track record that is far less than illustrious I trust the State as far as much as I trust an unsupervised 9 month old pup. Maybe a little less.


Well, I hear there are other governments around the world you can choose from, if you're so disconcerted about your own, what are you doing to change it? 



> My certifications add value within my field. Other computer people know what the certification process is like, therefore it adds value. They add little value to the average Joe who has no idea what the process is like. Perceived value is still value. Perception is reality whether we like it or not. A title that gives perceived value is just as good as one that gives real value in the eyes of John Q Public.


You still haven't answered my question why the State would define "professional" for Engineers. Until you do that, I'm not likely to find a common reason with you.



Inga said:


> This in my opinion is cruel and not really as effective as the general public might think.
> 
> That said, that man is a "professional dog trainer."


Imagine Inga if Fred and trainers like him had to conduct his practice according to LIEBI.



Inga said:


> I am just curious as to who the "governing body" would be that might regulate such training and or certifying of such professionals?
> 
> Heck it seems that people cannot decide or agree upon the simple things
> 
> ...


IMO there really are no arguments, just those who like to argue. There is a science to dog training, its called learning theory. This would be the basis for the methodology. LIEBI defines how a trainer would arrange their tools ethically, and effectiveness can easily be quantified on observation of behavior. It's all there for dog trainers, the problem is organizing dog trainers to spell it out for everyone.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> That's a very good idea.


Ridiculous. The right to own property is a fundamental right in the Constitution. Restricting it except in the case of extremely dangerous items is ridiculous and may even be un-Constitutional. Name one common item that you have to have a permit just to own. I can't think of any. Yet there are many that are dangerous if used improperly the same way a dog is dangerous if not trained properly. 



> And if it were required upon the sale of the dog? Or are you now going to argue that education is not important to dog owners?


Yes education is important. I wouldn't dispute that. Requiring that education by law is preposterous and not enforceable in any way shape or form. Shall we have people going door to door quizzing dog owners? And then what shall we do with the backyard breeders who couldn't care less if their clients are "licensed dog owners". What of shelters? Adoption rates would plummet if you were required to take a class that you had to pay for just to adopt a dog and shelters would quickly become crowded and kill rates would rise. It's an impractical proposition at best.



> No, by overlooking the obvious that the public is composed of individuals.


So what. So anyone who provides any service to an individual should be regulated by the government because they're serving the public? That's ridiculous. There is a huge gigantic difference between providing service to an individual and providing service to the general public. A police officer protects the general public, not individuals (and courts have held up this distinction.) A bodyguard provides a similar service but protects an individual, not the general public. There's a big difference.



> As I've stated numerous times, the hair I'm splitting is where the public's health and safety are a concern. Convince me how fixing a computer effects the public's health and safety and I might consider your argument.


Fine, say I'm a mechanic and I'm fixing your brakes. If I jack them up they put your health, your safety and the health and safety of every single person on the road in jeopardy. Still if I fix your brakes on your car, I'm not doing so for the benefit of the general public. I'm doing so for the benefit of you the individual.



> You still haven't answered my question why the State would define "professional" for Engineers. Until you do that, I'm not likely to find a common reason with you.


Apples to Oranges again. You're arguing that because the state chose to put "professional" in front of engineer (instead of Dr. for instance or CPA) that it holds no meaning or value for other professions. That's a completely false argument. If someone claims to be a Professional (fill in the blank) in the eyes of the public that holds more value than if someone claims to be an amateur (fill in the blank). It may hold no value to you, but you would be in the minority.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, I've argued for required training on the purchase of any dog.



Well, if that were the case, I'd not be enjoying the company of Wally and learned what I do know.

So, needless to say, I'm more than happy this doesn't exist. Not to mention since Wally "really needed a good home" according to my mother's friend, he might still be in a worse situation.

Doesn't prove anything anyway. You can go through training and still be a crappy dog owner. You can never own a dog in your life and be wonderful and learn from the mistakes you do make.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> Ridiculous. The right to own property is a fundamental right in the Constitution. Restricting it except in the case of extremely dangerous items is ridiculous and may even be un-Constitutional. Name one common item that you have to have a permit just to own. I can't think of any. Yet there are many that are dangerous if used improperly the same way a dog is dangerous if not trained properly.


I thought we were talking about education. The ownership argument doesn't follow. 



> Yes education is important. I wouldn't dispute that. Requiring that education by law is preposterous and not enforceable in any way shape or form.


Oooookay, I knew I should have dropped out at kindergarten. 



> Shall we have people going door to door quizzing dog owners? And then what shall we do with the backyard breeders who couldn't care less if their clients are "licensed dog owners". What of shelters? Adoption rates would plummet if you were required to take a class that you had to pay for just to adopt a dog and shelters would quickly become crowded and kill rates would rise. It's an impractical proposition at best.


Ahhh, your problem with my proposal is that you can't think of a solution. That doesn't sound like an argument. Greater tasks have been solved. I have a few ideas but I don't trust you're seriously arguing here. 



> So what. So anyone who provides any service to an individual should be regulated by the government because they're serving the public? That's ridiculous.


Yes it's ridiculous that you haven't grasped the concept that our government must protect public health and safety. 



> Apples to Oranges again. You're arguing that because the state chose to put "professional" in front of engineer (instead of Dr. for instance or CPA) that it holds no meaning or value for other professions.


No, my argument is, has been, and will be, there was a need to distinguish engineers. There's no need to distinguish computer technicians FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. Therefore the title is needless for computer technicians. 



> That's a completely false argument. If someone claims to be a Professional (fill in the blank) in the eyes of the public that holds more value than if someone claims to be an amateur (fill in the blank). It may hold no value to you, but you would be in the minority.


Fine, my name is ****, I am professional computer technician. What words in that sentence have any value to you other than you think I am a ****?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, and had Joe and Jane taken their pup to a licensed professional dog trainer (in my Utopia) circumstances would likely be different, no?
> 
> Not at all? I think we both know we can only go as far as opinion on this, I wholeheartedly disagree. If good dog trainers do a lot to keep dogs out of shelters, certainly they do influence shelter populations.


Missed the rest of this...

I don't think it's neccessarily going to keep them out of shelters. Jane and Joe would have to apply what they learned. If they are too lazy, don't have time, etc, etc, - the BEST training in the world won't work. Unless the dog can train herself...

As far as trainers = dogs not in shelters, I don't think that's true either. Or if it does, good trainer doesn't need to equal pass a test and be an apprentice. It could equal someone with knowledge of how dogs learn, the love of the animals, and someone willing to put the time in to help the dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



KBLover said:


> Well, if that were the case, I'd not be enjoying the company of Wally and learned what I do know.
> 
> So, needless to say, I'm more than happy this doesn't exist.


If I can save you time and heartache by giving you the tools you need to raise a well mannered dog, how would this diminish the enjoyment of your dog? Why do we bother encouraging new puppy owners to enroll in puppy schools? 



> Doesn't prove anything anyway. You can go through training and still be a crappy dog owner. You can never own a dog in your life and be wonderful and learn from the mistakes you do make.


This is really bizarre. I can't believe people are questioning the need for education. I must be on another planet, because the planet I'm on, education is thought to be important.



KBLover said:


> Missed the rest of this...
> 
> I don't think it's neccessarily going to keep them out of shelters. Jane and Joe would have to apply what they learned. If they are too lazy, don't have time, etc, etc, - the BEST training in the world won't work. Unless the dog can train herself...


It's interesting the we seem to only think of the problems and not of solutions. Very much reminiscent of common dog training now...punish before teaching an alternate behavior. So I somewhat understand the difficulty in grasping the possibilities. But what about those that do apply it, when they wouldn't have before, is this not a benefit to someone? 



> As far as trainers = dogs not in shelters, I don't think that's true either. Or if it does, good trainer doesn't need to equal pass a test and be an apprentice. It could equal someone with knowledge of how dogs learn, the love of the animals, and someone willing to put the time in to help the dog.


Ethics are a part of every profession. Testing and apprenticeship would not exclude required ethics.


----------



## dogwoman (Oct 3, 2008)

I actually went to school for a year to become a dog trainer! but anyone can hang a sign and say they are!!! I pride myself on knowing What technique to use as it is such a matter on the dogs personality. Then again I use only positive and there are trainers that tell me I am crazy!!!! Whatever? I know my dogs and the dogs I train are happy to work for me.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> If I can save you time and heartache by giving you the tools you need to raise a well mannered dog, how would this diminish the enjoyment of your dog? Why do we bother encouraging new puppy owners to enroll in puppy schools?


Because if your proposed requirement was in effect at the time I could have gotten Wally, I'd not have him because I'd not have been through the required classes and he'd be in whatever situation that brought him here with the issues I'm still dealing with. 

If it's in effect NOW - then, well, no - it has no impact on me.

Though, if I read your idea right - those new puppy owners wouldn't be owners yet, no? They'd have to go through the school/classes first, pass them, and THEN they can go get their pup?




Curbside Prophet said:


> This is really bizarre. I can't believe people are questioning the need for education. I must be on another planet, because the planet I'm on, education is thought to be important.


Education is important - but you can know lots of things and not apply them. I mean, people are indeed required to be educated in this country - but it hasn't eliminated stupidity, laziness, and just plain lacking common sense.

I mean, my mother sees it all the time as a school teacher. Teachers are certainly required to go through a lot of testing and such - but there's still crappy ones and good ones. Does that mean requiring education to be a teacher is bad? Of course not - but requiring more doesn't mean the bad ones will get better or that it will create more good ones.

It just seems presented that education can make all the problems go away. I would love that, but I don't think that's reality.




Curbside Prophet said:


> It's interesting the we seem to only think of the problems and not of solutions. Very much reminiscent of common dog training now...punish before teaching an alternate behavior. So I somewhat understand the difficulty in grasping the possibilities. But what about those that do apply it, when they wouldn't have before, is this not a benefit to someone?


Sure, it is. But it's presented as if well - we teach Jane and Joe what to do and instantly, they'll go turn their dog into a solid canine citizen. If that does happen, it's a benefit of course, an example to others, and they could go on even further in the dog world, but the other possibility is that Jane and Joe (or say Frank and Sally) could go there "because it's required" or go and not understand much of it and not apply it (or do so wrongly), or get it, like it, do it...for a week, and then slack, etc.

There's a chance for either scenario to occur - you could say I only see the problems - I could say you only see the best scenario. Neither is true. I see both scenarios - I just wonder which is really most likely to occur, and if the best scenario and those similar would occur more often than the worst scenario and those similar.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Oh Heavens, I am all for educating the public in how to properly care for and train a dog. I just can't imagine us getting to that point when we have not even required people learn how to properly care for and educate a child.

As much as I am FOR educating potential dog trainers I am so afraid to support "regulating" of anything dog related. Note, my favorite breed of dog is being "regulated" in many areas already. Soon those regulations will keep me from owning my favorite breed. I am a little jumpy about that.

I do understand what Curbside is saying, mostly. (at least I think I do) and in large part I agree. I just have had some horrid experiences with the "certified" trainer and can't easily let that go.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



KBLover said:


> Though, if I read your idea right - those new puppy owners wouldn't be owners yet, no? They'd have to go through the school/classes first, pass them, and THEN they can go get their pup?


The way I see it working best is if it were required for a sale to be complete. I didn't make this idea up myself. I know reputable breeders who require all their puppy guardians attend a specific training class as a term of their contract. If it's a good idea to a reputable breeders its a good idea to me. This is just an idea, the logistics can be worked out by those most concerned in dog guardianship. 



> Education is important - but you can know lots of things and not apply them. I mean, people are indeed required to be educated in this country - but it hasn't eliminated stupidity, laziness, and just plain lacking common sense.


There is no perfect system...I'm only suggesting an alternative to status quo. 



> I mean, my mother sees it all the time as a school teacher. Teachers are certainly required to go through a lot of testing and such - but there's still crappy ones and good ones. Does that mean requiring education to be a teacher is bad? Of course not - but requiring more doesn't mean the bad ones will get better or that it will create more good ones.


The problem in education is the system is set up on seniority. We don't have to introduce that problem with dog trainers. 



> It just seems presented that education can make all the problems go away. I would love that, but I don't think that's reality.


Ok, this is my Utopia, but I didn't mean to imply it was perfect or that it would solve all problems in dogdom. My opinion is if dog trainers were regarded as a profession, that does effect public safety, the tax burden to maintain municipal shelters would be less. Again my premise is education is what's needed. 



> ...but the other possibility is that Jane and Joe (or say Frank and Sally) could go there "because it's required" or go and not understand much of it and not apply it (or do so wrongly), or get it, like it, do it...for a week, and then slack, etc.


So if you get a driver's license, and you have an accident, the instructor who passed you is at fault? A measure of your competence doesn't exclude your liability. A measure of your competence very much defines your liability. This is why my competence as an Engineer is measured. If education is important, I want you to be educated by someone who is tested to be competent as an instructor. I don't want you to be educated by my cousin Vinny. 



> There's a chance for either scenario to occur - you could say I only see the problems - I could say you only see the best scenario. Neither is true. I see both scenarios - I just wonder which is really most likely to occur, and if the best scenario and those similar would occur more often than the worst scenario and those similar.


Yet systems like the one I've proposed work, and work very well for those it is intended for. Sure possibilities are endless, however, just because it is challenge, is not a good enough reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. 



Inga said:


> Oh Heavens, I am all for educating the public in how to properly care for and train a dog. I just can't imagine us getting to that point when we have not even required people learn how to properly care for and educate a child.


You haven't seen my posts on the child care forum have you?  Seriously though, and be honest, which do you perceive effects your safety more...people and their dogs, or people and their children? I run into parents and kids all the time, I have to admit I'm more worried about people and their dogs. 



> As much as I am FOR educating potential dog trainers I am so afraid to support "regulating" of anything dog related. Note, my favorite breed of dog is being "regulated" in many areas already. Soon those regulations will keep me from owning my favorite breed. I am a little jumpy about that.


And I see my proposal supporting the ideal, _don't blame the breed, blame the deed. _



> I just have had some horrid experiences with the "certified" trainer and can't easily let that go.


How would you feel about that experience if you had a Board you could report that trainer to?


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> I thought we were talking about education. The ownership argument doesn't follow.


Umm, you said a dog education class should be required to own a dog. Thus, you're restricting ownership of a dog to those who take said class.



> Oooookay, I knew I should have dropped out at kindergarten.


You're completely misconstruing my argument. Were we not talking about the government requiring a class of some sort to own a dog? Or are you saying that a dog ownership class should be required of anyone going through a government school? I'm completely confused here.



> Ahhh, your problem with my proposal is that you can't think of a solution. That doesn't sound like an argument. Greater tasks have been solved. I have a few ideas but I don't trust you're seriously arguing here.


No, my problem with your proposal is that it makes for tons of problems that we currently don't have while solving very few problems.



> Yes it's ridiculous that you haven't grasped the concept that our government must protect public health and safety.


Clearly I'm wrong here. Anyone who does anything at all that can remotely affect public safety should be licensed. If I fix a computer for a private individual, no licensure would be required. If I fix a computer that goes in a police officers car, I should have a license for that. If I fix a computer a doctor uses to access patient records, a license should be required for that too. Obviously pulling up the wrong records or being unable to pull up a record could cause health issues to say the least. If I fix that same doctor's computer at home, then it's no big deal and no license is needed. Let's use some common sense here. A building that is shoddily designed and built is a huge safety hazard. An untrained dog just isn't. I'd argue that the majority of dogs in America aren't trained, but don't pose a threat to public safety either.



> No, my argument is, has been, and will be, there was a need to distinguish engineers. There's no need to distinguish computer technicians FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. Therefore the title is needless for computer technicians.


As a computer tech, I don't see the title as needless. I see the title of professional computer tech as a way to set myself apart from the high school kid next door who happens to know more about computers than his grandma who owns a broken one she needs fixed. I have more experience, more training (formal and informal) and more expertise in computing. I make a living fixing computers and keeping them running. I am better at fixing computers than the high school kid therefore I am a professional and he is an amateur. While you may see the title of professional as meaningless to you, the kids grandma (and the general public for that matter) does not. They see it as a way to distinguish levels of knowledge and ability. Whether I actually possess said knowledge and ability is another question. By putting professional in front of my job title, I'm claiming that I do. 



> Fine, my name is ****, I am professional computer technician. What words in that sentence have any value to you other than you think I am a ****?


The fact that you claim to be a professional in my eyes means you have more expertise than the average guy on the street. I had a client bring in a computer that was running slow. She'd scanned it for spyware with every tool she could find, defragmented the hard drive, ran disk cleanup and all the other stuff the average amateur computer nerd recommends. Then she brought it to me. Why? Because I am a professional computer tech therefore she expects that I will be able to fix a problem that the amateurs could not. Doesn't mean that the amateurs are bad people. Like I said, you wouldn't want to hire me to fix your sink. It just means that they don't have the knowledge and experience that I do because they're not professionals, nor do they claim to be.



Inga said:


> Oh Heavens, I am all for educating the public in how to properly care for and train a dog. I just can't imagine us getting to that point when we have not even required people learn how to properly care for and educate a child.


Now if we want to license people to have a kid, I could get on board with that. Talk about a health and safety hazard. That's another thread though.



dogwoman said:


> I actually went to school for a year to become a dog trainer! but anyone can hang a sign and say they are!!! I pride myself on knowing What technique to use as it is such a matter on the dogs personality. Then again I use only positive and there are trainers that tell me I am crazy!!!! Whatever? I know my dogs and the dogs I train are happy to work for me.


That's the thing with dog training. Different techniques work with different dogs and different situations. You can't point at one technique and say, "This is the right technique all the time." For every Cesar Milan (who does get results with his techniques) there's a Victoria Stilwell (who also gets results with her techniques).


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> You haven't seen my posts on the child care forum have you?  Seriously though, and be honest, which do you perceive effects your safety more...people and their dogs, or people and their children? I run into parents and kids all the time, I have to admit I'm more worried about people and their dogs.
> Since I work with children and have seen first hand the downside of uneducated parenting, I would argue that point with you. Those ignorant parents might not be so much a risk to others but they definitely are to their own children and in some cases other peoples children.
> 
> And I see my proposal supporting the ideal, _don't blame the breed, blame the deed. _
> ...


Hey, I am practically a nun and I wanted to take that woman out back and beat her with a yardstick. That is the part of me that DOES like some regulation. I am just not wanting to give up all freedoms. I know you can't really pick and chose but.... In my dream, I can.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



hulkamaniac said:


> Umm, you said a dog education class should be required to own a dog. Thus, you're restricting ownership of a dog to those who take said class.


No, I'm not restricting anything. I'm giving you a choice. Only if you choose not to take a class is your ownership restricted. But I didn't make that choice now did I. Now you've said it, you can purchase a dog as you would a vehicle. Do you drive that vehicle off the lot without a license and insurance? Do these prevent you from buying a car? 



> You're completely misconstruing my argument. Were we not talking about the government requiring a class of some sort to own a dog? Or are you saying that a dog ownership class should be required of anyone going through a government school? I'm completely confused here.


You said it was ridiculous to mandate education. My implication was that k-12 is current law. It's not ridiculous, it's the law. 



> No, my problem with your proposal is that it makes for tons of problems that we currently don't have while solving very few problems.


That's your opinion, systems like the one I've proposed work at protecting the public's safety. 



> Clearly I'm wrong here. Anyone who does anything at all that can remotely affect public safety should be licensed.


Your State agrees. 



> If I fix a computer that goes in a police officers car, I should have a license for that. If I fix a computer a doctor uses to access patient records, a license should be required for that too. Obviously pulling up the wrong records or being unable to pull up a record could cause health issues to say the least. If I fix that same doctor's computer at home, then it's no big deal and no license is needed.


I have no problem requiring that you should have a license for this if the State deems it necessary for public safety. Currently they do not. 



> Let's use some common sense here.


Please, I've been waiting. 



> An untrained dog just isn't.


Do you have leash laws? Do you have to surrender your dog if it bites someone? If so, your municipality disagrees with you. 



> I'd argue that the majority of dogs in America aren't trained, but don't pose a threat to public safety either.


I argue that the majority of dogs aren't trained, and there's no way to not view this as a threat to public safety. 



> As a computer tech, I don't see the title as needless. I see the title of professional computer tech as a way to set myself apart from the high school kid next door who happens to know more about computers than his grandma who owns a broken one she needs fixed. I have more experience, more training (formal and informal) and more expertise in computing.


My gf couldn't log into the wireless network in my home last night. I pushed a few buttons and she had the internet. She paid me with a kiss. I thought it was an overpayment, but I'm a greedy SOB so I took it. I'm now a professional computer tech, and you can't tell me I'm not. Guess what though, if you made the same claim about my profession, you can be fined for impersonating an Engineer. I didn't make the rules, I'm just stating them. If you don't like the rules, it's not my fault. But if you want to continue arguing the rules, you're need to take your argument above me. I can't help you.

I have just one more thing to say to you hulkamaniac, Randy Macho Man Savage is way better.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> No, I'm not restricting anything. I'm giving you a choice. Only if you choose not to take a class is your ownership restricted. But I didn't make that choice now did I. Now you've said it, you can purchase a dog as you would a vehicle. Do you drive that vehicle off the lot without a license and insurance? Do these prevent you from buying a car?


Actually, you can own a vehicle without ever having a license. You're not required to take any sort of course to own a car, just to operate one. I can purchase a car and hire someone to drive it for me. If I want, I can pay that guy enough to have him hassle with insuring it. In either case, I'm not legally required to have a license or insurance as long as I don't operate the car. 



> You said it was ridiculous to mandate education. My implication was that k-12 is current law. It's not ridiculous, it's the law.


No, I said it was ridiculous to mandate education for dog ownership. I didn't make myself clear enough.



> That's your opinion, systems like the one I've proposed work at protecting the public's safety.


Again, the public's safety isn't threatened by dogs that don't know how to sit, stay or walk on a leash.



> Your State agrees.


Perhaps I need to put [/sarcasm] at the end of my sentences sometimes.



> I have no problem requiring that you should have a license for this if the State deems it necessary for public safety. Currently they do not.


Currently the almighty and all-knowing State doesn't require licenses for all public safety jobs. I spent 6 years as a 911 dispatcher. Taking 911 calls and sending ambulances, fire trucks and police to the appropriate locations is definitely under the umbrella of public safety. There is no state required education course for 911 dispatchers. Not in my state and not in any other state that I know of. There are a number of other jobs that are plainly and clearly public safety jobs that require no license or certification.
Please, I've been waiting. 



> Do you have leash laws? Do you have to surrender your dog if it bites someone? If so, your municipality disagrees with you.


I have to surrender my dog if it bites someone regardless of why it bites someone. If someone is attacking me and my dog bites them, I have to surrender my dog the same as if it attacked someone unprovoked. If someone is teasing my dog and it bites someone I still have to surrender it. If someone tries to cut my dog with a knife and the dog bites him, I have to surrender my dog. Requiring training doesn't fix the problem. I would not want to train my dog to sit quietly if I'm being attacked. I would not be interested in training my dog to endure all manner of teasing and cruelty either. Or would you require said training of all dogs as part of the training course.



> I argue that the majority of dogs aren't trained, and there's no way to not view this as a threat to public safety.


And I disagree. I adopted a 10 year old basset hound recently who was not crate trained, jumps on people, howls non-stop, has no leash manners whatsoever and doesn't even know how to sit. He is housetrained, but that's about it. I don't see this hound as a threat to public safety in any way shape or form. He's clearly untrained, but also not even remotely a threat. My neighbors chihuahua is vicious. He's bitten my shoe before and will charge across his yard and into mine to bark/growl at me. Is he a threat to public safety? No. He's far to small to do any real harm to anyone.



> My gf couldn't log into the wireless network in my home last night. I pushed a few buttons and she had the internet. She paid me with a kiss. I thought it was an overpayment, but I'm a greedy SOB so I took it. I'm now a professional computer tech, and you can't tell me I'm not. Guess what though, if you made the same claim about my profession, you can be fined for impersonating an Engineer. I didn't make the rules, I'm just stating them. If you don't like the rules, it's not my fault. But if you want to continue arguing the rules, you're need to take your argument above me. I can't help you.


If you want to call yourself a professional computer tech that is fine with me. I have no problems with it. Just be prepared to give a higher level of support than your next door neighbor does. If someone calls you because they're getting a VB scripting error when accessing Remote Web Workplace, they will expect you to know the answer because you're presenting yourself as a professional. Putting professional in front of your title raises people's expectations of you.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

CP
I like the pro-con repartee that you bring to all the word fisticuffs on DF, I will never agree to haphazardly allowing State government to regulate everything there is to regulate so they can protect us. I happen to think that's one of the big problems we have now, if somebody farts we have complaints that state issued gas-masks aren't distributed immediately. Our state is working on the 3rd governor, the great unwashed public(me included)just can't get anything right when we vote these crooked rascals in office. I don't need anymore state oriented anything in my life, up to and including the permission to use the word professional in front of any title. In fact if it was a state requirement to have the word professional such as P.E. all kinds of bells and whistles would go off. I would immediately seek help elsewhere. In reality dog trainers are so far down on the totem pole of importance they are not even entering into the state oriented anything.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

The sky doesn't fall when government is involved, and IMO knee jerkers should be ignored on both sides of the isle. I don't know how a DOG FORUM would not be an appropriate place to discuss the idea of making dog training a distinguished profession. It may not be important to you, but as you said yourself, you've likely trained more dogs than you've left to train. I can't say the same, and if I'm ever to call myself a professional dog trainer it won't be until there is a certifying body to tell me I can. Until then it remains to have zero meaning. You should be offended your profession hasn't sought distinguishment. You shouldn't be offended by me pointing that out. Just saying, "we aren't ending the world's problems" here.


----------



## hulkamaniac (Feb 11, 2009)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> The sky doesn't fall when government is involved, and IMO knee jerkers should be ignored on both sides of the isle. I don't know how a DOG FORUM would not be an appropriate place to discuss the idea of making dog training a distinguished profession. It may not be important to you, but as you said yourself, you've likely trained more dogs than you've left to train. I can't say the same, and if I'm ever to call myself a professional dog trainer it won't be until there is a certifying body to tell me I can. Until then it remains to have zero meaning. You should be offended your profession hasn't sought distinguishment. You shouldn't be offended by me pointing that out. Just saying, "we aren't ending the world's problems" here.


So in your mind the mark of distinguishment is that the State certifies a term? To me that's ridiculous. And to say a term has zero meaning until the State certifies it is equally ridiculous and completely false to boot. It may be illegal for me to call myself a medical doctor, but I can call myself a computer doctor, a tree doctor, a lawn doctor, a pipe doctor, a rug doctor, a spin doctor, a love doctor or virtually any other kind of doctor and it's perfectly legal. Not only is it legal, but in the eyes of the public, I become an "expert" in that field just by using the title. I'd hardly say that's meaningless.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Why would you think I should be offended, I would just rather expend my time and energy on things I can change. Quite frankly I don't even think my state has enough time and energy to accomplish that even if I was inclined to have them do it. As you stated I have trained many more dogs than I have dogs left to train, that puts us decades apart in life and dog experience. If becoming a professional dog trainer is a true goal in your life. I am already there and don't need the state to qualify me as such. You would have a problem.



> You should be offended your profession hasn't sought distinguishment. You shouldn't be offended by me pointing that out. Just saying, "we aren't ending the world's problems" here.


I would hope by now that I don't get offended by your replies would be apparent, while I may not always agree with you, you are straight forward and polite and intelligent. I can respect that even though sometimes we are polar opposites.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



wvasko said:


> I can respect that even though sometimes we are polar opposites.


Well then this is all I have to say to my contrarians.


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Well if you think after getting my butt through here with no discernible wounds I'm going to watch a debate. I don't think so, as already discussed I don't got that much time to waste. I got to get on to a new fight. As you get older that live to fight another day takes on a whole new meaning.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Than you missed an amusing punchline, and they say humor benefits life.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm not going to speak to what the people of NY vote for, but I trust that if the people of NY didn't find value in this system they wouldn't have it.


Oh no.. I wish the voters had a say.. but this is all run by the HUGE and WASTEFUL beauracracy of the Education Department... where they believe that to fix the lack of ability of American Children to compete on an educational level all you have to do is toss money at the problem. And boy oh boy do they toss it.. a lot of it and it is MY MONEY. 

Yes.. it is good they have standards for a person to have a PE in NY.. but honestly the license fees do not even begin to offset the cost (in the accounting). And BTW I am not just talking engineer's licesning. 

Just trust me on this. I really DO know. 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I see no better governing body than the consumer.


I really LIKE this statement for a LOT of reasons. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Than you missed an amusing punchline, and they say humor benefits life.


BAAAWAAA WAAAAAAA I am at home on dial up and I CAN'T watch that video......


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*



Elana55 said:


> BAAAWAAA WAAAAAAA I am at home on dial up and I CAN'T watch that video......


Here's a synopsis. Tyson takes 2 minutes to tell Dawkins he may be too much of an intellect and too barded to be an effective teacher. Dawkins' rebuttal is an anecdote. The editor of New Scientist was asked, what was his philosophy for New Scientist. His response...our philosophy is this; science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can f*** off.


----------



## Elana55 (Jan 7, 2008)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Ha! As good a philosophy as any! Thanks! 

I don't know what it is doing out on the West Coast this AM but here where I am the sun is coming up and a song Sparrow has decided to take up residence outside my window in the lilac tree. He is singing to his little hearts content (OK.. telling other song sparrows this place is his.. but it is a pretty song anyhow). 

It is going to be a fine day and for those who celebrate it, Happy Easter! 

Make your own Utopia for a few hours today and ENJOY! I personally am going to be a "_professional _Utopia Creator" on this fine spring day! 

Fact is, I think I am going to call myself the GRAND PUBA of Utopia for a few hours!!! I even have a Fez I can wear....


----------



## wvasko (Dec 15, 2007)

*Re: Question: Is It A Requirement to own Your own Dog when You Wish to be a Dog Train*

Boy I'll say one thing these "Grand Puba" titles They are bestowed and taken back at the drop of a hat. Either that or they are a dime a dozen. Oh wait, Grand Puba of Utopia is a total different realm than mine. Now since I'm so sensitive I got to think about the Tyson/Dawkins thing, it doesn't look good since I know I'm not the intellect of the group.

Not a big deal though as we also are promised sun and good stuff this Easter Day. Ditto on the Utopia/Easter day.


----------

