Like I said at the beginning, I don't think recall training is much of an issue for CM because of the leash laws in America.

No but all will have an understanding of how to teach new behaviours....as in,a child counsellor may teach cognitive therpaies to a child...they need to know how to do that.

This may be just semantics, but isn't that the perfect description of 'dominance'?

i.e. the strongest/fittest dominate the weak/ill by beating/injuring/killing them in a fight?

A definition of dominant:
1: a:commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others
b: very important, powerful, or successful

2: overlooking and commanding from a superior position

So by definition the breeding pair controls the pack because they are the only ones who breed - they control the size and wellbeing of the pack. So they 'dominate' the pack.

I see what you're saying, but I think when he says he doesn't train, what he means is he doesn't get involved in obedience training.

He doesn't teach people how to make a dog sit/stay/fetch etc. but tries to resolve problems which cause a breakdown between the dog/owner. Yes, some of that will involve 'training' in terms of learning manners etc. but it is not 'obedience training' as such.

Did it never occur to you, that perhaps your interpretation of the word dominate is not his interpretation of the word dominate?

Precisely, i have repeated this on the CM threads a few times now, as some people think you dont any need behaviourist level knowledge to understand dogs and others think you cant qualify as understanding dogs if you havent become a degree level behaviourist first.
Oddly, it doesnt matter which side of the CM argument you sit on that one.
Of course, you need both, you can qualify as a degree based behaviourist and have no experience of actually training or other practical work with dogs and be pretty pants (experienced that one a few times) and you can be a dog trainer who has never done any research and study into canine behaviour at all and also be pretty pants.
As long as you combine both areas well, you will be doing fine. A degree course is good, but not always practical for everyone, so their are other avenues and courses you can take.
i think the reverse is more likely

you can 'train' a dog without understanding a dog.
but that is very very limited to very standard basic obedience training with clean slate issue free quick learning dogs. anything else, and you'd be stumped.

whereas, you can understand dogs in the most comprehensive behavioural/psychological way going, which involves lots of academic work, yet not know one end of a living breathing dog from the other.

Sorry Ramble, I'm having difficultly trying to say what I mean..can't quite find the right terminology.

yes, I would think that all behaviourists need to teach a change in behaviour.

But there is a line between teaching/training correct behaviours which may have drastic consequences and teaching/training other skills and 'niceties'.

But is this the reverse of what I said (or was trying to say) - do you need to be able to train a dog to understand it?

I think the critical point is what we all mean by 'training'.

anyway, I'm struggling to express what I mean in respect to this particular point and really should get on with some work...may pop back later.

i only used to do the same until this year.
im still training the dog and owner as part of resolving the issues though, so its still training.
for example, part of the issue when their is a breakdown between dog/owner is owner has no control over dog.
how do you introduce control?
you help show the owner how to teach the dog a sit and down.
ie, (obedience) training. dont let the word obedience deflect you.
has CM never taught a sit?
walking nicely on the lead is also training.

Ah - i get you now. No, you dont need to be able to train a dog to understand what its problem is, but you need to be able to train a dog as part of solving its problem