to be honest, I think the slip collar/slip lead is an interpretation of the guidelines that has been 'stretched'. It would be interesting to see the KC's actual view on whether these can be regarded to be 'different' enough to warrant one being allowed and the other not.

Similarly, the harness issue. A static harness is akin to the the flat collar in that it allows us to comply with the law when restriction is required by law. A choke chain, headcollar, stop pull harness etc are more to do with training and management.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree with the KC ruling on this which I personally believe is very strange

I think the slip collar/slip lead is an interpretation of the guidelines that has been 'stretched'. It would be interesting to see the KC's actual view on whether these can be regarded to be 'different' enough to warrant one being allowed and the other not

Well their actual view is clearly written in the guidelines, a slip lead may not be used, there is no prohibition on the choke chain (this was specifically discussed at the training days I attended, all 3).

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree with the KC ruling on this which I personally believe is very strange

But I have merely stated the facts as they currently stand, I have not professed whether or not I agree with it or not................

As an examiner, instructor, handler I have to abide by the guidelines or not take part.

It is easier for trainers as they can set their own rules for choke chains, slip collars etc. The majority of my clients preferred the harness route rather than flat collar - particularly for small dogs - and I agreed and encouraged them.

Collars were worn to accommodate tags so it was quite an easy task to attach the lead to the collar for the test, but clients often complained about it and I really don't blame them.

The KC are a little strange with some of their rulings. I personally think this will be reflected in time to come as other organisations devise their own testing procedures and participating trainers opt for those instead. Whether they will be as popular with the general public remains to be seen as, like it or loathe it, anything with the KC tag seems to impress them

From KC - they obviously see a difference and have no issue with it.

Personally I prefer the BH in Schutzhund as an overall test of control, or the Temperament Test which is based on this.

I think it is more robust, although it does not have any questions in the latter........

Hopefully you can, it would be interesting to hear from the view of someone who is an examiner for these course tests.

If you look at the guidelines it is clear that any trainer who uses methods contrary to the KC guidelines on welfare etc should be reported to them and that club may well be de registered etc etc.

The problem is that many people who attend club are not aware that this option is available to them or like SLB not wish to avail themselves of this opportunity, so they flourish.

A trainer should not ban things if they do not affect other dogs (I ban squeaky toys in class because it is a recipe for disaster particularly with terriers).

I have met a few Dobes and their necks are no different to say Weims!

Does that help?

I am afraid there are lot of ineffective trainers out there!

The problem with KCGCDS (is that the right way round? lol) is that it is left wide open to them! Lots of the trainers that use the tests are good, but lots are simply ripping people off and the KC seems to have very limited resources to monitoring the trainers abilities that are taking classes for this.
I'm not saying I totally disagree with these courses, classes and exams in principle, but a bit idealistic in reality...and I can see why many think of it as worthless or are left with that impression.

I was hoping you may share views but looks like I've just been pointed in the way of guidelines I understand that your in a position though...

Trainers should inform candidates of the existence of the guidelines, where to buy them from and the cost.

They should also let candidates have access to them if they wish during class, as each club have been issued them.

I share your views about ineffective trainers though and I have reported two individual trainers and their clubs to the KC, as I did with an APDT trainer. The former were visited by the KC and one of the trainers was removed from the club, the latter was "struck off" the APDT register (there was other evidence to support my views).

It is not enough merely to vote with your feet, you should ALWAYS raise any issues (as you would in any sphere) with the appropriate body. No one will do anything unless it is brought to their attention!

Until the term "dog trainer" is protected by having to produce proof of legal competency, then the situation will not change I am afraid.

The line on the sand for me is drawn at prongs, I see np with using a choker but the dog will still pull if proper instruction isn't given. I know how to use them & have used to them before with nice results & without further dependence on the choke forever. I switched Izze to a reg choke & then to a rolled leather (to prevent rubbing) & eventually to nothing at all.

Bit in all fairness I have seen them used the incorrect way as well bit it also begs the question as how far will we go with the banning of tools? Will reg collars become cruel? How about half checks?