Outing a Trainer

[Good Dogs]

I've had several folks come to me over the past few years with tales about abusive behavior by trainers. None of them took their concerns to a test commitee or the AKC. IMO if you see behavior that in your opinion is abusive, you have an obligation to report it. If you did not see it first hand, it did not happen. If you saw it and did not take the responsibility to act on what you saw, then you are complicit with the abuse you claim to have witnessed.
As for new clients, anyone who places a dog with a pro who has not first checked references and watched several training sessions is derelict in their responsibility to their dog.
But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong.

[kona's mom]

Scott, as someone who uses a pro I would most definitely want to know if something was going on. When I send Kona away, I am trusting that he is going to be treated with respect and caring. If more people spoke up when they saw things that were wrong, maybe the world would be a little nicer place

[John Robinson]

Scott, as someone who uses a pro I would most definitely want to know if something was going on. When I send Kona away, I am trusting that he is going to be treated with respect and caring. If more people spoke up when they saw things that were wrong, maybe the world would be a little nicer place

This I agree with. I would be very upset if I found out much after the fact that bad stuff was going on with my pup, some people were concerned but didn't want to step on anybody's toes. Let me be the judge on whether the person reporting the abuse is credible, or just a bit naive about dog training.

John

[tripsteer1]

I am an aviator and in my business when a pilot is marginal it does not take to long for people not use him,why should it be any different with a pro who is not worth his salt,the cream usually rises to the top. The problem today is to many people "don't want to get involved".

[RookieTrainer]

There's a reason that secondhand accounts are called hearsay, and are inadmissible in a Court of Law.

Technically, hearsay is offering the statement of another to prove the truth of the matter asserted. For example, "John told me he was at the bank", if offered to show John was at the bank, is likely hearsay. If you saw John at the bank, it's not hearsay.

So, if you witnessed behavior and you tell someone about it, you are describing what you saw. If you are repeating what someone told you as the truth, then you may be using hearsay depending on the circumstances. Just because it is a secondhand account does not make it hearsay.

Even if it is hearsay, there are about 18 exceptions to the hearsay rule under which hearsay is admissible in court every day.

[copterdoc]

Technically, hearsay is offering the statement of another to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

If offered for another reason, such as state of mind or credibility, it may be offered.

Also, if it is a statement with particularized guarantees of truthfulness, then it is not hearsay. For example, dying declaration or a statement against penal interest ("I did it") is definitionally not hearsay, even if you are repeating what someone else said. If it is not hearsay, then it is up to the listener to determine the credibility of the statement as well as the person making it.

Right.

It's simpler, to just say what you personally witnessed.
Not repeat what you heard that was said.

[Carol Cassity]

I think the best thing is to ask yourself: "if that was my dog, what I want someone to do?". If it is abuse, say something. If the owner deems it not to be abusive, then that is thier business. If the owner is unaware of the treatment, then informing them, in good faith, is the right thing to do.

[RookieTrainer]

Right.

It's simpler, to just say what you personally witnessed.
Not repeat what you heard that was said.

Right. But repeating something someone said does not necessarily equal hearsay.

That said, I would be sure I had witnessed and had documentation for any such accusations I made on a public forum that might affect someone's ability to earn a living, libel laws being what they are and all.

[Pete]

I always believe a dog.

People, aren't nearly as honest.

I'm curious how a dog communicates this
Pete

[Pete]

I can't tell from your post if this is a hypothetical or you are weighing in your mind whether to do this? Assuming this is hypothetical I can see two parts of the question; 1) is just people getting bad service from an incompetent or lazy pro, and 2) is perceived dog abuse. Unless the abuse was so over the top and was observed first hand over many sessions, I might anser truthfully what I saw if asked directly and or offer my opinion if my friend was considering this pro, but otherwise keep my mouth shut.

I have witnessed training sessions where through no fault of the trainer, the wheels fell off the wagon and the session rapidly went downhill, to the point where there was way more pressure involved than this trainer ever uses, but there was no other way out that wouldn't have more lasting ill effects. If somebody happened by right at that time they would likely think the worst about this trainer, when in reality he is on the softer side of the spectrum, can read dogs like a wizzard and is more than fair in giving dogs the benefit of the doubt. In this case it was a very hard headed dog that the trainer knew could handle pressure most dogs couldn't and like I said the dog put them both in a postion of no return.

Unless I saw something beyond the pale, in which case reporting him on RTF would be redundant because I would have already dealt with it more directly, I agree with those who said it is the owners responsibility to do due dilligence, watch said pro work, ask for references and inform myself. One last thing, we all have different personalities, as do our dogs and pros. A certain well respected trainer might be perfect for you and your dog, but could be a disaster for me and my dog, one size doesn't fit all. Do your homework.

You are a just man with sound reasoning.
excelent post
Pete