I was a member of the IMDT, and left due to differences of opinion in the direction the body was taking (pretty much, not working toward a regulated industry). I'd rather not say who I am now a (non practicing) member of, as thats rather outing, but they're working with that goal in mind and under the wider umbrella organisation ABTC. My current professional body didn't exist when I became an IMDT member though or I'd have got that way first.
@Chiseltip I would very strongly disagree. If its only the outcome that is important... I could train every dog in existance not to chase sheep, jump up, bark, eliminate inappropriately...
By shooting them dead.
Do you want to alter your statement now - the process IS important isn't it?
The process will always be important - how you get a result matters when the subject of your methods is a living, breathing, sentient being, particularly one living in a family household and going out in public.
It may not matter if the dog lives in a lab, is never loose with other dogs, never off lead around people, never expected to tolerate all manner of human goings on - or is kennelled and only ever handled by professionals (though I can think of two instances where even then, it turned out it did matter when humans got injured very badly).
I mean it still matters to the dog who is having a shitty life, but in the broader scheme of things...
It matters when a dog who has paired being ordered off the sofa with being hit and strangled - and so when the adults aren't there and the child tells his friend to order the dog off... the friend winds up dead.
It matters when the dog expecting and fearing having their food bowl taken away, launches at the toddler walking past the foodbowl...
Dogs are constantly learning and your intent is irrelevant - what the dog learns may be nowhere near what you intended. Some methods will mean accidentally learning the wrong thing is easily undone - and some will mean someone dies.