Dire standards of advertising

Due to the lack of a central authority to regulate animal trainers and behaviourists the standard of advertising used by course providers and organisations claiming to represent people doing the job is in many cases quite appalling. Anyone approaching the industry would be well advised to keep their eyes open to the frequent misleading and unsubstantiated claims they will be faced with by those whose aim is ultimately to relieve the unsuspecting individual of their money.

Looking back through my earlier blogs you will see that I have written about underhand marketing in various forms before but with an ever growing number of membership organisations and course providers it has become more and more apparent that complying with advertising standards is really not on the agenda for many.

The latest trend is to offer a pathway to become a certified trainer or behaviourist, it sounds grand and the unsuspecting researcher might be forgiven for feeling that being certified adds an air of authenticity or superiority to the role. The truth is the addition of that one word is meaningless and of no value whatsoever because there are no accredited certification schemes in existence. There is the possibility of one becoming available by the end of 2024 but it is doubtful that anyone offering certified status now will qualify to be a part of it.

Another type of misleading advertising is known as using subjective language, where unsubstantiated claims are made such, ‘we only use the very best instructors’ or ‘our members include world leading practitioners’. As there are no league tables of competence or any way of objectively measuring how good such people are at their jobs these are also misleading statements that are there solely for the purpose of trying to convince the reader they are associated with the upper echelons of the industry and you could be too if you spend your money here.

A common ploy that many fall for is the promise of post nominals (letters) to put after your name on completion of a course. The uninitiated often feel that this too adds value to their investment when the truth is they are also of no value at all. If anything they advertise to future customers that the individual has studied with someone who is prepared to use underhand methods as part of their marketing strategy. These letters are invented by the provider of the course and do not appear on any register of qualifications anywhere and are therefore worthless.

Claiming (or inferring) a relationship with auspicious organisations such as the government, the forces or high profile animal charities and in some cases even illustrating the point with images or logos that there is no permission to use is another bad practice. The aim is to enhance the perceived stature of the organisation in the eyes of the reader when the reality is that any such link is often highly tenuous and of little or no consequence at all.

In these times of financial stress it is all the more important that people have all the facts before they part with their hard earned cash and that they have a chance of getting value for money. The good news is that the situation is not all bad, ABTC has set standards for advertising that all its member organisations must adhere to. It also sets the highest standards for qualifications and assessments for the trainers and behaviourists that appear on its registers. At least here there is a good chance of getting quality advice before making what could be a substantial investment.

What does it mean to be certified?

What does it mean to be a certified (or certificated) practitioner?

The first thing to make clear is that there is no difference between certified and certificated. Certified is a verb and certificated is an adjective but they both indicate the presence of a certificate that declares something is true. They should indicate that the individual has successfully been assessed as being competent by going through a certification scheme. As there are currently no accredited certification schemes in the animal behaviour and training sector the short answer to this question right now is ‘not a lot’.

What is a certification scheme?

A genuine certification scheme is a very detailed affair with a wide range of conditions that need to be met, the scheme is owned and administered by the certification body. Each role being certified must have a single standard against which all individuals are assessed. The quality of the assessment and a whole host of associated procedures must be clearly documented and then, in order to be recognised as a genuine scheme the certification body must be accredited by an independent organisation with the authority to do so. The overall purpose of certification of persons is to determine whether an individual has met specified knowledge criteria and recognise their competence to perform a task or job. Knowledge and competence go hand in hand but they are different and the two terms should not be confused. A certification body has the responsibility to ensure that only people who demonstrate competence are awarded competence certification.

What does it mean for a certification body to be accredited?

Accreditation formally recognises that an organisation has the infrastructure and skills to carry out work to specified standards, this recognition must be provided by an authoritative body. UKAS is the National Accreditation Body for the United Kingdom. They are appointed by government, to assess and accredit organisations that provide services including certification of persons against specific requirements. UKAS operates under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government through the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). It is DBT policy to recommend the use of UKAS accredited conformity assessment services whenever this is an option. DBT will only recognise accreditation of UK based conformity assessment bodies that has been granted by UKAS.

Accreditation determines the technical competence and integrity of organisations offering testing, verification and certification services (collectively known as conformity assessment). In short, UKAS ‘checks the checkers’. It is already being used by Government as an effective market-led tool for delivering policy.

BEIS has advised certification representative organisations in the UK that the only ‘authoritative statement’ of competence, that has public authority status, providing the last level of control in the conformity assessment chain is from the UK’s sole national accreditation body, UKAS. ABTC is currently progressing through the UKAS accreditation process and once successfully completed it will be the only organisation that will be able to award individuals certification that means something.

The status quo is hurting the animals

The status quo I am referring to is the state of regulation of the animal behaviour and training sector where those who advocate the use of positive punishment are countered by those who argue that such practices are harmful and unnecessary. Without a single regulator that is recognised by government that situation is not going to change because each time they review the situation one side says one thing and the other side says the opposite and both insist they are right. The government is obliged to listen to everybody and little changes as a result, that is democracy at work.

This situation has existed for the past 25 years and what we have is a wide selection of voluntary organisations claiming some form of regulatory role but none are currently in a position to be formally recognised by government.

It would appear to be a simple problem to solve as one side of the argument appear to be promoting treatment of animals that is in breach of the Animal Welfare Act and the other side are not. Unfortunately the part of the act that deals with suffering uses the word ‘unnecessary’ and proving that certain methods cause unnecessary suffering in legal terms is not at all easy in most cases. What the government are faced with is two factions making opposite cases so it is little wonder that nothing changes and harmful practices effectively get the green light to continue hurting animals.

There is a simple solution that will tip the balance of influence heavily in one direction and that is for one of these regulatory bodies to satisfy the requirements so that the government can recognise it as an authority on the subject. The key to achieving this is for that body to be accredited by the UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) as advised by the Department for Business and Trade. UKAS is appointed by the government as the only National Accreditation Body and is recognised by the British government to assess the competence of organisations that provide certification services. It is also government policy to recommend the use of UKAS accredited conformity assessment services whenever this is an option.

There is only one such body in the animal behaviour and training sector that is anywhere near becoming UKAS accredited and that is the ABTC. Getting on board and supporting that move is the only way there is going to be any success in marginalising those who happily sacrifice animal welfare by punishing their animals in the name of training. Simply signing up to codes that do not permit such methods is applauded but in itself that is having little or no effect in the struggle to overcome bad practice, it is simply maintaining the status quo. The process of achieving UKAS accreditation by ABTC is already underway and progressing well. Once complete it will be the only scheme qualified to call the practitioners it represents ‘certified’ and the only body that the government can recognise in the animal behaviour and training sector.

A dog with diabetes

This blog is going away from my normal theme of education and regulation to talk about something else that a relatively select audience might find useful. It is not my aim to tell you about diabetes in dogs (I am not a vet) I just wanted to add an owner’s perspective if it is something you are being faced with. There are several good websites that explain the condition and what to look out for, the PDSA have good information at https://www.pdsa.org.uk/pet-help-and-advice/pet-health-hub/conditions/diabetes-in-dogs#contents-link-6  

When our ‘Frank’ was eight years old we noticed that he started to drink a lot and then apparently lose control of his bladder, producing a lot of fluid. It all seemed to happen over a short period of time. A visit to the vet for a blood test confirmed our fears, he had become diabetic. Initially it was a shock and although we have had many many dogs over the years this was new to us, we did not know what the future held for him or us but it was a steep learning curve and we had to learn very quickly.

The first few weeks were spent getting used to feeding him twice a day 12 hours apart followed by injecting him with insulin. The dose was slowly increased until we stabilised his blood sugar at a healthy and steady level. Once that was done the worst was over, he looked and behaved like there was nothing wrong with him.

We questioned what effect it would have on him in the long term and were told he should have a normal life as long as the regime was maintained. We were also told some shocking statistics about the number of dogs that get put to sleep (PTS) because of their diabetes. The main problem is the commitment required by the owners and many cannot adjust their lifestyle to accommodate the dogs needs or are not insured and cannot afford the vet bills. Apparently 50% of dogs are PTS on diagnosis and a further 35% don’t get past 3 months. The average life expectancy of the remaining 15% is 2 years from diagnosis and the common factor in nearly all cases is the inability of the owners to cope with the dog’s needs, for whatever reason. Our Frank is now 14 and rapidly approaching the sixth anniversary of his diagnosis, he has been injected about 4,000 times. He is now an old dog and has outlived many others of his breed, any of his health issues are related to ageing not his diabetes. It sounds easy but it has taken a lot of dedication and determination for our beloved boy.

Some tips:

Don’t worry if you forget an injection (believe me it will happen), hyperglycaemia is less serious in the short term than hypoglycaemia (too much insulin) which can be a veterinary emergency.

Keep the needle at a low angle to ensure you inject under the skin rather than in the muscle which can be painful.

Move the injection site around or you will get a thickening of the skin at the injection site.

Keep the diet and exercise regular and unchanged, you may need to weigh the food until you know that it is the same each time. Regular routine is key to success.

Remember, food increases blood sugar, insulin and exercise reduce it.

Ofqual regulated qualifications v Accreditation from Ofqual regulated body

The latest trend in accreditation is for providers to elect for Ofqual regulated qualifications in the misguided belief it makes for a superior course. The process in terms of the checks and monitoring is the same as courses that are accredited by an Ofqual Regulated Awarding Body. The differences are subtle and the main one is of little benefit to anyone over 21. I wrote the following in a blog in 2017 and it still holds true:

Of the many questions I get about the accreditation of courses that are available in the Animal Care Sector (particularly relating to behaviour) is the topic of providing a springboard to a university course. There is an awful lot of mis-information on the subject, most of which revolves around the subject of applying for university through UCAS – The Universities and Colleges Admissions System.

The formal process of applying for a university place through UCAS is largely designed to cater for school leavers and anyone under the age of 21. If you do not fall into this bracket UCAS Tariff Points (associated with Ofqual regulated qualifications) are of much less importance. Mature students (those over 21 and generally all of those studying to become a behaviourist) have a more flexible set of opportunities and universities have the ability to judge your suitability based on experience and a broader spectrum of education that might be better suited to the chosen degree course. The following paragraph is taken directly from the UCAS website – Tips for mature student applications:

Don’t worry if you don’t have the right qualifications – just ask universities and colleges whether you can meet the entry requirements in a different way.

You could get accreditation for life and work experience.

Accreditation of prior learning (APL) is essentially credit awarded for wider learning evidenced from self-directed study, work or training.

In short UCAS Tariff Points are far from the be all and end all they are often made out to be. This goes further, just because a qualification is on the Tariff, does not mean a university will accept it. Therefore, it’s really important to check the entry requirements for the course you’re interested in.

There are only a certain number of qualifications on the Tariff. A university may accept a qualification even if it isn’t on the Tariff, so it’s best to check with them to see if they will accept your qualification. Remember, lots of universities do not use Tariff points.

So, how do courses get onto the Tariff? Put simply they need to appear on the Qualification and Credit Framework (QCF) which is a list of courses approved by Ofqual for delivery in mainstream colleges. It also opens the possibility of the course provider drawing on government funding to deliver it. The downside for course providers is that they must give up the intellectual ownership of the course and it becomes available to any other college to deliver.

The whole subject of accreditation has changed dramatically in the last twenty years and is still changing. Initially there were no privately provided courses that came with any form of Ofqual based accreditation, then slowly it became the mark of quality until now the choice of courses (and range of quality) is bewildering. The next development is for the training and behaviour sector to be regulated, many of my readers will understand that this process is now quite advanced. The introduction of regulation will mean that courses and their content will have to meet strict criteria and the vast majority of courses will not meet those requirements and it will not matter whether they attract UCAS Points or not.  I predict that, in the not too distant future, an awful lot of people will be very disappointed with choices they have made and money they have invested based on advertising promising that they will become ‘qualified’ behaviourists.

Change is definitely coming

It seems that the business of the animal training and behaviour sector being formally recognised as a profession is taking forever and it is true to say that there have been significant delays as a result of Brexit which was swiftly followed by the Covid pandemic. The net result is that progress is about two years behind schedule but the positive news is that talks with the RCVS have re-started. For those who are not aware of what is coming, there is a new Veterinary Services Act being developed that will replace the Veterinary Surgeons Act (1966). Part of the new act will be dedicated to para-professional activities (also referred to as ‘allied professions’), behaviour and training being one such activity.

In order to be included, any para-profession must meet many criteria to demonstrate that they are regulated to a sufficiently high standard to be recognised by the RCVS and that they would be confident in linking them to their Royal Charter. There are some key issues in the process of regulation that must be met including a clear set of standards that define what educational and skills requirements are to be met by each role, how those standards are assessed and independently assured on an ongoing basis, there must be a single disciplinary process, there must be a register of all qualified practitioners, there must be evidence of strong and effective governance along with many more requirements.

Being qualified cannot be self-declared, each individual will need to be formally assessed as meeting all the criteria.

Currently the behaviour and training sector is a mosaic of different organisations doing their own thing to a spectrum of different abilities and requirements and while there is undoubtedly some overlap in what each does there is no coherent structure and therefor the sector cannot be regarded as a single profession. The only organisation that provides the detailed infrastructure of such a profession is the ABTC and this is why they are discussing the way ahead with the RCVS for inclusion in the forthcoming legislation.

ABTC are well aware of their critics, most of whom are allied to other systems that have appeared over the last 10 years to try and provide an alternative form of regulation. It is unlikely that any of these systems will offer a suitably rigorous and acceptable level of governance to be considered for the moves that are coming which is why ABTC are the focus of attention. ABTC has already attracted the support of the veterinary profession and all the major animal welfare charities. It is also the only ‘Council’ (this is a legally sensitive term that requires permission of the appropriate Secretary of State to be used in a name, the organisation should normally be a local authority, an independent advisory body, a deliberative assembly, or a governing, supervisory or representative body of an activity, trade, business or profession).

There are still more steps in the process and metaphorical hoops to jump through but change is coming that will elevate the status of trainers and behaviourists that embrace it.

Credit for prior learning

As the prospect of a regulated animal training and behaviour sector draws nearer many people are examining their qualifications gathered over time and realise that there may be gaps that need filling. Over the last 12 months Compass has received an unprecedented level of registrations for the level 5 and 6 courses it offers, we have even taken on an extra tutor to manage the demand and may still need yet another one.

Every single week we get asked about credit for prior learning based on previous courses undertaken with other course providers, typically people want to go straight onto the level 6 programme based on their completion of a level 5 course elsewhere. Credit for prior learning can be awarded but there are strict requirements that need to be satisfied and many are disappointed that their previous investments cannot be recognised.

Unfortunately it is not as simple as ‘I have done a level 5 course with someone else so your level 6 is the next step’, there are four key conditions that must all be met before that is the case and evidence will be requested.

Firstly the prior learning must be fully accredited by an Ofqual regulated awarding body or be an Ofqual regulated qualification and most are not. Some applicants’ courses are not accredited at all and others are certificated by non-qualifying organisations. Examples of certifying organisations that are not regulated by Ofqual include, CPD UK, UK Rural Skills and Complementary Medical Association but there are more.

Secondly the level of the course must be the same or higher than the one for which credit is sought. The level is determined by the awarding body and is based on a number of criteria including the technical nature of the course, the learning outcomes and the assessment criteria. If it is not fully accredited as above the level cannot be guaranteed.

Thirdly the length of the course or amount of time specified by the awarding body must be equal to the one for which credit is being sought. The length of a course is expressed in hours as Total Qualification Time (TQT), Guided Learning Hours (GLH) or sometimes as Credits where 1 Credit equals 10 hours of study.

Finally, the syllabus or the elements of the subject matter for which credit is sought must closely match the syllabus of the course being applied for. This is not done by simply comparing module titles, it is a case of matching learning outcomes and some providers are not keen to release this information for copyright reasons (some courses do not even have any).

Regrettably we are unable to give credit for courses that do not meet these requirements as being compatible with Compass provision. In the case of level 5 and 6 courses that are delivered by private course providers that fall into this category may be accepted as evidence that the student is able to enter the Compass Level 5 courses. Typically partial credit is granted automatically to qualified vets and some vet nurses or students with relevant degrees.

Some applicants wish to claim credit for experience and in Higher Education it is possible for this to be recognised through a process known as Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL) but this is a time consuming process and usually expensive process and we do not have the resources to support such applications.

Do not feed the trolls

I think that few would disagree that the advent of the internet has brought about fantastic advantages to society, individuals, businesses and more but as is often the case, with great things comes a few unsuspected drawbacks.

There are those who have been disenfranchised by being unable to keep up with technology such as the poor, the elderly or those who have difficulty grasping the skills required to operate in the high-tech world.

Another significant drawback is that the same technology that has improved the ease and speed of operating businesses and individuals’ lives also enhances the ease with which criminal activity can take place. The spectrum of illegal pursuits is seemingly without limits, from hacking bank accounts, to scams designed to rob people of their money that often need a sophisticated understanding of technology down to cyber bullying which requires no special skill or aptitude at all, just the ability to be unpleasant and have a total lack of regard for, or understanding of, socially acceptable behaviour.

As a member of the British Psychological Society it is the latter I want to write about, what has become known as ‘trolling’. The reasons that people engage in trolling range from a need to feel they have some form of power over others, generally to compensate for their own insecurities and lack of self esteem, to trying to damage the reputation of other businesses to gain corporate advantage. Whatever the reason they all have something in common, something now increasingly referred to as trolling personality disorder. It is typified by psychopathy and sadism, they usually lack empathy and derive satisfaction from causing anguish to others, particularly if they believe they will gain some sort of advantage from it, they have no moral compass.

They might have difficulty understanding sarcasm, this is where someone says the opposite of what they mean. For example, if they make a mess of a task and someone in authority says sarcastically ‘you have really sorted that’, they could well believe they have actually done well and received genuine endorsement despite the evidence to the contrary. Such difficulties are often but not exclusively, associated with autism spectrum disorders. They may also exhibit signs of a superiority complex, people with this complex have exaggerated opinions of themselves, they believe their abilities and achievements surpass those of others and they can reinforce this belief by trolling. People suffering from such personality issues frequently don’t actually understand what is wrong with such behaviour as they interpret it as being strong and an acceptable survival strategy. The fact that it is illegal is seen as of little consequence as they believe such laws do not apply to what they are doing. They will often be quick to brag about their achievements too (real or imaginary)

Trolling takes several forms, it can be harsh and often cruel criticism of their target to spreading deliberate untruths and the more salacious the better. It is not always clear who is responsible for sending it but somehow they will want someone to know who was responsible as this is more rewarding for them. Sometimes it is clear who is responsible, in these cases the individual will phrase their odious message in such a way as to make it not worth prosecuting under libel laws, this makes them feel more talented and adds to their misplaced sense of superiority.

The temptation to stand up for yourself and put the truth out there is overwhelming but strangely this is the last thing you should do. Any response is playing into their hands, it shows that you have seen the attack and it has got your attention, this marks their first success. The next success for them is that it has had the desired effect and caused you enough of an emotional response to sit down and compose an answer. They will then relish the ensuing exchanges aiming for the last word and their increasing satisfaction is in stark contrast to your increasing stress. The most effective strategy is to not respond at all, resist the temptation. Apply the advice given to dog owners when dealing with begging and ignore it, if there is no reward they will soon work out that their efforts are not working. If someone is fishing but catching no fish they will move to another spot. Answering them will just encourage the behaviour and drags you down to the same low level, not answering causes them frustration.

Do not feed the trolls.

Mis-information, cyber propaganda or just lack of understanding?

Recently in a telephone conversation with someone I had never spoken to before I heard something that I found concerning. She was asking for some career advice and when I suggested she investigated becoming a member of an ABTC approved organisation she hesitated and then told me that she had heard through social media that ABTC supported punishment as a training method. Before I go any further I want to make it crystal clear this is absolutely NOT true and if there is any doubt I would ask readers to visit http://www.abtcouncil.org.uk/images/1ABTC%20Ethical%20Dog%20Training.pdf This document was first published in 2015 and has been in circulation ever since.

Having reassured her that what she had read was completely wrong and simply a case of someone spreading mis-information I set about examining the phenomenon of fake news and cyber propaganda. There were a number of questions to address as follows:

1. Why would anyone deliberately post untruths on social media?

Of course we could consider the simple possibility of malicious mischief but I think that unlikely. More probable is someone seeking to undermine a good reputation in order to gain a benefit for themselves. If so, this takes us into the immoral and unhealthy realm of competition where spreading lies about others is seen as fair game. If it was a deliberate act, knowing the information to be false, this sort of behaviour becomes propaganda but if it was someone spreading mis-information thinking it to be true without checking their facts it can be classed as malicious gossip. Either way it is no less reprehensible and shows the perpetrator in a pretty poor light as they directly seek to manipulate opinion using false statements.

2. If those spreading the untruths thought it was the truth why would that be?

Of course, if the originator mistakenly believed it to be true they may well see themselves as a crusader. In this case they would feel they were a whistleblower on unethical issues for the good of the community. In fact they are guilty of behaving unethically and actually causing damage to the very cause they thought they were helping. For the sake of this enquiry I will assume that it is not a case of deliberate propaganda and lean towards it being unsubstantiated gossip. Firstly, we have to consider where the lie originated but this can be very difficult to establish because it will have been shared and rebroadcast many times, potentially being embellished and exaggerated each time. As is the case in the game of Chinese Whispers, slight variations to the original telling of the story result in something quite different. A rumour will often start from a misinterpretation of something taken out of context or one small, usually insignificant issue can be blown out of proportion and generalised to a whole community. One can only guess that perhaps one incident carried out by one person out of more than a thousand others associated with ABTC (less than 0.1%) was judged by someone without all the facts to be contrary to anti-aversive philosophy. From this over time it has grown into the fake news being circulated.

As the late Terry Pratchett once said “A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on.” The point being that salacious stories and tales of wicked wrongdoing are far more engaging than the truth which is, in comparison, frequently quite dull.

3. Finally I asked myself, do the people spreading these untruths really understand the psychological principles they are quoting?

The general notion of ‘Do no Harm’ is the overarching principle that is easily understood until someone who uses shock collars for instance, insists that they are not doing any harm. In order to be more specific people start refining their definition by quoting BF Skinner’s rules of operant conditioning but this is where it starts to get bogged down, partly because it is usually viewed too simplistically and partly because his work is quoted selectively. Despite being enthusiastic exponents of force free training many people do not consider how they might unwittingly engage in positive punishment without regarding it as such. Defined as an unpleasant circumstance resulting from a given behaviour, examples can be found on a regular basis. Rushing towards a dog chewing on an electric cable could easily be described as positive punishment as is throwing water over fighting dogs, even the simple act of telling them ‘no’ or something similar fits the definition too. The counter argument proposed to these examples is that they are not training, they are management but that is avoiding the issue, whether training or management they are examples of the learning process and positive punishment is taking place.

Clearly it is a highly desirable aim to stop people carrying out regular training in classes or at home by instilling fear, pain or anxiety and this is vigorously promoted by ABTC but it is also naïve and illustrates a lack of understanding to say that you will never be a party to positive punishment under any circumstances, that is the real mis-information.

More wheel re-invention

In 2008 the training and behaviour industry overwhelmingly agreed that it needed regulating. At that point there were around ten organisations that represented trainers and behaviourists and even then that was widely regarded as a confusing situation to clients and outsiders. All of them were working to their own idea of what was needed to be qualified to practice. The CAWC report 2008 stated that this situation ‘may have important negative consequences for the welfare of both companion animals and their owners and the public at large if they reduce uptake of basic or competent services’. With the support of the major animal welfare charities, the veterinary profession and many of the organisations that took part in discussions to remedy the situation, ABTC was formed.  The purpose of ABTC was and still is, to set and maintain the standards of knowledge and practical skills needed to be a qualified trainer or behaviourist, maintain a national register of appropriately qualified practitioners and to promote humane methods for the welfare of animals in their work.

Despite the level of support that ABTC immediately attracted there was resistance from some quarters, there were those that did not agree with the emphasis on positive reinforcement and the KCAI scheme felt that they were best placed to become the focus of standards for the industry. Additionally, a register of people signing up to abide by an industry code of conduct was set up aiming ‘to unite all practitioners’. In the space of six months in 2009/10 we witnessed the creation of ABTC and three other groups with their own notions of how to promote industry-wide best practice. The industry that was crying out for a regulator to bring clarity and structure to the profession was evidently more interested in promoting self-interest than high standards and now there was a second tier of confusion in existence.

Since 2010 the number of organisations representing trainers and behaviourists has grown to approaching thirty, arguably more than doubling the level of confusion applied to the sector at that level but as if that were not enough those claiming some form of regulatory role for the sector has also grown. In common with the other organisations their purposes vary depending on the opinions of their architects and by 2018 there were now five of them competing with ABTC whose purpose was decided by industry. The additions included another ‘national’ register and a syndicate of organisations aiming to provide ‘a new dynamic of unity’ which was now becoming a recurring theme.

In the light of the sixth such organisation failing to make a significant impact, many of those responsible for creating it are now trying again with a seventh, calling themselves a Charter. Re-using  some of the same claims made last time they are offering ‘for the first time a clear, unified voice’ (Fact check – untrue, sounds very familiar) and ‘for the first time an independent oversight structure’ (Fact check – untrue, ABTC is governed by an elected Board of Trustees). The huge irony that surely cannot be lost on most people is that one of the aims of the group is to tackle the partisan nature of the sector but its creation is actively compounding that very issue. What is much more worrying is that this group is deliberately ignoring the issue of standards of knowledge, education and training needed to be competent to practice, leaving that issue to the membership organisations to decide what is best and thereby undermining the call for standards in the sector. So long as members agree to abide by a code of conduct they can become ‘qualified’ any way they see fit. This marks a serious backwards step eroding the hard won progress over the last ten years in establishing the need for a comprehensive set of standards that already includes all aspects of ethical working.

Of the now seven such groups there still remains only one with any legal status and answerable to a higher authority (ABTC is responsible to the Charity Commission and the Scottish Charity Regulator), the remainder are run by informal committees that are often self-appointed or in one case, just one person. One states that it is a limited company but a search at Companies House shows that the company was dissolved several years ago.

The organisations competing with ABTC’s position in the industry have one thing in common, they are offering ways to avoid the hard work of becoming part of a truly regulated profession and I continue to be amazed at the effort people will apply to achieve that. They want to be regarded as professionals but do not want to take part in all the associated requirements of a regulated profession (see my last blog). Could you imagine the mayhem if vets could choose between seven organisations running their profession and most of them were not concerned in how they became qualified so long as they promised to use ethical methods? The fact remains that ABTC is the only organisation recognised by the veterinary profession and supported by government.

No matter how it is packaged and promoted as being different or new, the charter is a clear case of the re-invented wheel but sadly this wheel has some crucial spokes missing. It is no wonder that anyone wanting to make a career out of training and/or behaviour services is completely baffled when they start looking into how to become qualified and the mess that the sector continues to create for itself.