ethical dog trainer_ a practical guide for canine professionals, the - jim barry

7/23/2019 Ethical Dog Trainer_ a Practical Guide for Canine Professionals, The - Jim Barry

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ethical-dog-trainer-a-practical-guide-for-canine-professionals-the-jim 1/186

The Ethical

Dog Trainer

J im Bar ry

A Manual

A Pr act ic a l Gu id e f or

Ca n ine Pr o fe s s io na l s



i

THE E TH I CA L DOG T RA I N E R

A P R A C T I C A L G U I D E F O R

C A N I N E P R O F E S S I O N A L S

Wenatchee, Washington U.S.A.

Jim Barry

CDBC, CPD



ii

The Ethical Dog Trainer. A Practical Guide for Canine Professionals Jim Barry

Dogwise Publishing A Division of Direct Book Service, Inc.701B Poplar Wenatchee, Washington 988011-509-663-9115, 1-800-776-2665 www.dogwisepublishing.com / [email protected]© 2008 Jim Barry

Graphic Design: Lindsay PeternellIndexing: Cheryl Smith

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted inany form or by any means, electronic, digital or mechanical, including photo-copying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system withoutpermission in writing from the publisher.

Limits of Liability and Disclaimer of Warranty:The author and publisher shall not be liable in the event of incidental or conse-quential damages in connection with, or arising out of, the furnishing, perfor-mance, or use of the instructions and suggestions contained in this book.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barry, Jim (Jim A.)The ethical dog trainer : a practical guide for canine professionals / by Jim Bar-ry.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-1-929242-56-6 (alk. paper)1. Dog trainers. 2. Dogs--Training. I. Title.SF431.B367 2008636.7’0887--dc222008014611 ISBN: 978-1-929242-56-6

Printed in the U.S.A.



iii

To the teachers who touch my mind and the dogs whotouched my heart.



iv

TAB L E O F CONT EN T S

Acknowledgments........ ........................................................................ v

Introduction .........................................................................................6

Part I Personal and Professional Ethics....... ...........................................9

1. What Does Ethics Have to do with Dog Training? .........................10

2. Essential Ethics ...............................................................................20

3. Dilemmas of Dog Trainers..............................................................384. Case Studies ...................................................................................56

5. Contributors’ Assesments of Case Studies .......................................67

Part II Current Ethical Issues in Dog Training....... .............................83

6. Training Techniques and Equipment ..............................................84

7. Professionalism and Professional Boundaries ................................110

8. Dogs and Society ..........................................................................130

Part III Summing Up....... ................................................................147

9. The Ethical Dog Trainer ...............................................................148

Resources .........................................................................................154

About the Author and Contributors........ .........................................170

Index........ ........................................................................................171



v

ACKNOWL EDGMENT S

I would like to acknowledge at the outset that it is impossible to writea book on ethics without individual biases creeping in. For that reason,I want to express my deepest gratitude to all who provided commentsand encouragement for this project, along the way indicating those ar-eas in which biases seemed evident. An attempt has been made to reme-dy this defect, though no doubt vestiges of my beliefs and values remain.Gratitude is due especially to Steve Benjamin, faculty member at theKaren Pryor Academy for Animal Training and Behavior; Steve Bliven,one of the best clients a trainer could wish for; Chris Brudecki, Directorof Outreach for Petsafe/Invisible Fence Brand electric containment sys-tems; John Brynda, Program Manager, Marketing Services for Radio Sys-tems Corporation; Martin Deeley, Executive Director of the Internation-al Association of Canine Professionals (IACP); Cyndy Douan, Presidentand founder of IACP; Michelle Douglas, member of the board of the

Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT); Ian Dunbar, PhD, MRCVS,founder of APDT; Margie English, Chair, Ethics Committee, Nation-al Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI); Chris Hanna-fin, DVM, President, Rhode Island Veterinary Medical Association; DonHanson, President of APDT; Fred Hassen, originator of the “No Limi-tations” method of electronic collar training; Lynn Hoover, founder andpast president of the International Association of Animal Behavior Con-sultants (IAABC); Andrew Luescher DMV, PhD, DACVB, ECVBM-CA, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist, Purdue University; Pat Mill-er, past president of APDT and author of The Power of Positive DogTraining; Christie Smith, Executive Director of the Potter League for

Animals, Rhode Island’s premiere animal shelter; Susan Smith, Secretaryand Treasurer of the Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers(CCPDT); Dani Weinberg, PhD, dog behavior consultant and author ofTeaching People Teaching Dogs; Debbie Winkler, president of IAABC,and her colleagues on the Board; and Marilyn Wolf, Certified Pet DogTrainer (CPDT) and member of the Truly Dog Friendly group.



6

INTRODUC T I ON

Do you ever feel that you are caught in the middle? Between a dog withmajor behavior problems and an owner who wants instant results? Be-tween a client and a breeder who is giving what you think is inappropri-ate advice? Between your own views about the treatment of dogs and thecultural norms of your community? If so, then this book is for you. Forall of us who work with families and dogs, these clashes of values—eth-ical dilemmas—are inevitable. Just as we need skills and experience to

work with dogs, we need to become adept at handling ethical challeng-es as well. The approach outlined in this book will help you to becomeas skilled at ethical decision-making as you are at working with familiesand dogs.

There are several reasons why ethics are important for all of us. First, we work daily with dogs and families. The decisions we make and the rec-ommendations we give can have a great effect on their well-being. Sec-ond, we are part of a business that is working hard to be recognized asa profession. Professions need ethical standards to have credibility andgrow. Third, we need to be able to look at ourselves directly and be com-fortable with our choices. Being conscious about our values and develop-ing effective ways to pursue them are vital to our self-respect. Finally, it’svery much in our interest to behave with integrity toward colleagues, cli-

ents and dogs. To do so enhances our reputation, enabling us to increaseour ability to help—and maybe even our bottom line.



INTRODUCTION

7

Fortunately, we don’t have to do this alone. For thousands of years, thegreatest minds have pondered the best approaches to making ethicalchoices. This ancient wisdom can inform even modern decisions. Thisbook provides an easy-to-understand synthesis of these approaches thatyou can use in your daily activities. You don’t need to be a philosopher tomake good decisions, but it helps to know a little bit about the ways in

which these deep thinkers have tried to work through dilemmas. You’ll bepleased to discover that it’s no more difficult than the learning psychologyor canine behavior you learned to become the trainer that you are.

Plan of the Book Here’s the road map to better ethical decisions.

This book has three parts. Part I focuses on personal and professionalethics for individual trainers and those in the related field of canine be-havior consulting. Chapter 1 is a discussion about why ethics mattersto dog trainers and how to develop an ethical vision for your business.Chapter 2 discusses the essential elements of ethics—how they apply toour lives, and their place in our profession. The chapter will review someof the enduring techniques for separating right from wrong and for de-ciding between competing values. These techniques will be put in con-

text by drawing on the codes of conduct for the major dog training pro-fessional societies to show you how to use them in your daily business.

Chapter 3 focuses on decision-making in practice. To do that, fiction-al cases are provided in which dog trainers have to make difficult ethi-cal choices, and then these examples can be used by other trainers facingsimilar situations to develop a clear, systematic six-step decision makingprocess.

Chapter 4 provides an opportunity to work through some real-life ap-plication of this process. (Ethical decision-making, like dog training, is askill; we need to practice to be proficient.) It presents a series of case stud-ies that illustrate typical ethical challenges faced by dog trainers. You canread the cases, presented in Chapter 4, then apply the methods outlinedin Chapter 3 to them, and then compare the conclusions with those ofthe author and other contributors in Chapter 5.

Part II broadens the discussion in Chapters 6 through 8 to tackle a num-ber of current “hot-button” issues in the dog training profession. These

include: What training methods are acceptable? How do we maintain re-spectful affiliations and professional relationships with colleagues whosemethods may differ from our own? What are the appropriate boundar-ies between our profession and other related fields, such as applied an-



8

THE ETHICAL DOG TRAINER

imal behavior and veterinary medicine? And where do we stand on thebroader societal debate regarding peoples’ relationships with animals—are they property, or do we have some deeper obligation to the animals inour lives? These are the dilemmas that have the potential to unite or di-vide dog trainers as they pursue their goal of recognition as professionals.Here you have an opportunity to read the various arguments and reflecton how they relate to your own views. Who knows, some views mightchange as a result.

In Part III, Chapter 9 contains a summary of the key points in the bookand a set of considerations related to what an ethical dog trainer shouldknow and do. It also summarizes how dog trainers develop as commit-

ted, ethical professionals.

The Resources section contains the codes of ethics and standards of con-duct of some of the professional societies for dog training and alliedfields. There is also a list of resources for those interested in pursuing thistopic further, as well as some “ethical stretching exercises” based on thoseresources.

The goal of this book is to help you personally and professionally. The

hope is that by mastering some simple, yet challenging principles, all ofus dog trainers can raise the quality of our choices and make things bet-ter for our clients and dogs, as well as for our profession.

A Note on SourcesBecause this is intended as a professional development book, not an aca-demic tome, I have used an informal method of citation in the text andin the Resources list. In this age of rapid electronic searching, I assumethat the books and articles cited will be easy for readers to find with theinformation provided. When websites are listed, the information cited

was present at those addresses on October 31, 2007.



9

PART I

P E R SONA L AND

P RO F E S S I ONA L E TH I C S

9



10

WHAT DOE S E TH I C S

HAV E TO DO WI TH

DOG T RA I N I NG?

Every day, dog trainers and behavior consultants come face to face withethical challenges. But these challenges come to us in disguise, masquer-ading as choices about training methods, marketing efforts, working withclients, and collaborating with colleagues. In order to navigate effectivelythrough these difficult situations, it’s essential to look behind the masksand see them for what they are—ethical issues that require us to have aclear vision based on a coherent set of beliefs, values, and principles toguide us.

Developing and implementing this vision is what ethics is all about.

What is ethics, anyway?

There are several ways to define ethics and ethical behavior, so it’s usefulat the outset to look at some common definitions. In keeping with thepractical intent of this book, we won’t be going too deeply into theory,but having a consistent set of terms and a clear understanding of somebasic concepts will be useful, just as understanding and using the termi-nology of learning theory can be very helpful in training dogs.

The term ethics comes to us ultimately from the Greek word ethos , whichmeans the character or nature of something. In the original sense, ethics

simply means being true to our nature. The American Heritage Diction-ary has several definitions:

1. A set of principles of right conduct.

Chap te r 1



1 — WHAT DOES ETHICS HAVE TO DO WITH DOG TRAINING?

11

2. A theory or system of moral values.

3. [The] study of moral philosophy.

4. The rules of standards of . . . a person or the members of a profes-sion.

Some people use the terms ethics and morals interchangeably; othersthink of ethics as related to external standards and of morals as the dic-tates of individual conscience. Actually, the word “morals” is derivedfrom the Latin mores , which means customs or traditions, so the originalmeanings were the opposite of the current practice.

To avoid unnecessary confusion, we are going to use both ethics andmorals to refer to either external or internal principles of conduct. We’llalso use ethics to mean the branch of philosophy that studies issues ofright and wrong.

Do I really need this stuff to be a successful trainer? Why bother getting bogged down in definitions? The short answer isto be a better trainer. Being an ethical trainer and a successful trainer—at least as we commonly define success—are not exactly the same, butthere is a relationship. Trainers who act in accordance with their high-est standards feel more comfortable with themselves than those who cutcorners. This enables them to focus their energies on developing theirknowledge and skills rather than trying to work around ethical prob-lems. They also come across to their clients as reliable people who deliv-er what they promise. By conveying an image of integrity, they may findthat their clients are more inclined to recommend them to others. Train-ers who are forthright, compassionate, and supportive are, in the long

run, more likely to achieve a positive reputation than those who exagger-ate their abilities or care more about themselves than their clients. Cus-tomers can tell.

So there’s no guarantee that ethical behavior will lead to fame, fortune,and a bigger bottom line. But there are both personal and professionalbenefits to being the best that we can be, in every sense.

Creating a visionOne way to link our business goals to our ethics is through a vision state-

ment. According to the online consulting firm 1000ventures.com, a vi-sion statement is “a short, succinct, and inspiring statement of what theorganization intends to become and to achieve at some point in the fu-



12


ture…the image that a business must have of its goals before it sets out toreach them.” Here are some examples of vision statements:

• We bring good things to life. (General Electric)

• We save people money so they can live better. (Wal-Mart)

• To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world.(Nike)

These statements, of course, double as advertising slogans, and we maynot agree with all of the activities that these and other companies under-

take. However, a well-crafted vision statement can serve as a guidepostfor all business activities, integrating core beliefs, fundamental values,and highest principles into a set of specific goals that provides a way toachieve personal satisfaction—and, hopefully, business success.

Beliefs, values, and principlesHow do we create a positive vision and become both successful and ethi-cal dog trainers? This book will outline some steps to take when, in pur-suit of certain goals, dog trainers are confronted with temptations to act

unethically or with dilemmas that require them to make uncomfortablechoices. Before going into those steps in detail, however, it’s useful tostart with a look at ourselves.

When we act ethically, we conduct ourselves in accordance with what wehold to be true (beliefs), what we esteem (values), and guidelines for how

we should act (principles). For example, if we believe that animals haveinherent dignity and rights, we would value compassion toward themand might follow a principle of minimizing harm in our work with dogs.If we believe that people have a right to freedom of choice, we would val-ue honesty in our relationships and might follow a principle of provid-ing complete information on all options available for resolving a familydog’s behavior problems.

What do I know to be true? At the beginning of our journey toward becoming highly ethical train-ers, then, it’s useful to ask ourselves what our core beliefs are. People of-ten talk about their “belief systems.” Usually, they are mixing up beliefs,values, and interests, so it’s helpful to begin by looking at what we hold

to be true, and how we come to have that set of beliefs.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines belief as, “Mental acceptanceof and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.” The




13

historical roots of the word imply a religious faith, but that is only one ofthe ways in which people come to a conclusion about what is true. Thereare factual beliefs based on direct observation (i.e. “Many retired racingGreyhounds have trouble learning to sit,”) scientific conclusions basedon research studies (like, “When a dog is under stress, it’s heart beats fast-er and blood flows toward the muscles in preparation for fight or flight,”)or conclusions widely held within a group or culture (such as, “Pit bullsare more dangerous than other breeds.”)

Beliefs have varying degrees of reliability, and many, including some ofthose above, may actually be untrue. But our beliefs do, in a very realsense, provide the foundation for our behavior. So as a first step, it’s valu-

able to enumerate our beliefs about dogs, about the people with whom we work, and about the nature of our business.

Here are just a few of the many questions about beliefs that you may want to ponder:

• About dogs: What are dogs for? Are they to be regarded as indepen-dent creatures with the same rights as humans? May they be used topromote human goals? Or do they fall somewhere in between, with

rights that are limited in some ways in comparison to humans; andif so, what are those limits?

• About people: What is my relationship to my clients? Am I a serviceprovider, an educator, a counselor? Do I work for them, or are weequal collaborators? Are all of the people with whom I work to bevalued equally, or are some to be regarded more highly than others?

Are there things that clients might do that would cause me to want

to stop working with them?• About business: What am I in business for? Is the purpose of dog

training to help families to be more content with their dogs? Toachieve awards? To provide a living for myself and my family? Whatmakes a successful business? Is it the “bottom line,” the achievementof a particular set of performance goals, esteem within my commu-nity?

What do I care about?Values have been defined as things that are “worthy of esteem for theirown sake” (according to Rushworth Kidder in How Good People MakeTough Choices ). What do you find especially worthy of esteem? Do you



14


value honesty, compassion, or freedom? What about dignity, honor,or duty? Are you drawn to people who show integrity, generosity, orsteadfastness? Where do justice, mercy, and loyalty rank in your systemof values? Are you more interested in efficiency, or in effectiveness? Doessuccess matter to you more, or does self-satisfaction?

We all value all—or nearly all—of these attributes. But problems canarise when they come into conflict. For example:

• Is it better to be honest with a client about a poor prognosis forremedying his dog’s behavior, or does compassion dictate that we bemore encouraging than our professional opinion would warrant?

• Should you provide generous discounts to clients in need at the riskof being unfair to others who must pay full price?

• Should you allow a client to use training methods of her choice inthe name of respecting freedom of choice, even if you believe thosemethods may be harmful to her dog?

These are not easy questions for any trainer to answer, yet they come up

far too often. The next chapter will discuss some methods for resolvingthese value conflicts. But for now, it may be useful for you to think abouthow you developed your unique set of values.

Hunter Lewis, in an interesting book called A Question of Values , sug-gests that there are six basic ways in which people acquire their value sys-tems. They are:

1. Authority : an external force such as a religious community, fam-

ily, or organizational affiliation. An example might be placing highvalue on being non-judgmental toward other trainers because thatis a tenet of the International Association of Canine Professionals(IACP), or on “dog-friendly training” as advocated by the Associa-tion of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT).

2. Logic: deducing values from a set of fundamental beliefs. For ex-ample, valuing honesty based on the belief that honest people aremore likely to prosper.

3. Sense experience: relying on what we can see, hear, smell, taste, ortouch, such as placing a high premium on comfort for you, yourclients, and the dogs.




15

4. Emotion: valuing what comes from the heart or gut, such as loveor loyalty. You might highly esteem commitment to enduring rela-

tionships between dogs and people.5. Intuition: basing values on the unconscious connections made in

our minds, on our ability to rapidly integrate information intoconclusions. You might have concluded, without really thinkingdeeply about it on a conscious level, that a calm, confident attitudeis to be valued when working with dogs and clients.

6. Science: holding in esteem that which can be proven by rigor-

ous inquiry. Valuing training methods that are consistent with theconclusions of cognitive psychology or ethological studies wouldfit into this category.

These six sources aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but most of usseem to have a preference for one or a couple of these factors in deter-mining our values. Knowing where our values come from can be impor-tant to figuring out which ones should take precedence in any given sit-uation.

Here’s another preliminary exercise: Enumerate some of your most deep-ly held values, figure out how you acquired them, and think about howyou might order them in terms of importance. One interesting way to dothis is based on a method used by Rush Kidder in some of his trainingcourses. Imagine that you are building a new facility for your programs.

You have the opportunity to have three words engraved in stone over theentrance. These words will represent your most important values. What

words would they be, and why would you choose them over others?

What should I do?Based on our beliefs and values, then, we develop a set of principles orstandards for action. Most of us, unless we are professional philosophers,don’t do this in a rigorous fashion. Depending on our preference for how

we determine our values, for example, we may be more logical, moreemotional, or more intuitive about our principles. But we need to havesome principles; otherwise, our actions become inconsistent and capri-cious. Principles are guides to behavior. They help us to maintain fidelityto our values in specific circumstances. Sometimes commentators criti-cize “situational ethics,” but in reality all ethics is situational in that it re-lates to discrete events that are before us. To react to these events, we re-quire some way to translate our values into action.



16


Many dog trainers and consultants include a set of principles in their pro-motional materials or on their websites, perhaps explicitly as a trainingphilosophy or implicitly in their biographies or descriptions of services.Here are a few examples of the stated principles of dog trainers, with the

wording changed to maintain their anonymity:

• We pledge to treat all of our clients and their dogs with respect.

• Our training is humane in that it helps dogs to attain solid results when under stress.

• The safety of people and animals is our principal concern.

• We seek to promote unity, harmony, and understanding among dogsand people.

• We teach you to effectively communicate with your canine to thebenefit of all.

• We turn out high-performance dogs for clients who insist on thebest.

If you look closely at these principles, you can find the beliefs and valuesbehind them. Some are based on a belief in the inherent dignity of bothdogs and people, and value compassion. Others indicate a belief that cli-ents’ wishes are to be accorded respect, and that effectiveness is to be val-ued highly.

Have you written a training philosophy or set of principles? If not, that’sa good way to start your journey toward being an ethical dog trainer. Ifsomeone asked you to describe your training and business philosophy ina few sentences, what would you say? Try jotting down some notes andsee if your principles seem to be coherent and consistent with your beliefsand values. Once you’ve done that, you can compare them with some

widely accepted ethical standards, such as the professional codes in theResources section, and see how they measure up.

Isn’t it all relative?But wait a minute, you might say. Does it really matter? Aren’t these prin-ciples highly individual? And aren’t they different depending on my cul-

ture, my background, and my experiences? Aren’t standards of behaviorin this profession or any other just relative?




17

Well, yes and no. It is absolutely true that attitudes, practices, and prin-ciples about how dogs are treated and trained vary widely. Standards forhousing dogs in northeastern cities may be very different from those inrural southern areas. Training principles espoused by handlers of field tri-al retrievers may differ from those promoted by pet dog trainers. Andthere are some cultures where dogs are eaten at mealtimes!

This is not to say that there are no common standards. Anthropologistsand sociologists have found that virtually all societies have some kindof commitment to fairness, respect, and the maintenance of safety. Inher book Common Values , ethicist Sissela Bok finds that, in order to sur-vive, all human groups need some sort of basic values in common: mu-

tual loyalty and reciprocity, limits on harmful actions, and principles offairness and justice. Rushworth Kidder, in Shared Values for a TroubledWorld , conducted interviews with 24 “people of conscience” from virtu-ally all major world cultures. In their comments, seven core values werementioned consistently. They are: love, truthfulness, unity, freedom, re-spect for life, fairness, and tolerance. These seem to be at the center of ourshared humanity and are values that underlie relationships among people

worldwide. They also can inform work with clients.

When it comes to belief systems, there is also a fairly high degree of con-vergence in attitudes toward animals. There are biblical references to thedignity to be accorded to animals; the Qur’an speaks of communities ofanimals, comparing them to human communities; and Buddhism coun-sels loving kindness to all creatures. It is also true, however, that in mostmajor world religions, humans have higher inherent value than animals,so that their rights are paramount. This view has evolved and is currentlybeing challenged; the new perspective is explored in Chapter 8.

The difficulty arises for us as trainers because, the more we try to ap-ply these general standards to specific situations, the more disagreementis likely. This is not surprising. Applying ethical principles is difficult. Itrequires precision in our understanding, clarity in our thought, and theability to be both courageous and humble. We must avoid two traps—ceding our decision-making to others, and crashing ahead to promoteour own views without due consideration to our limitations and the va-lidity of others’ concerns. To do this requires self-knowledge, self-disci-pline, and skill.

Returning to the vision With a clearer understanding of our beliefs, values, and principles, andknowing where we and our business fit into the cultural context in which

we operate, we can now return to our vision. The following are some hy-



18


pothetical vision statements for trainers and consultants with differentareas of specialization:

1. Trainer for Family Dogs.

Beliefs: Dogs and people should be content and joyful in their families.Too many dogs are given up or euthanized because of poor behavior.

Values: Compassion, loyalty.

Principles: Dogs should be trained and treated humanely, and familiesshould learn how to prevent and treat common behavior problems that,if left unresolved, could lead to re-homing or euthanasia.

Vision statement: All of our clients and their dogs will have long, hap-py lives together.

2. Competitive Obedience rainer.

Beliefs: Dogs and people are happiest when engaged in activities thatbring out the best in both. High levels of performance are achievable anddesirable.

Values: Excellence, determination.

Principles: Dog training should be conducted in accordance with thehighest standards of performance using methods that are effective andhumane.

Vision statement: All of our dogs will be joyous, perfect 200s.

3. Behavior Consultant Specializing in Aggression Cases.

Beliefs: Most aggression is rooted in anxiety. A science-based methodolo-gy can mitigate, but not necessarily eliminate, aggressive behavior.

Values: Security, scientific rigor.

Principles: Aggressive dogs should be managed to reduce risks to peopleand other animals and treated using sound, scientifically valid behavior-changing techniques.

Vision statement: The families we help live safely and contentedly withtheir dogs.

4. Professional Retriever Field Trial Trainer.




19

Beliefs: Dogs should excel at the tasks for which they were bred. Breed-ing programs are enhanced by identifying and breeding the highest per-forming dogs.

Values: High achievement, competitiveness.

Principles: Training should build on natural drives and achieve outstand-ing results through systematic drills and the incentive of competition.

Vision statement: Our dogs give you the bird, every time.

While these trainers and consultants have very different goals and meth-ods, they share one common characteristic: integrity. Integrity, a wordthat has the same origin as integer (a whole number) connotes a “one-ness,” or the ability to present a consistent set of beliefs, values, and prin-ciples that can guide decisions regarding clients, colleagues, and animals.For dog trainers, that is what ethics is all about.



20

E S S EN T I A L E TH I C S

Establishing a business vision is like deciding on the destination for anocean voyage. But knowing where we want to go and getting there aredifferent things. Like ships setting off for a distant port, we sometimesmust sail through dangerous waters, relying on charts compiled by pre-vious voyagers to guide us on our way. For our journey toward becom-ing ethical dog trainers, we are fortunate to have the assistance of spiritu-al leaders and moral philosophers who have gone before us. This chapterexplores the guideposts that they left, beginning with those who madethe voyage centuries ago.

As indicated in the last chapter, the origin of the word ethics is Greek,and the ancient Greeks had a lot to say about what ethical behavior is and

how to achieve it. This section presents an examination of some aspectsof basic ethics, starting with insights from the Greeks. It then goes on tolook at some of the modern rules of behavior for our profession and someof the specific methods that philosophers have developed for making dif-ficult ethical decisions.

Ethical concepts are presented here at a fairly basic level. That means afocus on the essentials while bypassing some of the nuances. You mightlook back to when you first read about learning theory. We’ll be working

on a level that could be compared to Karen Pryor’s Don’t Shoot the Dog or John Bailey and Mary Burch’s book How Dogs Learn. That is, technicalterms will be used accurately and basic methods described concisely, but

without the depth that you would find in an ethics textbook. There are

Chap te r 2



2 — ESSENTIAL ETHICS

21

many excellent books on ethics for those who wish to go deeper; a selec-tion is listed in the Resources section.

Te Greeks had it right: know yourself At the temple of Apollo in Delphi there were two famous inscriptions.The first was, in Greek, gnothe sauton, which means “know thyself” andthe second was, “meden agan,” or “nothing in excess.” These terms makefor sound advice for any trainer. We’ve already talked a bit about know-ing ourselves in terms of beliefs, values, and principles. It’s also helpful tobe thoughtful about understanding our own behavior.

The psychologist Carl Gustav Jung said that if you want to know what

a person’s real (as opposed to stated) values are, you should look at whatthat person does. However, what we actually do is not necessarily in ac-cord with what we espouse as our highest principles. Sometimes we makechoices that are simply wrong. The early Christian figure Paul said, “That

which I would do, I do not; that which I would not do, that I do.” Inother words, we may have the best of intentions, but stray from what webelieve and value.

One way to approach self-knowledge is through the tools of psychology.

Psychological instruments like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)can give us insights into our personalities and preferences. Based on Jung’s theory of personality, the MBTI helps us to understand our pref-erences for how we relate to the world (as introverts or extraverts), gath-er information (through our senses or through intuition), make judg-ments (using logical thinking or feelings and values), and deal with thefuture (making plans or staying open to opportunities). Dani Weinberghas a helpful summary of the MBTI in her book, Teaching People, Teach-ing Dogs.

Another tool is the Enneagram, an approach to categorizing human be-havior in terms of common human needs. It is a spiritual discipline thattraces its origins to the early Christian period and involves reflection anddialogue with a spiritual director regarding the basic drives that shape ourbehavior. These include the need to be good, to give to others, to per-form, to be special, to learn, to be secure, to avoid pain, to oppose oth-ers, and to be calm. (These instruments should be interpreted by a qual-ified professional.) Some of us may consult with counselors for a betterunderstanding of ourselves and our behavior. We may come from a spir-itual tradition that emphasizes self-examination.

Perhaps our religious community has a practice of examination of con-science, or we may know about the method of moral inventory used in



22


some support groups. Whatever approach one may choose to take, how-ever, it is helpful to have an assistant or guide. This person may be aspouse, friend, mentor, or spiritual advisor. His or her role is not to helpus develop a training approach, but rather to serve as a confidante andhelpmate when we are faced with a moral temptation or an ethical di-lemma.

Here’s one way to begin to explore ourselves more deeply: Make a list ofthree professional situations you faced recently in which you were proudof what you did. Then list three in which you were disappointed in yourown choices. Now look behind those specific circumstances and see ifthere are any patterns. For example, from your lists, can you determine:

• What are the strengths that you bring to your profession?

• What are the areas that are most challenging for you?

• Can you list the characteristics that you think are most consistent with your deepest values—like compassion, respect, fairness or in-tegrity?

•

Did you find some weaknesses like difficulty relating to certain per-sonalities, going beyond your capabilities to earn more money, orcutting corners on an evaluation for a friend?

Try to create a balance sheet that shows your best features as well as thosein which you see a need for further development. Next, share this infor-mation with someone you trust. If that person cares about you, and isethically perceptive, he or she will give you valuable feedback that canhelp you to grow.

What every trainer must know: laws, regulations, rules, andcustomsThe other inscription at Delphi, “nothing in excess,” is also very impor-tant for us as trainers. It reminds us to stay within our limits, both per-sonally and professionally. One of the difficulties, however, is that thoselimits aren’t always clear. Dog training is currently a largely unregulat-ed profession. In contrast to physicians or electrical contractors, we don’thave the benefit of having a specific set of professional standards and a

clear, legal framework within which we operate. That means we must ex-ercise what attorneys call due diligence—an in-depth examination of allapplicable rules in order to understand the limits which we must not ex-ceed.




23

A good place to start is with the legal system. It’s important that dogtrainers and behavior consultants be aware of all provisions in the lawthat govern their activities. These include, but are not limited to, laws re-garding the structure and conduct of our businesses, tax requirements,insurance regulations, rules regarding verification of employment eligi-bility, and a myriad of other federal, state and local laws.

There are also, of course, laws and regulations regarding animals. Weneed to be aware of, for example, leash laws, dangerous dog laws, laws af-fecting ownership of specific breeds, and requirements for reporting dogbites. For both the business and animal aspects of our activities, profes-sional advice is essential. The assistance we get from a good attorney can

be well worth the cost.

There’s another place to go for help. Professional associations for train-ers and consultants have their own codes of ethics or professional con-duct. Several of these are reprinted for reference in the Resources section.

While they vary in depth, content, and emphasis, there are some recur-ring themes that can guide our choices. They include:

• Remaining within the boundaries of our professional competence.

• Being truthful, accurate, and complete in our advertising and in ourcommunication with clients and colleagues.

• Treating dogs humanely and refraining from causing intentionalharm.

• Being respectful of colleagues, even when we may disagree aboutindividual choices.

• Using discretion regarding information obtained when providingprofessional services.

• Conducting the financial aspects of our businesses in accordance with accepted professional practices.

• Making a commitment to continued education and professionalgrowth.

Trainers who embrace these rules are, in effect, establishing boundariesthat they agree not to exceed. In so doing, they are engaging in the self-discipline of turning their freedom of choice over to an organization forthe collective good. Deciding which organizations to join is an important



24


choice. Professional associations provide benefits, educational opportuni-ties, and marketing assistance. They also represent a shared set of beliefs,values, and principles, and it is essential that trainers be prepared to ac-cept those provisions when joining the organization.

Finally, it’s important that trainers and consultants be aware of local cus-toms and cultural norms. Leaving a dog outside in winter may be consid-ered cruel in Maine, but an accepted practice in more moderate climates.The attitudes that people display toward their dogs at a Schutzhund trialmay look quite different from those at a Canine Good Citizen® test. It’simportant, in those instances, to have a healthy dose of humility and ex-plore what is behind the attitudes before leaping to conclusions.

Ethics as a skill set Dog training is a skill. It has principles, and requires practice. Surpris-ingly, acting ethically is also a skill, and as mentioned earlier, it’s one thatneeds to be practiced. The Greek philosopher Aristotle put it this way:“People become builders by building and instrumentalists by playing in-struments. Similarly, we become just by performing just acts, temper-ate by performing temperate ones, brave by performing brave ones.” Hemight have said that we become dog trainers by training dogs.

This chapter reviews some of the principles that are involved in makingsound ethical decisions, especially thinking systematically and makingmoral judgments. The next chapter develops and applies a simplified ap-proach to using these skills. And in Chapter 4, you will be provided anopportunity to practice them with a series of case studies.

Making ethical arguments: thinking logically The first set of principles has to do with how we use our brains! As not-ed above, many of us derive our values from emotion, intuition, or au-thority, but in applying those values to concrete situations, we must do soin a logical and systematic manner. Again, from Aristotle, we “are com-pelled at every step to think out for [ourselves] what the circumstancesdemand.” The following are some hints on how to think logically aboutethical issues and how to avoid big mistakes.

Lessons from Monty PythonThere is a famous sketch from the Monty Python television comedy se-ries called “The Argument Clinic.” In it one character purchases an “ar-

gument” and then engages in an exchange with another who keeps dis-agreeing with him. Finally, in exasperation, he declares, “This is not anargument; it’s only a contradiction. An argument is a collective series ofstatements to establish a definite proposition!”




25

That’s what you need to have in mind when talking about making a mor-al argument—marshalling statements in a logical way to support a spe-cific ethical decision. Note that this is not about winning a debate withanother person, but about marshalling a series of statements and conclu-sions to guide our own actions. We often think about this as an either-oror should-I-or-shouldn’t-I process, but it doesn’t always involve a choicebetween two options. What is essential, however, is that we identify therange of possibilities and subject them to a rigorous evaluation.

Robert Pielke, in a short book called Critiquing Moral Arguments , saysthat there are three key elements in ethical reasoning: (1) acquiring fac-tual information that is as complete and accurate as possible; (2) deter-

mining the relevant moral principles; and (3) constructing a logical ar-gument. Each of these will be addressed. First, processing information;second, employing sound logic; and finally, using the principal methodsof moral reasoning.

Stress and ethical decision-making It’s hard enough in everyday circumstances to analyze options logically,but under the stress of an ethical challenge, it’s even more difficult. That’s

why practice is required.

All of us who work with dogs know how stress affects behavior. When we face ethical problems, we are like dogs under stress. Our behavior isimpaired, and we default to patterns that have worked for us in the past.The stress that accompanies moral temptations and dilemmas is an aver-sive, something we would like to escape or avoid. Just like dogs trying toescape from an unpleasant situation, we try to relieve our stress in the eas-iest way possible. That means that we often take short cuts in our think-ing or engage in denial or other psychological defenses to diminish our

anxiety. This can get in the way of obtaining the information we need toact soundly.

Jonathan Wilkenfeld and his colleagues at the University of Marylandconducted an exhaustive study of the behavior of countries in crisis andfound some recurring patterns of concern. (See Brecher and Wilkenfeld,

A Study of Crisis . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997.)Including:

• Reducing complexity

• Acting on current beliefs

• Seeking analogies



26


• Blocking new information

• Choosing the first acceptable solution rather than the best one

Psychologists have also determined that these patterns apply to individu-al decisions in crisis and other stressful situations.

All of these “cognitive shortcuts” ease our pain, but prevent us from un-covering the essential information that we need. The following are sometips for avoiding debilitating detours.

Avoiding bumper-sticker morality

“Choose life!” “Support our troops!” “Love animals, don’t eat them!” Wesee bumper stickers like these every day. They may make us think, butthey are not reliable guides to complex moral topics like abortion, war,or vegetarianism.

There are lots of bumper sticker statements in the dog-training profes-sion, as well. Some of them are actual bumper stickers reflecting our busi-ness tag lines. Here are a few real examples, altered slightly for confiden-tiality:

• Positive training for lifetime companionship

• No shock collars for any dog

• Train with no limitations

• Exercise your right to choose (the training method for your dog)

• Down with treat-slinging weenies

Like the other examples, these slogans may provoke us and stimulate dis-cussion, but they do nothing to illuminate the real issues facing dog train-ers—choice of training methods, whether to permit or exclude trainingdevices, and, importantly, how to achieve mutual respect in an emergingprofession that is all too often characterized by disagreement and recrim-inations. Bumper stickers can be great for drumming up business, but areless useful for helping us to make tough decisions.

Dangerous shortcuts: stereotypes, false analogies

Closely related to the bumper-sticker dodge is the practice of stereotyp-ing people (or dogs). A little later, we’ll get into the fallacy of avoid-ing logical arguments by focusing on people rather than issues. But fornow, it’s enough to recognize that our clients, their dogs, and our col-




27

leagues are individuals. Stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, gender, orother traits can not only damage our relationships with clients, but theycan distort our own moral judgment. Labeling others in our professionalso is a dangerous shortcut, whether it is “positive only,” “traditional,”“balanced,” or any of the other descriptors that we may use to refer toa colleague. Similarly, while there are certainly breed characteristics thatcan be ascribed to dogs, those of us who have worked with many dogs areaware that breed stereotypes such as “Afghan hounds can’t be trained,”“Labs are great family dogs,” and “Pit bulls are dangerous,” can lead tomorally questionable conclusions.

A related problem is the use of false analogies to reduce the stress of mak-

ing tough decisions. Examples include: “The last time I gave a discountto a client like this I lost money;” or “When we trained dogs for the mili-tary in Vietnam, I did it this way;” or “I’ve dealt with people like him be-fore, and they can’t be trusted.”

Harvard scholars Richard Neustadt and Ernest May, in a book calledThinking in Time , say that political leaders use analogies like this fre-quently, often with disastrous consequences. They suggest subjectingthose analogies to a quick test: Make two columns on a piece of paper

and jot down what’s similar between the current situation and the pastone and what’s different. If the similarities seem to outweigh the differ-ences, your analogy may be a valid guide to action.

Digging deep for ethical clarity The best remedy to all of these potential distortions in our reasoning isto keep asking hard questions. The Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399B.C.) was famous for his technique of probing his students to think moredeeply. Today we call this method Socratic questioning, and it is still

widely used in teaching and learning over 2000 years after his death.Here’s a dialogue showing how Socratic questioning might work in prac-tice:

Trainer 1: “I can’t refer my client to that trainer.”

Trainer 2: “Why not?”

Trainer 1: “He’s a [choose one: positive only, traditional, balanced]

trainer.

Trainer 2: “Why is that a problem?”



28


Trainer 1: “His methods are [choose one: ineffective, outmoded,inhumane].

Trainer 2: “How do you know?”

Trainer 1: “They all do it that way.”

Trainer 2: “Have you ever seen him train or talked to him?”

Trainer 1: “No.”

Trainer 2: “Then how do you know how he trains?”

Trainer 1: “He describes himself on his website that way.”

Trainer 2: “Have you ever met anyone whose dog he trained?”

Trainer 1: “Well, yes. I met one person.”

Trainer 2: “How did that dog seem?”

Trainer 1: “Pretty well-behaved, but I don’t know about any oth-

ers.”

Trainer 2: “How could you find out?”

Trainer 1: “I guess I could meet with him. I think I’ll do that be-fore I make up my mind.”

The cost of going through this process is time and effort; the payoff ismore complete and relevant information. Whether you do this yourself

or do it with another person is less important than taking the time to doit as thoroughly as possible. We never have all of the information we needto make a sound moral decision, but exerting the effort to gain as muchas possible is likely to pay off, especially if we make it a habit.

Fighting the fallaciesOnce reasonably complete and accurate information has been obtained,it must be assembled into a logical argument. There are two basic meth-ods of ethical reasoning—deductive and inductive. (Note : a specialist inthis field would consider the following explanation to be oversimplifiedand in some regards a little inaccurate. It’s similar to the ways in which

we teach clients how to train their dogs by oversimplifying learning the-ory, pack dynamics, or the physiology of the digestive system. The goal




29

here is comparable—to provide a concise and helpful explanation for usein real-life situations.)

Deductive reasoning starts with a general statement and proceeds to aspecific conclusion. It operates on the basis that if the individual state-ments, called premises, are true, then the conclusion must be true. Theform that deductive reasoning takes is called a syllogism. A standard syl-logism has three elements: the major premise (general statement), the mi-nor premise (specific statement), and the conclusion. Here’s an example:

Dogs can smell better than humans can. (Major premise)

Fido is a dog. (Minor premise)

Therefore, Fido can smell better than a human. (Conclusion)

Note that, if you accept the major and minor premises, the conclusionflows irrefutably from them.

Here’s another example, drawn from a moral argument:

Deliberately abusing a dog is wrong. (Major premise)

“Hanging” a dog on a choke chain is deliberate abuse. (Minorpremise)

Therefore, hanging a dog on a choke chain is wrong.(Conclusion)

Once again, if we accept the premises, the conclusion must be true.

At this point, you may be wondering how you can be sure that the prem-ises are true. This will be explained further later in this chapter, but fornow, let’s say the major premises can come from scientific research. Inethics, however, they usually flow from the beliefs, values, and princi-ples reviewed earlier, and form the basis for the general statements that

we make about ethics. (If they are well founded, they can greatly helpour reasoning; if not, they can degenerate into the type of bumper-stick-er morality mentioned earlier.) The minor premises come from observa-tion and definitions, and that leads us to the other type of logic—induc-

tive reasoning.Inductive reasoning moves from particular statements to make generalconclusions—in the opposite direction from deductive reasoning. Whiledeductive reasoning can, in theory, establish that something is certain-



30


ly true, inductive reasoning can only confirm that something is probablytrue. And the degree of certitude depends on both the structure of the ar-gument and the amount of information collected.

Many of us are familiar with inductive reasoning as practiced in scientif-ic research and statistical methods. It works like this: First you conductsome systematic observations. For example, you might observe very close-ly the behavior of a number of dogs when they greet each other. Based onthat observation, you would develop a tentative conclusion called a hy-pothesis. An example might be, “Dogs typically greet one another headto head and then head to rear.” You would then design an experiment toconfirm or refute the hypothesis. You might, for example, recruit some

assistants to observe a large number of greetings between dogs in differ-ent locations, at different times of day, and between different breeds, at-tempting to take into account any factors that might influence greetingbehavior. You would then assemble the observations into a quantitativedatabase and subject them to a statistical analysis, after which you wouldbe able to draw conclusions about the probability that our hypothesis ac-curately reflects dogs’ behavior. (In the scientific community, we wouldthen publish our findings and our peers would attempt to replicate themor to refute them; that’s how science expands its base of knowledge.)

The example above shows inductive reasoning at its best. But, as dogtraining expert Jean Donaldson often points out, trainers often use lessrigorous forms of inductive reasoning in daily life, choosing to rely onanecdotal evidence instead. Trainers may, for example, base their conclu-sions not on thorough research, but on individual experience. That maybe fairly reliable, if you are a trained observer and have made a practiceof trying to be systematic in assessing what you perceive. For example, ifyou have trained herding dogs for a number of years, you may be able to

make reliable statements about their behavior without a statistical analy-sis. However, you can’t necessarily communicate those statements to oth-ers in a way that can be scientifically validated.

Sometimes we use what Donaldson describes as anecdotal evidence. Weall do this—telling stories about dogs. An example might be: “I love totrain Australian Cattle Dogs. I worked with one in our shelter and shelearned all of her basic herding commands in a couple of weeks. Theyare a joy to train.” This final statement may or may not be accurate, but

there’s no way to prove it because it is based on only one observation andcan’t be generalized (and because “a joy to train” isn’t very clear).

The most insidious forms of inductive reasoning are two that I men-tioned earlier: stereotypes and false analogies. Both involve distortions




31

of the reasoning process by generalizing from a limited number of obser-vations to draw sweeping conclusions. They are particularly problematic

when you convert the conclusions into a major premise for a deductiveargument such as the following:

Many attacks by Pit Bulls result in serious injury or death.

I therefore conclude that Pit Bulls are dangerous dogs. (Inductivereasoning)

Dangerous dogs should be banned.

Therefore Pit Bulls should be banned. (Deductive reasoning)

It’s easy for canine professionals to spot the flaws in this argument, butfor many this distorted type of reasoning is very compelling.

This takes us to an important aspect of making moral arguments, andthat is avoiding logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is a defect that under-mines the validity of an argument. It deals with the structure and rel-evance of the statements we make. It therefore behooves you to knowabout the principal types of fallacies so they can be avoided as much aspossible.

Glen Whitman, a philosophy professor at California State University, hascompiled a list of common logical fallacies. These are a dozen examples:

1. Argument to tradition. This is the familiar argument that somepractice is right or acceptable because “it’s always been done that

way.” For example, the only way to keep hunting dogs steady isto put them on a chain gang. That’s the way it’s been done for 50years, and it works.

2. Argument ad hominem. This is the error of attacking the characteror motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the ideaitself. For example, that trainer is a “treat-slinging weenie.” Shecan’t possibly know anything about dogs.

3. Argument to ignorance. This is the fallacy of assuming something

is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. For example,you can’t prove that Pit Bulls aren’t dangerous; so they should bebanned.



32


4. Argument or appeal to numbers. This fallacy is the attempt toprove something by showing how many people think that it’s true.

For example, a majority of Collie owners believe that their dogsare the gentlest breed, so they must be trained with very gentlemethods.

5. Appeal to authority. This fallacy occurs when someone tries todemonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person whoagrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the giv-en area. An example is that B.F. Skinner used harsh punishments

when doing his experiments. He is the father of operant condition-

ing, so harsh punishments must be acceptable.

6. Sweeping generalization. This is the fallacy of making a sweepingstatement and expecting it to be true of every specific case—inother words, stereotyping. Here’s an example: All trainers who useelectric current collars are animal abusers.

7. Non Sequitur (“It does not follow”). This is the simple fallacy ofstating, as a conclusion, something that does not strictly followfrom the premises. For example, Mastiffs are strong so it takes a lotof force to teach them to heel.

8. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (“After this, therefore because of this”).This is the fallacy of assuming that A caused B simply because Ahappened prior to B. Note: The dog went to a positive trainer andnow it won’t sit; that shows how ineffective that training methodis.

9. Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: Intro-ducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the questionat hand. An example: That trainer is not to be trusted with yourdog because her cousin was jailed for fraud.

10. Slippery slope. A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that saysadopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series ofother policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal

connection. For example: If we let them require certification fortrainers, before you know it we will be paying licensing fees andhigher taxes.




33

11. Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extremeversion of somebody’s argument, rather than the actual argument

they’ve made. An example: The trainers at that club claim to beable to train any dog, but I know for a fact that at least three ofthe dogs they trained have been euthanized for bad behavior. (Inthis case, they never made that claim, but advertised that they used“proven training methods.”)

12. Tu quoque (“you too”). This is the fallacy of defending an error inone’s reasoning by pointing out that one’s opponent has made thesame error. A classic example: You said that my training is ineffec-

tive, but I’ve seen dogs that you trained that had lousy behavior,too.

Committing any of these errors, or other fallacies, means that the ar-gument presented is illogical. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the con-clusion is false. It’s perfectly possible to reach a true conclusion throughfaulty reasoning. The risk of error, however, is much greater than if youreason coherently, especially when trying to reach a moral judgment. Forthat reason, when faced with challenging situations like conflicts of val-

ues, it’s useful to reach back into history and use one of the proven meth-ods for resolving ethical dilemmas.

Resolving ethical conflictsEthical challenges fall into two general categories—moral temptationsand ethical dilemmas. Moral temptations involve a choice between rightand wrong. An example would be a trainer who knows that she shouldn’tpass a dog in a Canine Good Citizen® test, but does it anyway in orderto appear to be a good friend to the owner. From an ethical perspective,

the way to handle a moral temptation is very simple: You simply choosethe right thing. In practice, however, this can be very difficult for two rea-sons. First, the wrong choice is usually in some way attractive. We mightget money, fame, or friendship for doing it. Second, wrong choices, ortemptations, are not always clearly labeled as such; they come to us dis-guised as good things. For example, we might think it good for our selfesteem or for our ability to provide for our family to make more money,even if it involves cutting corners.

Distinguishing between good and bad choices can be very difficult be-cause of the ways in which our minds present choices. In the Christiantradition, the ability to make these choices is called the “charism (gift) ofthe discernment of spirits” and is held to be achievable only through rig-orous discipline.



34


Even more challenging are situations in which the choices are betweenopposing values, both of which seem to be good, but which are mutuallyexclusive. Perhaps you have a longtime client to whom you are very loy-al, so that you are reluctant to tell her the truth about her aggressive dog.Or you may find yourself wanting to give a break in a test to a dog that isvery close to achieving its title, while also feeling committed to maintain-ing the standards of the sport. These are true ethical dilemmas, involvingclashes of values when you have to make a difficult choice about whichone should take precedence.

Debating dilemmasThese are difficult decisions, but fortunately you don’t have to tackle

them alone. For thousands of years, the best minds have been grappling with ways to reject moral temptations and escape from ethical dilemmas.They have come up with two methods of moral reasoning to help us—ends-based and duty-based. There is a third approach that you can use—called care-based reasoning—that is a combination of the other two andalso provides useful insights.

Looking at consequencesEnds-based reasoning relies on the underlying assumption that wheth-

er an action is right or wrong depends on its results. If the end result isgood, then the action was good; if it was bad, than the action was bad.This raises a few important questions. What constitutes a good or bad re-sult? And for whom? Whose “good” should be the measure?

The most famous method of ends-based reasoning is called utilitarian-ism, an ethical system developed by British philosophers, notably Jere-my Bentham and John Stuart Mill. They held that acts are good if theypromote pleasure and bad if they promote pain—and the pleasure was

considered to be the collective pleasure of all who were affected. In other words, the ethical choice is the one that results in the “greatest good forthe greatest number.”

The pleasure to which they were referring was not only sensual pleasure;they considered pleasures of the mind and of the spirit to be superiorto bodily pleasure. Bentham developed a complex way to measure plea-sure and pain, which is discussed in Chapter 6. Mill took his evaluationa step beyond human pleasure, and argued that the benefits of our ac-tions should “be extended insofar as possible to the whole of sentient cre-ation.” In fact, utilitarianism forms the ethical foundation for much of

what today is known as the animal rights movement.




35

There are some real benefits to an ends-based approach to resolving eth-ical problems, but also some limitations. Such an approach forces us tothink through the consequences of our proposed actions, in terms bothof what might happen and whom we might affect. It makes us starklyaware of our connections to other people and creatures, and the extent to

which our own behavior influences theirs. Finally, it reminds us that eth-ical actions are those that benefit others, not just ourselves. On the otherhand, as we know from experience, it can be very difficult to forecast theresults of our decisions. It is often nearly impossible, in fact, to determineexactly who might ultimately be impacted by what we do and whetherthey would see that effect as good or bad. (It also skips over the recurringproblem of acting with the best of intentions only to have the result turnout to be something we didn’t anticipate.)

There are other complications, of interest mainly to philosophers. But asprofessional trainers, we can benefit from asking systematic questions ina utilitarian framework such as:

• Which people will be affected by my action? How?

• Which other creatures (dogs and others) will be affected? How?

• Will the result be pleasure or pain? What will be the intensity, dura-tion, or scope of the result? Will it be brief and limited to a few, orlast a long time and affect many?

• In looking at my possible choices, is there one that clearly providesthe “greatest good for the greatest number,” including all of those

who will be affected—the “stakeholders”?

Following our principlesRecognizing the limitations of ends-based reasoning, other philosophershave taken a different tack and sought to define ethical actions as thosethat are in accord with our highest duties. They argue that human activi-ties are so complex that we can only do that which duty compels, regard-less of the consequences. One member of this tradition counseled that

we should “do right though the heavens should fall.” But how do we de-termine what our duty is? One individual who gave this question a greatdeal of thought is the German philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant is what

we would call a “deep thinker.” His writing is so complex and turgid thatyou could actually use it on human students for positive punishment ornegative reinforcement. You could make them read Kant if they misbe-have, and let them stop when they do what we want. But once you wade



36


through Kant’s prose, his conclusion is actually quite straightforward. Infact, you probably were told something similar by your family.

Kant said that our duty is always to act so that our actions could becomethe general rule for all people in similar situations. (In his own way, hehad to create a fancy term for the rule, so he called it the “categorical im-perative.”) So when we face a choice, we need to ask, “How would it beif everyone did it this way?”

Kant then used this general principle to develop what he called “max-ims” of ethical behavior. Some were pretty sweeping—for example, nev-er lie. But others were more complex. For example, he argued that hu-

mans should be compassionate toward animals because that made peoplenobler, but that animals, in themselves, are not rational and exist onlyto serve human purposes. There are some maxims that are often recom-mended for service professions. These include, “do no harm,” “accept ac-countability,” and “respect autonomy.” In Chapter 9, the work of Dr.Mary Burch is referenced to describe how some of these maxims applyto dog trainers.

Just as with utilitarian reasoning, there are strengths and weaknesses to

duty-based reasoning. One advantage of this method is that it forces usto think about our duties and responsibilities in the broadest possiblecontext. If we would not be comfortable with others acting as we intend,how then can we consider our actions to be ethical? On the other hand,it can be very difficult to formulate a maxim that is at the same time ageneral rule and also applicable to a specific situation. If the maxim wechoose is, “Do no harm to animals,” how does that apply to a particulartraining goal? If it is “Always favor peoples’ satisfaction over that of dogs,”

will it help us to deal with an abusive dog owner?

One way out of these difficulties is to look again at the laws, rules, andcustoms of our profession. The various professional organizations haveformulated codes, reproduced in the Resources section, intended to beuniversal guidelines for their members. While they don’t necessarily cov-er every situation, they are an excellent starting point for a duty-based as-sessment of ethical behavior.

Te Golden RuleThere is one other time-honored method of making moral decisions that

includes aspects of ends-based and duty-based reasoning. That is theprinciple, found in virtually every major world tradition, of reciprocity,

which in the West is often called the Golden Rule. Probably the most fa-miliar formulation is “Do unto others as you would have others do unto




37

you.” So in this method, the test of ethical behavior is to put yourself inthe place of those affected by your actions and assess what you would

want under those circumstances. You have to think both about the con-sequences of your acts, and the obligations that you owe to others. Thiscan be a challenging and rigorous test of what you intend to do.

Again, of course, it’s not a simple process. The biggest problem can be in-dentifying who “the other” is. Is it the client? The dog? A colleague? Thecommunity at large? And if it’s more than one, whose interests shouldtake precedence? Should you focus on what the client has hired you todo, or advocate for the dog? Despite these complications, the care-basedmethod has the advantage of being simple and easy to recall. It’s like the

default behaviors you teach your dogs. Dogs under stress will often dothe behavior that they first learned, like sitting, while they work out whatto do next. For a trainer, defaulting to the Golden Rule can buy respitefrom the stress of an ethical challenge, and the opportunity to think moredeeply about choices.

In Summary This chapter has covered a fairly complex set of concepts, terms, andmethodologies. It’s time to transition to applying these ideas in practice.

But before doing so, here is a summary of the key points for dog train-ers:

• It’s important to have a coherent moral vision for ourselves and ourorganizations.

• That vision should be based on an integrated set of beliefs, values,and principles.

•

Developing these qualities requires self-knowledge and consultation with others.

• If we have integrity and discipline, we are better able to resist thedangerous shortcuts that often accompany stressful ethical challeng-es, such as simplifying situations, stereotyping, closing our minds,and taking the easy way out.

• In working through moral difficulties, we need to search for factual

information and reason in a systematic way, avoiding logical falla-cies.

• Three time-honored methods of ethical reasoning—ends-based,duty-based and care-based—can greatly assist our efforts.



38

D I L EMMAS O F DOG

T RA I N E R S

We’ve now gone through in some detail the steps involved in develop-ment of an ethical vision and some of the considerations regarding ethi-cal action. These include:

• Clarifying beliefs, values, and principles.

• Understanding ourselves better.

• Knowing the applicable laws, rules, and customs governing our pro-fession.

• Avoiding dangerous shortcuts.

• Thinking logically; and

• Using the established methods of ends-based, rule-based, and care-based reasoning to make sound decisions.

At this point, implementing these methods probably seems to be a for-midable task. Trainers may feel the way some of their clients do if giventasks to work on that are too numerous or too complex to handle. This

chapter, then, integrates these procedures into a simplified, six-step pro-cess for resolving ethical dilemmas. Hopefully, this will be a method that will work for you in practice, not just in theory.

Chap te r 3



3 — DILEMMAS OF DOG TRAINERS

39

Daunting challenges As dog trainers, we confront challenging ethical dilemmas every day—

but they rarely come to us with a label reading “ethical dilemma.” Rath-er, they show up in disguise, masquerading as business or training deci-sions. For example:

• Should I give a discount to this client who seems to have limitedresources, or maintain the same price structure for all clients?

• Should I continue to work with a family that seems to be undermin-ing their dog’s behavior?

• Should I tell a client that I think their vet has given them poor ad-vice?

• Should I report a bite incident involving a client’s dog, when theowners have failed to do so?

These are difficult situations because they involve not a simple case of do-ing the right thing, but a genuine clash between deeply held values. Whatdo you do when you have to choose between compassion for a family in

need and your responsibility to be fair to all of your clients? When yourlove of animals clashes with your duty to provide services to a client?

When you need to share important information and also respect profes-sional boundaries? Or when there is a conflict between your loyalty to cli-ents and the safety of the broader community?

You can’t avoid these problems, but at least you don’t have to face themalone. As mentioned before, for centuries, great minds have grappled

with ethical dilemmas and have provided guideposts that you can fol-

low. The guideposts, enumerated in the previous chapter, can help youto navigate between the rocks and whirlpools and maintain a safe courseto an ethically sound decision. This isn’t always easy, but being consciousand systematic can improve the quality of your decisions and provide you

with the satisfaction of having acted with integrity. As Aristotle empha-sized, ethical reasoning (like dog training) is a skill that improves withpractice.

Dave’s dilemma

To get started, let’s look at a specific situation faced by Dave, a fiction-al trainer.

Dave wasn’t totally surprised to find that the house was dark when he ar-rived. The client had arrived late for the last appointment and Dave had



40


to cut that session short to get to another family on time. He had seri-ous reservations about this client’s commitment to the dog. She couldn’tseem to keep appointments, or to find the time to do the training in be-tween. In the meantime, the dog (a small mixed breed) continued to havehousetraining problems and was beginning to growl and air snap at theyoungest child, a five-year old girl.

As he waited to see if the client would arrive, Dave thought deeply aboutthe situation. In all honesty, he thought the dog and family were woefullymismatched. He had said as much, in an indirect way, during the secondappointment when he stressed the dog’s need for exercise and close su-pervision. In this busy family, it seemed unlikely that those needs would

be met. He really thought that the dog should be re-homed, but the twochildren professed great affection for the little critter and he suspectedthat they would be heartbroken if they had to give him up. But the dogseemed to be miserable and a bite was a real possibility. Nevertheless, thefamily had hired Dave to help and he felt a deep obligation to do that tothe best of his ability.

Just then, a car pulled up. The client rushed over to Dave, apologizingprofusely, and asked him to come in. At this point, only half an hour was

left for the session. As they walked to the house, the client told Dave thatshe had not had any time to train this week, that elimination was still aproblem, and that she had forbidden her daughter to handle the dog af-ter it nipped her two days ago. Dave took this all in and said to himself,“I have to make a decision. What in the world can I say to this family?”

Resolving the dilemma: Te SISA methodDave’s situation is all too common. We all face these clashes of valuessuch as compassion for the dog versus responsibility to the client who

hired and paid us. Because Dave had been through such dilemmas be-fore, he was able to come to a resolution. He did it using a process thatinvolves six steps:

1. Searching for additional information.

2. Identifying options.

3. Testing against any rules that apply.

4. Scrutinizing his choices through ethical thinking.

5. Talking to others for advice, and

6. Acting on his choice.




41

I refer to this system as “SITSTA ” after the first letter of each step, andit’s easy to remember because it’s pronounced “Sit, Stay!” Here’s how it

worked for Dave.

Step 1: Search for informationDave started by reviewing very quickly all of the information he had athand. The dog was a rescue and probably was severely under-socialized asa pup. There was no information available on his parents, but he seemedto be a terrier mix of some kind. The dog had a great deal of energy and

was very vocal. He had a urinary tract infection when he first came intothe home, but the family left it untreated until Dave suggested that itmay have contributed to the housetraining problems.

When Dave first encountered the dog, he showed conflicted behavior,first approaching and then backing away, but Dave was quickly able tolure him close and teach him a “Sit” and “Watch Me” using food treats.The family members who were present, the mother and two children,mastered the technique in short order as well, so Dave knew that the dogcould learn, and that the family could acquire the skills to train.

At the same time, it was evident to Dave that the training was not actual-

ly taking place. He saw little change in the dog’s behavior from session tosession. He knew that both parents worked at demanding jobs and thatthe children had a variety of after school activities. He also knew that thedog was alone and unsupervised for long periods of time, despite Dave’sadvice that he needed regular exercise and companionship. Dave queriedthe client on what had transpired since the last appointment and con-firmed that the dog had been largely neglected except for meals and (usu-ally unsuccessful) trips outside to eliminate. At this point, Dave felt thathe had all of the essential information he needed to make a decision.

Step 2: Identify your optionsDave then set out in his mind what he thought were his best choic-es. First, he could continue to work with the family as he had been do-ing, demonstrating training techniques and brainstorming solutions tothe continuing behavior problems. This was very attractive to him be-cause he tended to be emotional about such situations and was drawn to“values of the heart” like compassion and generosity. Dave knew, howev-er, that he shouldn’t just make the first choice that came into his mind,but should be more systematic. Second, he could fire the clients by tell-ing them that he was unwilling to continue working with them unlessthey would commit to following his recommendations. Finally, he couldrecommend, in the strongest terms, that they find another home for thedog.



42


There might have been some other options, Dave thought, but theseseemed to be the principal ones. The first placed greatest value on loy-alty to the family and professional responsibility to provide services thathad been paid for. The last emphasized the well-being of the dog aboveloyalty to the family. The second was a sort of compromise, delaying thechoice of options one and three and giving the family a chance to changeits behavior. Dave was satisfied that these options pretty much coveredthe bases.

Step 3: est against the rule book Dave was a member of three professional associations, and he was deep-ly committed to following their codes of ethics. While he hadn’t mem-

orized them, he referred to them often and was confident that he knewthe applicable provisions. He didn’t find one in the code of the Nation-al Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI), and his othertwo associations touched only indirectly on the issue. His membershipin the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT) obligated him to followits Code of Professional Conduct and Responsibility, and specifically to“treat all dogs and clients with respect, taking into account their physi-cal and psychological well-being and respecting clients’ wishes regardingtraining of their dogs.” The International Association of Canine Profes-

sionals (IACP), of which Dave was also a member, required its associatesto “conduct themselves in a business like and professional manner whilemaintaining empathy and understanding for the needs of the client, cus-tomer and dog.”

He felt this wasn’t a lot of help, as the standards didn’t seem to provideany specific guidance about which option to choose. They required thattrainers respect and have understanding for clients and dogs; however,in this case Dave needed to choose one over the other. Since they didn’t

seem to rule out any of the options, Dave felt free to go to the next step.

Step 4: Scrutinize your choicesTo scrutinize is to look very closely and systematically at something—inthis case to analyze each option using the tools of ethical reasoning. Davehad at least some knowledge of ethical reasoning, so he was pretty surehe could work his way through the major arguments for and against eachof the options. He started by looking at the consequences of his choic-es, as the utilitarian thinkers we discussed in the last chapter might have

done.If he stuck with the current program, he was pretty sure that the dog’sbehavior would not improve, that the family would become increasing-ly frustrated, and that it was possible that the dog or a family member




43

would be injured. He wasn’t sure how the family would react to an ulti-matum, option two, but the parents seemed to be fairly open to new in-formation, although their busy lives made it difficult to follow it at times.Dave thought there was at least a chance that they might refocus atten-tion on the dog and either improve its training or decide on their ownto give it up. Looking at option three, confronting the family about re-homing the dog, Dave thought they probably would become defensiveand maintain that they loved him too much to let him go. The sugges-tion might shock them into action, but he felt it was at least as possiblethat they simply would stop working with Dave.

Dave then looked at what he felt were the responsibilities of his profes-

sion. What would it be like, he asked, if all dog trainers in similar situ-ations followed the first option and continued to pursue the same pro-gram, which to date had been ineffective? He thought that would be apoor reflection on the profession. He felt strongly that dog trainers adapttheir approaches to fit the specific needs of dogs and families. Continu-ing to pursue a losing strategy seemed very unprofessional to him. Thesecond and third options seemed a little more in line with Dave’s senseof professionalism. After all, he reasoned, one of a trainer’s obligations isto provide accurate and helpful information so that clients can make the

best choice. The decision is theirs, but trainers have the responsibility toprovide the best advice and information possible.

Finally, Dave tried to put himself in the place of the other parties. This was a challenge because there were several humans and a dog involved.He thought that, if he were one of the parents, he would not want tokeep doing the same program with no significant results. He imaginedhimself as a stressed-out, hardworking adult in a very busy household,and thought that he would really want some relief, not just more of the

same. As far as the children were concerned, he guessed that the old-er child, a 12-year-old boy, would be pretty much indifferent. He nev-er seemed particularly warm to the dog and was focused more on sportsand friends. The girl loved the dog but tended to treat him like a toy. She

would be disappointed to lose him, but certainly wouldn’t want to be bit-ten more severely. If Dave were the dog, he would have thought that hiscurrent life was pretty lousy. He’d really like to be in a home in which hehad fun and companionship and knew what the rules were so he couldfeel happy and secure. This assessment further strengthened Dave’s view

that something had to change.

At this point, Dave was feeling pretty confident about what his decision would be, although he was disappointed that he couldn’t go to the next



44


step of checking it out with colleagues. But he tried to imagine what it would be like if he could.

Step 5: alk to othersIf there had been time, Dave would have asked for input from his “ethicscommittee,” a group of friends and colleagues who provided mutual sup-port for difficult times. Of course these people didn’t refer to themselvesas a committee; they were just individuals whose insights and expertiseDave admired. They included his mentor, his “significant other,” andseveral other local trainers who formed an informal network. They alsoincluded hundreds of members of email lists sponsored by Dave’s profes-sional associations. As he reflected on what these people might have ad-

vised, Dave thought that his mentor would have urged him to be bothflexible and compassionate; his partner would have counseled a gentle,supportive approach that did not threaten the family’s sensitivities; andseveral of Dave’s training colleagues probably would have advised him to“bite the bullet” and confront the problem before it got worse.

One particular colleague, whose business and training approaches werevery different from Dave’s, probably would have told him in no uncer-tain terms to make clear to the family that they were going to have to

change their behavior in a significant way. Dave rarely agreed with thistrainer, but he had to admit that directness had its advantages. With theseinsights in hand, Dave was ready.

Step 6: Act on your decisionDave knew what he had to do. He asked the family to crate the dog brief-ly in another room and to join him at the dining room table. He gentlytold them of his concerns for both the dog and the family. He acknowl-edged their affection for the dog, but told them directly that the situa-

tion was likely to get worse unless something changed significantly. Hesuggested that, for this appointment, they not work with the dog, buthave a discussion about the family’s desires and the time and energy thatthey had available. He encouraged each family member to speak up and,

when they had done so, he offered to help them come up with a weeklyschedule for training, exercise, and companionship for their dog. He toldthem that he would be happy to continue working with them if they feltthat they could commit to the program that they would develop togeth-er. He was very frank, however, in also telling them that, if they failed to

follow his recommendations, he would conclude that the family situa-tion was not suitable for the dog, would recommend finding him a newhome, and would assist them in contacting appropriate placement orga-nizations. He could not, however, continue to work with them if he feltthat the dog’s basic needs were not being met.




45

What next?The story stops here because it’s about Dave and his decision, not real-ly about the family and the dog. Because it’s fiction, you can create yourown ending. Perhaps the family heard what Dave said, worked out a pro-gram for the dog, and found that he became a joyful member of the clan.Or maybe they paid lip service to the idea, didn’t follow through, and thedog’s behavior continued to plummet. Maybe he went to a new home;maybe he bit the daughter and was euthanized. In a sense, the outcome isnot relevant to Dave’s decision-making process because he, like the rest ofus, could only control his own behavior, not that of the others involved.

As a professional, his advice carried weight, but in the final analysis, thefamily would choose its own course.

This is actually pretty realistic, isn’t it? You often don’t know the full sto-ry of what happens after you work with a client and dog. Some clientsstick around and continue to work; others seem to disappear despite ourefforts to keep in touch. But Dave can at least have the satisfaction ofhaving grappled with a difficult dilemma and come up with an approachthat was respectful, professional, and essentially ethical.

That doesn’t mean that Dave’s decision was beyond reproach. That’s one

of the challenges about real dilemmas; they don’t have neat answers. May-be some readers will think he was too soft on the family. Maybe some willargue that he should have been a stronger advocate for the dog. Perhapsothers will conclude that he should have shifted his efforts away from anon-compliant client in order to provide assistance to other, more moti-vated families. But for Dave, this was a decision that reflected his deep-est values, arrived at in a clear, systematic fashion. That’s all any of us cando.

Recapping the processDave was fortunate in that he was able to make his decision quickly andconfidently. He could do this because he had learned some basic princi-ples of decision-making and because he had practiced them consistent-ly. As a trainer, he knew that knowledge of principles is not enough;patience and repetition are the keys to effective dog training, and to ef-fective ethical behavior.

This chapter focuses on the principles; the next chapter provides an op-

portunity for practice. Reviewing each of the steps that Dave took willhelp you think about how to apply them to your own ethical dilemmas.(There is nothing novel about this process; the principles of ethical deci-sion-making go back at least as far as the Greeks. There is a more detailedvariation of this approach in Rushworth Kidder’s book, How Good People



46


Make Tough Choices , and an outline of a procedure specifically for dog be-havior consultants in James O’Heare’s book, Aggressive Behavior in Dogs:

A Comprehensive Technical Manual for Professionals .)

Step 1: Search for informationThis is the vital first step. To make a good decision, you need good,complete information. Unfortunately, in the busy world of a dog train-er there’s almost never enough time to gather all of the information you

want. So you need to start by deciding what you really need to know.One good way to do this is to make a list of all of the relevant pieces ofinformation that you can identify. Then ask if there is anything missing.Do you need to know more about the dog and its behavior? About the

family and their goals? About the environment, schedule, financial re-sources, or attitudes that can affect the training plan or the business de-cision? You can ask yourself whether there is any really critical informa-tion that might cause you to change your attitude in a major way. That’s

where you should focus your information-gathering efforts.

You can gather the information in several ways. You can do research, askother trainers for information, ask questions of the clients, or just observeclosely what is going on (or not). Your choices will be determined by the

type of information you need and the time available. If you need to cutcorners, it’s probably best to ask questions, even if that’s not your usualstyle. You may find the information more quickly in the minds of othersthan you can in your book collection or on the internet.

When gathering information, it’s vital to be specific and not take cogni-tive shortcuts. Avoid stereotyping and false analogies. Try to ensure thatthe information is not inadvertently biased by your own opinions and ex-perience. Asking others to help evaluate your findings can be immense-

ly helpful.Step 2: Identify your optionsThe definition of a dilemma is a difficult choice between alternatives.

When we are caught in such a bind, it’s easy to think of our situation as“either-or.” In real life, however, we almost always have more than twochoices. If you are caught in the middle, ask yourself whether there is amiddle way. Are there grounds for compromise between the extremes? Isthere a third or even a fourth option?

You also will want to make sure that your options are feasible. John Stu-art Mill and the utilitarians coined an ethical principle that says, “Oughtimplies can;” in other words, you can’t be morally obligated to do some-thing that is impossible. If the family has limited resources, you can’t




47

choose an option that is beyond their means. If you don’t have the expe-rience to perform a particular technique, you can’t recommend it. If youdon’t have a suitable facility, you can’t offer to board and train the dog.

At the same time, you don’t want to leave any useful options out, even ifthey might cause a hardship for you. Could you offer more sessions bycutting your rate? Could you refer the family to another trainer or a vet-erinary behaviorist? Could you help the family to find a pet sitter or akennel where the dog could receive further training? Once you are sureyou have covered all of the bases, you are ready for the next step.

Step 3: est against the rule book

Sometimes you face real ethical dilemmas in your work, but often you arereally involved in a situation where there is a right answer and a wrongone. It can be hard to tell the difference, but one good place to start isby checking the rules. There are a lot of rules that apply to dog train-ing. There are laws—federal, state, and local—that govern the conductof our businesses, what records you keep, what taxes you pay, and whatyour liability is. You may belong to a business association like the Cham-ber of Commerce that has expectations about ethical business practices.Perhaps, like Dave, you belong to a professional association like the As-

sociation of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC), the International Association ofCanine Professionals (IACP), or the National Association of Dog Obe-dience Instructors (NADOI). These organizations all have professionalcodes that their members pledge to follow. (The codes of these organiza-tions are reproduced in the Resources section.)

In addition to laws and ethical codes, there are other types of rules. Thereare cultural norms that are common to your community. You may have

spiritual or religious beliefs that impose specific obligations. You alsohave family and personal values. A deep investigation of all of these stan-dards will help you to determine whether there is a clear choice betweenright and wrong for this situation.

Step 4: Scrutinize your choices An important aspect of the process is to distinguish between moral temp-tations and ethical dilemmas. Logical analysis can help. Moral tempta-tions come in the guise of something good, but often rigorous applica-tion of logic and careful comparison with applicable rules and practicescan ferret out the bad from the good.

If you get through this procedure and are confident that you are not fac-ing a simple right-wrong choice, you probably have a genuine ethical di-



48


lemma on your hands, a real clash of values. You have the informationthat’s critical to your decision and you’ve enumerated your options. It’stime to turn to those old philosophers for assistance in scrutinizing yourchoices.

It doesn’t make any difference which method you start with, but youshould include all three: consequences, duties, and the Golden Rule.Here are the critical questions to ask:

Who will be affected by my decision? (Include people and animals as well.) Will they probably benefit or be harmed? How? How much? Forhow long? Is any of the harm irrevocable (for example, if one of the op-

tions is euthanizing a dog)? Which of my options will probably producethe greatest good for the greatest number of those affected? How certainam I of this conclusion?

What are my duties in this situation? Is there an accepted principle ormaxim, such as “Do no harm,” or “Do business fairly” to guide me? Inlooking at my options, would I be content if they could become a gener-al rule for all trainers under similar circumstances?

How would I feel if I were on the receiving end of my proposed de-cisions? If I were the client, the colleague, or the dog (yes, it’s ok to putyourself in the place of the dog), which option would I prefer on my ownbehalf?

You may be lucky and find that all three of these methods of scrutiny giveyou similar answers. If so, count yourself fortunate and move on. It’s atleast as likely, however, that you will get a mixed result. This is the indi-cation that you really need the next step.

Step 5: alk to others When you’re stuck in the middle of an ethical dilemma, it’s helpful tocompare your mind to a bad neighborhood: You shouldn’t go into italone. When we are stressed and concerned about important decisions,our reasoning can be flawed. We all know that when dogs are stressed,their performance deteriorates. So does ours. That means that it’s criti-cal to have input from the outside, from people who are not emotional-ly involved.

If you had a mentor—a more experienced trainer with whom you worked—that person could be an excellent resource. So can colleagues inyour area who will know the local cultural norms and business practices.Casting your net wider, the professional associations have excellent emaildiscussion lists where trainers often post about the ethical issues they




49

face. Sometimes the distance that comes with electronic communicationcan provide a sense of perspective that is lacking in our own thinking.

You don’t have to confine your “ethics committee” to training profession-als. Family members, friends, former teachers, or religious advisors cangive invaluable advice. And there is one other consideration that is bothimportant and very, very difficult: You need to have at least one personon your list whom you admire, but with whom you have a history of re-spectful disagreement. In the middle of an ethical problem, the last thingyou need is a group of advisors who will all agree with you. Instead, youneed someone who will challenge your thinking, press you to go deeper,and be clear about why you propose a certain decision. It may be unpleas-

ant, but it will stand you in good stead in the long run.

It may happen, as it did with Dave, that you won’t have time for muchconsultation; maybe you won’t have any time at all. If you practice thisstep regularly, however, you will have a pretty good idea of the adviceyou might get. At least then you may be able to ask yourself what someof your key advisors might say and then take those factors into account

when you act.

Step 6: Act on your decision Action is the essence of ethics. What you have done so far in this processhas been in your head, or maybe on paper or on your computer. Nowit’s time to do something. Remember, not to act is an action in itself. Sothink once more about the information you’ve gathered, options you’veconsidered, rules that may apply, evaluations you’ve made, and opinionsyou’ve gathered. Then, as the commercials used to say, “Just do it.”

Will everything turn out alright because you’ve done a good job with theprocess? Not necessarily, although you can probably expect more suc-cesses than failures over time. You might not become rich or famousfrom being an ethical trainer. But the chances are good that, if you prac-tice these principles regularly, your sense of integrity and confidence willgrow. That may well become obvious to others who avail themselves ofyour services. The unethical practitioner may be more successful in theshort run, but in the end it is the person who behaves with integrity whoreaps the more important rewards.

Cathy’s conundrumNow that we’ve specified the method in some detail, let’s try to apply itto another situation in which a hypothetical trainer faced a difficult eth-ical choice.



50


Cathy had been in business for nearly five years, and the bucks just weren’tcoming in. She was a good trainer; she knew that. Her clients were al-most always complimentary about her services. She often saw them withtheir dogs in public and she was pleased with how the pups behaved.Most of her business came through word of mouth, and that word wasuniformly good.

But Cathy was worried. She was having a hard time making ends meet.She wanted to become an even better trainer, but she didn’t have themoney to go to the big professional conferences or to keep up with thenew books. Moreover, it was a continuing struggle to meet the basic ex-penses for herself and her two children. Unlike the salaried positions she’d

had in the past, dog training couldn’t provide a stable income. She neverknew from month to month how much she would make, or even wheth-er she’d make a profit at all. Sometimes dog training seemed too uncer-tain a profession for a responsible person to pursue.

But darn it, she was good. She had titled dogs in obedience and agility.Her own dogs were highly reliable off lead. She could read dogs’ behav-ior and work well with clients. A former school teacher, Cathy knew a lotabout teaching and learning for both dogs and humans. She was highly

motivated to learn more and maybe some day to own a training facilityand to work with more families with problem dogs. She just knew that,if she could get a break from the financial pressure, she could do a lot ofgood for dogs and families, including her own.

Against this backdrop of simultaneous satisfaction and frustration, Cathygot an unexpected phone call. It was from the owner of a grooming par-lor in a nearby town. The owner had a proposition to make. If Cathy

would be willing to refer clients exclusively to him, he would do the same

for her. To sweeten the deal, he offered to give her a “finder’s fee” of 20percent of what he collected from any clients whom she referred. He in-timated that the amount she would receive could be substantial. After all,his was the largest grooming facility in the area, employing 12 groomers

who handled a total of as many as 300 dogs each week.

Cathy was momentarily speechless. This could be the answer to her fi-nancial dilemma, and all she would have to do is send clients to thegroomer. What could be easier than that?

Then a little voice inside began to nag. If it’s so easy, she thought, couldthere be an ethical problem here? She paused, and then thanked the own-er for thinking of her. She said that she would give his proposal carefulconsideration and promised to get back to him in a few days.




51

Cathy knew a lot of trainers in her town, including Dave. So the firstthing she did was to call him. He told her that he had recently faced anethical dilemma and suggested she try the SITSTA method. He explainedhow it works, and she said she would give it a try. Here’s what she did.

Step 1: Search for informationCathy started to call around to some of her clients. She asked about thegroomers they used and whether they were satisfied. She found that theperson who had called her had a rather poor reputation. His parlor wasvery large and seemed to emphasize volume over quality. Several of herclients complained that his groomers had ignored their instructions. Onesaid that a groomer at the shop had cut into the quick of his dog’s nails,

with the result that the dog was now terrified of nail clippers.

Cathy looked at the groomer’s ad in the Yellow Pages. It was a full-pagespread, with testimonials from many reportedly satisfied clients. Think-ing that she recognized one name, Cathy quickly went to the groomer’s

website and looked at the list of staff members. She was right; the testi-monial in question was from a part-time employee of the facility! Explor-ing the website further, Cathy was not happy with what she perceived tobe a high-pressure advertising strategy. She found it particularly objec-

tionable that the groomer was implicitly critical of his competitors. Shealso noted that he was not a member of any professional association, theChamber of Commerce, or any other business organization.

Step 2: Identify your optionsCathy then thought about the responses she could make. She could ac-cept or reject the offer. There seemed to be benefits and risks to both. She

wondered whether there were other options. She could tell the groomerthat she would refer clients to him, but not exclusively. She imagined that

he’d be unwilling to share fees in that case. Cathy also could make a listof groomers for her clients and put his name on it along with others. Orshe could offer to make his brochures and business cards, as well as thoseof other groomers, available to clients.

Step 3: est against the rule book Cathy’s next step was to see if there were any laws or rules that would af-fect her decision. She was aware that, in the area where she lived, a lot ofbusiness was done on the basis of reciprocity and personal connections.It was a joke in her community that town contracts took a long time tobe negotiated because the town council had to decide whose nephew

would get the job. Cathy thought that was a pretty sleazy practice, but it was the reality.



52


With that in mind, Cathy called her family’s attorney. She told Cathythat this kind of kickback scheme was specifically prohibited for govern-ment contracts and certain specific professions, such as the practice oflaw, but that she could find no law that barred her from entering into thisparticular agreement with the groomer.

Next, Cathy went online to look at the ethics codes of her professional as-sociations. She was a professional member of the Association of Pet DogTrainers and had just applied to join the International Association of An-imal Behavior Consultants. She didn’t find any specific guidance in the

APDT code, but the IAABC code had the following provisions:

• “Animal behavior consultants do not provide services that create aconflict of interest that may impair work performance or clinical

judgment.”

• “Animal behavior consultants do not offer or accept kickbacks, re-bates, bonuses, or other remuneration for referrals; fee-for-service ar-rangements are not prohibited.”

She wasn’t actually an animal behavior consultant, Cathy reasoned, but

she hoped to be one some day, and so she figured she’d really have tothink about these requirements before deciding.

Step 4: Scrutinize your choicesTaking Dave’s advice, Cathy started to analyze her options more careful-ly. She first looked at accepting the offer.

From an ends-based perspective, this option had certain benefits. It couldincrease Cathy’s income and the resources available to her for her family

and for her professional development. She would also gain more clientsand therefore her services, which she knew to be of high quality, wouldbe available to more families and dogs. In the long run, this could do a lotof good. It would also, of course, be beneficial to the groomer by bring-ing him more business.

But there could be negative consequences, as well. If what she had learnedabout the groomer was accurate, some of her clients might not get goodvalue for their money, and it was possible that some of their dogs couldbe mistreated. As she thought more about it, she decided that the utili-tarian rule, “Greatest good for the greatest number,” argued against thisoption.




53

She then looked at accepting the offer from a duty-based perspective. It would be a real mess, she thought, if all trainers entered into exclusive re-lationships with other professionals. This would deprive clients of full in-formation on which to base a choice of services. In addition, she kept go-ing back to that prohibition against kickbacks in the IAABC code. That

was the word her attorney had used, and it didn’t feel right to knowing-ly violate the rule.

Finally, Cathy tried to apply the Golden Rule. She decided that the “oth-er” in this case should be her group of current and potential clients. If she

were part of that group, she thought, she would want to know about allof the groomers, not just this one, and she would expect Cathy to pro-

vide helpful and accurate information about any professional service shemight recommend. Cathy decided that accepting the offer didn’t meetthis test.

The other clear option was to reject the proposal, and this seemed reallypainful to Cathy. She thought that she, her family, and potential futureclients might suffer. So might the groomer. But the benefits to her clientsof having freedom of choice seemed more desirable. That also seemedmore consistent with her sense of duty and with the test of reciprocity

than did accepting the offer. Cathy tentatively decided to turn it down,but before she did she took one more step.

Step 5: alk to othersBecause she had bought some time before she had to get back to the own-er of the grooming parlor, Cathy could do some in-depth consultation.She first called Dave back. When she described her situation, Dave’s firstreaction was that it was different from the one he had faced. His was aclash of values; hers seemed to him to be a choice between integrity and

personal gain. Dave recalled a textbook from a course he had taken inbusiness ethics, The Ethics of International Business by John Donaldson.Donaldson had referred to something he called the “condition of businessprinciple.” Under this principle, Dave said, there were some people yousimply didn’t do business with because their practices were fundamen-tally unethical. Referring to a popular TV series on organized crime, heasked Cathy, “Would you train Tony Soprano’s guard dogs?” Of course,he went on, the groomer’s practices are not illegal like the mob, but thereare two good reasons not to associate with people who cut corners. The

first is a moral one: You are enabling them to continue an unethical prac-tice. The second is practical: if you are identified with him (or his busi-ness), you could suffer guilt by association and end up losing business.Cathy thanked him, hung up, and dialed again.



54


This time she called the principal of the school where she had former-ly taught. This woman had been a longtime mentor, and Cathy admiredher commitment to excellence and her integrity. The principal remindedCathy that, as a teacher, she had been an outstanding role model to stu-dents. “The appearance of impropriety can have as damaging an impacton young minds as the fact of impropriety,” she said. She urged Cathyto think deeply about the influence of her choices on those who admiredher.

Finally, Cathy called her dad, a retired physician and former presidentof the county medical association. He was adamant. “Professionals don’ttake bribes. In the medical field there are specific prohibitions against this

sort of thing. Don’t do it!” That was typical of her father, Cathy thought.He’s very direct. But he also makes a lot of sense.

Step 6: Act on your decision Armed with this careful analysis and advice, Cathy started to take action.She picked up the phone with the intention of turning down the offer.But then she stopped and hung up. Something was troubling her. What

was it?

Cathy was often very intuitive about her values, and insights sometimesseemed to come to her out of the blue. That’s what happened this time.Of course! She suddenly recalled a passage she had read in the APDTcode. It exhorted members to:

“Be respectful of colleagues and other professionals and notfalsely condemn the character of their professional acts.”

Cathy realized that she had been about to fall into a trap. She had beenguilty of a logical fallacy—sweeping generalization. She had concludedfrom a few anecdotes that the groomer was unprofessional and possiblyabusive. But she couldn’t know that for sure. Maybe the clients she hadtalked to were atypical. After all, there were a dozen groomers in the fa-cility and some were probably more skilled and compassionate than oth-ers. To refuse to refer to this groomer based on a small sample of opin-ions and on the fact that she didn’t care for his marketing practices didn’tseem to be an ethical choice, either.

Cathy returned to the other options, the ones that she had not analyzed

so deeply. She realized that there was a compromise position that shecould take. Cathy called the groomer and said the following:




55

“I want to thank you for thinking of me and for your offerof collaboration. I have decided that it would be more ap-

propriate for me to offer my clients a range of options forgrooming and other professional services. I would be happyto include your business on a list that I will provide to cli-ents and I would also be interested in exchanging cards andbrochures with you so that they can become more aware ofyour services.”

There was silence for a moment and then the groomer said, “You aremissing a big opportunity” and hung up. Cathy sat for a moment, phone

in hand. Well, you can’t please everyone, she thought, but I’m pretty con-tent with my decision and the way that I made it. Now it’s time to getready for that private session with the goofy Bichon.

In summary Dave and Cathy are good role models for us. Dave had to reconcile com-peting values; Cathy had to avoid a major temptation. They made gooduse of a systematic process for decision-making. We can, too. When faced

with an ethical dilemma or a major temptation, SITSTA:

1. Search for Information

2. Identify Your Options

3. Test against the Rule Book

4. Scrutinize the Your Choices

5. Talk to Others

6. Act on your Decision



56

CAS E S TUD I E S

In the last chapter, Dave and Cathy were able to tackle tough decisionsand make up their minds very quickly. But they couldn’t do this the firsttime that they tried. They had to practice. Practice is essential becauseethical decision-making is fundamentally a skill; in that regard, it’s justlike dog training. That means that understanding the principles is notenough; you need to practice again and again in order to become profi-cient. The goal is to become as accomplished at ethical reasoning as youare at dog training.

To provide you an opportunity to practice your skills, this chapter pres-ents a series of case studies that illustrate the types of ethical challengesyou may face in your professional life. They are drawn from the “Ethics

for Dog Trainers” column in The Chronicle of the Dog , the newsletter ofthe Association of Pet Dog Trainers, and have been reprinted with per-mission. Read through each case, and then apply the SITSTA methodand see how you would resolve the central issue. You can then compareyour conclusions with those of the column’s panelists, presented in thenext chapter. (Some of the cases and contributors’ responses have beenedited slightly in order to fit with the terminology and structure of thisbook.)

Chap te r 4



4 — CASE STUDIES

57

Here’s a reminder about the steps:

1. Search for Information

2. Identify Your Options

3. Test against the Rule Book

4. Scrutinize the Your Choices

5. Talk to Others

6. Act on your Decision And recall the traps: oversimplification, stereotyping, false analogies,thinking illogically, and putting the benefits to ourselves before the con-sequences to others or our duties toward them.

Whose client is she? Amy teaches group classes for the local parks department. She also has aprivate behavior consulting business. At a recent class, one of the studentsasks if she could schedule a private session to work on her dog’s chewing

and digging problems. Amy asks a few questions about the problems, anddetermines they are not part of the parks department course curriculum.She decides to make an appointment and to charge her standard consult-ing fee. She mentions this to a colleague, who passes it on to officials atthe parks department.

At her next meeting with the parks department staff, Amy is told in nouncertain terms that the student had paid for training by the departmentand that the fee should be turned over to the staff. Amy refuses. The de-

partment official insists and tells Amy that refusal to comply with the re-quest will lead to termination of her contract.

Is Amy’s refusal to turn over the fee right or wrong? How did you de-cide?

Would it make a difference in your answer if the client wanted help withimproving the dog’s responses to commands that were taught in the parksdepartment class? Why or why not?



58


You have to know when to foldLisa specializes in “problem dogs,” but this dog had more problems than

she had ever encountered. Purchased from a pet store at nine months ofage, the little dog was anxious about everything. It had attacked the hus-band and an uncle, inflicting level-three bites. At the initial consultation,the dog cowered in a corner, and then rushed forward barking and airsnapping. And this was only part of the problem. The dog was also uri-nating or defecating a dozen times a day on the wall-to-wall carpet. Thefamily had relegated her to a tie-out in the back yard and her crate, ex-cept when she was “playing” with the children. The family was extreme-ly busy and the home very noisy and hectic. Lisa had difficulty even find-

ing a time to schedule a follow-up meeting.Nevertheless, Lisa decided to take the case. She gave the family detailedinstructions on housetraining, toured the house, and suggested changingthe physical setup. She discussed diet and exercise, and demonstrated ba-sic obedience work. She gave them a handout on behavior exercises, andset up an appointment to teach them the procedure. She also gave themideas for reducing the dog’s anxiety and preventing further bites.

The second meeting was chaotic. The phone rang several times, and the

parents felt obligated to take the calls. A family member arrived unex-pectedly and attempted to play with the dog until Lisa stopped him.Only a little progress was made on demonstrating the behavior exercises,and Lisa left feeling very disappointed.

Lisa arrived for the third meeting to find no one at home. Calling the cli-ent’s cell, she found they had forgotten the appointment. They arrivedin time for an abbreviated lesson. At the fourth meeting—the last onescheduled—again there was no one home. This time, the parents said

they couldn’t make it back, but that the dog was still not housetrained.

Lisa pondered her options. She was really worried that the dog wouldbe euthanized. She decided to send her recommendations in writing, in-cluding a referral to a veterinary behaviorist. She heard no more, and formonths worried about the dog’s fate.

Was Lisa’s decision right or wrong? How did you decide?

Tat’s the way it’s done around hereEdith has just moved from a large city to a primarily rural part of thecountry, where she has worked hard to develop her training business. Inher new area, some owners of hunting hounds abandon those that do notreturn at the end of the hunt. The dogs either come back to the truck orthey are simply left in the woods. Those who choose to leave their dogs



4 — CASE STUDIES

59

often do not claim them from animal control when contacted. Edith istroubled by this practice and talks it over with some of her neighbors. Shefinds out that it seems to be pragmatic on the part of the owners. Dogsthat won’t “pack up” at the end of the hunt are literally worthless proper-ty. The owners believe that the responsibility (to be in the right place atthe right time) falls on the dog. They leave them in the woods just as anemployer might fire the fellow who does not show up for work.

Edith is so incensed by this attitude that she writes a letter to the local pa-per arguing that dogs are sentient beings, not property, and deserve to betreated with care and dignity. In response, local residents send many let-ters—some to the paper and some directly to Edith—accusing her of try-

ing to impose her values on the community and of not trying to under-stand the history and values behind the treatment of dogs in this region.Her training business begins to fall off.

Was Edith’s decision to write to the paper right or wrong?

ake it to the limit Mike is contacted by a client who has a degenerative disease. He asksfor assistance in training his dog to perform some tasks including bring-

ing objects, alerting to phone calls and visitors, and assisting with cross-ing streets. Mike suggests several service dog agencies, but his client com-plains that they are either too far away or have policies that won’t workfor him.

Mike has been training pet dogs for several years, but has no experiencein training service dogs. He believes he can help with some of the tasks,such as retrieving objects, but is not sure how to train a dog to assist withstreet crossing. He is aware of some books that may help and thinks it

would improve his training skills (and his reputation) if he could success-fully assist this client.

Mike decides to take the client, offering a discount from his regular fee.He does not indicate that he has no experience in training service dogs,and the client doesn’t ask. He schedules an appointment for the follow-ing week.

Was Mike’s decision to take the case right or wrong?

At the first session, the client asks how many service dogs Mike hastrained. Mike says all of the dogs he’s worked with are service dogs, inthe sense that they work for their people, and begins to demonstrate theuse of the clicker.

Was Mike’s answer to the client right or wrong?



60


It wasn’t really a biteSusan is contacted by one of her clients after a group class. The client has

a concern about the possibility that she will lose her dog. It seems thatthe dog nipped a neighbor’s child when the child snuck into the client’syard and pulled the dog’s tail. The neighbor has accused the client of hav-ing a vicious dog and threatened to report her to the local animal con-trol officials.

On further inquiry, Susan learns that the child was treated by a doctor,but the doctor apparently did not report the bite, as is required by statelaw. By now, the neighbor has cooled off, and seems unlikely to press thecase, but Susan has a dilemma. Is she now obligated to report the bite?

Susan consults her professional association’s code of ethics. She finds thefollowing passage:

[I will] respect the privacy of my clients and hold in confi-dence all information obtained in the course of professionalservices, unless otherwise agreed upon in advance. I will usediscretion in revealing information regarding dogs display-ing potentially dangerous behavior.

Greatly relieved, Susan decides not to report the bite.

Was Susan’s decision right or wrong?

All creatures great and smallPeter is a successful pet dog trainer in the upper Midwest. The areaaround Peter’s home is known for its profusion of game birds. The pheas-ant season is an exciting time, as hunters from around the country ar-

rive for their shooting holidays. The revenue from hunting is importantto the region and the tradition has been passed down from generation togeneration.

There are two hunting dog trainers in Peter’s area. Both are very suc-cessful using proven methods that include the use of physical force. Sev-eral of their dogs are field trial champions and they have trained manyof the dogs used by local hunting preserves. The owner of one of thesepreserves has recently been in Peter’s puppy kindergarten class with his“house dog.” He was very impressed by Peter’s methods and made a pro-posal. Would Peter develop a program for training of hunting dogs thathe could offer to people who are uncomfortable with the two profession-al trainers’ methods?



4 — CASE STUDIES

61

This poses a real dilemma for Peter. One of his core values is compas-sion, and a principle of his business philosophy is to treat animals in acompassionate manner. This includes not only dogs, but, to the extentpossible, other animals as well. He is aware that, in his area, hunting is a

way of life, and most hunting dogs are trained in the established way. Soat least he might be able to help the dogs and owners to learn in a waythat was more compatible with his own values. On the other hand, he isdeeply opposed to killing for sport and doesn’t want to promote hunt-ing in any way.

After some reflection, Peter declines. Was Peter’s decision right or wrong?

Te truth, the whole truth?Leslie does private training and behavior consultations in a small cityand in several nearby towns. One of her clients, in a town a little dis-tance away, signed up for private sessions to prepare her dog, a Pit Bullcross obtained from a shelter, for a Canine Good Citizen® test. On arriv-al, Leslie determined that the client’s household was crowded and some-times chaotic. In addition to the client and her three-year-old child, there

was a Golden Retriever, the client’s mother with two cats and a Jack Rus-

sell terrier, and sometimes a Labrador cross belonging to a friend. Lesliealso observed that the Pit Bull cross was assertive and that the client wasinconsistent in her training and leadership.

At the third visit, Leslie observed that the dog was showing signs of stress,and the client admitted that it had recently attacked one of her mother’scats. There was no injury, but the cat had been hiding ever since. Leslieimmediately changed course and told the client clearly about the chal-lenges of managing a potentially aggressive dog. She outlined specific

steps the client should take to prevent any injury, especially to the child.She suggested gently that perhaps the dog would be better off in anoth-er household. At this point, the client became angry and asserted that thedog would never harm a child.

A few days later, Leslie received a voice mail message from the client.Tearfully, she told Leslie that the dog had attacked her mother’s Jack Rus-sell, which required extensive medical treatment. The bite was reportedby the vet to animal control, in accordance with local law. Leslie calledthe client back, but did not reach her and her call was not returned.

Curious about the client’s failure to call, Leslie obtained a copy of the bitereport. She was shocked to find that the client and her mother had not



62


acknowledged that the Pit Bull cross was responsible for the bite, but hadclaimed that the Jack Russell had been attacked by a pack of dogs.

Leslie considered her options. She was deeply concerned about the safe-ty of the child and others in the household. She also feared that, shouldthe Pit Bull cross bite again, she herself might be held liable as a trainer;at the very least, her reputation could suffer. But the very act of reportingher client’s falsehood could create problems as well.

After careful thought, Leslie decided that the decision was the client’s,not hers. She kept silent about the report and never heard from the cli-ent again.

Was Leslie’s decision right or wrong?

Te case of the missing trainer A potential client contacts Bob and asks him for information about train-ing programs, because she needs training for her 14-week-old Lab pup-py. Part way through the conversation, she tells Bob that she has alreadycontracted with another trainer who’s charged her $250 for six one-hourin-home sessions. The first trainer showed up for the first session, a one-hour lecture, and collected the fee. She called two days later to say she’dbeen in a car accident and wouldn’t be able to make the next scheduledsession, but would call back soon to reschedule. Nearly a month has goneby with no word from the trainer, nor does she return voice mails. Nat-urally, the client is feeling pretty ripped off. Aside from the cell phonenumber and name, she has no other information on this person, andplans to go to court to track her down and hold her responsible for thefee.

In the course of the conversation, the potential client lets slip the first

trainer’s name, and it turns out to be someone Bob knows slightly. Infact, he is aware that she has a full-time clerical position at a local shel-ter. Bob decides not to tell the client where the other trainer works andchanges the subject to the content of his training services. The conver-sation ends with the potential client saying she will call Bob back aboutscheduling a session.

Was Bob’s action right or wrong?

Two weeks later, the potential client calls back to say that she has decid-ed to take her dog to a board-and-train program, a service Bob does notprovide. She mentions again that she is still trying to find the first train-er and recover her money, which she needs to pay for the board-and-trainprogram. She says to Bob, “There aren’t that many trainers around here.



4 — CASE STUDIES

63

Do you have any idea how I can go about finding her?” Bob says he hasno idea, and wishes her luck.

Was Bob’s action right or wrong? How did you decide?

On the one hand . . . but on the other Karen has a client with a young Corgi. One morning she receives byemail a form requesting a behavioral consultation from another individu-al who has a Coonhound. Her email says, “At home, he is a good boy andgets along swimmingly with my female Coonhound. However, at dogparks, he can be a bully to other dogs, and I am unable to control him ormake him quit. Yesterday there was an incident with a small dog who was

entering the dog park, and my dog grabbed the dog (it was not hurt).”

While considering this request, Karen received a call from the youngCorgi’s owner. Her client reported, “This past Saturday our dog was at-tacked at the dog park by a Coonhound before we even entered the park.The Coonhound broke through the gate and picked our dog up anddidn’t let go until he was kicked off. I now need to know what I shoulddo concerning the owner of the dog (who doesn’t really seem to care).”

Putting the two incidents together, Karen asked for the name of theCoonhound’s owner. Not surprisingly, it was the same individual who re-quested the consultation. The Corgi’s owner had only a phone numberand no last name for the Coonhound’s owner. Karen had additional con-tact information and a last name.

Karen pondered the situation. Should she take the Coonhound’s case? Whether she takes the case or not, should she give the Corgi’s owner theadditional contact information she already has?

After deep reflection, Karen emailed the Coonhound’s owner to say thatshe could not take the case. Then she called the Corgi’s owner and gaveher the contact information she had on the intake form.

Were Karen’s decisions right or wrong?

It’s their dog, after allBill was excited to receive the call. The client had gotten his new dogfrom a shelter and this was Bill’s first referral from that organization. Heknew they placed a lot of dogs and hoped that the behavior consultingpart of his business would benefit from successful work with their newfamilies.



64


The client explained that their American Bulldog was growling at strangemen. He agreed to meet with the client for an initial consultation, ex-plaining that he wanted to talk with the family first, and that the dogshould be confined while a behavioral history was taken.

When Bill arrived, the dog was in another room. He gathered a detailedhistory and reached a preliminary conclusion that the dog’s behavior wasbased on severe anxiety. He explained management, training, and behav-ior modification approaches, and then asked to see the dog, which re-mained behind a gate for safety. Bill was able to reinforce calm behav-ior, and use treats to lure a sit. As he was feeling that this might well bea workable case, suddenly the dog snarled, lunged, and nearly came over

the pen. Although he was very experienced, Bill was afraid, and he askedthat the client remove the dog.

Bill explained to the client that the severity of the dog’s reaction had giv-en him pause and he was concerned that it would require lifelong man-agement, along with lots of behavioral work. He requested a veterinaryexamination to rule out medical causes for the behavior. Bill told the cli-ents that he would be willing to work with them, as long as they fully un-derstood the challenge they were facing and were committed to the pro-

gram he outlined. The husband indicated that he was inclined to do so;the wife said nothing.

The following day, Bill received a call from the wife. She asked directly,“Should we give the dog back?” Bill hesitated. On the one hand, he knewthat severe cases sometimes resolve so that the dog and family can havea good life; on the other, in his heart he did not think this dog and fam-ily were a good fit. He rationalized: It’s their dog; I can’t tell them whatto do. So he reiterated his points from the consultation and told the cli-

ent that he could not make a decision for her and her husband. She said,“Then what good is your advice?” and hung up.

Was Bill’s decision not to recommend re-homing right or wrong?

o the rescue Joe is always happy to help families that rescue dogs. Sure, he needs tomake a living, but he heavily discounts his services for such families.Keeping dogs and families together is very important to him.

He was pleased to be contacted by a rescue group that offered to pay himto work with a family that recently adopted a challenging hound mix.

Joe respects the rescue group. He knows that they conduct extensive in-terviews and home visits before placing dogs in their care. He also knows



4 — CASE STUDIES

65

that they insist on some minimum standards that the families must meet,including training, veterinary care, and ensuring that dogs are permittedindoors with the family, not kept in outdoor kennels.

When Joe arrives at the home of the adopters, he finds that the dog istechnically inside—in a blocked-off section of the kitchen with a dogdoor—but it is also clear from his observations and discussions that thedog is not allowed in the rest of the home. On subsequent visits, he dis-covers that the dog is only allowed in the house at night to sleep and

when the trainer is present for lessons, but at no other time. The dog ap-pears to be in good physical health, and has adequate food, water, andshelter outside, but it is clearly not the “inside” dog that he believes the

rescue group expected.

Joe receives frequent referrals from the rescue group, and wants to pre-serve his reputation with them. But he is unsure whether he should in-form the group that the family seems not to be adhering to the criteriathat were originally set. After thinking about it for a while, he decides tolet it go. It’s the family’s responsibility, he reasons, and the dog is not be-ing abused. To report it to the group would be too intrusive, borderingon obnoxious.

Was Joe’s decision right or wrong?

Tey said he was a Boxer Sharon looked at the registration form and then back at the dog. There

was no doubt about it. He was a purebred American Pit Bull Terrier. Theform said “Boxer mix,” and the client had indicated she had purchasedthe dog from a family that had an unintended litter. The dog was atten-tive and relaxed in the opening class, but he wasn’t a Boxer; he was a Pit!

The realization created a problem. Sharon’s town had a ban on certainbreeds, including Pit Bulls. The politicians had passed it in reaction toseveral serious incidents in a nearby city, though there had been no sig-nificant attacks by dogs in Sharon’s town in several years. Sharon strong-ly disagreed with the ban. She considered it the canine equivalent of rac-ism and argued instead for a strict dangerous dog law that would applyto any breed. In its rush to calm public anxiety, however, the town coun-cil passed the law by a 3-1 margin. In the following months, several dogs

were seized and euthanized, and many owners either gave their dogs away

to families elsewhere or moved to towns that did not have breed-specif-ic legislation.



66


Looking at the dog and owner, Sharon was optimistic that he could betrained and socialized and become a good family pet. He was interacting

with the two children happily and appropriately, and it was clear that theentire family loved him. But the breed ban meant that they would alwaysbe at risk of losing the dog, and possibly having to pay a heavy fine, as

well. At the same time, Sharon knew that the animal control officer wasoverworked and unlikely to go out of his way to find the dog, as long asthe family kept him safely at home.

Sharon pondered the situation. Should she say something to the fami-ly? Should she report the dog to animal control? Should she just keepher mouth shut? For today, she thought, I’ll just keep quiet and see what

happens.

At the next class, Sharon found herself in a tight spot. Another partici-pant came to the training center early and asked her whether the dog inquestion was really a Boxer. “Looks a lot like a Pit Bull to me,” he said.Sharon hesitated and then said, “The registration form says Boxer mix,and I rely on the information I get from the family.” The man shook hishead and walked away.

Were Sharon’s actions right or wrong?Now that you’ve had a chance to practice your ethical skills, turn to thenext chapter and see how the panelists responded.



67

CONTR I BU TOR S ’

A S S E S SMEN T S O F CAS E

S TUD I E S

We hope you enjoyed applying the SITSTA technique to the case stud-ies in Chapter 4. In this chapter, we reprint the comments on the casesmade by the panelists in the APDT Chronicle of the Dog ethics column,

Jim Barry, Jennifer Biglan, and Kelly Ryan. (Their biographies are at theback of the book.) Compare your evaluations with theirs and see whatyou think.

Whose client is she? A trainer contracts for private services with a client in her parks depart-ment class. The service wants her to turn over the fee for the private ses-sion to the organization. She refuses.

Jennifer: Amy’s decision not to turn over the fee to the parks department was both right and wrong. If the services she provides are not provided bythe parks department, then she should be able to provide private lessonsif that is what the client wants and needs. It is both in the parks depart-ment’s interest and Amy’s interest to continue their relationship. Amyfinds the department venue useful, and the department presumably val-ues her services, as well.

This is something that should have been discussed as soon as Amy start-

ed her private business, and a clear policy needs to be created to addressthis for future reference. Amy could provide a percentage or an advertis-ing fee to the parks department for each customer she receives, for exam-ple, and clear differentiation should be made between a parks customerand Amy’s private customers.

Chap te r 5



68


If the client wanted help improving the dog’s responses to commandsthat were taught in the parks department class, Amy should have encour-aged the client to repeat the group class.

Jim: This mess could have been avoided by making the boundaries be-tween the parks department program and Amy’s independent activitiesclear at the outset. For any ethical dilemma, one of the first steps shouldbe to look at the legal obligations of the parties. Amy should have a con-tract with the department that should make the responsibilities of bothsides clear. It seems in this situation, however, that either there is no writ-ten contract, or it is ambiguous regarding the issue of Amy’s private busi-ness with parks department clients. That being the case, Amy and the of-

ficial need to use a common sense approach and consider the interests ofall those affected by the decision—the “stakeholders”—including Amy,the department, the current client, and future clients. A reasonable com-promise would be for the official to allow Amy to work independently

with the client this time while they negotiate a contract that is more pre-cise regarding the circumstances in which Amy may work privately withdepartment clients. In that regard, Amy’s refusal to turn over the fee maybe a useful negotiating tactic, but is not necessarily a wise position to takefor the long term.

Kelly : The answer depends on additional information. The first placeto look for answers here is in the terms of the contract with the depart-ment itself. If she is an employee of the department, she must conformto their procedures and policies. Most trainers who contract with parksdepartments, however, do so as independent contractors or consultants.The very nature of an independent contractor means that the payer (thedepartment in this case) has the right to control or direct the result ofthe work, but not the means or method of accomplishing the result. Be-

ing an independent contractor or consultant, as opposed to an employee,also means the trainer provides services to additional clients other thanthe department, and the department has no rights to fees related to thoseother clients and no interests in the provision of those services. Moreover,if the services being sought by the client are not included within the classcurriculum, that fact would strengthen Amy’s position.

A different issue for Amy to consider in this situation is the business wis-dom of fighting the department on this point. If she could get the terms

clarified with respect to when or if the department is entitled to privateconsultation fees, it might be the wiser business choice to take that routerather than fighting over this fee.



5 — CONTRIBUTORS’ ASSESSMENTS OF CASE STUDIES

69

In summary, the panel considers Amy’s position to be ambiguous. Theynote that trainers (like dogs) function most effectively when boundariesand expectations are clear from the outset.

You have to know when to foldLisa has to decide whether to stop working with a client who isn’t follow-ing her advice. She opts to make a referral to a veterinary behaviorist andloses touch with the family.

Jim: Lisa’s action was right as far as it went, but there is a question about whether she should have taken this case in the first place. She clearly feltthat there were real limits on the family’s ability to carry out any kind

of systematic training and behavior modification program. And she alsoknew that this dog would need great care and commitment in order toheal from its anxieties. At the first meeting (or certainly the second) shecould have been much more direct about the options and provided thereferral information at that time. If she wanted to, she could have activelyassisted the family in re-homing the dog. And at any time she could havemade a follow-up phone call to check on the dog’s situation. In short,

what she did was right, but inadequate.

Jennifer: Lisa’s love of dogs and desire to help led her to delude herselfand her clients. It was clear from the first appointment that this fami-ly needed help deciding if they had the time, commitment, and lifestyleto help this dog succeed. The main concern here is the family’s ability tocommit to re-training the dog. If they could, referring them to a veteri-nary behaviorist was a helpful recommendation; however, if they couldnot, then a referral is irrelevant. Lisa should have counseled this family atthe first appointment and provided more options to help them (and theirdog) be successful. These could include group classes, home schooling,

board-and-train, re-homing, private rescue, referral to a veterinary be-haviorist, or possibly euthanasia if the dog was dangerous and it was notpossible to re-home.

Kelly : When she made the final decision, Lisa was right. Writing upher recommendations and including a referral to a veterinary behaviorist

was a responsible choice. There were, however, clues early on about thechallenges that would arise. In that first session, Lisa could have raisedthe family’s commitment and their responsibilities in effectuating behav-ior modification. Rather than just providing handouts, she could haveasked the family what they realistically could do and developed proto-cols consistent with the family’s reality. She could have gotten a commit-ment from the family to follow the protocols. Certainly, that conversa-tion should have happened by the second session. While this would not



70


have guaranteed success, it could have helped her to avoid some of thelater pitfalls and to build a foundation for constructive and frank conver-sations with the family about their options.

In summary, the panel felt that Lisa should have heeded the warning sig-nals earlier in the relationship and been more forthright and comprehen-sive in her advice.

Tat’s the way it’s done around hereEdith finds that her assumptions about how dogs should be treated aredifferent from those of her new community. She writes to the paper com-plaining about local attitudes toward dogs.

Kelly : Edith’s decision was guided by a “right” principle, but the resultshe achieved was “wrong.” There is a practical component to ethical di-lemmas which should, in part, guide those decisions. It does little or nogood to expose an evil if you so alienate your audience in the process thatthey cannot hear your message and will not heed your advice. Edith’s ap-proach not only had the effect of strengthening opposition to her per-spective, but undermined her ability to better educate the communityand achieve any positive result. A practical approach, which considered

the effect of her actions, would have better served both Edith, her cli-ents and the community. Such an approach could have included garner-ing support from others within the community, understanding the viewsof the community, and offering viable alternatives to what they perceivedas the problem with their dogs. This might have made her message bothmore palatable and, ultimately, more successful.

Jennifer: In this situation, Edith’s choice to write a letter to the paper was the “right” decision because in the long run finding a solution to thisparticular situation will benefit the community as a whole. However, thecontent and focus of her letter had the opposite or “wrong” impact fromthe one she was hoping for. Instead of gaining support from the commu-nity and bringing people together to find solutions and reach commonground, she alienated and pushed people away. It is important to avoidplacing blame and pointing fingers, and move away from who is “right”and who is “wrong” towards facts and solutions and benefits for the com-munity as a whole. Perhaps in the future she could write an anonymousletter.

Jim: In this case, Edith followed a time-honored ethical tradition basedon the concept of a universal duty to challenge a practice she regards asabusive. Her decision appears to have been based on the maxim that peo-ple should always expose wrongdoing when they can. But there is an-




71

other way of looking at issues of right and wrong, and that is in terms oftheir consequences. It seems that an unintended result of Edith’s actionis that she has inflamed the community and now has fewer direct oppor-tunities to educate clients about her values regarding dogs. Perhaps she

would have had greater success by working quietly with individual cli-ents, vets, or the local humane society to attempt to change attitudes overtime. There is a middle ground between expressing outrage and ignor-ing abuse, and Edith, her clients and their dogs might have been betterserved if she had chosen that course.

In summary, the panel admired Edith’s principles, but felt that patienceand persuasion might have yielded a better result.

ake it to the limit Mike has an opportunity to do some service dog training, but he has noexperience in the field. He takes the job and is vague when the client asksabout his qualifications.

Jennifer: Mike’s decision to take this client on was right as long as theclient is given accurate information. If he is truly interested in improv-ing his training skills and broadening his area of service, giving a discount

for his services until he has trained several clients successfully is a goodplace to start. It is essential, however, that he provide the client with ac-curate information on which to base a decision, and it is not clear that hedid that at the outset. Moreover, Mike’s answer about how many servicedogs he had trained was misleading to his client. It is unethical under anycircumstances to falsify credentials and training experience. Service dogshelp people overcome physical and mental disabilities and barriers, andplay an extremely important role in society. Taking the training of servicedogs so lightly crosses over from acceptable to unethical and could very

possibly be harmful to the client.Kelly : Mike was right to take on this case. The client did not have manyalternatives, needed assistance, and was not able to take advantage of oth-er resources. Regarding Mike’s lack of experience, guidelines for attorneyscan provide a helpful analogy. While not expected to know every area oflaw, an attorney must know the limits of his or her knowledge and howto find answers—through associating with a more experienced attorney,conducting research, or both. Mike recognizes his limits in training ser-vice dogs and has resources to assist him where he is lacking. Althoughthere are self-serving motivations, it also appears he will be able to help aclient who otherwise would not get assistance.



72


Jim: Mike seems to be placing as much emphasis on the benefits to him-self as on the good of his client. The result is that he is not forthcom-ing about his limited experience, especially when he dodges the questionabout his past work with service dogs. Nothing short of complete hones-ty is required when working with a client, especially one who has to relyon a dog for assistance. Mike should have responded along these lines,“I understand your needs and that the other approaches won’t work foryou. I am willing to assist you, but I have no experience in training ser-vice dogs. I have experience with pet dogs, and am aware of some goodbooks that may assist. If you would like to work together in a mutual ex-ploration that either of us can terminate if it appears not to be workingout, then I would be very willing to do that.” This would be honest andrespectful of the client’s right to free choice. It would also benefit Mike’sreputation not only as a skilled trainer, but one with integrity.

In not providing accurate information about his experience, however,Mike has crossed the ethical line. He was not forthcoming in the inter-view, and while his answer in the first session is not a direct falsehood,it is obfuscation. Although Mike may provide a service to the client, hislack of honesty serves only Mike.

In summary, the panel had serious reservations about Mike’s behavior. While a majority felt that he was correct to take the case, all were trou-bled by his unwillingness to be forthright and to place the client’s inter-ests ahead of his own.

It wasn’t really a biteSusan becomes aware of a bite incident that the owners and medical per-sonnel have failed to report. She decides that she has no responsibility toreport the incident.

Jim: There are some key tests that Susan can perform to decide wheth-er or not to report the bite. Rusworth Kidder talks about these in HowGood People Make Tough Choices . The first is the “legal test.” She shouldreview the state law and other regulations to determine whether this inci-dent meets the threshold for reporting. If not, she has no legal obligation,though she may have a moral one. The second is the “gut test.” As a dogtraining professional, Susan should be able to tell the difference betweena warning nip and a more serious bite. (Dr. Ian Dunbar’s level system forevaluating bites is useful in this regard.) Based on detailed questioningof the client and observation of the dog, Susan can develop an intuitivesense of whether the dog is indeed aggressive or was more a victim of cir-cumstances. Finally, there is the “Mom test.” This involves consulting atrusted family member or colleague for advice. It’s usually not a good idea




73

to make important ethical decisions alone, and it’s all the more important when a person’s safety or the fate of an animal is at stake. Based on theoutcome of these tests, Susan may well be justified in not reporting thebite. She does, however, have an obligation to be forthright with the cli-ent about the fact that any dog, given the wrong circumstances, may bite,and to provide appropriate information on further training and manage-ment to prevent any recurrence of this unfortunate situation.

Jennifer: Susan was right not to report the bite. However, by choosingnot to report the bite, Susan has a responsibility to educate the ownerand help prevent future bites. I would base a decision on whether or notI would report a bite based on the following criteria: the owners’ under-

standing, ability, and willingness to manage the dog; the circumstanceof the bite; severity of the bite (did it break the skin, were stitches neces-sary); and local dog bite laws. Clients trust trainers enough to come to usfor advice, information, and help. If we break their trust, people will beless likely to speak with us about the problems they’re having with theirdog. In this situation, it is the doctor and the owner, not Susan, who havethe principal obligation to report the bite. Susan should report a bite ifit happens in her presence and the bite is severe, or if the owner has in-formed her several times that the dog has bitten a person and nothing has

been done to prevent bites from happening.

Kelly : With the information available to Susan, she made the right de-cision. As dog training professionals, we have a dual ethical responsibili-ty when it comes to dog bites. On the one hand, there is a specific obli-gation to respect the privacy and confidences of our clients. On the otherhand, there is, and should be, a more general obligation to the communi-ty at large where public safety is at issue. When there is a true conflict be-tween these obligations, the greater public safety obligation should pre-

vail. However, in Susan’s scenario it is not at all clear there was a trueconflict between the obligations. The information Susan has about thespecific circumstances of the bite—a child sneaking into the yard andpulling on the dog’s tail—suggests this is not a scenario which is likely torecur or at least is one which can be easily prevented from recurring. Inaddition, the facts that the doctor did not report the bite as required bystate law and that the neighbor has “cooled off” and is unlikely to pressthe case suggest the dog did not inflict any serious injuries on the child.In combination, these facts indicate the dog does not represent an ongo-

ing or escalating public safety concern. Because there does not appear tobe a broader public safety concern, there is no true conflict in her ethi-cal responsibilities. Without that conflict, Susan was right to respect theprivacy of her client.



74


In summary, the panel was comfortable with Susan’s decision, but stressedher obligation to gather the facts, understand her legal and moral obliga-tions, and work closely with the client to prevent future incidents.

All creatures great and smallPeter has to decide whether to train hunting dogs when he is opposed tohunting. He declines.

Jennifer: It is important to make decisions that align with our personalvalues and do not keep us up all night. Hunting will continue whetheror not Peter gets involved, and, if he doesn’t, the preserve owner will con-tinue to train his dogs using methods that are inconsistent with Peter’s

preferences. Peter could help the preserve owner in a less direct mannerby providing him with the resources he needs to learn about other train-ing methods. These could include training guidance, counseling, positivetraining seminars, books, websites, etc.

Jim: I should probably recuse myself from this case, since I run train-ing classes for gun dogs, but I do appreciate Peter’s dilemma. There are acouple of ways in which he might approach it. One is to think it throughintellectually and realize that his personal choice is likely to have no im-

pact on the number of pheasants shot. So if he can conduct training thatis consistent with his principles for a few dogs, at least there will be somepositive impact. Alternatively, he can focus on what his gut, the voice ofhis conscience, is telling him. His discomfort is a signal that his funda-mental values are threatened and he is perfectly justified in following thatlead. But there may be a third choice. That would be to agree to do basicobedience classes for the dogs and their owners, and take the opportuni-ty to introduce them to some other dog sports such as agility and flyball.He might find at least a few who will decide to pursue activities that are

less contradictory to Peter’s fundamental beliefs.Kelly : Peter’s decision was right, for him. Because Peter’s personal valuesled him to believe killing for sport is unethical, it was important for himto make a decision true to those beliefs. Although he could have donesome good for some people and their dogs, in doing so he would havebeen supporting activities he fundamentally opposes. His decision allowshim to maintain his self respect, an important component of making eth-ical decisions. On the other hand, a different decision by someone else

would not have been wrong. Someone not as deeply opposed to huntingas Peter might have recognized that the economic impact of hunting andits strong tradition in the area make it unlikely that introducing new dog-training methods will diminish the sport. With that recognition, a deci-sion to provide owners with an opportunity for a new relationship with




75

their dogs could mark the beginning of a change in the community andopen a broader dialogue about the ethics of hunting.

In summary, the panel admired Peter’s integrity, but thought that there were other options available that could benefit dogs and their owners without compromising his basic principles.

Te truth, the whole truth?Leslie has to decide whether to set the record straight when a client dis-sembles about a dog. She does not disclose the information she has ob-tained.

Kelly : Leslie did not make the right decision. She learned that the re-port was false. As professionals, it is our responsibility to work within thelaws of our communities. This includes a responsibility to ensure that arequired report to animal control is not false. This kind of reporting re-quirement ultimately serves both the client and the broader communityby reducing the likelihood of more injuries on other animals or people.One option for Leslie would be to contact the reporting vet and providehim or her with the accurate information on how the Jack Russell’s inju-ries were sustained. Since it is the vet who filed the report, this gives the

vet the opportunity to rectify the false report and does not implicate thevet in the falsity of the report.

Jennifer: Leslie’s decision was right. Ultimately, the client is responsiblefor the dog. If the client chooses to withhold information about the inci-dent, in this situation it is not Leslie’s responsibility. If the client is set onkeeping the dog in the home, all Leslie can do is try to provide the owners

with the information they need to be successful. We cannot force peopleto work with and train their dogs; all we can do is inform, train, educate,and follow-up as best as we can. The rest is up to the owner of the dog.If Leslie is concerned about her reputation or possible liability shouldsomething worse happen, she should keep accurate training records.

Jim: There are two issues: The first is whether Leslie acted correctly innot reporting the information she had about the bite incident. But theother is where the boundaries should be drawn between the client’s re-sponsibility and the trainer’s. Leslie’s action in requesting the bite re-port was questionable, an intrusion into the owner’s area of responsibili-ty. But once she had done so, she had direct knowledge that the Pit Bull

cross had shown dangerous behavior and that the report had been falsi-fied. She should then have intervened. Ultimately, however, it is the own-er’s responsibility to resolve this situation. Before reporting the correct in-formation to animal control, Leslie should have contacted the client—by



76


phone and in writing if necessary—to explain her perspective and urgethe owner to take appropriate action. If that approach was not successful,she should follow up with a report of her own to the appropriate author-ities. The safety of people and other animals should be the priority.

In summary, the panel members disagreed about where the line shouldbe drawn between client and trainer responsibility for accurate report-ing.

Te case of the missing trainer Bob is asked to disclose contact information about another trainer whohas not given him permission to do so. He decides not to.

Jim: This is a classic ethical dilemma. It is right to respond honestly to re-quests for information, and it is right to respect another’s privacy. Which“right” should take precedence? In my view, Bob’s behavior was accept-able up to the point where he was asked a direct question. At that time hehad three options: to tell the truth about the other trainer’s location; tolie, as he did in this case; or to tell the client that he was not comfortablesharing private information about another trainer and suggesting that herattorney should be able to assist. By choosing deliberately to tell an un-

truth, Bob took the lower moral road. There were other options available,and he should have pursued them.

Jennifer: Bob is right. It is unethical to give out personal information without consent. Bob can give the client the trainer’s business name andnumber because that is already public information. There may be moreto this story than the client is letting on, and Bob does not know the sit-uation and/or what has gone on between this trainer and the client. Ifthe client is telling the truth and the situation is as straightforward asshe says, the trainer is acting unethically and should refund the mon-ey for services she did not provide. However, it is not Bob’s job to pur-sue this. If he wants to help he could contact the trainer himself to dis-cuss the situation and inform the trainer that the client is calling aroundlooking for her.

Kelly : Bob has only gotten one side of the story here, and because ofthat, his choice was not wrong. With the limited information he had, it

would have been inappropriate for Bob to give the potential client in-formation about the other trainer’s place of employment. However, Bob

also has an obligation to the professional training community. That in-cludes helping to protect consumers from unethical trainers and helpingto protect the general public’s perception of trainers as reputable profes-sionals. With that obligation in mind, Bob could have done something




77

more. For example, Bob could have contacted the trainer himself at theshelter and spoken with her about the potential client and her claims. IfBob was uncomfortable with contacting the trainer himself or gettingany more involved in the situation between the trainer and potential cli-ent, Bob could have made some other suggestions to the client, like con-tacting the Better Business Bureau or contacting any professional orga-nization to which the other trainer may have belonged and seeking theorganization’s assistance in dealing with this issue with the trainer.

In summary, the panel acknowledged that Bob was torn between truth-fulness and loyalty, and their differing responses reflected the difficultyof his choice.

On the one hand . . . but on the other Karen must choose whether to work with a client whose dog has attackedanother customer’s dog, and whether to disclose that person’s identity tothe owner of the injured dog. She decides to provide the information.

Jennifer: Karen made the wrong choice. It is unethical to give out confi-dential information about clients without their knowledge. Karen shouldhave called the Coonhound’s owner to discuss the dog park incident in

greater detail and to possibly set up an initial consultation. She could in-form the Coonhound’s owner that the Corgi is a client of hers and discussher physical condition. If, after this, the Coonhound’s owner still failedto take responsibility for her dog’s actions, Karen should refer her to an-other trainer, and inform her that it is a conflict of interest and a liabili-ty for her to work with her.

Jim: Karen got into this fix because she did not have a good sense of theboundaries of appropriate disclosure. If she had a formal disclosure pol-icy, she could have saved herself a lot of agony. An appropriate policy isthat all client information is confidential, except for disclosures requiredby law or to prevent lethal or otherwise serious injury to a person or an-other animal when the circumstances are so urgent as to leave no otheroptions.

If she had done so, she then could have considered the Coonhound’s caseon its own merits and taken the case on with no ethical concerns. Shecould, of course, have declined it if her workload or her level of expertise

would not permit her to perform the work effectively.

Kelly : Karen was right not to take the Coonhound’s case because of thepotential conflict between the Corgi’s owner and the Coonhound’s own-er. This potential conflict could put Karen in an extremely difficult sit-



78


uation with both owners regarding any confidential information sheobtains from either of them. For example, she already knows that theCoonhound has had previous issues with other dogs at the dog park.She’s highly likely to get additional information as to the Coonhound’sissues with other dogs. If the Corgi’s owner continues to pursue this mat-ter through legal channels (assuming she can get the additional informa-tion to do so), this could put Karen in a position where she is required toreveal information about the Coonhound that was given to her in confi-dence. Karen should have explained to the Coonhound’s owner why shecould not take the case and referred her to other qualified trainers in thearea so the Coonhound’s owner could still get help without putting Kar-en in a position of conflict.

Karen, however, was wrong to give the Corgi’s owner the additional con-tact information she had on the Coonhound owner. Although the Coon-hound’s owner was not yet a client, that additional contact information

was provided in the expectation it would be used only for Karen’s busi-ness purpose and would be kept private.

In summary, the panel felt that Karen overstepped her bounds in disclos-ing information about a potential client without approval. The panel rec-

ommends that all trainers have a clear disclosure policy that they discuss with clients at the beginning of the business relationship.

It’s their dog, after allBill is asked for his opinion on re-homing. He refuses to make a recom-mendation.

Jim: The APDT code of professional responsibility asks members to“[t]reat all dogs and clients with respect, taking into account their phys-ical and psychological well-being and respecting clients’ wishes regard-ing the training of their dogs.” There are similar provisions in the codesof other organizations. This is a case in which the clients’ well-being and

wishes regarding their dog may be in conflict. In such circumstances, itis incumbent on the trainer to offer complete information and to ensurethat the clients realize the full implications of retaining the dog. It appearsfrom the wife’s question that she was seeking Bill’s professional opinion,and he failed to give it. So while technically “not wrong,” Bill’s behaviorin this case fell short of being truly respectful of the clients’ needs.

Jennifer: Although ultimately Bill is right because it is not his decisionto make, it is important that he share his concerns with his client. Train-ers don’t just train dogs any more, they train and counsel people. Trainershelp families resolve disputes, educate them, and provide guidance and




79

emotional support. Clients rely on their trainers and respect their opin-ions, making it the responsibility of trainers to find a way to share con-cerns with clients while also helping them make their own decision about

what is best for their family.

Kelly : Bill’s answer did not serve his clients and in that sense was wrong.This is especially so if his motivation was to ensure continuing businessfrom the shelter. It was not wrong for Bill to be hesitant to give his clienta direct answer about whether or not to give up the dog. This kind of de-cision is ultimately the owner’s to make, and it’s a fine line for behaviorconsultants and trainers to walk. That it is not our dog and not ultimate-ly our decision, however, does not relieve us of the obligation to be forth-

right about the likelihood of successful behavior modification and livingsafely with a dog. Bill could have guided his client to her own answer byproviding more complete information for her and helping her to examinethat information more fully. His failure to do so was wrong.

In summary, the panel felt that Bill’s action was marginal at best. Theybelieve that being forthright and comprehensive is an inherent part of aprofessional dog trainer’s responsibility.

o the rescue Joe faces the challenge of whether or not to disclose an apparent failureby a client to follow a rescue organization’s policies. He decides not tomake a report.

Kelly : Joe’s decision was right, in so far as it maintained his client’s con-fidences. But “letting it go” was not an adequate response. Joe could havehelped the adopters to more fully integrate the dog into the home and be-come the inside dog the rescue envisioned. He should have asked abouttheir reasons for keeping the dog in the kitchen and outdoors and worked

with them to address their concerns. This would have better served theadopters, the dog, and also the rescue.

Jennifer: Joe’s decision was not necessarily wrong. In fact, if the dog was getting adequate exercise, training, attention, necessary care, and washappy with the family, I probably would have made the same decisionas Joe. However, I disagree that it would have been obnoxious to call therescue to let them know that he’s been working with the family, that thedog is doing well, and that he has concerns about the family’s compli-

ance with their indoor policy. The rescue organization could then do afollow-up visit and make sure the family’s a good match for the dog. It’spossible that the rescue organization placed this particular dog with the



80


family because they knew it enjoyed being outdoors and the call wouldbe unnecessary.

Jim: Joe needs more information before deciding. He needs to clarify what the dog’s access to the home is, and to ask the family about theirunderstanding of the rescue organization’s requirements. If, after gather-ing that information, he still has concerns about the dog’s situation, heshould raise them directly with the family. Depending on their response,he may then tell them that he feels an obligation to report the situationto the rescue group. To go directly to the group, cutting out the fami-ly, would deprive them of the opportunity to clarify the requirement andadjust accordingly. In situations like this, a direct approach is preferable

to setting up a triangle, which increases the possibility of inaccurate com-munication and misunderstanding.

There is also a broader issue: Who is the client? The rescue is paying for Joe’s services, but they are being provided to the adopters. For lawyers,this issue is clear. A lawyer cannot accept compensation for services fromsomeone other than the client without the consent of the client after fulldisclosure. An attorney also must work solely for the benefit of the client,and the interests of others must not dilute the attorney’s loyalty to the cli-

ent. Using these guidelines, Joe should have discussed his approach withboth the rescue and the adopters, and specifically raised the topic of con-fidentiality prior to taking on the case. In his discussion, he could havemade clear to the rescue he would have to maintain the confidences ofthe adopters, or he could have gotten consent from the adopters to sharerelevant information with the rescue. This would have alleviated the con-flict and given Joe clearer boundaries, allowing him to maintain good re-lations with both the rescue group and the adopters.

In summary, the panel felt that this was a complex situation, and theirrange of answers reflected the difficulty of balancing obligations to thefamily, the rescue organization, and the dog.

Tey said he was a Boxer Sharon is confronted with a violation of a breed ban with which she ada-mantly disagrees. She does not report it and is vague with another client

who questions the breed of the dog.

Jennifer: Although I probably would have done the same thing as Sha-

ron, her decision not to speak with the family immediately was wrong. Itplaces her own comfort ahead of the welfare of the clients and their dog.If the family does in fact have an American Pit Bull Terrier and they arenot aware that they have one, but it is banned in their city, they will face




81

questions about their dog’s breed at some point. It would be better forthem to find out what type of dog they have now and possibly re-homethe dog to a new location that doesn’t have a breed ban rather than findout a year or two later, or to have the dog seized from them unexpect-edly.

Kelly : The first place Sharon should look for guidance is to the law it-self, to see whether there are any reporting requirements. Assuming thereare no reporting requirements, Sharon has no obligation to contact an-imal control. Irrespective of what the law says, however, Sharon shoulddefinitely speak with the owners and inform them of both the law andthe fact that their dog is not a Boxer but is, in fact, a Pit Bull. To do oth-

erwise sets the family up for heartbreak and a heavy fine down the road,and puts the dog severely at risk. This obligation to speak to the family isincreased when one of the other students in the class recognizes the dogas a Pit Bull rather than a Boxer, as it points out the fact that it is not justSharon who is likely to recognize the breed of dog. Sharon’s response tothe other student certainly skates a fine line, as it is not completely hon-est to her other student. However, Sharon also had an obligation to re-spect the Pit Bull owners’ privacy.

Jim: Sharon’s hesitancy is understandable, but in this situation not to actis an action in itself. As time passes without accurate information, thefamily is at greater risk of having its dog seized. There has already beenone inquiry made by another class member, and although Sharon appro-priately turned it away, it increases the likelihood that someone will re-port the family to animal control. Despite the fact that Sharon stronglydisagrees with the law, she owes it to the family to give them the benefitof her views as soon as possible.

In summary, the panel felt that Sharon needed to disclose her opinion onthe dog’s breed as soon as possible and to help the family face this diffi-cult situation squarely. They also felt that not answering the class mem-ber’s question about the dog’s breed was defensible.



82




83

PART I I

CURR EN T E TH I CA L

I S S U E S I N

DOG T RA I N I NG



84

T RA I N I NG T E CHN I QU E S

AND EQU I PMEN T

In the next three chapters, the perspective will be broadened from con-sideration of the individual trainer or consultant to some of the wider is-sues related to training. Current hot-button topics in the profession willbe examined first, such as the choice of training methods and equipment.The next chapter will address the challenges of working in a business thatis striving to become a profession, as well as the difficulty of negotiatingboundaries and working relationships with veterinarians and other alliedprofessionals. Attention will then be turned to some of the issues regard-ing dogs and dog training in society at large.

These are big issues. Each of them could easily fill a book, so they willnot all be covered in the depth that they deserve, nor will they be fully re-

solved—a fact that may not please some readers who would hope to seetheir side of the debate vindicated. Rather, the goal is to present some ofthe more cogent arguments, pro and con, to assist professional trainersand consultants in deepening their understanding and reaching reasonedconclusions of their own.

In this process, the methods of moral argumentation that were discussedin Chapter 2 will be referred to again. Background information on the is-sue at hand will be provided and then the moral principles involved will

be identified. Finally, the positions and competing arguments on differ-ent sides will be provided, and readers can cast a critical eye on the posi-tions of the various parties in order to refine their own views.

Chap te r 6



6 — TRAINING TECHNIQUES AND EQUIPMENT

85

Methods and equipment: are there limits?There is no issue that creates more disagreement among trainers than the

choice of training methods and equipment. The profession has split intofactions reminiscent of the breakup of the former state of Yugoslavia, andat times seems poised on the verge of civil war. As I will discuss in a lat-er chapter, this disagreement is related in many ways to a broader debateabout the place of animals in society. For now, however, the focus is go-ing to be on the core issue for trainers and behavior consultants—select-ing training methods that accomplish the goal while maintaining highethical standards.

Te training spectrumThere are nearly as many training approaches as there are trainers, andone of the difficulties in discussing this topic is finding a common ba-sis in language. It can also be so emotionally charged that it is virtuallyimpossible to choose descriptive terms without offending someone. Thediscussion is reminiscent in some ways to that of the fields of sociologyand psychology for humans, where differing perspectives and terminolo-gy sometimes obscure common values and highlight disagreements.

Some trainers have learned their business by modeling an experiencedtrainer or by reading and applying what they have read. These trainersmay not be fully aware of the underlying scientific principles involved intheir training approach. But many trainers and consultants are steepedin science as well as in practice. They encompass ethologists (behavioralbiologists), and adherents of behavioral psychology, Gestalt psychology,cognitive psychology, mind-body theories, and other schools of thought.I will describe these in greater detail shortly, but first we are going to lookat training methods using one common lens—that of behaviorism.

Behaviorist ethicsOne way in which the debate is often framed is in terms of the lan-guage of learning psychology—specifically, the terminology coined by B.F. Skinner and other members of the behaviorist school. It has the advan-tage of having standard definitions that are widely accepted within thescientific community. The disadvantages are that this usage is relativelynew in the dog training profession, that some of the terms inadvertent-ly appear to carry a moral connotation (beginning with the word punish-ment itself ), and that in the field of human psychology, Skinner’s radicalbehaviorism has been widely criticized and in many cases supplanted byother schools of thought. A little later in this chapter I will discuss howsome trainers are applying these more recent concepts to working withdogs and some of the ethical implications of this development.



86


Psychological learning theory postulates that behavior is governed by itsconsequences. This is the basis for the technique of operant condition-ing. In operant conditioning, an action can have four types of results, of-ten referred to as the operant conditioning “quadrants”—reinforcementor punishment, applied either positively or negatively, that is either add-ed or taken away after the action. Reinforcement makes an action morelikely in the future, and punishment makes it less likely. Here are someexamples:

• Positive reinforcement : Dog sits; dog gets treat; dog is more likelyto sit in the future.

• Negative reinforcement : Trainer pinches dog’s ear and holds adumbbell in front of the dog; dog takes dumbbell in its mouth andtrainer releases the ear; dog is more likely to take the dumbbell inthe future.

• Positive punishment : Dog forges ahead of the handler and the han-dler gives a quick yank on a slip collar; dog is less likely to forgeahead in the future.

• Negative punishment : Dog jumps on owner seeking attention;owner walks away, taking away attention; dog is less likely to jumpin the future.

There is another approach to modifying behavior, and that is extinction.In extinction, the behavior gradually erodes because it is no longer beingreinforced; this is the opposite of positive reinforcement. For example, if

we cease giving a dog attention when it barks at us, the barking will even-tually diminish.

This language has the benefit of being precise, but a few of the terms areunfortunately chosen. Punishment in common usage can carry an impli-cation of harshness or even abuse; positive and negative appear in learn-ing theory in a manner opposite from their everyday usage where theycan mean “good” and “bad.” Some commentators have suggested thatit would be preferable to use “diminisher” rather than “punisher,” andmany dog trainers routinely refer to positive punishment as a “correc-tion.”

It’s important to note that the quadrant into which any particular conse-quence falls is determined by its impact on behavior, not the intention ofthe trainer. In addition, this simplified schema does not reflect the vari-ation in the types and intensity of the consequences that influence be-




87

havior. They can involve all of the dog’s senses—the sight of a leash ora rolled up newspaper, the taste of liver or a bitter herb, the smell of apheasant wing or a citronella spray, the sound of calm praise or a harsh“No,” or a gentle tummy rub or vigorous scruff shake. Consequencescan also range from barely perceptible to intensely pleasurable or painful.Some are “hard-wired” or primary, such as the desire for food or to avoidpain; others are conditioned or secondary, such as the sound of a click orverbal marker that has been paired with a treat or the warning signal froma containment system that in the past has predicted an electric current.

Moreover, it can be difficult to predict in advance how a stimulus deliv-ered after a behavior will affect a dog. Some dogs like to be petted, but

others find touch punishing, at least on some parts of their bodies. Train-ers often speak of “hard” dogs that seem impervious to punishment or“soft” dogs that will hide at a slightly raised voice. In addition, as TempleGrandin points out in her book, Animals in Translation, an aversive stim-ulus can not only cause pain, but also fear which, according to Grandin,can be the more durable and negative effect.

Sometimes the results of a particular stimulus can be measured by mon-itoring heart rate, respiration, or hormone levels, or can be inferred by

watching body language. However, most frequently the only guide tothe effect of a consequence is to observe the trend in behavior over time.These are complicating factors. Despite these difficulties, use of the sci-entific terminology can at least help in being clear when framing theterms of the debate.

Another stipulation that needs to be made clear from the outset is totry to avoid the intellectual shortcut of stereotyping trainers by dividingthem into categories. In the debate, participants often label themselves or

others by using categories such as clicker trainer, totally positive trainer,balanced trainer, traditional trainer, compulsion trainer, or other terms. While these are in a way helpful in describing an individual’s preferredmethods, they also run the risk of oversimplifying a person’s real choic-es or serving as straw men that can be knocked down in debate. Conse-quently, we will use these terms only sparingly.

raining schools of thought All trainers in the behaviorist mold use some form of reinforcement,ranging from food treats to praise. And all also use some form of nega-tive punishment by advising clients not to reinforce inappropriate behav-ior. The debate centers on decisions to use positive punishment and neg-ative reinforcement and on the items of equipment most frequently usedto administer those consequences.



88


Many current trainers, following in the footsteps of Karen Pryor andothers who favor a training approach based on systematic application oflearning theory, employ positive reinforcement (rewards) almost exclu-sively. Most of these trainers eschew the use of positive punishment ornegative reinforcement and prefer to employ negative punishment to re-duce unwanted behavior. Some reject even negative punishment. Onepopular variant of this approach is clicker training, which uses a smallplastic box with a metal tab that makes a clicking sound to signal to a dogthat its behavior will be reinforced. Many clicker trainers have achievedimpressive results with this method.

Other trainers have derived their principal methods from the works of

Konrad Most, William Koehler, and generations of other prominent fig-ures. (See the Resources section for a list of some of the seminal works ondog training.) These trainers employ reinforcement primarily in the formof verbal praise or touch, although many also use other reinforcers suchas food, play, or toys, especially in early training. They also use positivepunishment, usually referred to as corrections, through the use of physi-cal stimuli including slip or prong collars or collars that deliver an electriccurrent, or through touch or physical manipulation of the dog with vary-ing degrees of force. (I use these terms to describe the equipment used to

avoid more emotive or euphemistic terms such as choke, pinch, or shockcollar; training or remote collar; etc.)

Some of these trainers try to emulate the types of punishments thatmight be used by dogs toward other dogs. They may, for example, shakea dog’s scruff or try to imitate an angry bark.Some dogs trained using amix of reinforcement and punishment have also achieved very high levelsof skill. Indeed, historically the vast majority of performance champions,as well as family dogs, have been trained in this manner, which has been

employed for a very long time. In actual fact, however, methods used bytrainers fall along a broad continuum from almost entirely positive rein-forcement to frequent use of positive punishment, with virtually everypossible variation in between.

Ethology versus psychology A related debate among trainers is the relative emphasis placed on spe-cies-specific behavior patterns and relationships, derived from the scienceof ethology and on learning psychology. Some trainers model their pro-

grams on the hierarchical relationships presumed to exist among dogsand other canids, and derived primarily from studies of captive wolf pop-ulations. These trainers maintain that much inappropriate canine behav-ior comes from attempts at domination and recommend that humans




89

assume and enforce the dominant position in the human-canine pack. Among the methods sometimes recommended by these trainers are:

• Eating or going through doors before the dog.

• Not permitting the dog to be higher in position.

• Vocalizing as dogs do to one another, or

• Using physical manipulation to place the dog in a submissive posi-tion.

Others criticize this approach as based on flawed studies of wolf behav-ior, maintaining that dogs are not as rigidly hierarchical as this modelsuggests, and that the very possibility of multi-species packs is unsound.They also believe that the ethological approach is flawed and that it canset up an adversarial relationship between humans and dogs and lead toexcessive use of force.

Most trainers combine the ethological and psychological approaches toat least some extent. Many use a variation of a program called “Nothingin Life is Free” (NILIF), in which dogs earn their privileges by perform-ing obedience tasks for humans. This approach, also called leadership,deference, or teamwork, is widely used in order to establish relationshipsin a human-dog family as a prerequisite to resolving behavior problems.Some trainers who emphasize the behaviorist approach, however, believethat such methods are in reality nothing more than operant condition-ing by another name.

Beyond behaviorismIn the study of human behavior, Skinner’s fundamental approach to

learning has been supplanted to significant degree by approaches thatlook at more complex ways of thinking and behaving. A number oftrainers and behavior consultants are applying these post-behavioralconcepts to work with animals. In 1961, Keller and Marian Breland,

who worked with Skinner, published an article called “The Misbehaviorof Organisms” that emphasized the extent to which instinctive behaviorscan be resistant to change through operant conditioning. (The title isa word play on Skinner’s famous work, The Behavior of Organisms .) Atabout the same time, the principles of gestalt psychology, which had

its origins in the late 19th century, were being more widely applied tohuman behavior. Gestalt psychology emphasizes the integrative, holisticaspects of perception, rather than the individual stimuli that are at the



90


core of behaviorism. A school of psychoanalysis based on this approachevolved through the late 20th century.

Another approach, cognitive psychology, emerged in the late 1960s. Cog-nitive psychology differed from behaviorism in its emphasis on internalmental states such as desire and motivation, and its interest in the dy-namics of learning and decision-making.

Other approaches to understanding and changing behavior have comefrom the medical field. Advances in neurobiology have increased under-standing of how the structure of the brain and nervous system govern be-havior and learning. Studies of mind-body connections, some based on

Eastern concepts of medicine, have influenced practitioners as well. Andspiritual traditions, both Eastern and Western, reject the behavioral ap-proach as mechanistic and insufficiently respectful of the non-materialis-tic aspects of human and animal life.

Dog trainers and animal behavior consultants are exploring many ofthese areas, and in their investigations are uncovering new perspectivesthat challenge the adequacy of behaviorism as both a tool for understand-ing and a method for training. The behavioral model conceives of the an-

imal as a “black box” which receives inputs (stimuli) and emits outputs(behavior). But as trainers look inside the box, their findings suggest thatdog behavior is significantly more complex than the simple stimulus-re-sponse model. For example, clicker trainer Ken Ramirez has done somefascinating work to suggest that dogs can comprehend both quantitativeand qualitative differences in cues and tasks. They can not only discerncues for direction, height, and size, but appear to be able to generalizedifferences. In one of his exercises, Ramirez trains dogs to touch eithera large or small object on cue. But when the setup is changed, so that

the large object is paired with one that is larger still, and so becomes thesmaller object in the pattern, dogs can still pick out the larger or small-er on cue.

Following on Breland and Breland’s work, there are suggestions thatdogs’ instinctive behavior is very sophisticated. One mathematician didsome experiments that indicate that his dogs continuously calculate theoptimal path on a retrieve in a way that replicates the results that people

would get through a sophisticated analytical technique called linear pro-gramming. These experiments indicate that the ways in which dogs pro-cess information and make choices may be much more subtle than stim-ulus-response or antecedent-behavior-consequence.




91

One trainer and behavior consultant, Chris Bach, has developed a “Third Way” method of training that specifically emphasizes providing opportu-nities for dogs to exercise choice. (The first two ways involve use of forceor exclusive positive reinforcement.) These studies and approaches sug-gest a need to re-examine the notion of the dog as a black box, or to use

Jean Donaldson’s phrase, “lemon brains,” a characterization that someof the trainers who emphasize cognitive approaches consider to be pejo-rative. Temple Grandin’s groundbreaking work, Animals in Translation,portrays a complex and rich picture of how animals perceive the worldthat is influencing many trainers.

There are some interesting studies that suggest that imitative learning is

more developed in canines than previously thought. (See F. Range, Z. Vi-ranyi, and L. Huber’s “Selective Imitation in Domestic Dogs” publishedin Current Biology , Volume 17, Issue 10, pp 868-872.) Cesar Millan hasbeen investigating this phenomenon in his approach of using pack walksto modify dogs’ actions by having well-trained dogs model appropriatebehavior for untrained dogs. Other trainers have been exploring new

ways of communicating between dogs and people, notably Kayce Cover’sbridge-and-target method of training. In this method, the trainer teach-es the dog to touch objects with its body by providing vocal signals when

the dog is on the right track. These approaches emphasize the use of cuesand stimuli as the passage of information that results in choices, ratherthan antecedents or consequences that shape behavior as in the behavior-ist model. Some trainers are using a series of short stimuli from electrictraining devices for such a purpose.

Other work has emphasized the effect of external and environmentalstimuli on behavior. Some trainers complement their behavioral work

with the use of aromatherapy preparations. A recent development is the

marketing of canine pheromones to influence emotion and behavior.Veterinarian and trainer Michael Fox has advocated a closer understand-ing of mind-body connections; Linda Tellington-Jones has developed amethod of massage and manipulation called T-Touch that draws on themind-body concept. The deeper understanding of neurobiology is help-ing trainers to distinguish between involuntary or reflexive behavior andvoluntary or trained behavior.

Advances in pharmacology are creating more options for medical treat-

ment of behavioral problems. It is now routine for behavior consultantsand veterinarians to collaborate on treating such issues as aggression andseparation anxiety through a combination of psychotropic medicationand behavior change exercises. (The potential side effects of some med-ications can create ethical challenges that veterinarians consider in their



92


professional codes.) Finally, some trainers, such as Brother Christopherof the Monks of New Skete and Cyndy Douan, president of IACP, havebeen thinking deeply about the spiritual aspects of what it means to be adog. The Monks’ book, I and Dog (a play on theologian Martin Buber’sI and Thou) is a source for meditating on this dimension of the human-canine relationship.

Examples: training on the tubeExamples of some of these approaches can be seen in three current tele-vision programs on dog training. Cesar Millan, who calls himself and hisshow the “Dog Whisperer,” uses primarily an ethological model (as in-dicated by the title of his latest book, Be the Pack Leader ) with some ver-

bal or physical punishment, as well as praise. He also emphasizes intenseexercise, an attitude of calm toward the dog, and maintenance of a disci-plined relationship between people and dogs. As noted above, he also in-cludes imitative learning in his approaches, and he has also explored themind-body connection—for example, placing the tail of a shy dog in anerect position to evoke more confident behavior.

Millan is an honorary member of IACP and has been widely praised forrestoring balance to what some regarded as overly permissive attitudes

toward dogs. His TV show received an Emmy nomination and his firstbook, Cesar’s Way , became a best seller. On the other hand, his methodshave been criticized as unduly harsh or dangerous by the American Col-lege of Veterinary Behaviorists, American Humane Association, and anumber of trainers who use primarily positive methods.

Another American TV show is “Divine Canine,” featuring the Monks ofNew Skete. The monks were the authors of some seminal books on dogtraining, including How to be Your Dog’s Best Friend and The Art of Pup-

py Raising . They were among the first to popularize the notion of build-ing relationships between dogs and people as an important componentof training, and the program contains a strong implicit spiritual element.They based much of their training on “praise and correction” and packdynamics, including a technique called the “alpha roll,” which involvedrolling a dog onto its back to establish dominance and inhibit unwant-ed behavior. The alpha roll was criticized on the grounds that it incor-rectly made an analogy between wolf and dog behavior, and it was sub-sequently dropped from their repertoire. The Monks of New Skete have

been inducted into IACP’s Hall of Fame. The program has come underfire from some primarily positive trainers for its use of physical forms ofpositive punishment.




93

The final current TV offering is “It’s Me or the Dog” featuring Britishtrainer Victoria Stillwell. Stillwell tends to be very gentle with dogs, butmore direct and demanding with owners. Her training techniques placea great deal of emphasis on building good relationships, household man-agement, and positive reinforcement. Stillwell, while primarily in thepositive/behaviorist mold, also encourages close communication and aholistic approach to dog and family issues. Her program, like the others,has been criticized for over-simplifying the problems that families mayface; Stillwell’s methods always succeed, which is not always the case inreal life, according to her critics.

It’s important to note that these are reality TV shows that are produced

for drama and heavily edited. They are not necessarily valid represen-tations of various training techniques; there is a disclaimer on Millan’sshow, specifically advising viewers not to try to duplicate his methods.Some trainers have recommended to clients that they watch these pro-grams with the sound off to minimize the impact of the production val-ues, including Millan’s charismatic personality, the Monks’ priestly de-meanor, and Stillwell’s faux dominatrix attitude!

At the writing of this book, there were no television shows that feature

trainers who use positive methods almost exclusively, or some of the newapproaches such as bridge-and-target or those based on mind-body con-nections. There were a couple of radio programs featuring positive train-ing, including a syndicated show by Patricia McConnell and a broadcastby Steve Dale from Chicago.

Effectiveness, efficiency ethicsViewed from the behaviorist perspective, the disagreement about train-ing methods focuses on three issues: which are most effective, which are

most efficient, and which are most ethical.Proponents of emphasizing positive reinforcement argue that behaviorscan be trained reliably using this technique and that it creates fewer be-havioral problems in dogs. They point to scientific studies that seem toconfirm this conclusion. One such study is Blackwell, Twells, Searightand Casey, “The Relationship between Training Methods and the Occur-rence of Behavior Problems in a Population of Domestic Dogs,” in the

Journal of Veterinary Behavior , May/June 2007. Those who favor use of allfour quadrants of operant conditioning maintain that effective trainingrequires not only increasing desired behavior, but also diminishing unde-sired behavior, so that both reinforcement and punishment are necessary.Those taking this position do not usually cite studies, but point out thatthe experience of trainers over many generations is that very reliable and



94


precise behavior can be achieved by mixing reinforcement and punish-ment. In evaluating these arguments, it’s useful to consider whether theyborder on any logical fallacies, such as post hoc ergo propter hoc or the ar-gument to tradition.

A related debate is about the efficiency of training methods. Trainers thatemphasize positive reinforcement point out that dogs trained using thistechnique can pick up new behaviors very quickly, especially when theyare introduced to the method while young, so that they effectively learnhow to learn. Those of this school who use clicker methods often em-ploy a technique of shaping complex behaviors by successive approxima-tion, drawing on the work of Keller Breland and Bob and Marian Bai-

ley, who used this method to train many species of animals for militaryor performance work very quickly. Trainers who favor a mix of reinforce-ment and punishment hold that it is more efficient to eliminate unwant-ed behavior quickly so as to limit the dog’s ability to choose actions oth-er than the one desired by the trainer. They also argue that techniques,such as clicker shaping, are beyond the abilities of average dog-owningfamilies, that a combination of the quadrants is more efficient in the real

world, and that the majority of owners will inevitably use punishment attimes so they should be taught how to use it appropriately. (Refer back

to Chapter 2 for comments on techniques of appeal to authority and ap-peal to numbers.)

The final area of disagreement is about the ethics of using punishment;specifically, whether positive punishment and negative reinforcement areinherently abusive or inhumane or can lead trainers or owners to becomeso.

Trainers who reject these quadrants, or who greatly restrict their use,

point out that they rely on the use of aversive stimuli. As James O’Hearenotes in his book on treating aggression in dogs, an aversive stimulus isone that the dog seeks to escape or avoid. This is a behavioral definition,derived from observation, and is intended to avoid any moral implica-tions. Nevertheless, trainers who emphasize positive reinforcement arguethat a dog’s response to these stimuli must be based on the fact that theyare unpleasant. Consequently, they maintain, trainers should avoid usingthem because deliberately causing discomfort to an animal is morally ob-

jectionable. In addition, some argue that, if punishment is used effective-

ly, it becomes reinforcing for the individual administering the punish-ment, and so is more likely to be used in the future. A counter argumentis that aversive stimuli are unavoidable in real life. Moreover, it is possi-ble to use them in ways that do not cause serious or lasting harm and cancontribute to very rapid learning so that in the long run, the dog is sub-




95

jected to fewer negative experiences in its life than would otherwise bethe case. (Refer to Chapter 2 on the use of analogy and generalization.)

Can philosophers help trainers?The disagreement among trainers is part of a centuries-old debate aboutthe ethics of pleasure and pain, benefit and harm. Trainers who promoteprimarily positive methods tend to argue from a duty-based or care-basedperspective, emphasizing the obligation to be compassionate to animals.Those who argue for use of all of the quadrants frequently base theirviews on ends-based considerations.

From this broad perspective, there are some insights that philosophers

can provide that can assist trainers in clarifying their views on reinforce-ment and punishment. Unfortunately, the philosophers, like the trainers,do not always agree, and in particular, those who hold with ends-basedreasoning may sharply disagree with those who advocate duty-based rea-soning. Because these kinds of arguments proceed from different under-lying assumptions regarding the nature of right and wrong, one cannotuse a duty-based argument to refute an ends-based argument or vice ver-sa. To do so is to get trapped in Monty Python’s Argument Clinic! Nev-ertheless, looking closely at the moral debate can help us to make up our

own minds and be clearer about our choices.

Let’s start with an ends-based argument. Utilitarians believe that actionsare right if they improved the general welfare, providing the greatest goodfor the greatest number. This means maximizing pleasure and minimiz-ing pain. But a big problem is how to measure pleasure and pain. JeremyBentham gave this a lot of thought and came up with a systematic way tothink about it. He identified seven dimensions of pleasure and pain:

1. Intensity: How strong is it?2. Duration: How long will it last?

3. Certainty: How sure is it that this particular pleasure or pain willoccur?

4. Propinquity or Remoteness: How soon will it occur?

5. Fecundity: How likely is it to continue?

6. Purity: How likely is it to be followed by the opposite kind of expe-rience—that is, pleasure followed by pain or pain by pleasure?

7. Scope: How widely distributed will be the effect?



96


A particular challenge with this approach is identifying all of those af-fected by the action, doing an individual assessment for each, and thencombining them to reach a final assessment. And when dealing with bothdogs and people, it has to be decided how to weigh the welfare of onespecies against that of the other.

In practice, of course, dog trainers don’t actually use this procedure, butthere is one group that comes close and that is members of the Inter-national Association of Animal Behavior Consultants. IAABC membersoperate under what they call the LIMA (for Least Intrusive/Minimal-ly Aversive) principle. Some of the founding members of IAABC were,or are, in mental health professions, and they modeled this approach

on standards used in that field. Their method is to work with dogs in afamily perspective, recognizing that humans and canines living togethercomprise an interdependent group in which the behavior of each mem-ber affects the others. They recognize that all of Bentham’s dimensions ofpleasure and pain can impact the relationships among dogs and people.

Through a rigorous process of information gathering and assessment,IAABC consultants help families to set behavioral goals, and they thendesign intervention programs that minimize disruption to the family

and discomfort to the dog. Most often, IAABC members will strive touse primarily positive reinforcement, but may resort to aversive meth-ods when necessary to reach the overall goals. These may include posi-tive punishment on some occasions. Their objective, however, is to min-imize the use of these methods unless required to ensure human safety orother vital goals.

In adopting this principle, IAABC has (probably unconsciously) used amethod called “rule utilitarianism.” Utilitarianism can either focus on

each individual action, assessing its contribution to welfare, or look at which rule, broadly applied, would best contribute to overall welfare. While recognizing that punishment may be the most appropriate choicein individual cases, IAABC holds that the LIMA rule will be the best ap-proach for most families in the long run.

It may seem that rule utilitarians come close to being duty-based, andthis is largely true. There is also a mixed approach that may be usefulto trainers. It combines duty-based reasoning with some of the practi-cal aspects of utilitarianism that have been used for centuries in delibera-tions about the use of force. It comes from ethical debates about war andpeace—a topic that seems far from dog training—but it has some usefulelements. This method is called just war theory.




97

Here is how the just war argument works. It recognizes that the tendencyto use force or coercion exists in all humans and that it is sometimes jus-tifiable. But it sets specific criteria for this justification that can be adapt-ed to dog training in the following way:

• Just Cause: Force may only be used under circumstances that are ex-ceptional. For example, it may be used to save lives, to repel attacks,or to end extremely unacceptable behavior. It can never be routine.So deciding what our training goals are, and ensuring that they areintended to promote human or canine welfare, is required to meetthis criterion.

• Just Intention: When using force, our goal must be to achieve a bet-ter situation, never to punish for its own sake. Losing our temper andtaking retribution are wrong.

• Competent Authority: Only the person with proper authority mayallow the use of force—for example, the client, not just the trainer,must understand and accept the method.

•

Probability of Success: Force may only be used when it is likely toaffect the desired outcome. If there is a low probability, it should notbe considered. This should be based on knowledge and experience.

• Last Resort: Force may only be used if all more benign methods havebeen considered and judged to be ineffective. We should considerpositive reinforcement or negative punishment completely before re-sorting to the other quadrants.

• Proportionality: The force used must not be excessive in terms ofthe desired outcome. Don’t use more force than necessary, and useit only as long as necessary. Again, this is a matter of knowledge andexperience.

• Discrimination: There must be a conscious effort to minimize sideeffects and damage to the recipient of force. We must consider thefallout for the dog, for the client and for us.

The Delta Society has developed a way to think about training methodsthat has a great deal in common with this philosophical tradition. (Del-ta is an organization whose mission is to improve human health throughservice and therapy animals.) The method is outlined in the figure onpage 98, which appears in the society’s book, Professional Standards forDog Trainers .



98


Delta Society Flow Chart for Choosing raining Methods

Decidebehavior

goal

Is behavior

dangerous?

Is it anemergency?

Can it bemanaged?

Would benefits ofaversives outweigh

risks?

To eliminate abehavior

To establish abehavior

Yes

Success!

Live with it

Live without it

Is behaviorcritical?

Use reward-based

program

Modifyprogram(repeat asdesired)

Modifyprogram(repeat asdesired)

Use reward-

basedprogram

Failure

Design aversivethat meets

requirements

Return toreward-based

program

Success!

Success!No

Success!

Failure

Failure

Failure

No—anuisance

Yes

No

No—useful

Yes

Yes

No Yes




99

The approach outlined in the figure contains most of the criteria of the just war method of reasoning. It begins by looking at the behavior goal,comparable to the criteria of just cause and just intention. In particular,it investigates the degree of risk to humans from dangerous behavior, dis-tinguishing it from behavior that is merely useful or desirable to achieve.It recommends beginning with positive reinforcement if possible, andmoving to aversives only if positive methods are unlikely to be successful,mirroring the criteria of probable success and last resort. Finally, it looksspecifically at the criterion of discrimination by carefully weighing andlimiting the negative fallout from using aversives.

This method has been praised by humane societies, academics, and the

Association of Pet Dog Trainers. But it has been sharply criticized by theInternational Association of Canine Professionals (IACP) as well as bythe National Association of Dog Obedience Trainers, the oldest of theprofessional dog training associations. This position, which appears onNADOI’s website, was reached after consideration by a panel of mem-bers and consultants and is quoted below:

Because both dog training and dog obedience instructing arean art as much as science, the skilled instructor must be able

to make judgments and adjustments based on the needs ofeach individual student/dog team. To constrain the instruc-tor by forbidding the use of specific tools and techniquesbecause they might be misused by a minority is to make hisor her job that much more difficult, and may cause delay oreven failure in training the dog. For this reason, NADOIendorses neither equipment nor training methods and doesnot support any guidelines or standards which limit or pro-

hibit the use of specific equipment or training methods.

NADOI is strongly opposed to cruel or unnecessarily harshtraining methods. It is, however, the position of NADOIthat the humaneness of equipment and training methodsis dependent upon the skill and knowledge of individualtrainers and that limitation or restriction regarding the useof certain equipment or training methods is detrimental to

the purpose of and goal of NADOI.The NADOI position is based on an ends-based, pragmatic approach, as

well as opposition to having the freedom of choice of individual trainersrestricted in any way other than a prohibition against cruelty or undue



100


harshness. It therefore is intended to permit the use of aversives based onthe skill and experience of the trainer, rather than on a systematic anal-ysis of pros and cons under the Delta Society method. These opposingpositions demonstrate the difficulty of reconciling duty-based and ends-based approaches as well as the differing perspectives of experienced andeffective training instructors and those who base their recommendationson the tools of scientific analysis.

Recently, Ian Dunbar, a well-known veterinarian and trainer who found-ed APDT and is a member of IACP’s Hall of Fame, has attempted tobuild a bridge between advocates of primarily positive training and those

who also employ positive punishment. In an article in the APDT Chron-

icle of the Dog , July/August 2006, Dunbar advocated including limitedforms of punishment in a “quest for the quickest, easiest, most enjoyable,and most expedient route to produce equipment-free and gizmo-free re-sponse reliability.” He recommended beginning with lure/reward, a vari-ation of positive reinforcement training, but then as necessary using whathe called an “instructive reprimand” to ensure compliance. This is a pos-itive punishment delivered in the form of a vocal signal designed to di-minish unwanted behavior. Dunbar continues to favor positive reinforce-ment and to reject physical punishment, but his advocacy of mild forms

of positive punishment may open the door to further dialogue betweenthe opposing camps.

New Ethics for New Methods?The critique by IACP and NADOI of the Delta Society’s method forchoosing training approaches underscores the limitations of the behav-ioral approach as a foundation for ethical choice. Trainers who consid-er behaviorism to be too narrow and mechanistic need another frame-

work for making decisions about training techniques and equipment.

They may find this in the third approach to ethical action—care-basedreasoning—and some new ways to use the test of reciprocity for mor-al decisions.

There are two recent ethical schools of thought that can provide insightsfor trainers who eschew behaviorism in favor of approaches based on cog-nitive psychology, mind-body connections, or spiritual approaches. Inthe 20th century, Carol Gilligan’s feminist critique of traditional, male-centered ethics argued that the overall relationship with fellow humans

(and by extension with fellow creatures) is the defining characteristic ofethical judgment, not adherence to a set or rules whose application is de-termined by logical calculation.




101

Thus, for trainers, it is not the choice of reinforcement or punishment ina specific training task that is the ethical issue, but rather the entire con-text in which the task is carried out. For example, in its trainer certifica-tion program, discussed more fully in the next chapter, IACP specificallyevaluates applicants on their ability to “facilitate or allow a dog’s recoveryfrom a correction in such a way that trust and rapport is maintained withthe dog during the training session.” This focus on trust and rapport is atthe very center of Gilligan’s approach to care-based ethics.

Other insights can be gathered from a school of philosophy called socialcontract theory. This theory goes all the way back to 17th century philos-opher Thomas Hobbes, who thought of government as an implicit con-

tract between people and their authorities to protect them from violenceand injustice. It was elaborated by others such as Jean-Jacques Rousseauand John Locke and forms the theoretical basis for Western democracy.By analogy, social contract theory can be applied to any set of social rela-tionships, perhaps even including those between dogs and people. Thatdogs and humans have a close, symbiotic relationship is clear; how best toconceptualize and manage that relationship is more challenging.

Two 20th century social contract philosophers, Jürgen Habermas and

John Rawls, put forward concepts that may be particularly useful. Haber-mas developed an approach called discourse ethics, based on the conceptof moral choice made through communication. Although the concepthas obvious weaknesses when applied to inter-species communication,Habermas would presumably argue that thorough monitoring of caninecommunication signals, careful attempts to impart information aboutdesired behavior, and development of approaches that benefit both dogand human are essential to training ethically.

Rawls has an interesting twist on the social contract, called the veil of ig-norance. Briefly, he posits an agreement among people regarding the dis-tribution of rights in society, in which no one knows where he or she willend up in the ensuing social system. That ensures the fairest allocationof opportunity. It can be helpful for us as trainers to take a giant stretchand imagine that we had to make a collaborative choice about trainingand didn’t know whether we were going to end up as the human or thedog. This is, of course, in the outer realm of speculation and imagination.But Temple Grandin, who has autism and draws comparisons between

her experiences and those of animals, offers the possibility of a deep-er understanding about how dogs may perceive and react to our train-ing approaches. By placing ourselves in the position of a creature whoseperceptions are almost entirely through the senses, with very little capac-ity to imagine or make intuitive connections, we can better understand



102


how our gestures, vocalizations, and actions may create either pleasant orpainful consequences for them.

There is one other modern school of thought that offers both opportuni-ties and dangers for trainers in their ethical choices. This is the so-calledpostmodern school. Postmodernists emphasize the possibility of multi-ple paths to understanding reality and making choices. They hold that,in any given culture or era, there is a dominant paradigm, establishedthrough authority that creates the norms of behavior and knowledge.In the modern era, the dominant paradigm has been scientific thought,

while in earlier periods it was based on revelation or authority, as it stillis in the belief systems of many throughout the world. The attraction of

postmodernism is that it opens up the possibility of many ways of under-standing—and evaluating—our work with dogs, including not only thescientific, but also the intuitive and the spiritual. The danger is that it canlead us on a slippery slope to a relativistic ethics in which nothing is sub-stantial and our choices must be made with no sure moral foundation.In that context, it’s useful to recall the discussion in Chapter 1 about theenduring values that seem to be common across societies and historicalperiods: love, truthfulness, unity, freedom, respect for life, fairness, andtolerance. In the confusion that accompanies rapid social and technolog-

ical change, these can provide some assurance that our choices are, in thebroadest sense, the right ones.

A shocking debateOf all of the approaches and equipment available to trainers is one in par-ticular that typifies the debate on methods and arouses deep emotions onboth sides. This is the method based on a collar that can be triggered re-motely to deliver an electric current. One of the challenges in assessingthese devices from an ethical perspective is that proponents and oppo-

nents have an array of euphemisms and pejoratives that they use in de-bate. These include electronic collar, e-collar, remote collar, stimulation(or “stim”), nick, burn, shock, and others that are more emotional thanscientific. At the risk of some grammatical awkwardness, this discussion

will refer to them as electric current collars , emphasizing the design anduse rather than the intention of the trainer or the values ascribed to thedevices and their users.

Electric current collars were introduced in the 1960s and were used pri-

marily on hunting and working breeds of dogs. The collars work by de-livering a low energy electric current that passes through the dog’s skinbetween two contacts that rest on the neck. The sensation that they sendcan be used for either positive punishment or negative reinforcement.The former is probably used most frequently with pet dogs; the latter is a




103

staple of training programs for retrievers and other sporting breeds. Thesame technology and methods are used in electric containment systemsthat send an electronic stimulus to the collar if they approach a bound-ary or leave a prescribed area. Both the remote electric current collars andelectric containment systems often use an audible warning signal beforetriggering the current. The latest models, unlike those introduced sever-al decades ago, can be adjusted to provide different intensities and dura-tions of current. These developments have led a number of trainers, in-cluding Martin Deeley and Fred Hassen, to create training systems thatuse very low levels or short durations of the stimulus, thus limiting thelevel and extent of discomfort that the dog may experience. Some of theelectric containment system manufacturers have also begun to recom-mend such an approach.

Positions and argumentsThe debate about the use of electric current in training has been intenseand personal. Some of the arguments are summarized below, but for adeeper understanding, refer to the original sources, which are cited in-dividually. In general, the arguments against electric current collars aredeductive and duty-based and emphasize the responsibility to minimizediscomfort to animals, while the arguments in favor of them tend to fo-

cus on consequences and use inductive reasoning.

You will find some cogent elements, but also virtually all of the logicalfallacies enumerated in Chapter 2, including appeal to authority, argu-ments to numbers and to ignorance, argument ad hominem, sweepinggeneralization, arguments against straw men, and post hoc ergo propterhoc . You’ll also see examples of bumper sticker morality, false analogies,and stereotyping. It can be very difficult to get past these flawed positionsand determine the reality about how electric current collars affect dogs

and their behavior.

Users of these collars promote them as effective and efficient in achiev-ing highly reliable behavior without a leash or a physical barrier and at adistance. They believe that they can achieve reliable results more quick-ly than with positive reinforcement alone, and that their methods andequipment are easier for average pet owners to master than are primarilypositive training methods. Some trainers who use these devices comparethem, in fact, to an invisible leash. One manufacturer of containment

system calls its product the Invisible Fence® brand. The proponentsmaintain that the effect on dogs is no more aversive than that of slip orprong collars or head halters, all of which they maintain are subject tomisuse. One of the slogans of these trainers is, “It’s not the tool; it’s thefool” who uses it. They elaborate the argument along these lines: It is not



104


the particular method or piece of equipment that indicates an ethical ap-proach to training, but rather the attitude of the trainer and the overallrelationship between the trainer and the dog. A few trainers who use elec-tric current collars have developed highly structured training systems oroffer “train the trainer” programs to disseminate their methods. Trainers

who advocate the collars often use a utilitarian argument, maintainingthat the limited use of the aversive stimulus during training can lead to ahigh degree of off-leash reliability in the future, thus enabling the dog tohave more freedom and pleasure over its lifetime.

Radiofence, a distributor of electric containment devices, provided infor-mation on its website derived from a study conducted under the sponsor-

ship of another (unidentified) company. According to this report, avail-able at www.radiofence.com/myths.htm, the company surveyed 1,025dog owners that had used an electric current collar for training or barkcontrol or an electric containment system for at least 90 days. They re-ported that slightly over two-thirds (860 of 1,025 dog owners) respond-ed that their dogs’ overall behavior had in fact improved since using theequipment. Although most manufacturers do not recommend the use ofthese devices to treat aggression in dogs, the study found that approxi-mately 12 percent of owners said that their dog no longer exhibited oc-

casional aggressive behavior that had been seen in the past. According tothe company, none of the respondents reported an increase in aggressivebehavior (not further defined).

Some trainers who criticize use of these collars consider them to be in thesame category as other devices, such as slip and prong collars, that canbe used for positive punishment and negative reinforcement, but believethat the potential damage to a dog from electric current is much greater.Members of one organization, Truly Dog Friendly, have explored ways

for the collars to be banned in the United States as they currently are inparts of Europe and Australia. (Bills to ban them are under considerationin England and Scotland.) The organization’s website, www.TrulyDog-Friendly.com, “was launched in May 2006 by a coalition of dog train-ers and behavior consultants concerned with the proliferation of the useof shock collars (sic) and other harmful tools and methods within theirprofession.” The members include past presidents and board members of

APDT; however, APDT has not taken an official position on electric cur-rent collars. The site provides links to several commentaries and scientif-

ic studies on the effects of electric current and offers “No Shock Collar”apparel for sale.

The core of the debate regarding electric current collars revolves aroundthe qualities of electricity as an aversive stimulus. There are concerns that




105

it is uniquely powerful and that it is prone to misuse, especially in thehands of inexperienced trainers. One manufacturer of electric contain-ment systems, Petsafe®, has published a “White Paper” on its websitethat responds to these criticisms. The report, which is available at www.petsafe.net, noted that the company conducted a survey of veterinariansand veterinary technicians attending the 2003 North American Veteri-nary Conference and concluded that 80 percent stated that they wouldrecommend electronic current collars or electric containment systems inmany cases. The methodology of the survey and the meaning of “manycases” were not specified. The White Paper also refers to a study, fundedby Petsafe® and conducted by a team led by Janet Steiss, DVM, PhD, ofthe Tuskegee University College of Veterinary Medicine, on adult shel-ter dogs’ physiological and behavioral responses to electric bark controlcollars. According to Petsafe®, Dr. Steiss and her team concluded thatelectronic bark collars were effective in controlling excessive barking anddid not cause any lingering adverse physiological effects. A report of thestudy was subsequently published in Applied Animal Behaviour Science ,#106 (2007), pp. 96-106.

Tritronics, a leading manufacturer of electric current collars, commis-sioned a study by veterinarians and physiologists at a major university

(not further identified). The studies tested for possible cardiopulmonaryand epidermal effects of electrical current applied to the ventral surfaceof the neck of healthy dogs. According to the company, these studiesshowed that there are no clinically significant changes in electrocardio-grams, blood pressures, or properties of the skin underlying the contactpoints. (The company’s summary can be found on its website at www.tritronics.com; a telephone request to the company for a copy of thestudy was rejected on the grounds that it is proprietary.)

Karen Overall, DVM, a veterinary behaviorist, has been vocal in oppos-ing these devices. In her Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals , astandard textbook in the field, she writes on page 289, “[Electric currentcollars] should only be used in extreme circumstances and in the absenceof other solutions, and only by clients who understand and are willing tocomply with the amount of behavior modification involved. These cli-ents will be rare, and this should never be a first choice option.” Overallhas published an editorial that is critical of the manufacturers’ marketinginformation and studies in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior , 2007, Vol-

ume 2. She is particularly concerned about physiological and behavior-al fallout from their use.

Overall’s critique is far too detailed to reproduce here, but she faults themanufacturers’ studies for not following established scientific methods



106


and their marketing information for making unsubstantiated claims. Among the problems that she cites are an overemphasis on obedience atthe expense of understanding the underlying reasons for canine behavior,presentation of conclusions without supporting statistical analysis, andasserting links between technological characteristics and physiological re-actions that are not supported by data.

To support her views, Overall points to an article by R.H. Polsky re-porting anecdotally that a small group of previously unaggressive dogstrained with electric containment systems became aggressive when wear-ing the receiver. (R. H. Polsky, “Can aggression be elicited through elec-tronic pet containment systems?” Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Sci-

ence , 2000, 3, 345-357.) She also cites a 2004 peer-reviewed study bySchilder and van der Borg that identified negative, long-term effects oftraining with electric current. Dogs that were trained with electric cur-rent collars showed more stress-related behaviors than did dogs who hadnot; they also found an increased incidence of stress signals when the per-son associated with the collar (the owner or handler) was present. (Thestudy is “Training dogs with help of the shock collar: short- and long-term behavioural effects” by Matthijs B.H. Schilder and Joanne A.M. vander Borg, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands in Applied An-

imal Behaviour Science 85 (2004) 319–334.)

The Schilder and van der Borg study has been criticized by collar man-ufacturers and users for relying on earlier models without variable cur-rent levels and duration controls and for using training methods that areout of date. Fred Hassen, originator of the “No Limitations” method oftraining using the collars, quotes several veterinarians who claim thatthey have not found these effects in dogs that they have observed or havetrained themselves using the more recent models with lower levels of cur-

rent. (See www.sitmeanssit.com/article15/.) No formal scientific critiqueof the study has been published; however, one of the manufacturers ofelectric containment systems, Petsafe®, has prepared a response to Over-all’s editorial that has been submitted for publication in the Journal of Vet-erinary Behavior in 2008. The response takes issue with three themes inOverall’s critique: her argument that the collars may create learned help-lessness, in which the animal shuts down emotionally; her description ofhow the collars are used; and her assertions that they inevitably cause dis-tress. Drawing on a number of scientific studies, this response argues that

proper use of the devices can provide long-term resolution of behaviorproblems. The authors agree with Overall and others that the collars, ifused, should be employed in the context of a positive reinforcement pro-gram. They assert that, while not appropriate in all instances, they can be




107

life-saving in select circumstances. (This characterization of the responseto Overall is based on a draft graciously provided to the author by Pet-safe® in October 2007.)

Ethics and electricity As is evident from the arguments above, much of the debate about elec-tric training devices is scientific in nature, revolving around competingclaims and studies regarding the physiological and behavioral effects ofusing them. This is Step 1 in our SITSTA process for analyzing ethicaldecisions and indicates a need to gather much more reliable information.But the debate also hinges on the relative weight to be given to trainingobjectives and to the potential discomfort experienced by the dog. This

is the ethical dimension.

There is an ethical principle that may be relevant called double effect . Itgoes back at least as far as Aristotle, who noted that actions receive theirmoral character from what the actor intends, not from any unintendedconsequences. (This ethical principle is in contrast to the behavioral con-cept that the quadrant into which a stimulus falls is dictated by its impacton behavior, not the trainer’s intention.) For example, a physician per-forming surgery intends to heal the patient. The physical discomfort that

the patient experiences is a necessary effect of the surgery, but because itis incidental, the surgeon cannot be held morally responsible. Could theuser of an electric current device maintain that the dog’s discomfort ismorally acceptable because it is an unintended, incidental consequenceof a training goal that is good—for example, teaching the dog to come

when called so that it can enjoy playing outside unleashed?

This is a tempting argument, but there are a few problems with it. Theconditions that apply to double effect, as set out by Aristotle and later

thinkers, were very strict. First, they said, the good result and the bad re-sult must come together. The bad thing can’t be the cause of the goodthing, but must truly be incidental to it. Second, the bad result can’t beso intense that it is disproportionate to the good result. In other words,the good behavior can’t come as a result of the current, and any lastingeffects from the training, if they occur, can’t be so severe as to cause somuch stress that the dog can’t enjoy its freedom.

This sets a high standard. There is one creative approach, however, thatmay meet this standard. In an article in Animal Behavior Consulting, Win-ter , 2006, Cheryl Smith suggested a method for training a dog to re-main within an electric containment system by first working diligent-ly on teaching it to turn away from the boundary on hearing a warningtone. Only after thoroughly training this behavior would the current be



108


turned on. Thus, the dog would be expected to respond reliably to thesound signal. Any current that the dog experienced would be unintendedby the trainer and a signal that more boundary training was needed.

One manufacturer of electric containment systems, Petsafe®, has devel-oped a method for training called “Lite Touch” that is very similar to thetechnique described by Smith. Other manufacturers have created simi-lar approaches, and the IACP now offers a certification in this method ofelectric containment system training. To argue in favor of this approachthrough double effect is an ethical stretch, but it comes closer to meet-ing the standard than a method that employs the electric current fromthe outset.

Te societal dimensionThe debate over electric devices has both scientific and societal aspects.The scientific dimension can be explored through further study usingestablished methodologies and rigorous review. Some of this is likelyto take place, but unfortunately much of the information promulgatedabout the collars is embedded in marketing and promotional material.Thus the debate is likely to continue for some time.

A much broader dimension is the attitude of society on the treatment ofdogs—and specifically the use of electric current to train them. The is-sue of dogs in society is covered in a later chapter, but for now let’s lookat recent developments in societal views on training methods and equip-ment.

Regulating electronic training?One of the ways in which society arbitrates moral arguments is throughthe legal system. In the United States, laws covering the use of electriccurrent collars generally fall under animal welfare statutes. Althoughsome trainers and organizations have proposed to ban them, at presentthey are largely unregulated and their use is growing.

In some other countries, however, electric training collars and contain-ment systems are either banned or strictly regulated. Australia prohibitstheir import and individual Australian jurisdictions have instituted bans.They are also banned in Austria and Wales and prohibited or restrictedin Denmark, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland. In Norway,collars may be used only when actively training and may not be left on

a dog.




109

Debate continues in Scotland and England about banning or regulatingelectric current collars. The British government issued this statement in

August, 2007:

While we are aware of a number of scientific studies on elec-tric shock collars, Defra [The Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs] considers that to date those studiespublished in this area are not sufficiently robust and thatthe evidence base needs to be built on before considerationcan be given to either banning or regulating their use. Thegovernment is not prepared to do this unless there is clear

evidence that these devices in themselves are harmful to wel-fare. (www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page12967.asp)

In 2006, IAABC conducted a systematic review of all of the available sci-entific literature related to electric current collars and electric contain-ment systems. They analyzed more than 40 published studies and text-books; however, they apparently did not have access to the proprietarystudies commissioned by manufacturers of these devices. The IAABC re-view concluded that “electronic training devices are aversive. Electronic

training devices should not be used as the first level of training, and whenused, should be used only by skilled and experienced handlers.” (http://iaabc.org/articles/Ecollar_IAABCJournal_Spring2007.pdf) Many train-ers would agree that, if the devices are to be employed at all, the usersshould study carefully how they work, receive instruction from an expe-rienced trainer if possible, and use as little force as is necessary to achieveresults—and all this after a thorough consideration of other options.

In the final analysis, it is unlikely that electric training devices will be

banned or strictly regulated in the United States in the near future. Thismeans that trainers, and their professional associations, will have to self-regulate their use of these devices. In pursuit of that goal, it is essen-tial that an informed debate continue, with more systematic studies andmore transparency on the part of manufacturers and advocates as well asopponents of electric training.



110

P RO F E S S I ONA L I SM

AND P RO F E S S I ONA L

BOUNDAR I E S

Is dog training a craft or a profession?

For most of its history, the answer to this question was clear. Dog train-

ing was a craft, or perhaps an art, handed down from master to appren-tice. It was based on tradition, on tried-and-true methods that were im-parted through instruction and practice. Whether in the form of an oralor a written tradition, dog training was considered to be a skill that indi-viduals acquired in real life, not in a classroom.

But that began to change a couple of decades ago with the increasedemphasis on scientific training methods. In addition, changing societalnorms regarding our relationships with animals, and the demands of a

consumer economy, meant that dog trainers were increasingly requiredto demonstrate their knowledge and credentials to clients. This gave riseto an increase in the number of professional societies for dog trainers andbehavior consultants and to calls from those within the field for a great-er degree of professionalization. We’ll explore this topic in three stages:first, how dog training measures up against the standards of other profes-sions; second, the need to develop consistent and agreed-upon policiesand principles; and finally, the establishment of clear boundaries betweentraining and other professions.

What’s a profession?Harold Gortner, in Ethics for Public Managers , lists seven characteristicsof a profession:

Chap te r 7



7 — PROFESSIONALISM AND PROFESSIONAL BOUNDARIES

111

1. It is based on a body of abstract knowledge that requires a lengthyperiod of education, training, apprenticeship, and/or internship.

2. Standards for training, entry, and continuing competence are es-tablished and enforced by the profession.

3. The profession can expel a member for cause.

4. The profession’s primary purpose is to fill a societal need.

5. Members are bound by an ethical code.

6. There is a sense of collegiality among members and a commitmentto the integrity of the profession.

7. Members are prepared to sacrifice their own interests in pursuit ofthe societal goals for which the profession has been established.

It’s clear that dog training has some of these characteristics, but falls shortof the standard on others. Dog trainers as a group certainly seek to pro-mote a societal need. There are several ethical codes promulgated by pro-

fessional societies that are binding on their members, but these differ inspecificity and emphasis. The sense of collegiality and commitment var-ies among the professional societies, and a great many trainers belongto no association at all. While it is based on a body of knowledge, thereis currently no consensus on what that knowledge should encompass.There are no widely agreed-upon standards, and opinions differ on whatthey should be. While members can be expelled from professional associ-ations, no one can currently be prohibited from operating a dog-trainingbusiness, short of legal sanctions.

Te first challenge: licensing or certificationIn order to become members of a true profession, dog trainers will haveto tackle some tough issues. One of the most difficult of these is wheth-er there should be a standard program of certification or licensing fortrainers. Unlike the legal and medical professions, which are governed bybar associations and state boards, dog training is not subject to state reg-ulation or licensing, aside from the laws governing businesses in gener-al. Some states have specific regulations regarding aspects for dog train-ing, such as handling of racing dogs and training of dogs for service work.

And a few states, notably New Jersey and Florida, have investigated thepossibility of licensing regulations. But at the time of this writing, thereare no specific licensing or certification standards imposed by the state orfederal governments.



112


Many dog trainers are deeply opposed to the notion of government reg-ulation and licensing. They are concerned that decisions would be madeby bureaucrats who lack knowledge of training methods and animal care.Others fear that licensing would be a first step toward restricting thetechniques and equipment that they use, and might force trainers intoa common mold that would inhibit their freedom of choice and that oftheir clients. (See the slippery slope argument described in Chapter 2.)

Lacking government standards, dog training organizations have de-veloped a plethora of certification or qualification programs. Some areawarded by privately-owned companies or schools. Petco and Petsmart,for example, both have programs for accreditation of their canine educa-

tion instructors. One national company, Barkbusters, offers a franchiseprogram that requires attendance at a three-week training academy (as

well as a current initial investment of $71,000.00) that qualifies individ-uals for a guaranteed business territory.

There are many schools and train-the-trainer programs that offer residen-tial or hands-on education leading to some type of accreditation or certi-fication. These include the San Francisco SPCA, the Karen Pryor Acade-my for Animal Training and Behavior, Peaceable Paws training programs

in Maryland, Triple Crown Training Academy in Texas, and the TomRose School in Missouri. Fred Hassen, Martin Deeley, and several othersoffer training programs on their methods for using electric current col-lars. The Animal Behavior College in California provides a distance ed-ucation program with an internship component. Another distance edu-cation program providing certificates and diplomas is the Companion

Animal Sciences Institute. Some universities, for example the Universi-ty of North Texas, offer degree programs in animal behavior that providestudents with an opportunity to work with dogs. And there are many

other schools, seminars, workshops and conferences available for trainereducation as well as innumerable opportunities for apprenticeship withestablished trainers.

Many of these organizations allow those who complete certifications touse titles or initials after their names, such as accredited trainer, mas-ter trainer, ABC certified trainer, “No Limitations” trainer or Master ofScience. The value of these certifications obviously varies depending onthe quality of the education program. It is difficult for trainers, let alone

their clients, to evaluate the value of these programs without investigat-ing their content in some depth.

Given this lack of uniformity in standards, the major professional asso-ciations have developed their own certification programs. These vary in




113

their emphasis on knowledge and hands-on skills. The table on pages114 and 115 shows the certification requirements for four organizations:IAABC, IACP, NADOI, and the Certification Council for ProfessionalDog Trainers (CCPDT). CCPDT was established by APDT members,but operates independently of that organization. IAABC, IACP, and NA-DOI conduct their own certification programs; CCPDT uses an outsidetesting corporation to administer its certification process.



114


Professional Certification Requirements

CertificationProvisions

CCPD

Certified Pet Dog rainer

IAABC

Certified Dog BehaviorConsultant

CompetenciesEvaluated

Instructional skills

Animal husbandry

Ethology

Learning theory

Equipment

Assessment andintervention strategies

Counseling skills andsocial system assessment

Behavioral science

General knowledge of Animal Behavior

Species-specific behavior

Experience At least 300 hours withinpast 5 years; 225 or moremust be as a lead instructor

Not specified; must bedescribed in application

Examination Four hour multiple choice

exam

Under development

Demonstrationof Skills

Experience; Client,colleague and veterinarianrecommendations

Submission of case studies;participation in onlinediscussion lists, tutorialsand guided studies

References Three: client, colleague,veterinarian

Three

Recertification

Required

Every 3 years Every 2 years

Other High school diploma orequivalent; must signethics code; administeredby independent testingcorporation; an advancedcertification, covering moreserious behavior problems,and based on both practical

and written exams, is underdevelopment

Individualized certificationprovisions basedon applicant’s priorknowledge and experience




115

Professional Certification Requirements, cont.

CertificationProvisions

IACP

(Certified Dog rainer;see Other below)

NADOI

Endorsed Membership

CompetenciesEvaluated

Practical expertise


Case studies demonstrateknowledge of husbandry,ethology, learning theory

and equipment

Dog training skills


Canine behavior

Experience Must be Professionalmember for at least 6months; professionalmembership requires 5years experience in thefield plus references anddocumentation of businessoperations

At least 5 years, withat least 2 years as leadinstructor; experience withat least 100 dog-handlerteams; minimum of 104teaching hours for groupinstructors and 288 forprivate instructors

Examination Evaluation throughcomprehensive case studiesbased on actual experienceand handouts associated with this work

Questionnaire and essayquestions

Demonstrationof Skills

Three case studies;submission of a traininghandout; advanced level

requires submission ofvideo tape

Questionnaire and videotape

References Three client forms withdetailed informationcorresponding tocase studies and threereferences from clients

Three

Recertification

Required

Yes No

Other Offer basic and advancedtrainer certifications,instructor certificationsand certifications fortraining on electriccontainments systems

Emphasis on training forcompetitive obedience



116


There are other certification programs, such as those offered by the Ani-mal Behavior Association (ABA), that place greater emphasis on academ-ic study. However, the majority of dog trainers who have affiliated be-long to one or more of the four organizations listed in the table, so theirprograms are a good representation of certification requirements in thefield.

Common elements in the requirements include knowledge of trainingmethods, canine behavior, and skill in instructing people. There is con-siderable variation in the specific requirements, reflecting the differingobjectives of the organizations and the relative emphasis on knowledgeversus hands-on training skills. None of the certifications is universally

accepted as a professional standard, and there is no requirement that atrainer certified by one organization remain within the boundaries of thatorganization’s activities. For example, a trainer certified by CCPDT mayoffer competitive obedience classes without a NADOI endorsement, andan IACP certified basic trainer is not prohibited from handling complexbehavior cases in a family context.

These certifications differ significantly from those in established profes-sions. The Animal Behavior Society, which certifies applied animal be-

haviorists, requires advanced academic degrees and two to five years ofexperience, as well as endorsement by current members. The require-ments to become a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Be-havior (ACVB) are comparable to those necessary to become board cer-tified in a medical specialty:

• Complete an internship or equivalent.

• Complete a residency or a mentored training program.

• Author a scientific paper published in a peer-reviewed journal basedon the applicant’s own research.

• Write three peer-reviewed case reports.

• Pass a comprehensive two-day test.

The differences among dog-training certification programs can be clarifiedby comparing them to the standards established by the National Organi-

zation for Competency Assurance (NOCA). NOCA, through its accred-iting body, the National Commission for Certifying Agencies (NCCA),sets standards for organizations that seek to set and enforce standards.These organizations distinguish between certification programs that are




117

knowledge-based, such as those of the CCPDT, and those that are fullprofessional certification programs that also include a set of profession-al standards developed through a job analysis, similar to IAABC’s corecompetencies. For NOCA and NCCA, a professional certification pro-gram must also be based on a psychometrically validated exam, and havea complaint and enforcement system to maintain standards.

The fact that none of the current certification programs meet this set ofstandards raises ethical challenges. Lacking a comprehensive, validated,and generally accepted process, dog trainers must decide on their ownhow to market their abilities and how to establish boundaries aroundtheir areas of competence. They may be tempted to value their own cer-

tifications more highly than those of others, thus undermining their re-gard for colleagues. For example, those whose certifications requiredeeper knowledge of academic topics may be critical of those whose en-dorsements are more skill-based, and those whose titles reflect practicalaccomplishments may denigrate those who have achieved theirs mainlythrough book learning. Moving toward a shared standard that includesboth scientific knowledge and practical skill, perhaps with additional cer-tifications for specialties such as working in a family setting or handlingaggression issues, would go a long way toward reducing these ethical dif-

ficulties and would help move dog training from craft to profession.

APDT took a step in this direction in late 2007 when it redefined itsmembership categories to include a “professional member” designationthat requires certification credentials. The stated purpose was “furtherprofessionalization of the dog training industry.” Professional membersof APDT were to have achieved certification through one of seven rec-ognized programs administered by the ABA, ACVB, CCPDT, IAABC,IACP or NADOI. This attempt to incorporate a higher level of profes-

sional recognition, and to honor certifications from other associations,could be an important initiative if adopted more widely by other orga-nizations.

Te second challenge: fostering unity Dog training is a business—a competitive business. In promoting theirbusinesses, dog trainers need to differentiate themselves from their com-petitors, and that can lead to criticism and recrimination. This is partic-ularly a problem when trainers with differing values, methods, or certifi-

cations are in competition for a limited market.This competitiveness, and the nasty criticism that it can spawn, have fur-ther inhibited the development of dog training as a profession. It some-times appears that trainers have split into warring camps, loosely af-



118


filiated with one or another of the professional societies (although theorganizations and their officers tend to be very polite and supportive intheir attitudes). As a result, while some belong to more than one profes-sional society, most of the trainers who join them have chosen a prima-ry affiliation based on their values and methods. Thus the debate abouttechniques and equipment can inhibit dialogue about concerns that arecommon to all trainers.

Missions and messagesThe major professional societies all have mission statements that guidetheir activities. They are as follows:

• APDT: Promoting caring relationships between dogs and people byeducating trainers in canine behavior and emphasizing professional-ism and reward-based training.

• IAABC: [T]o assist and educate owners and handlers of companionanimals to prevent problems and to interrupt the cycle of inappro-priate punishment, rejection, and euthanasia of animals with behav-ior problems that are resolvable. This mission is accomplished byproviding state-of-the-art education and training to animal behaviorprofessionals, so they can analyze, predict and resolve problem be-haviors, and by advocating and promoting humane intervention.

• IACP: [T]o maintain the highest standards of professional and busi-ness practice among canine professionals. Its aim is to provide sup-port and representation for all professional occupations involved

with any aspect of canine management, health, training, and hus-bandry. The [IACP] commitment is to develop professional recogni-

tion, communication, education, understanding, and co-operationacross the wide diversity of canine expertise and knowledge. (IACPis an organization that encompasses a variety of business areas relatedto dogs, not only trainers, and emphasizes networking among theseindividuals as a path to growth and learning.)

• NADOI: [T]o endorse dog obedience instructors of the highest cali-ber; to provide continuing education and learning resources to those

instructors; and to continue to promote humane, effective trainingmethods and competent instructors.




119

Common values or values in conflict?There is much consistency and much common purpose in these missionstatements. All seek to promote professionalism and emphasize educationand professional growth. All seek excellence in the services that membersprovide and seek to establish and maintain high ethical standards.

But there are differences in emphasis, and these are important. Con-trasting APDT and IACP provides an example. APDT’s mission state-ment specifically refers to reward-based training. IACP seeks cooperationamong trainers with a wide array of practices. Thus, it appears that thesetwo organizations reflect a broad tension among dog trainers betweentwo core values, orthodoxy and openness. For some, the highest value is

to promote a particular vision of humane training; for others, it is to betolerant and welcoming to those whose opinions and practices may varysignificantly.

In the quest to become recognized as professionals, it is vital that dogtrainers confront this tension and try to resolve it. The ethical way to dothis is through negotiation, rather than confrontation. A proven meth-od for approaching this is described by Roger Fisher and William Ury ofthe Harvard Negotiation Project in their bestselling book, Getting to Yes:

Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Fisher and Ury advocate an ap-proach called principled negotiation. The method has four steps:

1. Separate the people from the problem.

2. Focus on interests, not positions.

3. Invent options for mutual gain.

4. Insist on using objective criteria.

Applying this method to the debates among dog trainers is challenging,but almost certainly possible. By initiating a dialogue among the majororganizations, with representatives chosen for both expertise and open-ness, it should be possible to set personalities aside and focus on the is-sues. Understanding the difference between positions and interests is key.For example, APDT has a position statement on dog-friendly training asfollows:

Dog-friendly training is training that utilizes primarily posi-tive reinforcement, secondarily negative punishment, andonly occasionally, rarely and/or as a last resort, positive pun-ishment or negative reinforcement.



120


This seems to put the organization at odds with IACP, which opposeslimits on training methods and tools, for example:

It is our conviction that limiting the humane use of training tools would result in a higher incidence of nuisance and dangerous dogbehavior, and more dogs being surrendered to already over-bur-dened public shelters.

Behind this apparent difference, however, is a common interest in pro-moting positive relationships between dogs and people and in prevent-ing inhumane training practices. For example, APDT notes that indi-vidual members are free to choose the tools and methods that they willuse, and IACP specifically “advocates the education of canine profession-als and the public in the correct, humane use of all training tools.” Bothorganizations have a clear, unambiguous interest in promoting effectiveand ethical training methods.

Given this mutual interest, then, both organizations have a stake in pro-moting serious research into the advantages and disadvantages of trainingmethods and tools. This would involve co-sponsoring research projectsthat use objective criteria and, from them, developing positions on train-

ing that would promote mutual gain. This is what Fisher and Ury call the“zone of agreement” in which the interests of the parties overlap. One re-sult of such a dialogue could be establishing clear boundaries that woulddelineate acceptable from unacceptable behavior so that they can meettwo criteria for a profession—having a coherent set of standards and hav-ing the ability to enforce them among members.

In beginning this dialogue, the full mission statement of IACP would bea good place to start. In elaborating its mission, IACP emphasizes mu-

tual support, effective communication, liaison with other organizationsthat have common concerns, and establishing a professional reputation.It also pledges to support members in their business ventures, developcampaigns to improve the image of both dogs and trainers, to enhancecommunity programs, encourage responsible dog ownership, and pro-vide professional development opportunities. Finally, it supports human-canine partnerships and evaluates all professional certification programsfor applicability to its members.

By replacing references to the association with references to the profes-sion as a whole, these goals could serve as an initial draft for a manifes-to for dog trainers. If it were the topic of discussion at a summit meetingof canine professionals, it could point the way toward resolving some of




121

the more contentious issues and reconciling professional standards andcodes of conduct.

Deconstructing the dialogueThere is an important ethical consideration that should accompany thisprocess. The postmodernists have pointed out that the language we usein ethical judgment is a social construct that reflects the dominant pow-er relationships in society. What they are saying is that the very ways in

which we discuss issues has the inevitable result of creating “in” and “out”groups whose perspectives are either accepted or rejected by the societyas a whole. Many trainers who have participated in online discussiongroups have experienced this phenomenon. Their opinions have been

rejected because they did not use the approved terminology or becausethey were advocating for a point of view outside the mainstream valuesof the group.

There are no easy solutions to this problem. To foster unity requires ac-ceptance of a shared set of beliefs and practices. Yet openness and toler-ance are important values, and no organization can grow without con-stantly acquiring new information and re-examining old positions. Soit is important to do what the postmodernists call deconstructing the

text—that is, examining carefully all of the language that we use in ourinteractions and being conscious of biases and intended or unintendedexclusion of other perspectives. Being clear about what we communicateis an essential step in permitting the emerging profession of dog trainingto present a united front in the face of external challenges.

Te third challenge: boundary training Among these challenges is criticism from members of related professions,especially animal behaviorists and veterinarians, that dog trainers are

overstepping the boundaries of their competence and stepping on others’turf. This issue has all of the trappings of a bureaucratic conflict, but alsohas an important ethical dimension in that clients have a right to knowthe limits of competence and authority on the part of those whom theyengage for help with their dogs.

rainers, consultants, and vets—O my!There is no disagreement that trainers as a group are qualified to instructin basic obedience and in dog sports and activities, or to help families toresolve common behavior issues such as housetraining, nipping, digging,or barking. There is much disagreement, however, about the role of train-ers and dog behavior consultants in more severe problems such as sepa-ration anxiety or aggression. Animal behaviorists consider themselves tobe more expert than trainers in scientific methods of changing animal



122


behavior. And veterinarians, represented by their professional organiza-tions, are questioning whether some trainers are in effect practicing vet-erinary medicine without a license, in violation not only of ethical stan-dards, but of the law.

Although the frequency of these challenges varies in different regions,some trainers have felt threatened by allegations that, if upheld, couldsharply restrict their business practices. In many ways, as pointed out byLynn Hoover, founder of IAABC, the issues between trainers and otherprofessions are similar to those faced by marriage and family therapists

when they first tried to establish themselves as a profession along withpsychiatry and psychology.

On the opposite end of the argument, trainers’ email lists from time totime cite examples of advice given to clients by veterinarians that thetrainers consider outmoded, ineffective, or downright dangerous, leadingtraining organizations to be concerned that the average family vet may beinexperienced and unschooled in modern methods of behavior change,to the detriment of clients and their dogs.

Te Model Veterinary Practice Act

In 2000, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) began work on an updated version of what it called the Model Veterinary Prac-tice Act. The purpose was to create a standard template of regulationsthat could be used by states in developing their own legal frameworkfor the practice and oversight of veterinary medicine. While most of theproposed act was of little concern to trainers, there was one passage thatraised fears. That was the inclusion of “the diagnosing and treating ofmental conditions” under the definition of veterinary medicine. Trainers

were fearful that this definition could open them up to charges of practic-

ing without a license should they attempt to change many common dogbehaviors, especially aggression and related conditions. Although a subse-quent section of the act provided for exemptions from this and other pro-visions, trainers were not included in these exemptions.

In response to a draft of the act circulated in December 2002, APDTofficers wrote a letter to the AVMA. The letter, available on the APDT

website, read in part:

Many of our members, as a function of their business, rou-tinely treat behavioral issues and have been uniquely trainedto do so. In some cases they have been in business for manyyears in this specialized area. Our concern regarding theModel Veterinary Practice Act is the inclusion of the term




123

“mental conditions” within the definition of “practice ofveterinary medicine” (Section 2 - Definitions). We are con-

cerned that this term may be construed to mean any and allbehavior problems and could place our member’s practicesunder the legal definition of a veterinary practice.

We are proposing that an exemption be added to Section6 - Exemptions to further clarify “mental conditions.” Ourgoal is to separate the practice of dog training and behav-ior modification from the regulations that govern veterinarymedicine. We also realize that the practice of prescribing

and the dispensing of veterinary drugs and traditional veter-inary medical procedures should remain within the practiceof veterinary medicine. The exemption we are proposing isas follows:

Section 6 - Exemptions

This act shall not be construed to prohibit:

Animal trainers who—as a function of their professionalpractice—prevent, identify, and provide appropriate train-ing or behavioral interventions for problem animal behav-iors including, but not limited to, aggression, compulsion,fear, anxiety and inappropriate elimination arising from avariety of psychological, environmental and animal-manage-ment deficits; not to include the prescribing or dispensingof veterinary drugs or the practice of traditional veterinary

medical procedures.

The recommended exemption was not included. The relevant sectionsof the current version of the act, posted on the website of the AVMA –

www.avma.org – reads:

Section 1-Definitions

19. Practice of veterinary medicine means:

a. To diagnose, treat, correct, change, alleviate, or preventanimal disease, illness, pain, deformity, defect, injury, orother physical, dental, or mental conditions by any methodor mode; including:



124


i. the prescription, dispensing, administration, or applica-tion of any drug, medicine, biologic, apparatus, anesthetic,

or other therapeutic or diagnostic substance or medical orsurgical technique, or

ii. the use of complementary, alternative, and integrativetherapies, or

iii. the use of any manual or mechanical procedure for re-productive management, or

iv. the rendering of advice or recommendation by any meansincluding telephonic and other electronic communications

with regard to any of the above.

Section 6 – Exemptions

This act shall not be construed to prohibit:

11. Any person who provides appropriate training for ani-mals that does not include diagnosing or the prescribing ordispensing of any therapeutic agent.

These formulations continue to leave the broad area of behavioral workambiguous and open to dispute. One area of concern, for example, re-lates to the use of aromatherapy preparations or dietary supplements aspart of a training or behavior program; it’s possible that, even with the

APDT clarification, practitioners who use such preparations could beseen as violating the act. Rather than clarifying the relationships amongtrainers, consultants, and veterinarians, the act has created conditions

ripe for conflict. O my!

Te charge of the veterinary behavioristsRecent articles in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior have reawakened thecontroversy. Members of the journal’s editorial board, and many of itscontributors, are members of the American College of Veterinary Behav-iorists, the professional society for veterinarians who specialize in behav-ioral problems in animals. This is an emerging specialty; currently thereare 42 Diplomates listed by the organization. The requirements for certi-

fication are very stringent, as noted above, and there are many regions ofthe country where certified veterinary behaviorists are not readily avail-able to families with problem dogs.




125

The journal was launched in July 2006. One of the editors’ firstinitiatives was to begin a dialogue on terminology, including attemptsto reach agreed-upon definitions of terms such as behavioral diagnosisand aggressive behavior. That discussion led inevitably to an exchangeabout who was qualified to diagnose and treat aggressive behavior andother problems. In the November 2006 issue, Karen Overall, DVM,the journal’s editor and author of Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small

Animals , noted:

The issue for veterinarians and veterinary specialists revolvesaround how a non-doctor, a non-specialist, obtains certifica-tion that proves that his or her training is based on evidence-based science and not on opinion or anecdotal informationin a manner that ensures that no one is encouraging thepractice of medicine without a license. These are importantissues for veterinarians, specifically, because they possesslicenses and the concomitant liability. Specialists are con-cerned because “specialist” is a protected word that impliesthe successful completion of arduous postgraduate trainingthat has clinical and didactic components and that relieson the successful completion of a final, standardized set ofevaluations.

After reviewing seven certification programs, including several describedabove, she expressed continuing concern about the near total absence ofinput from veterinarians in the procedures. She then went on:

So where does all of this information leave us? Is there aplace in the veterinary team for para-professionals, like

trainers and Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists? Cansuch individuals engage in a scientifically valid exchange ofinformation? Do such individuals do so?

In the next issue, January 2007, an article by Andrew U. Luescher, Ger-rard Flannigan, Diane Frank, and Petra Mertens set a boundary betweentraining and the practice of veterinary medicine. It said in part that train-ers’ roles in behavioral work should be restricted to such activities as:

• Teaching appropriate, calm greeting behavior at the door.

• Teaching the dog not to jump up.



126


• Training the dog to accept humane restraint, including that whichmay be desirable or needed in handling, grooming, and veterinary

procedures (e.g., nail trims, blood draws, ultrasound).• Teaching the dog to walk on a lead without pulling and while ignor-

ing other people and dogs, when required (including for dogs thatare aggressive to dogs and/or people).

• All training designed to prevent behavior problems including house-training, teaching not to grab and bite, food bowl safety, leave-it anddrop-it, to gently release an object, and so on.

• Treatment of problems in class situations such as a dog showing fearof someone or something in the room, a dog showing aggression to-

ward another dog in the class, [or] a dog showing possessiveness overan item such as the dumbbell in the class.

The article went on to recommend:

[However] if on further inquiry it turns out that the prob-

lem also occurs in various other situations like the home, thetrainer should not address those situations but rather shouldrefer the client to a veterinarian or veterinary behaviorist.. . . If the problem occurs in several situations, or the dogalso has problems such as generalized anxiety, fearfulness,or aggressiveness, the trainer should request that the clientconsult with the veterinarian and possibly request a referralto a veterinary behaviorist. Any aggression serious enoughthat people or other dogs are at risk needs to be referred toa veterinarian.

And finally:

The treatment of behavior problems in animals is a core partof the practice of veterinary medicine. Consequently, veteri-narians are exclusively responsible for diagnosing behavioraldisorders, for medical and behavioral differential diagnoses,

and for the oversight of treatment. Treatment of behavioraldisorders independent of a veterinarian is inappropriate forlay personnel even if no diagnosis is made. We should notencourage the practice of medicine without a license. Devis-




127

ing a treatment regimen for a problem means that an im-plicit, albeit possibly tentative, diagnosis has been made.

Not surprisingly, many trainers and consultants were not pleased to be la-beled para-professionals. And they were greatly concerned that Luescher,et al., were defining their turf so rigidly as to leave no room for others inmany areas of behavioral work with dogs.

IAABC marks its territoryOver the next several issues, the dialogue continued. An experiencedtrainer bemoaned the lack of understanding of canine behavior demon-strated by many general practice veterinarians. She also noted the im-

practicality of most clients working with a veterinary behaviorist whenthere are only several dozen in the country. (Letter from Dana Fedman;March 2007). Lynn Hoover, President of IAABC, also published a let-ter in that issue, comparing the situation to the debate that occurred be-tween psychiatrists and other mental health professionals, and puttingforth a collaborative health care model as a proposed solution to the vet-erinarians’ concerns. In response, Luescher continued to maintain thatHoover’s approach would constitute practicing veterinary medicine with-out a license. He wrote:

I do not think members of IAABC can call themselves pro-fessionals unless they police themselves to guarantee thattheir members live up to certain standards in their practiceof animal behavior. You can’t police without licensing andthe possibility to withdraw such license, or similar venue fordisciplinary action.

IAABC has subsequently published a comprehensive document outlin-

ing its view of the professional boundaries of animal behavior consul-tants. This applies, strictly speaking, only to its own members. But it isof interest to all trainers, especially those who deal with challenging be-havior issues. IAABC Vice President Pam Johnson-Bennett sent the doc-ument as a letter to the journal and it was published in the July/August2007 issue. Johnson-Bennett counseled trainers and consultants againstreferring to themselves as “behaviorists” unless they held a certificationin that area. She also recommended that, “Unless one has the appropri-ate degree, do not refer to yourself as a psychologist, psychiatrist, thera-

pist, or any other title associated with the medical or mental health pro-fession.” And, “Although we may often work closely with our clients’veterinarians, it is crucial that our recommendations are not interpretedas dispensing medical advice.” She provided a table giving recommend-



128


ed terms for trainers and consultants to use, including assessment, be-havior plan, and procedure, as well as proscribed terms, such as diagno-sis, treatment, and protocol. While not all consultants were happy withthese boundaries, Johnson-Bennett’s letter helped to move the conversa-tion forward.

The latest round in this discussion occurred in the September 2007 is-sue of the journal. Attempting to bridge the gap between veterinariansand trainers on the “front lines,” Overall advocated several ways in whichtrainers can work collaboratively with vets without boundary violations.These include sharing notes and compact disks from trainers’ conferenc-es with vets, making presentations or holding their own continuing ed-

ucation programs with veterinarians, and providing notebooks or collec-tions of brochures. These concrete measures, if accepted by vets, couldbe very helpful.

oward a modus vivendi The dialogue in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior , although sharp attimes, has proven to be useful. So, also, has Dr. Overall’s willingness tomake a presentation at an IAABC conference. And IAABC has been dis-cussing organizing a conference for all of the allied professions to further

discuss boundary issues.

The ethical dimensions of this debate are central. Not only are humanand canine safety and security deeply affected by the outcome, but so alsothe core business of many members of all of the allied professions. If anysuccess is made in achieving a collaborative model, as the mental healthprofessions have done after extended struggles, one central ethical attri-bute will be necessary, and that is humility.

The Greek philosophers counseled moderation in all things, and in par-ticular Aristotle conceived of moral virtues as a mean between extremes.For example, courage was held to be a mean between cowardice and reck-lessness; decency the mean between shyness and shamelessness; and hu-mility the mean between vanity and false modesty. The groups engagedin this debate are not known for this virtue. The fields are highly com-petitive; members compete by promoting their skills and knowledge incomparison to those of their competitors; and success depends on a cred-ible image of expertise. It is no surprise that defensiveness and territori-ality are common.

But if all of the professions, or emerging professions, are to prosper andfulfill the social needs for which they were intended, it will be necessaryfor each to assume an attitude of humility. Trainers and consultants will




129

have to acknowledge their need for education in animal husbandry andbehavioral science; trainers who use aversive methods will have to reachan accommodation with veterinary behaviorists who are in the forefrontof opposition to these techniques; and veterinarians will have to acceptthe limits on their ability to provide direct services to clients, in compar-ison to trainers and consultants who can work directly with families inclasses and in the home. What is needed is a mean between defensive-ness and capitulation, and that is an attitude of collaborative engage-ment, characterized by mutual respect and a willingness to compromisefor the greater good. Only then can dog training and behavior consult-ing complete the journey from craft through para-profession to full pro-fessional status.



130

DOGS AND SOC I E T Y

Chapter 1 discussed the importance of having a clear set of beliefs, val-ues, and principles to guide business decisions. These are formed by a va-riety of influences. As Hunter Lewis said, we usually have a preference forbasing our values on authority, science, intuition, or other factors. Ourattitudes and behavior are also shaped by the culture in which we liveand work. This chapter will explore some aspects of that culture, focus-ing on current views regarding the relationships among dogs and peoplein American society.

There are differing opinions about the place of dogs in our lives, our re-sponsibilities to them, and what our response should be when dogs be-have in ways that violate our norms or create dangerous situations. The

purpose of this exploration is for trainers and behavior consultants toclarify their opinions and ensure that those opinions are firmly ground-ed and well thought out. It begins by looking at what religious and phil-osophical traditions have said about animals generally, then moves on toexplore information about dogs and families in the United States today,and finishes with a couple of specific issues.

There are, of course, many social issues regarding dogs. These include petoverpopulation and the related topic of mandatory spay and neuter pro-

grams; the prevalence of puppy mills and irresponsible breeding; and dogfighting, as well as other abusive practices. But this chapter will focus ononly two issues:

Chap te r 8



8 — DOGS AND SOCIETY

131

1. The first is the current debate about people’s relationship to dogs,specifically whether they are our property or whether we are their

guardians. This is a fundamental question that shapes many peo-ple’s basic attitudes toward their dogs and therefore influences therelationships trainers have with the families for whom they work.

2. The second is a specific topic of great concern to trainers and othercanine professionals—the proliferation of legal bans and insurancerestrictions on certain breeds that are deemed to be dangerous.This issue offers trainers an opportunity not only to assist families

with these breeds, but also to become engaged in a key debate

about societal values.

What are animals for?In western civilization, attitudes toward animals have been heavily influ-enced by religious traditions. This biblical quote typifies much of tradi-tional thought:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, accord-ing to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of

the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over allthe earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on theearth.” (Genesis 1:26 )

In a common interpretation of this passage, animals exist primarily toserve the needs of humans, who are deemed to be unique among crea-tures. This theme is present in Christianity, Islam, and Judaism; manyeastern religions and animist traditions seem to distinguish less sharplybetween humans and other creatures. Clearly, the idea that animals are

only here for human benefit is an oversimplified view of their treatmentin western religious traditions. However, this concept is also deeply em-bedded in western philosophy.

Aristotle believed in such a hierarchy; he considered humans superior toother living beings because of their rational nature. This attitude also in-formed the view of medieval Christian philosophers, notably Thomas

Aquinas, who considered animals to be instruments for the use of hu-mans. Later western philosophers also held that animals have no intrin-

sic moral value. Kant, as noted earlier, believed this, although he alsothought that being kind to animals made humans nobler.

One philosopher who had a great deal of influence on cultural attitudestoward animals was Rene Descartes, who wrote in the 17th century. Des-



132


cartes held that animals lack the self-awareness of humans and that theirbehavior can be explained purely in mechanical terms. Therefore, theyare not conscious in their actions as humans are, and in particular there isno reason to believe that they have a consciousness of pain. This view haspersisted into modern times and has led some to maintain that humanshave no obligations to avoid causing pain to animals, since they have nomoral standing and the concept of pain is irrelevant to them. Obligationstoward animals, then, exist only to the extent that they impact the rightsof those who own them as property.

In the 20th century, this view came under attack from the utilitarian per-spective. Philosopher Peter Singer, in a seminal work called Animal Liber-

ation, put forward arguments for according rights to animals. Not affirm-ing animals’ rights, he says, puts us on a slippery slope. (See Chapter 2 fora discussion of the slippery slope argument.) If we don’t accord rights toanimals, we are in danger of also excluding human beings whose charac-teristics of intelligence, rationality, or self-awareness differ from those ofthe majority. This may lead us to exclude persons with mental challeng-es or physical disabilities; it may also lead to racism and sexism. (Somesupporters of Singer’s views accuse their opponents of “specieism,” a termthat they consider comparable to racism or sexism.) It is more correct

ethically to accord full rights to all beings that share the characteristic ofbeing sentient, including animals.

These concepts led Singer to condemn factory farming and experimenta-tion with animals. They form the philosophical foundation for what hascome to be known as the animal rights movement. While some mem-bers of this movement are considered to be radical in their views, theidea that we have some sort of moral obligation to animals—and in par-ticular to domestic pets—is deeply engrained in American society today.

(For more information on the evolution on philosophical views on ani-mals, see the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at www.iep.utm.edu/a/anim-eth.htm#SH1b.)

Scientists have also increasingly challenged the Cartesian notion that an-imals have no conscious sense of pain or feeling. Ethologist Mark Beck-off documents this position in his comprehensive book, The EmotionalLives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and Em-

pathy - and Why They Matter , and animal behaviorist Patricia McConnell

provides a perspective on canines in For the Love of a Dog . Both scientistshold that animals experience emotions in much the same way that peo-ple do, although their feelings are not as varied or complex. And trainers

who work daily with dogs certainly can attest that they display behaviorthat appears to have a strong emotional content.




133

Finally, a recent critique of the traditional view of animals as subordinatebeings with limited consciousness and value comes from a religious per-spective. In Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals andthe Call to Mercy , Matthew Scully presents an alternative to Singer’s ar-gument regarding the rights of animals. Without arguing that they aremorally equivalent to humans, Scully draws on his Christian heritage tocondemn factory farming, experimentation, and many hunting practicesas inconsistent with the call to responsible stewardship. One biblical pas-sage, for example, implies an attitude toward animals that is not far fromSinger’s: “For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; evenone thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, theyhave all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: forall is vanity.” (Ecclesiastes 3:19 ) Scully’s book shows that support of theseissues is not confined to the utilitarian philosophers.

Radicals and rightsOne aspect of this debate that is of continuing concern to dog trainersand behavior consultants is the presence of groups and individuals thatseek to promote their views through highly publicized statements, legisla-tive initiatives, and dramatic actions. Among the best known of these arePeople for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the Humane Soci-

ety of the United States (HSUS). PETA has employed a number of high-profile stunts to gain awareness of its positions; HSUS tends to focus onpublicity campaigns, lobbying, and legal actions. A few animal rights or-ganizations and individuals have carried out what they call direct action,using illegal or even destructive measures. Probably the most notoriousgroup in this category is a loose coalition of activists called the AnimalLiberation Front (www.animalliberationfront.com). These actions havemost often been taken against scientific facilities that use animals in ex-periments or against large-scale farming businesses.

Some members of animal rights organizations have taken positions thatimply an eventual goal of doing away with the very concept of pets orcompanion animals and placing dogs on the same plane of freedom andrights as human beings. Such a radical point of view has obvious and far-reaching implications for trainers. At the extreme, if there were no petdogs, there clearly would be no dog-training businesses. But even with-out this potentially devastating outcome, it is possible that dog trainers

would come under criticism and become targets of harassment or legal

challenges by animal rights groups and individual activists. This wouldparticularly be the case if the critics thought they could effectively arguethat training was in some way abusive or a violation of animal’s inher-ent value.



134


As a result, some trainers have gathered together with pet owners, dogand cat clubs, obedience clubs, and rescue groups, as well as breeders,trainers, veterinarians, research scientists, farmers, fishermen, hunters,and wildlife biologists to counter the arguments of those opposed to cur-rent practices. One such organization is the National Animal Interest Al-liance (www.naiaonline.org). While it seems unlikely that there will beany sharp change in the relationships between dogs and people in theUnited States, as discussed below, the situation certainly bears watching.

Dogs: only in America American attitudes toward dogs today have been shaped by these com-plex threads of religious and philosophical argumentation, as well as his-

tory and culture. From the Colonial period through the westward expan-sion and well into the 19th century, the majority of Americans lived inclose proximity to animals. Few had pets as we know them today, andmost dogs were working animals. The notion that they had rights wouldhave seemed ludicrous, and it still does for many Americans.

Beginning in the years following the Civil War, industrialization sepa-rated more and more people from the land, and dogs increasingly weretransformed into companions rather than helpmates. This dichotomy

continues today, with differing attitudes toward dogs persisting in var-ious regions of the country and among urban, suburban, and rural set-tings.

There are a lot of dogs in America! According to the Humane Society ofthe United States (HSUS), in 2006 there were about 73 million dogs in

American families, with 39 percent of families owning at least one dog. We spend a lot on our dogs. The average dog owner spends over $200per year on veterinary care. The American Pet Products Manufacturing

Association (APPMA) estimated that in 2006 we spent approximately$38.4 billion on our pets. The areas of most rapid growth were pet delisnacks, toys, luxury items, and convenience accessories such as program-mable feeding and watering stations, warming mats, and self-cleaninglitter boxes. Expenditures for pet services—including grooming, pet sit-ting, and boarding—was expected to top $2.7 billion in that year. Thereare no reliable figures for the number of dogs trained or for expenditureson training programs. The general view among trainers appears to be thatfive to ten percent of dogs receive formal training.

We consider our dogs to be part of our families. According to PetCon-nect Online, 83 percent of owners in a recent poll reported that they referto themselves as Mommy or Daddy in relation to their dogs. More than




135

30 million people buy holiday gifts for their dogs, and nearly 10 millioncelebrate their dogs’ birthdays.

The work that our dogs do has changed profoundly. In The New Work ofDogs , Jon Katz profiled a dozen relationships between people and theirdogs and concluded that dogs’ work has shifted from assisting us withphysical tasks—herding, hunting, or hauling—to providing emotionaland psychological support. While trainers and behavior consultants are

well aware of the dangers that can result when people anthropomorphizetheir pets—treating them as if they were little humans—it is common-place for people to attribute human behavior traits and ethical standardsto their dogs. In The Culture Clash, Jean Donaldson tells a poignant fic-

tional story of a dog who is euthanized for “aggression” when the familyhad no idea how to interpret his natural canine behavior. One reason forthe popularity of Cesar Millan, the “Dog Whisperer,” is that he is seen asan antidote to rampant anthropomorphism when he counsels people tofocus on “exercise, discipline, and affection” in that order.

At the same time, dogs have become a casualty of our instant-gratifica-tion, throw-away society. According to the Humane Society of the Unit-ed States, on the order of six to eight million cats and dogs enter shelters

each year and about half are euthanized. It has been estimated that halfof all dogs in the United States will be given up by their families sometime during their lifetime, and approximately one-third are relinquishedin the first year.

Ownership or guardianship?The ambivalence in our attitudes toward and our treatment of dogs rais-es fundamental questions about our values and principles. One way in

which these questions are manifest is in the treatment of dogs under the

law. Laws prohibiting cruelty to animals were passed in Great Britain inthe early 19th century, but it was not until 1866 that the first Society forthe Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was organized in New York State; itreceived its legal status in the following year. By the turn of the 20th cen-tury, SPCAs and humane societies had been founded in virtually everyarea, and most states had passed anti-cruelty statutes. While these lawsrestricted abusive practices toward animals, they did not alter the funda-mental relationship between people and their dogs—that of ownership.

To this day, in 49 out of 50 states, the law considers dogs to be proper-ty. In recent years, however, a movement has arisen to replace the no-tion that people own dogs with a concept of guardianship. According toIn Defense of Animals (IDA), one of the organizations behind the cam-



136


paign to replace ownership with guardianship, this will accomplish sev-eral goals:

• It will recognize animals as individuals, not objects. (This is clearlybased on Singer’s views and in opposition to those of Descartes.)

• It will be consistent with public attitudes as shown by polls that in-dicate that the vast majority of people with animals in their homesthink of them as family members.

• It will foster attitudes of kindness toward animals in children.

• By emphasizing the emotional value of animals, it will help to erodesupport for puppy mills, decrease abuse and abandonment, and em-power citizens to influence laws that support animal welfare.

Michael Mountain, of the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, sees the guard-ianship movement as morally analogous to the anti-slavery and feministmovements. In a testimonial distributed by IDA, he states, “People ofother genders, races and even age groups were once treated as property inthis country. Now, it is time for ‘people’ of other species to be accorded

the same simple dignity of being recognized, not as someone else’s prop-erty but as beings in their own right.” (This comparison seems to failthe test for analogies in Chapter 2, in that it is generally considered thatanimals and people are vastly different in makeup, behavior and moralstanding.)

The notion of guardianship was adopted into law first in San Franciscoand in other municipalities. As discussed below, it became law in RhodeIsland in 2001. Since then, a number of concerns have been raised by op-

ponents, including the American Kennel Club. The AKC has argued thatadoption of the guardian terminology could create a host of legal prob-lems. It suggested that animal control officials could have difficulty en-forcing animal control laws or holding guardians responsible for theirdogs’ actions. It also feared a slippery slope in that use of the new termcould be a first step toward eliminating the rights of people to breed, sell,and participate in events with dogs, and toward ultimate establishmentof legal rights for animals equal to those of humans. Attempting to buildan alliance in support of their position, the AKC also maintained that

veterinarians could be subject to liability from guardians who were dis-satisfied with the quality of treatment provided to animals in their care.In June 2005, the American Veterinary Medical Association published astatement in support of the AKC on its website:




137

The American Veterinary Medical Association promotes theoptimal health and welfare of animals. Further, the AVMA

recognizes the role of responsible owners in providing fortheir animals’ care. Any change in terminology describingthe relationship between animals and owners, including“guardian,” does not strengthen this relationship and may,in fact, harm it. Such changes in terminology may adverselyaffect the ability of society to obtain and deliver animal ser-vices and, ultimately, result in animal suffering.

Jon Katz, the popular writer on topics related to dogs, also opposes the

guardianship movement. In an article in the online magazine Slate , he wrote:

The guardian campaign is a vivid example of the growingtendency to blur the boundaries between us and our pets.Many Americans have already stopped seeing their dogs andcats as animals. They’re family members, emotional supportsystems, metaphors for issues from our own pasts, aids forhealing and growth, children with fur.

Seeing them the way we see ourselves—as having humanthoughts and needs, human rights—is another kind ofabuse and exploitation.

It’s the law In 2000, students of Linda Jones, a Rhode Island school teacher, present-ed a proposal to the state legislature to replace the word owner with guard-ian in its laws on animals and animal husbandry. According to Jones:

The proposal . . . was about making society more aware ofthe importance of animal companions in society and therespect that all animals deserve. They [the students] citedthe link between abuse of animals and domestic abuse. Thisis a small step to preventing violence against animals, as wellas preventing people from taking on the responsibility ofanimal guardianship when they are not able to.

The proposal passed speedily through the legislative process, with littledebate and essentially no organized opposition. In 2001, the General As-sembly amended the relevant sections of the law (Section 4-1-1 of theGeneral Laws in Chapter 4-1 entitled “Cruelty to Animals”) as follows:



138


(4) “Guardian” shall mean a person(s) having the samerights and responsibilities of an owner, and both terms shall

be used interchangeably. A guardian shall also mean a per-son who possesses, has title to or an interest in, harbors orhas control, custody or possession of an animal and who isresponsible for an animal’s safety and well-being.

The change, then, was less sweeping than the opponents feared, permit-ting the terms to be used interchangeably, but not abolishing the con-cept of ownership. It specifically refers to “title” in animals, which im-plies legal possession. There seems to have been some positive impact,

and little in the way of negative fallout from the change, and the concernsexpressed by the AKC have not come to fruition. According to Rhode Is-land SPCA animal control official Dave Holden, the new language hasmade it easier to enforce abuse laws when owners have left pets in the careof others. The law has not prevented five localities in the state from en-acting and enforcing breed bans or restrictions on dangerous dogs.

According to Chris Hannafin, DVM, former state veterinarian for RhodeIsland and president-elect of the Rhode Island Veterinary Medical Associ-ation, the law as currently interpreted does not afford to animals any ad-ditional legal rights as sentient beings. On the other hand, it does broad-en the population of individuals subject to a variety of legal obligationsunder provisions related to animal care, husbandry, and abuse. The RIV-MA shares the concern of the AKC and the AVMA, however, that anyexpansion of the guardianship concept could pose significant problemsfor the treatment decisions and potential liability of veterinarians in thefuture.

Owners, guardians, and trainers Why should trainers be concerned about the philosophical status of dogsand the legal distinctions between owners and guardians? There are twogood reasons. The first is to ground beliefs, values, and principles on afirm intellectual foundation. By knowing what the major arguments havebeen, and how they are evolving, trainers can then better find their waythrough complex ethical challenges that may pit dogs’ welfare againstthat of humans.

In a practical, day-to-day sense, it is also important for trainers to be

aware of the values of their communities and how they relate to the at-titudes of their clients. Values differ among regions of the country andamong individuals. People who refer to themselves as their dog’s guard-ian, Mommy, or Daddy, may have very different goals and preferences




139

from those who use more traditional terms. This may, in turn, affect theirdecisions about training goals, acceptable boundaries of canine behav-ior, and training methods. Trainers and consultants may find themselvesheld to a different standard by guardians than by owners, and experiencesome of the same consequences regarding freedom of choice and liabili-ty as those feared by the veterinary community. This is an area in whichclarity about our own views, coupled with a healthy dose of humility, andgood negotiating skills, can stand us in good stead.

Bad breeds or dangerous dogs?One of the most pernicious results of the rampant American practice ofanthropomorphizing dogs has been the imposition of human moral stan-

dards on them. As a result, dogs can be labeled as aggressive for merelyexpressing their anxiety or discomfort in a natural manner. Often this oc-curs because families are unable to identify the sources of their dog’s dis-comfort and deal with them in an appropriate way. As trainers and con-sultants, an important responsibility is to teach people how to read theirdogs. Failure to interpret behavioral signs and to intervene appropriate-ly can lead to mistreatment of dogs, danger to humans, and unnecessaryeuthanasia for dogs that could have been helped. Nowhere is this fail-ure more prevalent than in the widespread discrimination against cer-

tain dog breeds.

rainers united Although debates about training methods and equipment are divisiveamong dog trainers, the majority of trainers and consultants are unitedin opposition to breed bans. For example, ADPT:

Supports the adoption or enforcement of a program for thecontrol of potentially dangerous or vicious dogs that is fair,

non-discriminatory and addresses dogs that are shown to bedangerous by their actions. The APDT opposes any law thatdeems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance,breed or phenotype.

The rationale is:

Singling out and publicly demonizing certain breeds as dan-gerous is unfair, discriminatory, and does an immense dis-

service to those breeds and the people who care about them.Even more chilling, breed-specific legislation encourages thefaulty public perception of other breeds as being inherentlysafe. This can lead misguided individuals to engage in un-



140


safe conduct with other breeds that can result in injury ordeath by individual representatives of those breeds mistak-

enly perceived as safe.NADOI has also taken a position against breed bans. According to its

website, NADOI:

Strongly opposes breed specific legislation which targets ordiscriminates against certain dogs based only on their breedor appearance. Such laws are unfair because they assumethat a dog may be dangerous simply because of breed. In

fact, it is almost always the behavior of the owners of thesedogs which makes them a danger to others.

Like APDT, NADOI supports alternative laws:

[O]rdinances against dangerous dogs, unattended and loosedogs, nuisance barking, and other objectionable dog behav-iors should be enacted and aggressively enforced. Theselaws, unlike breed-specific laws, force all dog owners to be

responsible for the behavior of their dogs.IACP has similarly taken a position in opposition to breed-specific legis-lation and in favor of laws that penalize irresponsible dog owners on anindividual basis. It also supports public education in bite prevention. Afull text of IACP’s copyrighted position statement is available on its web-site, www.dogpro.org.

Breed characteristics and breed profiling What gives rise to breed bans, insurance restrictions, and general pub-

lic concern about particular breeds? The issue of dog bites is extreme-ly emotional. Our predilection for projecting human morality onto ourdogs results in our being deeply offended when our “best friend” turnson us. Dog bites are perceived as a significant problem. One website,

www.dogexpert.com, maintains that, according to the American Medi-cal Association, dog bites are the second leading cause of childhood in-

jury, surpassing playground accidents. Statements like this certainly canraise concerns. However, the overall risk from dog bites is much less thanthe prevalence of campaigns to ban specific breeds would suggest. In thebook Dogs Bite, but Balloons and Slippers are More Dangerous , Janis Brad-ley shows in a convincing and entertaining manner that dogs are in factmuch safer than many common household objects and activities.




141

Fueling the perception of danger are highly publicized dog bite cases re-ported by the media, in which the offending dog, more often than not, isdescribed as a “Pit Bull.” On the surface, some statistics seem to bear outthe conclusion that certain breeds are more dangerous than others. Un-fortunately, the statistics on dog bites are notoriously unreliable, becausethe majority are never reported and the categorization of breed types isuneven. The most frequently cited study on fatalities from dog bites wasconducted by the Centers for Disease Control, which has subsequentlyceased publishing bite data because of its unreliability. According to thestudy, during the period 1997-98 at least 25 incidents of fatal dog bite at-tacks occurred. There were 238 such attacks reported over a 20-year pe-riod from 1978-98. Analysis of these incidents showed that more thanhalf of the deaths involved “pit-bull type dogs” and Rottweilers. How-ever, overall at least 25 breeds of dogs were implicated in human deathsduring those 20 years.

There were significant methodological weaknesses to the study. These in-cluded lack of uniformity in reporting requirements across the country,absence of a standard method of breed classification and failure to nor-malize the data for breed population. This has not stopped proponentsof breed restrictions from using the statistics, however. For example, the

Insurance Information Institute provides on its web site a list of the mostdangerous breeds, based on the CDC study. They are:

• Pit Bull-type

• Rottweiler

• German Shepherd

•

Husky-type• Malamute

• Doberman Pinscher

• Chow Chow

• Great Dane

•Saint Bernard

These are the breeds most often cited in breed-specific legislation or in-surance restrictions.



142


What does science say?One way to resolve the debate about dog bite dangers would be to con-duct a thorough scientific assessment of the risks. Several studies have ad-dressed this. For example, in a German study by the Institute for Ani-mal Welfare and Behaviour, University of Veterinary Medicine, Hanover,Germany, 70 Golden Retrievers were compared to dogs of other breedsthat would have been restricted under laws of the German state of Low-er Saxony. No significant difference was found along a number of behav-ioral dimensions related to aggressiveness. As a result, the legislation inLower Saxony was changed, and breed lists were withdrawn. (See Journalof Veterinary Behavior , Vol 2, No 3, May/June 2007) An Australian Study( Journal of Veterinary Behavior

, Vol 1, No 1, July 2006) found that attacksinvolving Pit Bulls were exceeded by those from several other breeds, andmoreover that in Australia, as in the United States, reliable data do notexist for the number of attacks relative to breed population. None of 19human fatalities in Australia since the 1980s have involved an AmericanPit Bull Terrier.

The inescapable conclusion from the scientific data is that, as Bradleypoints out, dogs are no more dangerous than most of the other things weencounter in daily life!

So why do they ban them?Fear!

While experts may consider certain fears to be irrational, for many peo-ple they are real. And the fears are exacerbated by media attention to dogbite fatalities and by politicians and others who are responsive to popularconcerns, and who at the same time help to fuel them. For example, one

website for a law firm specializing in dog law (Dog Bite Law Center) in-

cludes the following statements:

Among the deadliest and most vicious of all dog breeds withkiller instincts, originally bred to fight and kill other dogs,Pit Bulls are now widely popular as companion dogs, espe-cially in American cities. . . . Pit Bulls cause one-third ofdog-bite related fatalities while only making up less thantwo percent of the dog population (sic). . . . These dogs havelittle or no business being pets in anyone’s household. They

are simply too aggressive and dangerous.




143

In this characterization, you may find some echoes of the logical falla-cies described in Chapter 2, but it is evoking a feeling of dread in somequarters.

Specialists on risk perception note that there are several factors that af-fect individual assessments of the possibility for death, injury or otherdire consequences. According to Victor Asal, a professor at the State Uni-versity of New York at Albany, and an instructor in programs on crisisleadership for the U. S. Office of Personnel Management, these includecharacteristics of the population and of the perceived threat. For exam-ple, experts tend to underestimate risk, while lay people tend to overesti-mate. Individuals who have suffered in the past may see life generally as

more hostile and thus tend to overestimate risk. Risks are considered tobe higher when the threat is perceived as catastrophic, exotic, or unfamil-iar—and especially when it involves children. Risk perception is height-ened when people dwell on a potential threat over a long period of time.It is only lessened by dialogue when the counter-arguments come from atrusted, neutral source.

We can see these factors at work in the area of breed-specific legislation.Canine professionals are almost uniformly against them, while the gen-

eral population sees a greater threat. This perception may be particular-ly severe in urban areas. Widely publicized attacks, sometimes reportedusing harsh rhetoric and dramatic photos, increase the concern, particu-larly if there is any mention of risk to children. The concern about dan-gerous breeds has been percolating for some time, and the counter-argu-ments are sometimes dismissed as biased or self-serving.

Professionals and political engagement What is to be done? There are two answers. Trainers and consultants can

engage at the political level, and also assist with specific cases. It is a factof life that policy is political. As much as we might like politicians tomake decisions based on our informed views, the reality is that constitu-ent concerns, individual agendas, and personal ambition count for more.To be effective in the political process we need two attributes—attentive-ness to the issues, and influence where it counts.

There is a key role here for our professional associations. All of them needto be fully engaged whenever breed-specific legislation comes up. Thatmeans having an ability to track the proposals and to respond appropri-ately at the critical junctures. It also means putting aside differences onother issues to build coalitions among themselves and with other influen-tial parties. These include veterinary associations, shelters, humane soci-



144


eties, and dog owners. The more sources weigh in on the issue, the morethey are likely to be seen as credible.

Effectiveness also means acknowledging the reality of people’s fears. Be-ing able to make concrete proposals for alternative laws restricting dan-gerous dogs is central to success in combating ineffective and discrimina-tory laws. The development of templates for dangerous dog laws shouldbe a continuing priority for professional groups. APDT took an impor-tant step when it adopted a Model Dog Law and Proposed DangerousDog Act in July 2007. (See the APDT Chronicle of the Dog , Nov/Dec2007.) These efforts are having some success; Virginia recently enacted adangerous dog law that is a great improvement on breed bans, in that it

focuses on owner responsibility as APDT advocated. (Spokane, Washing-ton’s law, however, was invalidated on the grounds that it did not affordowners due process.) It is incumbent on individual trainers to be awareof these initiatives and to devote time and attention to them in their owncommunities.

Direct action: Te case of the CGC compromiseIn addition to participating in the political dialogue, trainers can bedrawn into these controversial issues at a very personal level. The follow-

ing case illustrates this.

Laura received a frantic call from a woman who had a nine-year-old Do-berman. She had just been informed by her landlord that his insurancecompany had included Dobermans on a list of breeds that would bebanned from his building under a new policy. There was only one way toget an exemption from this policy, and that was to earn a Canine GoodCitizen® award for the dog. The owner had never done any formal train-ing with the dog, but assured Laura that he was well behaved. Could Lau-

ra help?Laura was a CGC evaluator, so she told the woman that she would beglad to put the dog on the list for her next scheduled test session. It wasfortunate that the schedule fit within the deadline established by the in-surance company. On the phone, Laura described the test items. Theowner thought that the dog could pass most of them, but because shehad never done any training classes, she asked if Laura could come anddo a coaching session. Laura was aware of the AKC’s policy prohibitingevaluators from assessing dogs on certain test items if they had workedextensively with them in the past. She did not see this as a problem, sinceshe had assistants to perform those tests, so she set up an appointment.

When Laura arrived at the apartment, she found a small family—own-er and teen-aged daughter—and a very laid-back Dobie! He was a sweet




145

dog, affectionate but not pushy. He breezed through most of the testitems, including meeting Laura’s exuberant Golden Retriever. But he didnot have good obedience skills. Laura showed the owner how to teach sit,down, and stay, and coached her until she was confident that the familycould follow through. They scheduled the test and Laura left, feeling sat-isfied that she had been helpful.

The day of the test arrived. The owner came early to register, and thedog was very well behaved in the waiting area. He handled the greetingand grooming exercises, loose leash walking, and reaction to distractions

with ease. He sat on the first cue, stayed and came when called, but thedog simply would not lie down! He panted, turned his head, sniffed and

yawned, but he wouldn’t lie down. The owner became more anxious andtried using “gentle guidance” as allowed in the rules by touching the dog’sback, but to no avail. Finally, Laura told her that they could take advan-tage of a provision in the AKC procedures that permits a dog that failsonly one item to retake the test at the end of the session. They decided todo that and the owner and dog left.

The retest went exactly as the earlier test had. The dog would not liedown. The owner assured Laura that he could do a down at home, and

Laura had no reason to doubt it. She was seeing lots of stress signals be-havior from both dog and owner and thought the failure was due primar-ily to mutual anxiety. Now she had a real dilemma. The rules were veryclear; the dog had to lie down. There are no exceptions for breed, age, orthreat of eviction; fairness and equity dictated that he should not pass.On the other hand, the consequences for the family could be devastating.They had lived in the apartment for more than five years. There had nev-er been any trouble with the dog, and they would find it disruptive andcostly to move. Compassion dictated making an exception.

What could Laura do? Of course—she could SITSTA!

She first searched for information. She asked the owner for more back-ground on the dog, the neighborhood, and her daily routine. She thoughtthere was very little possibility that the dog could be disruptive or dan-gerous.

What were her options? She could fail the dog, as prescribed by the reg-ulations. She could schedule the dog for the next test session, but unfor-

tunately this would be after the insurance company’s deadline. She coulddo a special evaluation at the owner’s home. Or she could make an excep-tion on her own and pass the dog.



146


Laura next looked carefully at the CGC evaluator’s guide. No help there.So she started to scrutinize her options. Looking at consequences, shecould see that failing the dog would lead to significant hardship for thefamily. Passing the dog could ultimately, if known, diminish her reputa-tion as an objective evaluator, and would violate the AKC’s principles. Itcould also lead to more requests for exceptions. From a duty-based per-spective, it appeared that making such exceptions could not be a generalrule for evaluators, since it would diminish the value of the CGC award.But from a care-based perspective, putting herself in the position of thefamily, Laura felt that she would very much want to get a break.

Time was of the essence, and Laura didn’t have the option of consulting

with others. She tried to envision what some of the people she most ad-mired would do. She then came to her decision. She told the owner, “Iaccept your assurance that the dog can perform all of the obedience tasksat home. I am making an exception in your case because his inability tolie down appears to stem from nervousness and in no way creates a dan-gerous or disruptive situation. I am going to pass him.”

The owner was ecstatic. Laura was anxious. She had violated the accept-ed norm. She could be sanctioned. Had she done the right thing? She

thought so—compassion was for her a higher value than fairness, thoughboth were important. Feeling uneasy, she went home to play with herdog.

Would you have acted as Laura did? Or would you have made anoth-er choice? This case illustrates how the larger, societal issues can comehome to trainers. It also shows that ethical behavior is difficult. There isno simple approach to resolving conflicts of values, and making a choicecan be an uncomfortable and lonely process. Becoming an ethical trainer

is more than knowing the rules. It is a lifelong journey toward principledbehavior and integrity. Now let’s turn our attention to identifying someof the way stations on that journey.



147

PART I I I

SUMM ING U P



148

THE E TH I CA L DOG

T RA I N E R

Since you’ve made it this far, you know that becoming an ethical dogtrainer is not an event, it’s a process—and your head may be spinningas you think about how to pursue that process. Beliefs, values, princi-ples; utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, the Golden Rule; learning theory andtraining methods; professional organizations, professional certifications,and professional boundaries; and integrating all of that with societal andcultural norms and practices. What an order!

This chapter will try to clear the air and offer some suggestions about what an ethical dog trainer should know and do and how an ethical dogtrainer can grow personally and professionally. It is not meant as a check-list, but rather as a set of navigational aids that can be used to help keep

your journey on course. As you think about these factors, bear in mindthat they will apply differently to different trainers and consultants, andthat your priorities may be different from those of your colleagues. Nev-ertheless, they can serve as useful indicators that you are heading in theright direction.

What the ethical dog trainer knowsThe 10 core areas of knowledge for a trainer or consultant include:

1. Basic learning theory and its application to dog training and be-havior change. A trainer should know about the principles of oper-ant and classical conditioning, single-event learning (sensitization,desensitization, habituation, adaptation), schedules of reinforce-

Chap te r 9



9 — THE ETHICAL DOG TRAINER

149

ment and punishment, and the practical application of these con-cepts to dog training and behavior change. He or she should also

know about the post-behavioral developments in learning theory,including cognitive psychology, mind-body theories, and behaviormodification through medical intervention.

2. Canine ethology and species-specific behavior. The similarities anddifferences between dogs and wolves, predatory and scavengingbehavior, pack dynamics and breed characteristics should all bepart of the ethical trainer’s repertoire. So should a knowledge ofand skill in interpreting canine body language and vocalization.

3. The history and traditions of the dog-training vocation. An ethicaltrainer understands and respects his or her predecessors and criti-cally evaluates past practices and new developments in terms ofeffectiveness, efficiency, and impact on people and animals.

4. The proper use of training equipment and aids. Whatever thetrainer’s individual choices regarding methods and equipment,it is essential to understand how various approaches and devices

work and to choose one’s training tool kit on the basis of thoroughknowledge and consideration of options.

5. Effective instructional techniques and human learning styles.Trainers cannot only train dogs; they must teach people. Know-ing how to communicate effectively and respectfully is essential,and for this purpose being able to work with people who are aural,visual, or experiential learners is a skill to be cultivated on a con-

tinuing basis.

6. Techniques for information gathering, interviewing, and behaviorassessment. In order to assist families in resolving training and be-havior issues, trainers and consultants must be able to ask appro-priate questions and listen attentively; to assist the family in settingspecific, achievable goals; and to identify the origins of behaviorproblems and the most effective ways of dealing with them.

7. Family dynamics and social factors affecting dog behavior. Trainers work with families, often in complex relationships among peopleand animals. Sensitivity to family issues and the ability to com-



150


municate with and motivate all family members are essential at-tributes of the ethical dog trainer.

8. Basic animal husbandry, including common medical issues of dogsand the impact of physiological conditions on canine behavior. Be-cause many training or behavior issues are actually medical issuesin disguise, an ethical trainer must know how to identify potentialhealth problems and when to refer to a general practice or spe-cialist veterinarian for appropriate treatment. This is essential torespecting professional boundaries as well as to providing effectiveassistance to dogs and families.

9. The laws, rules, and practices governing training and treatment ofanimals and business practices. Trainers need to study and under-stand their legal obligations, the codes of ethics of their profession-al organizations and the local regulations and customs regardingtreatment of animals in their care.

10. The fundamentals of practical ethics. Trainers and consultantsneed to know how to frame a moral argument and employ practi-cal methods of resolving ethical problems using ends-based, duty-based and care-based reasoning. They need to identify individualsand organizations that can help them to make well-reasoned ethi-cal choices.

What the ethical dog trainer doesThe ethical dog trainer puts knowledge and skill into practice by imple-menting a clear set of beliefs, values, and principles. Here is one set, de-veloped by Mary Burch and Jon Bailey, condensed from the October2000 issue of American Animal Trainer Magazine :

1. Do No Harm. A concept that pertains to cruelty, neglect of ani-mals, practices causing animals great pain or distress, and the needfor trainers to take into account the psychological and physical

well-being of the animals in their care.

2. Respect Autonomy . “Autonomy” means independence or the

ability to function without control by others. When this conceptis applied to animal training, trainers who are ethical think aboutmaking owners and their animals as independent as possible.




151

3. Benefiting Others. In the animal training context, this means thatdecisions made by trainers should have a positive effect on both

animal and clients.4. Be Just . Actions that are “just” are actions that are fair and im-

partial. This is the principle that says as animal trainers we shouldtreat animals and clients as we would like to be treated. Anotherpart of being fair to clients is that they are not promised somethinga trainer can’t deliver.

5. Being Faithful. In both human services and animal training set-

tings, this relates to being truthful, sincere, and without intent tomislead anyone. Being faithful in professional settings also appliesto confidentiality, promise keeping, and not violating a trust.

6. Accord Dignity . Professionals in human service settings begin with the assumption that every person is worthy of respect. Clientsare given dignity when trainers understand their problems,

7. Treat Others With Care And Compassion. This is an ethical

principle applied in medical and therapy settings that can also ap-ply to animal training. Being able to imagine one’s self in the placeof a[n] animal owner [or an animal] with a problem is one markof an ethical trainer.

8. Pursuit Of Excellence. Animal trainers who are ethical should bein constant pursuit of excellence. This means improving ones ownskills as well as helping colleagues, clients, and animals be all that

they can be. Ethical animal trainers will do their best to have animpact on the larger training community, but they will not attemptto work out of the range of their own professional limitations.

9. Accept Accountability . Considering the potential consequencesof one’s actions, taking responsibility for one’s actions, and refrain-ing from shifting the blame to others is all part of this point. Inanimal training, a person who is accountable has to accept someresponsibility for both clients and animals.

10. Finally —to quote Mark Twain, “Always do right; this will gratifysome people and astonish the rest.”



152


There are some other things that trainers and consultants can do to puttheir ethics into practice:

• Continuously improve their training skills by working with dogs ofall ages, breeds, and mixes.

• Join a professional organization that has high ethical standards and work to maintain those aspirations.

• Serve the community by volunteering at shelter and rescue organiza-tions, being active in community service programs, or working in thepolitical arena for the welfare of dogs and people.

• Observe ethical business practices in the provision of services, mar-keting and advertising, and relationships with colleagues and com-petitors.

How an ethical dog trainer growsThe psychiatrist Carl Jung believed that our lifelong task is to integratethe aspects of our personality into a whole individual through self-ex-amination and conscious change. Harvard psychologist Lawrence Kohl-

berg maintained that one aspect of this growth is a process of moral de-velopment through predictable stages—from the selfishness of youth tothe principled wisdom of the mature individual. As we proceed throughthese stages, here are some activities that can foster personal and profes-sional growth:

• Engage in self-assessment with the assistance of friends, supportgroups, clergy, or counselors to identify areas for personal growth.

• Become active in a professional association and take leadership onissues of common concern.

• Attend seminars, workshops, and conferences on professional is-sues.

• Take academic courses; read both the scientific and popular literaturerelated to dog training. (See the Resources section for suggestionsand also for exercises to help you connect your reading to your ethi-

cal development.)

• Subscribe to relevant newsletters, magazines, and journals.




153

• Participate in online discussion groups sponsored by professional as-sociations and other principled organizations.

These are but a few of the ways in which trainers and consultants can de-velop what the Greeks called habits of character. For in the final analysis,our growth as ethical trainers is a lifelong process. Just as dogs are happi-est when they continue to work and learn, so can trainers be if they imi-tate their love of life and desire to participate in it to the full!

I wish you a fulfilling and successful journey.



154

R E SOUR C E S

I. Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct The following codes have been reprinted with the consent of the organi-

zations listed. Questions regarding the codes and requests to reproducethem should be directed to the specific associations.

Association of Pet Dog rainers (www.apdt.com) As a member of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), I will striveto:

• Provide honest, professional services of the highest standards.

• Develop and apply training programs in line with the APDT’s mis-

sion of advocating dog-friendly training.

• Assess my own knowledge, experience, and qualifications and work within my professional limits.

• Continue professional development by reading relevant material; at-tending conferences, workshops, and seminars; and pursuing othereducational opportunities.

• Treat all dogs and clients with respect, taking into account theirphysical and psychological well-being and respecting clients’ wishesregarding the training of their dogs.



RESOURCES

155

• Refrain from representing dog training and behavioral informationas scientific, unless the information is derived from legitimate re-

search.

• Refrain from giving guarantees regarding the outcome of training,because there is no sure way to guarantee the cooperation and perfor-mance of all parties involved and because the knowledge of animalbehavior is incomplete. This should not be confused with a desire toguarantee client satisfaction with professional services.

• Respect the privacy of my clients and hold in confidence all informa-

tion obtained in the course of professional services, unless otherwiseagreed upon in advance. I will use discretion in revealing informa-tion regarding dogs displaying potentially dangerous behavior.

• Incorporate what it means to be a responsible dog owner into train-ing programs.

• Be respectful of colleagues and other professionals and not falselycondemn the character of their professional acts.

International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (www.iaabc.org)

Principle IResponsibility to Clients

Animal behavior consultants advance the welfare of animals and fami-

lies. They respect the rights of those persons seeking their assistance, andmake reasonable efforts to ensure that their services are used appropriate-ly. Core values for the profession are respect for client right to self-deter-mination, positive regard and a non-judgmental approach.

1.1 Animal behavior consultants provide professional assistance to per-sons without discrimination on the basis of race, age, ethnicity, socioeco-nomic status, disability, gender, health status, religion, national origin, orsexual orientation.

1.2 Animal behavior consultants comply with applicable laws regardingthe reporting of animal bites and possible neglect/abuse.

1.3 Animal behavior consultants do not use their professional relation-ships with clients to further their own interests.



156


1.4 Animal behavior consultants embrace a non-judgmental approachthat includes positive regard, and respect the rights of client families tomake decisions and help them to understand the consequences of thesedecisions. Consultants clearly advise the clients that clients have the re-sponsibility to make decisions regarding their animal(s).

1.5 Animal behavior consultants continue working with a client only aslong as it is reasonably clear that the client is benefiting.

1.6 Animal behavior consultants assist persons in obtaining other con-sultative services if the consultant is unable or unwilling, for appropriatereasons, to provide professional help.

1.7 Animal behavior consultants do not abandon or neglect clients with-out making reasonable arrangements for the continuation of services.

1.8 Animal behavior consultants obtain written informed consent fromclients before videotaping, audio recording, or permitting third-party ob-servation.

1.9 Animal behavior consultants upon agreeing to provide services to aperson or entity at the request of a third party, clarify, to the extent fea-

sible and at the outset of the service, the nature of the relationship witheach party and the limits of confidentiality.

Principle IIConfidentiality

Consultants respect and guard the confidences of clients.

2.1 Animal behavior consultants disclose to clients and other interest-ed parties, as early as feasible in their professional contacts, the nature ofconfidentiality and possible limitations of the clients’ right to confidenti-ality. Consultants review with clients the circumstances where confiden-tial information may be requested and where disclosure of confidentialinformation may be legally required. Circumstances may necessitate re-peated disclosures.

2.2 Animal behavior consultants do not disclose client confidences ex-cept by written authorization or waiver, or where mandated or permit-ted by law. Verbal authorization will be sufficient only in emergency sit-

uations, unless prohibited by law.

2.3 Animal behavior consultants use client and/or clinical materials inteaching, writing, consulting, research, and public presentations only if



RESOURCES

157

a written waiver has been obtained in accordance with Subprinciple 2.2,or when appropriate steps have been taken to protect client identity andconfidentiality.

2.4 Animal behavior consultants store, safeguard, and dispose of clientrecords in a manner that maintains confidentiality and in accord with ap-plicable laws and professional standards.

2.5 Upon moving from an area or closing a practice, a animal behaviorconsultant arranges for the storage, transfer or disposal of client recordsin a manner that maintains confidentiality and safeguards the welfare ofclients. An animal behavior consultant arranges for someone else to per-

form such storage, transfer or disposal of records in the event of his/herdeath.

2.6 Animal behavior consultants, when consulting with colleagues or re-ferral sources, do not share confidential information that could reason-ably lead to the identification of a client or prospective client, researchparticipant, or other person with whom they have a confidential relation-ship, unless they have obtained the prior written consent of the client, re-search participant, or other person with whom they have a confidential

relationship. Information may be shared only to the extent necessary toachieve the purposes of the consultation.

Principle IIIProfessional Competence and Integrity

Animal behavior consultants maintain high standards of professionalcompetence and integrity.

3.1 Animal behavior consultants work to minimize the use of aversive

stimuli and maximize the effective use of reinforcers to modify animalbehavior.

3.2 Animal behavior consultants pursue knowledge of new developmentsand maintain competence in animal behavior consulting through educa-tion, training, or supervised experience.

3.3 Animal behavior consultants maintain adequate knowledge of andadhere to applicable laws, ethics, and professional standards.

3.4 Animal behavior consultants seek appropriate professional assistancefor their personal problems or conflicts that may impair work perfor-mance or clinical judgment.



158


3.5 Animal behavior consultants do not provide services that create aconflict of interest that may impair work performance or clinical judg-ment.

3.6 Animal behavior consultants, as presenters, teachers, supervisors,consultants and researchers, are dedicated to high standards of scholar-ship, present accurate information, and disclose potential conflicts of in-terest.

3.7 Animal behavior consultants maintain accurate and adequate clini-cal and financial records.

3.8 While developing new skills in specialty areas, animal behavior con-sultants take steps to ensure the competence of their work and to protectclients from possible harm. Specifically, animal behavior consultants donot recommend euthanasia for animals that have not had the benefit of aprofessional evaluation. Animal behavior consultants practice in special-ty areas new to them only after appropriate education, training, or super-vised experience.

3.9 Animal behavior consultants do not engage in the exploitation of cli-ents, students, supervisees, trainees, employees, colleagues, or researchsubjects.

3.10 Animal behavior consultants do not give to or receive from clients(a) gifts of substantial value or (b) gifts that impair the integrity or effica-cy of the relationship.

3.11 Animal behavior consultants do not advise on problems outside therecognized boundaries of their competencies.

3.12 Animal behavior consultants make efforts to prevent the distortionor misuse of their clinical and research findings.

3.13 Animal behavior consultants, because of their ability to influenceand alter the lives of others, exercise special care when making publictheir professional recommendations and opinions through testimony orother public statements.

Animal behavior consultants are in violation of this Code and subject totermination of membership or other appropriate action if they: (a) are

convicted of any felony; (b) are convicted of a misdemeanor related totheir qualifications or functions; (c) engage in conduct which could leadto conviction of a felony, or a misdemeanor related to their qualificationsor functions; (d) have their licenses or certificates suspended or revoked



RESOURCES

159

or are otherwise disciplined by regulatory bodies; (e) continue to practiceanimal behavior consulting while no longer competent to do so becausethey are impaired by physical or mental causes or the abuse of alcohol orother substances; or (f) fail to cooperate with the Association at any pointfrom the inception of an ethical complaint through the completion of allproceedings regarding that complaint.

Principle IV Responsibility to Students and Supervisees

Animal behavior consultants do not exploit the trust and dependency ofstudents or supervisees.

4.1 Animal behavior consultants do not permit students or supervisees toperform or to hold themselves out as competent to perform professionalservices beyond their training, level of experience, and competence.

4.2 Animal behavior consultants take reasonable measures to ensure thatservices provided by students and supervisees are professional.

Animal behavior consultants do not disclose student confidences exceptby written authorization or waiver, or when mandated or permitted by

law. In educational or training settings where there are multiple super-visors, disclosures are permitted only to other professional colleagues,administrators, or employers who share responsibility for training ofthe student or supervisee. Verbal authorization will be sufficient only inemergency situations, unless prohibited by law.

Principle V Responsibility to Research Participants

Investigators respect the dignity and protect the welfare of research par-ticipants, and are aware of applicable laws and regulations and profes-sional standards governing the conduct of research.

5.1 Investigators are responsible for making careful examinations of eth-ical acceptability in planning studies. To the extent that services to re-search participants may be compromised by participation in research, in-vestigators seek the ethical advice of qualified professionals not directlyinvolved in the investigation and observe safeguards to protect the rightsof research participants.

5.2 Investigators requesting participant involvement in research informparticipants of the aspects of the research that might reasonably be ex-pected to influence willingness to participate. Investigators are especial-



160


ly sensitive to the possibility of diminished consent when participants arealso receiving clinical services, or have impairments which limit under-

standing and/or communication, or when participants are children.5.3 Information obtained about a research participant during the courseof an investigation is confidential unless there is a waiver previously ob-tained in writing. When the possibility exists that others, including fam-ily members, may obtain access to such information, this possibility, to-gether with the plan for protecting confidentiality, is explained as part ofthe procedure for obtaining informed consent.

Principle VI

Responsibility to the Profession

Animal behavior consultants respect the rights and responsibilities ofprofessional colleagues and participate in activities that advance the goalsof the profession.

6.1 Animal behavior consultants remain accountable to the standards ofthe profession when acting as members or employees of organizations.If the mandates of an organization with which a animal behavior con-

sultant is affiliated, through employment, contract or otherwise, con-flict with the IAABC Code of Ethics, animal behavior consultants makeknown to the organization their commitment to the IAABC Code ofEthics and attempt to resolve the conflict in a way that allows the fullestadherence to the Code of Ethics.

6.2 Animal behavior consultants assign publication credit to those whohave contributed to a publication in proportion to their contributionsand in accordance with customary professional publication practices.

6.3 Animal behavior consultants do not accept or require authorshipcredit for a publication based on research from a student’s program, un-less the consultant made a substantial contribution beyond being an ad-visor or research committee member. Co-authorship on a student thesis,dissertation, or project should be determined in accordance with princi-ples of fairness and justice.

6.4 Animal behavior consultants who are the authors of books or othermaterials that are published or distributed do not plagiarize or fail to cite

persons to whom credit for original ideas or work is due.

6.5 Animal behavior consultants who are the authors of books or oth-er materials published or distributed by an organization take reasonable



RESOURCES

161

precautions to ensure that the organization promotes and advertises thematerials accurately and factually.

6.6 Animal behavior consultants participate in activities that contrib-ute to a better community and society, including devoting a portion oftheir professional activity to services for which there is little or no finan-cial return.

6.7 Animal behavior consultants are concerned with developing laws andregulations pertaining to animal behavior consulting that serve the pub-lic interest, and with amending such laws and regulations that are not inthe public interest.

Animal behavior consultants encourage public participation in the de-sign and delivery of professional services and in the regulation of practi-tioners.

6.8 Animal behavior consultants shall show positive regard for colleaguesand negotiate issues respectfully. Positive regard does not allow defama-tion.

Defamation is the act of defaming; making false or unjustified injury of

the good reputation of another by slander or libel. It can include commu-nication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure thereputation of or deter others from associating with that person.

• Slander is defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pic-tures, etc. It is a spoken malicious or abusive attack on a person’scharacter or good name.

• Libel is defamation by written or printed works, electronic broad-

cast, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.It may be in the form of a written declaration or statement such asan ethics complaint that maliciously or damagingly misrepresentsthe truth about a person’s conduct or character. Defamation can leadto both civil and criminal liability in addition to violation of IAABCCode of Ethics.

Therefore, Animal behavior consultants:

1. Shall not make statements about colleagues/competitors, theirbusinesses, or their business practices which he/she knows orshould know are false or misleading.



162


2. Shall not keep communications which he/she knows or shouldknow are defamatory alive by repeating them or acting as channels

of communication for persons committing defamation.3. Shall not file an ethics complaint he/she knows or should know is

false or unfounded.

Principle VIIFinancial Arrangements

Animal behavior consultants make financial arrangements with clientsand students that are reasonably understandable and conform to accept-

ed professional practices.

7.1 Animal behavior consultants do not offer or accept kickbacks, re-bates, bonuses, or other remuneration for referrals; fee-for-service ar-rangements are not prohibited.

7.2 Prior to entering into the consulting relationship, dog behavior con-sultants clearly disclose and explain to clients and students all financialarrangements and fees related to professional services, including charges

for canceled or missed appointments. Once services have begun, consul-tants provide reasonable notice of any changes in fees or other charges.

7.3 Animal behavior consultants represent facts truthfully to clients andsupervisees regarding services rendered. Animal behavior consultants maynot withhold records under their immediate control that are requestedand needed for an animal’s welfare solely because payment has not beenreceived for past services, except as otherwise provided by law.

Principle VIII

Advertising

Animal behavior consultants engage in appropriate informational activi-ties, including those that enable the public, referral sources, or others tochoose professional services on an informed basis.

8.1 Animal behavior consultants accurately represent their competencies,education, training, and experience relevant to their practice of animalbehavior consulting.

8.2 Animal behavior consultants ensure that advertisements and publica-tions in any media (such as directories, announcements, business cards,newspapers, radio, television, Internet, and facsimiles) convey informa-tion that is necessary for the public to make an appropriate selection of



RESOURCES

163

professional services. Information could include: (a) office information,such as name, address, telephone number, credit card acceptability, fees,

languages spoken, and office hours; (b) earned degrees (see subprinciple8.5) and state or provincial licensures and/or certifications; (d) IAABCclinical or associate member status; and (e) description of practice.

8.3 Animal behavior consultants do not use names that could misleadthe public concerning the identity, responsibility, source, and status ofthose practicing under that name, and do not hold themselves out as be-ing partners or associates of a firm if they are not.

8.4 Animal behavior consultants do not use any professional identifi-

cation (such as a business card, office sign, letterhead, Internet, or tele-phone or association directory listing) if it includes a statement or claimthat is false, fraudulent, misleading, or deceptive.

8.5 Animal behavior consultants list bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral de-grees only from recognized accredited colleges and universities.

8.6 Animal behavior consultants correct, wherever possible, false, mis-leading, or inaccurate information and representations made by others

concerning the consultant’s qualifications, services, or products.8.7 In representing their educational qualifications, animal behavior con-sultants list and claim as evidence only those earned degrees: (a) from in-stitutions accredited by regional accreditation sources recognized by theUnited States Department of Education, (b) from institutions recognizedby states or provinces that license or certify animal behavior consultants,or (c) from equivalent foreign institutions.

8.8 Animal behavior consultants make certain that the qualifications of

their employees or students are represented in a manner that is not false,misleading, or deceptive.

8.9 Animal behavior consultants do not represent themselves as provid-ing specialized services unless they have the appropriate education, train-ing, or experience.



164


International Association of Canine Professionals (www.dogpro.org)Each individual member of the International Association of Canine Pro-

fessionals shall:

1. Conduct his/her business in a professional manner, honestly and with trust and respect.

2. Assist in maintaining the honor and reputation of the Associationand their Profession and avoid any form of fraud, deception, orimpropriety.

3. Serve his/her client or customers competently and proficiently with proper care and attention.

4. Use professional judgement on behalf of each client or customer without regard to personal interests or interests of other clients orthe desire of another person(s).

5. Not undertake any service or employment for which he/she is notcompetent.

6. Determine his/her ability to be of professional assistance to a cli-ent. Should the expertise required fall outside the realm of themember’s capability, he/she shall seek appropriate answers and/ orsupport, or refer out to a fellow professional with the necessaryexperience and ability.

7. Continue to further his/her education and increase his/her knowl-edge, skills, and experience to stay current and be able to increase

the well-being of themselves, the profession, clients, customers,dogs, the dog ownership community and other affiliated bodies.

8. Not promote the restriction or ban of any established and ac-cepted equipment, techniques, and practices within the industry.However, a personal preference shall be allowed in the individualmember’s choice of methods, equipment, and techniques withintheir own practice.

9. Give his/her client an honest opinion when consulted, and avoidbold, confident and false assurances to obtain employment, salesand/or status.



RESOURCES

165

10. Not give false information to the Association. Doing so shall beconsidered grounds for lifetime dismissal.

11. Accept that individual member’s fees charged to the communityshall be a matter between the member and their client.

12. Conduct themselves in a businesslike and professional manner while maintaining empathy and understanding for the needs ofthe client, customer and dog.

13. Use professional judgment and where it is considered of benefit tothe client and/or dog, engage in consultation with other profes-sionals to seek advice and assistance. All communications betweenprofessionals with regard to clients shall be responsible, respect-ful, and effective while remaining confidential, endeavouring tomaintain the confidentiality and integrity of the professional/cli-ent relationship.

14. Co-operate with the IACP’s Ethics Committee on any reportedviolation. Following a full investigation and adjudication of any

violation, the Ethics Committee will be required to make recom-mendations to the Board of Directors on any action that may betaken. The final decision will rest with the Board.

Any member who has been convicted in court of cruelty to dogs or in-humane treatment of animals shall be terminated from the International

Association of Canine Professionals and all privileges withdrawn.

National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors

(www.nadoi.org)The National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors, Inc. was found-ed to elevate the standards of the dog instructing profession. Mutual-ly to aid both dog and human in the solution of the many problems ofthe profession - To designate certain members as having attained certainskills and knowledge - And acknowledging these facts, the members arepledged to maintain a high level of trust and integrity in the practice oftheir skill.

This Code of Ethics should not be recognized in passive observance, butas a set of dynamic principles guiding the members’ conduct and way oflife in obedience instructing. It is the instructor’s duty to practice thisprofession according to this Code of Ethics.



166


As a member of the National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors,Incorporated,

I shall remember that to my community and all with whom I come incontact in dog obedience work, I typify dog obedience. It is my duty tokeep the ideal high.

I will always strive to better the understanding of dog obedience, provingit a work and profession worthy of respect and admiration. Always will Iadvocate training by such methods that will keep the best interest of thedog, the handler, and the fancy in mind.

I will work towards improved methods of instruction for all breeds ofdogs. At all times in my association with people and my work with dogs will I conduct myself in a sportsmanlike manner, neither boasting if I winin the show ring, nor showing rancor toward my dog or toward the judgeshould I lose. At no time shall I display evil temper, either in the ring or

while instructing.

When handling my own dog or another’s dog, either in the show ring or when instructing, never will I conduct myself in such a manner that it will bring discredit to this Association or the fancy.

I will work to train persons as competent instructors for dog obediencetraining classes, and toward this end will always freely exchange ideas,methods, and techniques in connection with dog obedience instruction.

II. Publications

General and Applied EthicsCooper, David, and Robert Arrington and James Rachels, Ethics: The

Classic Readings . (Wiley-Blackwell, 1997)Gortner, Harold F., Ethics for Public Managers . (Praeger Paperback,1991)

Halberstam, Joshua, Everyday Ethics: Inspired Solutions to Real-Life Di-lemmas . (Penguin, 1994)

Kidder, Rushworth, How Good People Make Tough Choices and SharedValues for a Troubled World . (Morrow, 1995)

Lewis, Hunter, A Question of Values . (Harper and Row, 2003)

Pielke, Robert, Critiquing Ethical Arguments . (University Press of Amer-ica, 1992)



RESOURCES

167

Ethical Stretching Exercise: Think about the sources of your values. Where do they come from? Do you have a preference for ends-based,rule-based or care-based ethical reasoning? Why? Think about a case in

which you faced a difficult ethical choice and analyze it from all threeperspectives. Would you do anything different if you could? Why or whynot?

Behavioral Psychology Breland, Keller and Marian, “The Misbehavior of Organisms.” AmericanPsychologist , 16, 681-684. (1961)

Burch, Mary and Jon Bailey, How Dogs Learn. (Howell, 1999)

Nye, Robert, The Legacy of B. F. Skinner . (Brooks/Cole, 1992)

Reid, Pamela, Excel-erated Learning . (James & Kenneth, 1996)

Schwartz, Barry and Steven Robbins, Psychology of Learning and Behav-ior . (Norton, 1984)

Skinner, B.F., Behavior of Organisms . (Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1960)

Stanovich, Keith, How to Think Straight about Psychology . (Allyn and Ba-con, 2007)

Ethical Stretching Exercise: How well versed are you in learning psychol-ogy? From your knowledge, is there an ethical aspect to learning theory?

What, if any, are the moral limits on our freedom to change the behaviorof another creature? Should we try to change instinctive behavior? What,if any, are the limits on the methods that we use for that purpose?

Canine Behavior Abrantes, Roger, The Evolution of Canine Social Behavior . (Wakan Tan-ka Publishing, 2005)

Coppinger, Raymond and Lorna, Dogs: A Startling New Understanding ofCanine Origins, Behavior and Evolution. (Howell, 1996)

Grandin, Temple, Animals in Translation. (Harcourt, 2006)

Lindsay, Steven, Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior and Training . (3 vol-umes) (Iowa State University Press, 2000-2005)

Overall, Karen, Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals . (Mos-by, 1997)



168


Serpell, James (ed.), The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behaviour and Inter-actions with People . (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

Scott, John and James Fuller, Genetics and the Social Behavior of Dogs .(University of Chicago Press, 1965)

Ethical Stretching Exercise: Make a list of canine behaviors that causeproblems for people. Which of these are natural canine behaviors and

which come from other factors? What limits would you place on yourown willingness to change a dog’s behavior in order to suit your client’sgoals?

Te History and Methodology of Dog raining Koehler, William, The Koehler Method of Dog Training . (Howell, 1996)

Most, Konrad, Training Dogs, A Manual . (Popular Dogs PublishingCompany, 1954)

Millan, Cesar, Cesar’s Way . (Harmony Books, 2006)

Miller, Pat, The Power of Positive Dog Training . (Hungry Minds, Inc.,2001)

The Monks of New Skete, How to be Your Dog’s Best Friend . (Little,Brown, 1978)

Pryor, Karen, Don’t Shoot the Dog . (Bantam Books, 1999)

Ethical Stretching Exercise: Compare and contrast the methods in thesebooks. For each one, find three aspects of the training methods that youfind to be ethically acceptable and three that are ethically questionable.How has this exercise influenced your own choice of training methods?

Dogs and People in Contemporary Society Bradley, Janis, Dogs Bite: but Balloons and Slippers are More Dangerous .(James & Kenneth, 2005)

Donaldson, Jean, The Culture Clash. (James & Kenneth, 1996)

Hoover, Lynn, The Family in Dog Behavior Consulting . (Legend Publish-ing, 2006)

Katz, Jon, The New Work of Dogs: Tending to Life, Love and Family . (Vil-lard, 2003)



RESOURCES

169

McConnell, Patricia, The Other End of the Leash. (Ballentine Books,2002)

Wilde, Nicole, It’s not the Dogs; it’s the People . (Phantom Wolf Publish-ing, 2003)

Wolfe, Cary, Animal Rites: American Culture, the Discourse of Species, andPosthumanist Theory . (University of Chicago Press, 2003)

Ethical Stretching Exercise: What beliefs do you hold about the relation-ships between people and animals? What are your beliefs about dogs spe-cifically? What attitudes on the part of people toward their dogs bug you

the most? Why? How can you change your perspective to be more tol-erant?

Professional and personal growthBoutelle, Veronica, How to Run a Dog Business: Putting Your Career WhereYour Heart Is . (Dogwise Publishing, 2007)

Hammer, Allen L, Introduction to Type and Career . (Consulting Psychol-ogists’ Press, 1993)

Keirsey, David and Marilyn Bates, Please Understand Me . (PrometheusNemesis Book Co., 1984)

Kohlberg, Lawrence, Philosophy of Moral Development . (Harper and Row,1981)

Palmer, Helen, The Enneagram in Love and Work . (Harper San Francis-co, 1995)

Wilde, Nicole, So You Want to Be a Dog Trainer . (Phantom Wolf Publish-

ing, 2006)

Ethical Stretching Exercise: Work with a professional to find out yourMyers-Briggs temperament and Enneagram types. How do they helpyou to be an ethical dog trainer? What aspects of your personality makethis a difficult challenge for you? What is your stage of moral develop-ment? How does this affect your behavior in your business?



170


A BOUT T H E AUTHOR

AND CONTR I BU TOR S Jim Barry is a Certified Dog Behavior Consultant (CDBC) and Certi-fied Pet Dog Trainer (CPDT) in Middletown, Rhode Island. Prior to be-coming a dog trainer, he was on the faculty at George Mason Univer-sity, where he specialized in ethics, international politics, and conflictresolution. Jim is an active member of the Association of Pet Dog Train-ers, and was for two years editor of the ethics column for the award-win-

ning newsletter, The Chronicle of the Dog . He is a certified member ofthe International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, and hasserved on the Standards Committee, which determined certification pro-cedures for new members, and managed the online case study discussionprogram. He is the co-author, with Susan Smith and Mary Emmen, ofPositive Gun Dogs: Clicker Training for Sporting Breeds (Sunshine Books,2007), the first book published in the United States on positive trainingmethods for field sports. In his academic career, Jim published a varietyof works on ethics and international politics, including The Sword of Jus-

tice: Ethics and Coercion in International Politics (Praeger, 1996). He con-tinues to serve as a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Devel-opment and Conflict Management, University of Maryland, where heconducts training programs for government executives in ethics, negotia-tion, and crisis leadership. Jim lives in Rhode Island with his wife, Vicki,their Labrador Retriever, Toby, and their cat, Little Guy.

Jennifer Dumond Biglan, CPDT, teaches dog training classes and doesbehavior consultations in Oregon. She has a deep interest in animal wel-

fare and has worked with dogs, horses, cats, goats, and other small ani-mals.

Kelly Ryan, CDBC, CPDT, teaches dog training and tricks classes anddoes behavior consultations in Sacramento, California. In addition, shehas been a practicing attorney for over 10 years, and has provided guid-ance on professional ethics for attorneys.

Jennifer Biglan and Kelly Ryan have been panelists for the APDT Chron-

icle ethics column since 2005.



INDEX

171

INDEX A Accountability, 151 Act on your decision (SITSTA), 44, 49, 54 Actor’s intention, and moral character, 107 Aggression, and electric current collars, 106 Alpha roll, 92 American College of Veterinary Behavior (ACVB), 116 American Kennel Club, 136 American Pet Products Manufacturing Association (APPMA), 134 American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), 122, 136, 137 Anecdotal evidence, 30 Animal Behavior Association, 116 Animal Behavior College, 112 Animal Behavior Society, 116 Animal husbandry, 150 Animal Liberation Front, 150 Animal rights movement, 34, 132, 133-34 Animals, peoples’ relationships with, 8 Animals in society, 85attitudes toward, 17

Anthropomorphism, 135 Appeal to authority, 32 Aquinas, Thomas, 131 Argument ad hominem, 31 Argument to ignorance, 31 Argument to numbers, 32 Argument to tradition, 31 Aristotle, 24, 131 Asal, Victor, 143 Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), 42, 47, 52, 56, 67, 99, 117,118, 119, 120, 122, 139, 144 code of ethics, 154-55

Attitudes toward animals, 131, 134 Authority, 14 Autonomy, 150

BBach, Chris, 91Bailey, Bob, 94Bailey, Jon, 150



172


Bailey, Marian, 94Barkbusters, 112Bark collars, electronic, 105Basic learning theory, 148Beckoff, Mark, 132Behavior consultant, vision statement for, 18Behaviorism, beyond, 89-92Behaviorist ethics, 85-93Behaviorists, 121, 124-27Belief, definition, 12-13Beliefs, values, and principles, 12-17, 130, 150Belief system, 12Bentham, Jeremy, 34, 95Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, 136Biglan, Jennifer, 67Bok, Sissela, 17Boundaries, establishing, 23Boundary training, 121-29Bradley, Janis, 140Breed bans, 139-44Breland, Keller, 89, 90, 94Breland, Marian, 89, 90Bumper sticker morality, avoiding, 26Burch, Mary, 36, 150

CCanine ethology, 149Care, 151Care-based reasoning, 34, 36-37, 95, 100Case studies, 7, 56-66

Categorical imperative, 36Centers for Disease Control, 141Certification, 111-13Certification Council for Professional Dog Trainers, 113, 114Chronicle of the Dog , 56, 67Clicker training, 88Codes of ethics, 8, 154-66Cognitive psychology, 90Cognitive shortcuts, 26

Collaborative model, achieving, 128Companion Animal Sciences Institute, 112Compassion, 151Competent authority, 97



INDEX

173

Condition of business principle, 53Consequences, 48Core areas of knowledge, 148-50Core values, 17Corrections, 88Cover, Kayce, 91Culture in which we live, 130Customs, 22-24

DDale, Steve, 93Dangerous dogs, 139-44

Decision making in practice, 7Deductive reasoning, 29Deeley, Martin, 103, 112Delta Society, 97Descartes, Rene, 131Dignity, 151Dimensions of pleasure and pain, 95Disagreements, respectful, 49Discrimination, 97

Discourse ethics, 101Dog Bite Law Center, 142Dog bites, 140Dominant paradigm, 102Domination, attempts at, 88Donaldson, Jean, 30, 53, 91, 135Do no harm, 150Douan, Cyndy, 92Double effect, 107

Dunbar, Ian, 100Due diligence, 22Duties, 48Duty-based reasoning, 34, 35-36, 53, 95, 100

EEffectiveness, 93Efficiency, 93Electric containment systems, 103

Electric current collars, 102-09Email discussion lists, 48Emotion, 15Ends-based reasoning, 34, 35, 95, 100



174


Enneagram, 21Ethical clarity, 27-28Ethical conflicts, resolving, 33-37Ethical dilemmas, 6, 22, 34 process for resolving, 38-55Ethical reasoning, 28Ethics, 7, 93 definition, 10-11 and electricity, 107-08 practical, 150 as skill set, 24Ethics codes, 52Ethology, versus psychology, 88-89Euthanasia, 135Excellence, pursuit of, 151

FFaithful, 151Fallacies, fighting, 28-33False analogies, 26-27, 30Family dynamics, 149

Fear, 87Fisher, Roger, 119, 120Flannigan, Gerard, 125Fox, Michael, 91Frank, Diane, 125

GGeneralization, sweeping, 32, 54Gestalt psychology, 89

Gilligan, Carol, 100Golden rule, 36-37, 48, 53Gortner, Harold, 110Grandin, Temple, 87, 91, 101Guardianship, 135-39Guide, in ethical dilemmas, 22Gut test, 72

H

Habermas, Jurgen, 101Hannafin, Chris, 138Hassen, Fred, 103, 106, 112Hobbes, Thomas, 101Hoover, Lynn, 122, 127



INDEX

175

Hot-button issues, 7Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), 133, 134, 135Hypothesis, 30

IIdentify your options (SITSTA), 41, 46, 51In Defense of Animals, 135Inductive reasoning, 29, 30Information gathering, 149Institute for Animal Welfare and Behaviour, 142Instructional techniques, effective, 149Instructive reprimand, 100

Insurance Information Institute, 141Integrity, image of, 11International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC), 47,52, 96, 106, 113, 114, 118, 122, 127-29 code of ethics, 155-63International Association of Canine Professionals (IACP), 42, 47, 99,113, 115, 118, 119, 120, 140 code of ethics, 164-65

J Johnson-Bennett, Pam, 127, 128 Jones, Linda, 137 Jung, Carl Gustav, 21, 152 Just cause, 97 Just intention, 97, 151 Just war theory, 96-97

K

Kant, Immanuel, 35, 131Karen Pryor Academy, 112Katz, Jon, 135, 137Kidder, Rushworth, 15, 17, 45, 72Know thyself, 21Koehler, William, 88Kohlberg, Lawrence, 152

LLast resort, 97Laws, 22-24 governing training, 150Legal system, 23Legal test, 72



176


Lewis, Hunter, 14, 130Licensing, 111-13LIMA (Least Intrusive/Minimally Aversive) principle, 96Locke, John, 101Logic, 14Logical fallacies, 103 avoiding, 31Luescher, Andrew U., 125, 127Lure/reward, 100

MMay, Ernest, 27

McConnell, Patricia, 93, 132Media, 142Mentor, 48Mertens, Petra, 125Millan, Cesar, 91, 92, 135Mill, John Stuart, 34, 46Mind-body connections, 90Mission statements, 118Model Dog Law and Proposed Dangerous Dog Act, 144

Model Veterinary Practice Act, 122Mom test, 72Monty Python, 24Monks of New Skete, 92Moral argument, 25Morality, bumper sticker, 26Morals, 11Moral reasoning, methods of, 34Moral temptations, 33, 47

Most, Konrad, 88Myer-Briggs Type Indicator, 21

NNational Animal Interest Alliance, 134National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors (NADOI), 47, 99,113, 115, 118, 140 code of ethics, 165-66National Organization for Competency Assurance (NDCA), 116

Negative punishment, 86Negative reinforcement, 86Negotiation, 119Neurobiology, 90



INDEX

177

Neustadt, Richard, 27Non sequitur , 32Nothing in excess, 21, 22Nothing in life is free (NILIF), 89

OO’Heare, James, 46, 94Openness, 119Operant conditioning, 86 quadrants of, 86Orthodoxy, 119Ought implies can, 46

Overall, Karen, 105, 125Ownership, 135-39

PPeacable Paws, 112People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 133Personal growth, 152PetConnectOnline, 134Petco, 112

Petsafe, 105, 106, 108Petsmart, 112Pharmacology, 91Pielke, Robert, 25Pit bull, 141Political engagement, 143-44Polsky, R.H., 106Post hoc ergo propter hoc , 32Positive punishment, 86, 88

Positive reinforcement, 86, 88Postmodern school, 102Principles, 12-17 of dog trainers, 16Probability of success, 97Professional associations for trainers and consultants, 23, 143-44Professional codes, 16Professionalism, 43Professions, 6

characteristics of, 110-11Proportionality, 97Pryor, Karen, 88Psychological learning theory, 86



178


Psychology ethology versus, 88 language of, 85 tools of, 21Punishment, ethics of using, 94

R Radicals, 133-34Radiofence, 104Ramirez, Ken, 90Rawls, John, 101Reciprocity, 36

Red herring, 32Regulations, 22-24 of electronic training, 108-09Religious traditions, 131Risk perception, 143Rottweiler, 141Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 101Rule utilitarianism, 96Ryan, Kelly, 67

SSan Francisco SPCA, 112Schilder, Matthijs B.H., 106Scientific training methods, 110Science, 15Scrutinize your choices (SITSTA), 42, 47, 52Scully, Matthew, 133Search for information (SITSTA), 41, 46, 51

Self-knowledge, 21Sense experience, 14Singer, Peter, 132SITSTA method, 40-49, 51-55Situational ethics, 15Skinner, B.F., 32, 85Slippery slope, 32Smith, Cheryl, 107, 108Social contract theory, 101

Social issues regarding dogs, 130Societal views on training methods, 108Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 135Socrates, 27



INDEX

179

Spiritual traditions, 90Steiss, Janet, 105Stereotyping trainers, 87Stereotypes, 26-27, 30Stillwell, Victoria, 93Straw man, 33Stress, and ethical decision making, 25-26Sweeping generalization, 32, 54Syllogism, 29

Talk to others (SITSTA), 44, 48, 53

Tellington-Jones, Linda, 91Test against the rule book (SITSTA), 42, 47, 51Thinking logically, 24-33Tom Rose School, 112Traditions of dog training, 149Trainers role of in problem behaviors, 121 vision statements for different, 18-19Training equipment, proper use of, 149

Training methods, 7, 85Training schools of thought, 87-88Triple Crown Training Academy, 112Tritronics, 105Truly Dog Friendly, 104Tu quoque , 33

UUnity, fostering, 117-21

University of North Texas, 112Ury, William, 119, 120Utilitarian argument, 104Utilitarianism, 34, 46

V Value conflicts, 14Values, 12-17 definition of, 13

Value systems, ways people acquire, 14-15Van der Borg, Joanne A.M., 106Veil of ignorance, 101Veterinarians, 121, 122Vision statement, 11, 17-18



180


W Weinberg, Dani, 21

Whitman, Glen, 31 Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, 25 Wolf behavior, 89

ZZone of agreement, 120



From Dogwise Publishing, www.dogwise.com, 1-800-776-2665

BEHAVIOR & TRAINING ABC’s of Behavior Shaping; Fundamentals of Training; ProactiveBehavior Mgmt, DVD. Ted Turner Aggression In Dogs: Practical Mgmt, Prevention & BehaviourModification. Brenda Aloff Am I Safe? DVD. Sarah KalnajsBehavior Problems in Dogs, 3rd ed. William CampbellBrenda Aloff’s Fundamentals: Foundation Training for Every Dog, DVD.

Brenda Aloff Bringing Light to Shadow. A Dog Trainer’s Diary. Pam DennisonCanine Body Language. A Photographic Guide to the Native Language ofDogs. Brenda Aloff Clicked Retriever. Lana MitchellDog Behavior Problems: The Counselor’s Handbook. William CampbellDog Friendly Gardens, Garden Friendly Dogs. Cheryl SmithDog Language, An Encyclopedia of Canine Behavior. Roger AbrantesEvolution of Canine Social Behavior, 2nd ed. Roger AbrantesGive Them a Scalpel and They Will Dissect a Kiss, DVD. Ian DunbarGuide To Professional Dog Walking And Home Boarding. Dianne EibnerLanguage of Dogs, DVD. Sarah KalnajsMastering Variable Surface Tracking, Component Tracking (2 bk set). Ed PresnallMy Dog Pulls. What Do I Do? Turid RugaasNew Knowledge of Dog Behavior (reprint). Clarence PfaffenbergerOh Behave! Dogs from Pavlov to Premack to Pinker. Jean Donaldson

On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals, 2nd edition.Turid RugaasOn Talking Terms with Dogs: What Your Dog Tells You, DVD. Turid RugaasPositive Perspectives: Love Your Dog, Train Your Dog. Pat MillerPredation and Family Dogs, DVD. Jean DonaldsonReally Reliable Recall. Train Your Dog to Come When Called, DVD. Leslie Nelson

Right on Target. Taking Dog Training to a New Level. Mandy Book & Cheryl Smith Stress in Dogs. Martina Scholz & Clarissa von Reinhardt



The Dog Trainer’s Resource: The APDT Chronicle of the Dog Collection.Mychelle Blake (ed )

Therapy Dogs: Training Your Dog To Reach Others. Kathy Diamond DavisTraining Dogs, A Manual (reprint). Konrad MostTraining the Disaster Search Dog. Shirley HammondTry Tracking: The Puppy Tracking Primer. Carolyn Krause Visiting the Dog Park, Having Fun, and Staying Safe. Cheryl S. Smith When Pigs Fly. Train Your Impossible Dog. Jane Killion Winning Team. A Guidebook for Junior Showmanship. Gail Haynes Working Dogs (reprint). Elliot Humphrey & Lucien Warner HEALTH & ANATOMY, SHOWING An Eye for a Dog. Illustrated Guide to Judging Purebred Dogs. RobertCole Annie On Dogs! Ann Rogers Clark Canine Cineradiography DVD. Rachel Page ElliottCanine Massage: A Complete Reference Manual.

Jean-Pierre Hourdebaigt

Canine Terminology (reprint). Harold Spira Dog In Action (reprint). Macdowell LyonDogsteps DVD. Rachel Page ElliottPerformance Dog Nutrition: Optimize Performance With Nutrition.

Jocelynn Jacobs Positive Training for Show Dogs: Building a Relationship for Success Vicki RonchettePuppy Intensive Care: A Breeder’s Guide To Care Of Newborn Puppies.

Myra Savant HarrisRaw Dog Food: Make It Easy for You and Your Dog. Carina MacDonaldRaw Meaty Bones. Tom LonsdaleShock to the System. The Facts About Animal Vaccination... Catherine O’DriscollThe History and Management of the Mastiff. Elizabeth Baxter & PatHoffman Work Wonders. Feed Your Dog Raw Meaty Bones. Tom Lonsdale

Whelping Healthy Puppies, DVD. Sylvia Smart



Dogwise.com is your complete source for dogbooks on the web!

2,000+ titles, fast shipping, and

excellent customer service.



Dogs / Training $19.95

What do ethics have to do with dog training?Dog trainers face ethical decisions all the time. Do I keep working with a client whenit is obvious that the owner will not keep up the training program to the detrimentof the dog? Should I accept payments from other dog professionals to whom I referclients? What is the proper way to interact with other dog trainers who use methodsI disagree with? Author Jim Barry dives deep into the ethical questions frequentlyfaced by dog trainers and offers up a systematic approach to helping trainers resolve

difficult dilemmas.

Learn more about • How to make difficult ethical choices in a consistent and logical fashion.•

How a panel of experts evaluate the ethical decisions made by trainers in a series ofcase studies.

• Current ethical issues, such as the use of force, that have divided the dog trainingindustry.

• The code of ethics of the major dog training and behavioral consulting associations.

• What the ethical dog trainer should know and the skills he or she should have.

ethical dog trainer_ a practical guide for canine professionals, the - jim barry

Documents