CAWC Companion Animal Welfare Council
At the last meeting 2009 of CAWC – and it's remit to help bring about a standard of care in dog behaviour & training. A code of conduct was agreed. The code should be in operation by Setember 2009.
CAWC (Companion Animal Welfare Council) was set up to examine the industry specifically to Dog Training & Dog Behaviour (Not Animal Behaviour). At the last meeting ASAB submitted their letter of objections below organisations and individuals attending the meeting.
For the first time they showed their true colours and as such they received appropriate responses from other attendees and organisation heads. They objected to dog training & behaviour organisations who work in the industry having undue influence as opposed to their views and from an organisation that has no relevant history in the industry, we will leave you to work out the rational behind such bizzare ASAB statements.
Letter From Colin Tennant
Chairman of the Canine & Feline Behaviour Association.
Written in reply to the below ASAB letter.
18 th May 2009
Dear Sir Colin,
ASAB - a Trojan Horse.
ASAB has no history of working in our occupation in practice. It has recently added a list of its nominees to the ASAB web site just below the picture of a duck and stated it wishes to be acknowledged. It's remit is mainly wild animal behaviour and as an organisation it has no history of studying dog behaviour or training and no experience in that field, applied or otherwise. The organisation is virtually unknown in the dog world.
An example of what they don't understand
Over 70% of all dog behaviour cases presented in the UK to practitioners and trainers is aggression dog on dog or dog on people. Without the acquired knowledge of dog trainers combined with a highly developed understanding of dog psychology, behaviour and breed drives plus experience working in public places, one cannot practically rehabilitate aggressive dogs - those applied skills and, most of all, quantitative experience are critically necessary. ASAB members do not have this.
They cannot, therefore, advise the public without the risk of serious consequences in criminal as well as civil law. The public need to be aware of this.
We have no objection to ASAB being present and offering any information they feel is helpful but we cannot in anyway accept that they influence or specify any professional organisation's future in relation to canine behaviour and or training. They are an academic study group of no real consequence in the practical world of our behaviour and training disciplines. However, if the CFBA ever need information on the sexual behaviour of the European Blackbird, we will call upon ASAB for their expert opinion.
Colin C. Tennant
Chairman of the CFBA
Letter From: Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour
Dr Emma Creighton
Secretary, ASAB
14 th May 2009
Dear Sir Colin,
1) We believe that for the CAWC forum to arrive at decisions that best reflect the views of the community concerned with animal behaviour modification and training, then CAWC must take a lead in deciding representation at these meetings, and of any sub-committees formed, based upon the findings and recommendations of its own report, most importantly that ‘it is essential that the abilities of practitioners be independently verifiable or subject to some form of external scrutiny by an external body'. In addition, and also in agreement with the CAWC report, we feel that it is critically important that those involved in establishing a framework for recognising different levels of competency and qualification in this area have standing that is independent of the qualifications being reviewed, and that input from interested stakeholders is limited to commenting on the process.
2) We have to inform you that, in its current wording, we are not prepared to sign up to the ‘CAWC C ode of practice for practitioners of dog behaviour and training'. We feel the Code does not safeguard the welfare of the animals sufficiently, and could be taken to represent an unacceptable dilution of the professional standards to which we already adhere – standards that have been developed over many years and after much consultation and which have already been adopted by individual organisations concerned with clinical animal behaviour.
Our specific concerns are as follows:
2a) That the Code, in its current wording, does not acknowledge that there are other codes in existence that demand higher standards than those it demands, representing itself instead as reflecting best practice (1.2 and 1.3) – something which, given that our own Codes are more restrictive, we cannot but dispute.
2b) That in addition there is no requirement for practitioners to have demonstrated a sufficient level of knowledge, in addition to practically-acquired skills, before taking on work (4.8), despite this being one of the recommendations of the CAWC report. Furthermore without any agreed definition as to what these skills and knowledge are, and the means by which they are validated, this statement within the Code has little meaning and is unenforceable. At worst, by signing up to the Code as it presently stands, we could be placed in a situation where we are indirectly endorsing a standard of skill and knowledge that is inferior to that which we have decided, after considerable debate, is adequate. We maintain that the activities of those who lack the relevant knowledge and/or skills can lead to significant welfare issues. In that such individuals ‘know not what they do not know', they are unable to self-regulate and cannot be relied upon to assess their own competency accurately. External scrutiny of their skills and knowledge base is the only reliable way to protect the welfare of the animals they work with.
2c) We also have concerns with the efficacy of any register of those signing up to the Code. At present, it appears that individual practitioners will be allowed to sign up to the Code, with no means of subjecting their credentials to scrutiny, nor any mechanism for removing them from the register. Unless CAWC is prepared to put in place a robust mechanism for the removal of individuals from the list of those who have signed up to its Code, we propose that only organisations with demonstrably effective disciplinary procedures should be allowed to sign up.
3) Finally, we agree that the multitude of different groups, organisations and bodies concerned with dog training and behaviour modification is in need of rationalisation.
in order to protect the dog-owning public and their animals. We therefore wish to express our concern that at the last CAWC forum the formation of another two groups was proposed, one to take the Code of Conduct forward and the other to examine qualifications and post-nominals. Given the agreement that elections to a representative body are a logical step forward, and that this body would take on the updating of a Code of Conduct – but bafflingly not ownership - it would seem that any further meetings of the CAWC forum and deliberations thereof should be put on hold until the formation of this body, at least to avoid duplication of effort, and, in that this representative body would be mandated via election, that its activities and decisions should supersede those of the unelected CAWC forum. Such a decision we feel would better fit the terms of reference under which CAWC operates
If CAWC feels that it is unable to change its current approach, then as organisations representing those concerned with the modification of behaviour, not only in dogs but in other animals, we would have difficulty in supporting the forum as it currently exists. In this eventuality, we would suggest that the CAWC forum concentrated its efforts solely on the regulation of dog trainers – a group that CAWC has highlighted as being distinct from clinical animal behaviourists - and that the code of practice is made specific to those working in this area. We have already put in place a set of agreed standards and regulations for those seeking to work in the area of behavioural modification of animals as clinical animal behaviourists, through the certification schemes operated by ASAB, as endorsed by the RCVS, the British Psychological Society and the APBC, and those of the European College of Veterinary Behavioural Medicine and the RCVS, and we do not see the need to go through the process for this area again.
However, we do unequivocally support the general principle that all those offering services to the public in training and modifying the behaviour of dogs should subscribe to a single set of agreed standards, and would be prepared to continue to assist CAWC to work towards these, if the concerns we have outlined above can be addressed.
Edited
Letter From PACCT Stan Rawlinson in reply.
Dear Sir Colin,
The Professional Association of Applied Canine Trainers (PAACT) which represents over 80 trainers and behaviourist in the UK believes the letter tabled by ASAB beggar's belief; it is elitist, discriminatory, pompous and inaccurate.
We feel strongly that the unsubstantiated remarks it makes cannot go unanswered. We use these words advisedly. Comments such as” In that such individuals ‘know not what they do not know '” or the suggestion that those not mentioned in CAWCs discussion paper are not bona-fide organisations. ASAB's letter provided no evidence of such assertions.
Their statement suggesting they are unable to sign up to the Code of Conduct (CoC) developed by CAWC et al because ‘it does not meet their standards', is irrelevant. It has been clearly stated that the CoC is designed to provide a basic and helpful ‘common consensus' framework and is not intended to replace that of individual organisations.
The objective of their letter appears to be the bypassing of the inclusive process of self-regulation, supportively begun by CAWC. The thinly veiled threat of pulling out of the process is equally irrelevant. This will have little or no impact on the discussions underway by those people and groups who have come together under CAWC's auspices to evaluate ways of self-regulating and improving the dog training and behaviour industry.
ASAB, whatever their acknowledged expertise in the study of (wild) animal behaviour, has virtually no status or standing within the companion animal (pet) sector.
Their assertions that the CAWC forum is made up of people who have no right to be there is frankly insulting; though not surprising from an organisation with a clearly stated agenda to remove those without post-graduate qualifications from the world of behaviour.
There are people of influence in all walks of life; it is very often these people who get things done. So to complain that some people are influencing the process is unbelievable, cynical and naïve and is exactly what they are attempting to achieve with this letter.
ASAB clearly have little or no knowledge of the government's education agenda, which is aimed at providing opportunity for all. Not just a small group of academics with so little practical experience on the ground, as to be dangerous to both themselves and their clients.
The UK governments education strategy kick-started the NVQ system; this has degree and doctorate equivalents. Its set-up recognises achievement through prior learning and practical experience.
There are many good training organisations which provide high quality services that prepare people for work as dog trainers and behaviourists, many of these organisations employ academically qualified individuals who also have years of practical experience.
The same is not true of ASAB where the practical experience of those listed as being specialists in canine behaviour is actually rather limited, making up significantly less than 5% of the total membership.
There is a vast difference between study and application. For instance, Dr Creighton's PhDs thesis is typical of the studies carried out by ASAB's members: it was based on the sexual strategies of European blackbirds. Dog training and behaviour makes up 100% of the membership of the organisations they are attacking.
Unbelievably she is secretary of ASABs accreditation committee. It appears from her CV that she has very little if any practical experience or study outside academia. In essence, she has never left school and has gone from learning to teaching.
To try and isolate training from behaviour clearly shows that they do not understand that both are totally integrated into the very fabric of behavioural change. In other words they are both different sides of the same coin.
The standards and regulations agreed upon by ASAB are just that, agreed by them alone, without formal consultation with the wider community. Consultation is critical to change; it has been made clear that most of those organisations gathered around the CAWC table are prepared to consult despite their differences. Organisations that are unable to consult or change should not be entitled to dictate their personal beliefs to the rest of the forum, or to CAWC for that matter.
Any organisation can set itself above the rest; it takes real forward thinking to accept the benefits that diversity brings to the mix. We are pleased to acknowledge that CAWC is at the sharp end of this process and are saddened that ASAB and the signatories of their letter are clearly not.
Stan Rawlinson
Chair PAACT
Paul Rawlinson
PAACT Professional Association of Applied Canine Training
Some particular responses to points picked up from the letter:
• 2; it is the ASAB's choice to sign up, it is not compulsory, purely a voluntary option
• 2a; The individual organisation can inform the public they have a code that they consider superior to the CAWC CoC, after all CAWC's is intended to be the minimum standard
• 2b we agree there is no requirement to demonstrate practical skills, and it is felt by a number of professionals within the sector that many ASAB members have little practical experience.
• 2c Signing up to the CoC merely signifies that we the code is accepted as a minimum standard, not the only standard
• 2c we believe that credentials are of little use without demonstrable and measurable practical skills
• 3; Ownership of the CoC is surely the responsibility of all who sign, not a single organisation who have an agenda clearly at odds with the larger training community
• 3; Mandating a body such as ASAB is not what the community wants or needs. We need to develop learning that recognises differentiation and that understands differing learning styles and levels of academic abilities. Not everyone needs nor should be compelled to follow a high level academic route. Putting it simply, we believe that few will want to ‘join their club'.
• We agree it is important to remember the terms of reference of CAWC. We believe the clue is in the title. CAWC is not in place to pander to groups whose aims will without doubt, put the welfare of companion animals at serious risk in the long term.
• PAACT is representative of groups who service all levels of client behaviour and training needs; the aims of ASAB are highly likely to put these groups and their clients at risk by placing dog behaviour costs beyond many peoples ability to pay.
• If ASAB cannot support CAWC we believe that the majority of organisations within the sector will do so. We are willing to take this process through to its conclusion; that of improving our industry for the benefit and welfare of companion animals and their owners.
Conclusion
The meeting duly took place a few days after these letters were submitted, to Sir Colin. ASAB did not achieve what they demanded and did not leave in a huff as they threatened to do but eat humble pie and at last realised that they were not in a position to demand changes to CAWC's remit nor to try and dictate terms and conditions in our canine industry.
However, the main dog organisations BIPDT, GODT, CFBA,PACCT, do not wish to interfere or dictate the future of ASAB as a animal internet study group.
The CAWC agenda is still Dog Behaviour & Training as The Guild of Dog Trainers GODT education & development officer ( Lez Graham) clarified at the meeting conclusion.
| This article has
been reproduced with the kind permission of the persons named within the contents © 2009 for the CFBA. |
