Decline in pet training standards?

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

Nowadays most people at least consider enrolling in a basic class at one of the big box stores. The dog may not learn much, true, because the owners rarely do their homework.

Dog behavior problems are on the upswing because dogs nowadays aren't well socialized and are seriously under-exercised, both mentally and physically. Not because they aren't trained. Their basic needs aren't being met. And people have incredibly unrealistic ideas about basic dog behavior.

 
I totally agree with you on this. I think that in the past there was less formal training than there is now. Today, you can find dog trainers everywhere and all kinds of training info on the web but people have less time and patience to follow through and be consistant.
 
My take on the OP's question:
 
do average pet owners need programs with strict measurable outcomes?
Yes and no. I think that a good trainer is one who asks each individual dog owner what they want to get by the end of the class. Then that trainer and owner work towards those goals together. "Strict measurable outcomes" may not be the same for every dog or person who attends that class.
 
What I do believe is helpful though is testing the dog and handler at the end of the class based on the outcomes they wanted to obtain. This gives the handler an idea of how much harder they need to work or how good they did over all.  For example, test leave it, heal, sit, etc. if that's what the owner and class was geared for.

 
 
 

ORIGINAL: PACleader

The dog trainers need to loose their righteous arrogant attitude and figure out the proper way to talk to their paying clients.

The way you talk only matters if someone actually listens.

I go above and beyond for my clients...and know lots of trainers that do as well.  What I can't conceive is why people are willing to pay me $100/hour to help them, and then disregard the advice that I give.  I have a feeling that this problem is going to continue until I have a magic wand to wave over every dog that walks in the door. 

DPU what would you suggest that trainers do as professionals to improve our client dogs' behavior?  I can demonstrate everything, give them clear and precise protocols, follow up with them through out the week to make sure they stay on track, write it down, correct thier mistakes, give loads of advice, tell a funny stories, sugar coat everything, explain the process scientifically, show a video, let them read my book, be direct and striaght foward, beat around the bush, train their dog for them, teach them how to clicker train, teach them how to e-collar train, do power point presentations, put together spreadsheets of daily training schedules, pray for them, the list is endless.....

I have tried it all.  In the 11 years I have been doing this professionaly I have seen about 8000 dogs come through my doors...the only thing that determines whether or not training goes well is if THE OWNER PUTS IN THE TIME. 

On average, these days, dog trainers are MUCH more educated than 40 years ago.  Judging by todays standards, everyone that trained dogs in the 60's was pretty much a quack.  It wasn't their fault, there wasn't musch research.  Did they produce better behaved dogs?  Normally Yes...but that doesn't make them better (more educated) dogs trainers.

Blaming dog trainers for the behavior problems of the dog world is liking blaming personal trainers for all the fat people.  Are their a ton of crappy personal trainers...YES...is that the reason there are so many ridiculously obese people...no way.  It is an issue of follow through.  (Outside of the 4% of the population with a medical issue).  The rest...well..they just don't follow through...they cheat on diets, slack off at the gym, watch to much TV, and eventually fall right back onto the track that caused them to be so fat in the first place.  If only the paid professional new how to talk to them...if only they weren't so arrogant, there would be a lot less people dieing from obesity everyday.  Blaming the trainers is an excuse.

The same thing applies to dog training...are there a ton of crap trainers...sure. Are they the reason for all the behavior problems...NO.  I can say with 100% certainty that if people would follow through with what they need to do...almost all of the dogs in training would be well behaved (outside of the roughly 4% with actual behavioal medical problems).  There is no shortage of information on how to properly raise a dog...you just have to actually follow through with it. 


People need to stop blaming their trainers and spend that time working with their dogs!

Ditto.  And, I would add, I spend a lot of time not just trying to motivate dogs (that's the easy part), but to motivate the humans.  I don't think that the dearth of adequately trained dogs comes from a relaxation of standards.  I think it comes from an attitude on the part of humans that says "I paid to take your class.  My dog should be trained."  Guess what, JQP?  I'm NOT your dog's trainer, I'm your instructor.  There's a huge difference between acting as an instructor and being the dog's trainer.  I could train a dog for someone, and it would behave.  Could they keep up the training at home?  Maybe, maybe not.  But, if I am successful at teaching someone how to train, they will do pretty well, and so will the dog.  That's why so many of my students have been able to progress and get a CGC, agility titles, or have therapy dogs.  The system works if you work it.  If you don't, it doesn't matter if you go to Hild or Dunbar themselves to take your puppy classes.

What I do believe is helpful though is testing the dog and handler at the end of the class based on the outcomes they wanted to obtain.

I'm not sure I agree with a "test".  People do not like to be humiliated if their dogs don't perform well.  Most pet owners are not all that competitive the way obedience people are, and I have found that a test is more likely to insure that quite a few people don't show up for week #6 if they haven't done their homework.  I'd rather have a "graduation" and inform them that they can continue if they haven't met all their goals yet.

ORIGINAL: PACleader

 

I asked why trainers don't do fostering and the response I got from a high end trainer was that they don't want these dogs in their homes. 

Just about every trainer I know does fostering...who is this high end trainer? 

 
If you are included then that is wonderful news and that helps me with understanding trainers' attitude in general.  I did have a conversation with a rep from HSUS who confirmed the opposite but had no stats to shore up the claim.  I hope you know a lot of trainers. 

ORIGINAL: TinaK
I thought about posting the link(s) (that our fellow iDogger game me), but I really didn't want this thread to continue the direction of whether or not he is right or wrong, rather - what are *your* opinions on this perceived decline. Might as well post the links now.

Thanks for going ahead and posting them, it hasn't interfered with opinions! []

Many of the training opportunities in basic obedience and beginning competition are not offered through private "professional" trainers.  They come from local dog clubs and typically taught by members who volunteer... Been there, done that for about 14 years.  I have had large classes and small classes.  I have had people stick it out and people drop like flies.  I have taken tough dogs and challenging folks.  Some make progress some don't.  I must do a fairly decent job because multiple people come back to take my classes with the same dogs or different dogs.
 
I do see, fewer people appear to be putting in the required practice time for their dogs to improve.  I see fewer people interested in competitive obedience although that has changed enough I will teach a competitive course twice during calendar year.
 
We no longer do a pass fail evaluation because feedback from students (written evaluations) said they hated them and the attendance on last night was abmismal.
 
I dont think fostering is a universal answer. 

What is the percentage of dog owners who test for good canine citizen? Is that certification required for certain events?

You can check out the numbers on the AKC website... It is required for some therapy dog programs.

Did they produce better behaved dogs? Normally Yes...but that doesn't make them better (more educated) dogs trainers.

I am trying to understand that... Do you mean that trainers were less educated than they are now, hence the results were - better behaved dogs, but not .... happy dogs?

Do you mean that trainers were less educated than they are now, hence the results were - better behaved dogs, but not .... happy dogs?

 
Yeah, that's basically what I'm saying....
 
If you train two dogs, over a 6 week period, assuming they are identical in behavior/ownership, the obedience results are normally better with traditional training. 
 
If I train Spot using the Kholer method (yank & crank) and Benji using R+, Spot is going to be better behaved, more obedient, faster.  Benji is going to be me more free-spirited, better adjusted, happier dog in the long run.
 
Take jumping up for example...back in the 60's you would have put a choke chain on the dog and ripped his head off everytime the dog jumped up...or aggresively slam the dog in the chest or head.  This certainly stopped the jumping...and sometimes in a matter of minutes.  Today problems like this are handled with R+ solutions that take longer (ie replacing the behavior), and people, more often than not, don't follow through with them.
 
The question you always have to ask is does the end justify the means....back then I don't think it normally did. And even if it does...does that make the means right?
 
There are no problems my dog has that I think warrant slamming him in the head...even if it would stop the jumping, nipping, etc, right a way.
 
 

I agree, and despite the quick results of those older methods, some dogs really got into trouble when the owners tried the same thing, and got bitten in retaliation.  You can punish some dogs into submission, but others will simply get more and more aggressive.
I think that even with traditional methods, people quit.  One reason is that they feel badly about punishing their dogs, yet they don't know that there are positive methods that can help them train in a kinder, if slower, manner.  And, frankly, with TV networks about thirty years behind the curve, they aren't getting the msg through the mass media as much as we'd like.

And, frankly, with TV networks about thirty years behind the curve, they aren't getting the msg through the mass media as much as we'd like.

I see the biggest impact is peoples willingness to spend the time.  "It can be done in 30 minutes on TV, why can't you do it in 30 minutes?"

That just kills me....I tell someone it's going to take about 4 weeks to resolve a problem and they look at me like it's an eternity....

---------------------------------------------------------------

I definately hear you on the violence of Kohler style training deterring a lot of people from really following through with it. I've talked to a number of people who were under the mistaken impression that that's the only way you can train a dog and for that reason, never trained their dog. They couldn't stomach it and so just decided they'd rather have an untrained dog than have to beat their dog up.

I also think that someone thing need to keep in mind is that once upon a time dogs were regarded as a lot more disposable than they are now (if that can be believed because many still consider them quite disposable). A dog who wasn't towing the line quickly with a Kohler style was a dog who simply got chucked outside to live in a pen, or taken back behind the shed, or taken "to a farm in the country". I think a lot of the questioning of newfangled methods comes from people who aren't remembering that back in the day a dog who couldn't be housetrained without crate training or a dog who snapped back when they were hanged on a choker was simply a dog who was gotten rid of--its not that these dogs didn't exist, it's just that they were disposed of much more quickly and with much less agonizing and fanfare than today.

ORIGINAL: PACleader

That just kills me....I tell someone it's going to take about 4 weeks to resolve a problem and they look at me like it's an eternity....

 
For me, no Behaviorist/Trainer has ever spelled out/planned out a time frame to change a behavior or train a dogin OB or agility.  The only way I do this is to compare the dog's progress to others in the class.  If the dog is ahead, I slack off, sitting on my laurels, if he's behind, I work harder.  If its a fact that to resolve a behavior should take 4 weeks, then that is what is-a fact.  To me that is valuable information.  Why not share that with the owner and leave the judgements behind.
 
I guess today is not the day we change our attitude toward JQP.

Houndlove, that is so true...
 
If training didn't work in a few weeks, the dog situation was taken care of....

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

I have to disagree with Dunbar. I think more dogs are actually receiving training nowadays than ever before. When I was a kid, no one even considering doing any kind of formal training.

 
I don't what timeframe you are talking about, but from the other posts, this was a good thing to do.  I am glad I was not involved in the dog world in 60's, 70's or early 80's.  I would also like to think I would not have followed the prevailing methods of the time.