For those that have used behaviourists...

This is for a piece of work I am doing, so would appreciate any input.

What skills/qualifications would you look for when hiring a behaviourist? does experience trump qualifications, or would you not consider someone unless they had a higher (Masters, etc.) in behaviour?

What about personal attributes? what would put you off in terms of personality - if they were too hands on, in your face, blunt, etc., would you look elsewhere or do you prefer the direct approach?

Anything else you add about your experiences with behaviourists (good and bad!) would be really appreciated. Even if you have never used a behaviourist, please comment anyway on what you would look for. As I say, it is for a report for Uni.

Woops, I forgot to say, if you are a behaviourist (I'm sure there are some on here ) please comment, too!

Well years ago whilst working at the RSPCA we took on a ex fighting Staffie, which came with issues....as you can imagin.
Anyway I used David Appleby for a number of reasons, one he has numerous years ecperience under his belt. Two he wasn't in my face or judgemental of how I needed training or the dog.
His approach was extremely calming and non- panick, which when my blood pressure went up meant his didn't, he was reassuring and therefore I felt more confident to handle our boy and less intimidated when finding myself in unsure situations.....ie another dog loose running towards us (panick comes to mind).

He also used his own GSD giving situations of his dog walking passed, and as his dog was so well trained, again this filled me with the confidence I needed.

As for the cost (not sure if that is of importance) he charged me £34 per hour (mind you we're talking alsmost 20 years ago) and I have to say he actually worked with us and we stopped ''Stafford'' from wanting to fight, he came on in leaps and I owned him for 7 years afterwards, without any problems.

Don't know if that helps, but his experience was a factor

Thanks, that does help. Keep it coming, please!

Well ideally someone with some qualifications combined with a proven track record.

But if it was a pure choice between qualifications or track record I would chose track record every time.

NB I say track record or 'proven results' rather than experience because someone can have years of experience but have been unsuccessful during the whole of that time.

Can't offer specific experience as I've never used one myself but obviously work quite closely with our one at the Blue Cross (who is amazing) and have looked into it before when Woody was very little.

I would expect, over everything else, to see passion in their eyes about what they're are doing. If it is "just another case" to them then I would look for someone else. I don't want to be made to feel special or patronised but I do want to see that they mean and "feel" what they're trying to achieve.

Hope that helps abit.

It will be really interesting to see what replies you get on this one. I see peeps for dog training and behaviour and the behaviour work esp. for me is counselling - you have to be calm, empathic, non judgemental and lots of other things like that, even when you may not feel calm (eg the day my client with her dog aggressive working cocker got surrounded by 3 very large dogs not known to us and the owner with no control).

On tv you see peeps getting embarrassed and yelled at and more or less told they are complete idiots. IMo most would run a mile and demand their money back, although being honest AND tactful, if done well, can be a good way to do things.



Wys
x

I used one two years ago when I got Daisy, who had issues I hadn`t encountered before (people aggressive).
I looked for qualifications and method first then it descended to the level of who I could actually get to help, then picking the best. Most behaviourists, I found, don`t deal with people-aggressive dogs (insurance? Experience?)
Of those who would actually consider coming out, I chose the company headed by people with qualifications and experience stated on their website.
They sent a lady out, who was calm and suggested some approaches, and gave me confidence to continue. However after the 2nd session it was fairly obvious (to me) that we had come to the end of her ideas and I stopped the sessions. One of the most helpful things was talking through the dog`s behaviour and thinking about strategies together.
I later went along to one this company`s training workshops, with a view to getting Daisy into a regular club and wasn`t happy with a slightly confrontational approach suggested by the highly qualified behaviourist. It would have been ok for some dogs perhaps, but I know my dog and it would have made her worse.
In the light of my experience, I now think practical experience and the right temperament (patience, unflappabability, reflective) is more important than paper qualifications.

OK - I tend to find that very few people ask for my qualifications or experience level until I am actually face to face - some even apologise for asking on the phone which I find odd...I would always want to know who I was paying money to.

It is very much about reading people and the situation as well as the dog - you start to know who you cna have a bit of a joke with or when you have to be sympathetic and just shut up and let people talk.

Never used one but if I had to experience and recommendation would be much more important to me than qualifications . They would also have to be people friendly as well as dog friendly