#NoMoreLilibet #SaveGundogInKorea #GundogTraitsMatter 

“Korea: Why is a ‘companion animal behaviourist/pet animal behaviour consultant’ exam structured like a competition for special‑purpose working dogs (such as protection, police, or military dogs)?”

Korea’s national licence for “Companion Animal Behaviourist” Must Stop Copying Protection‑Dog Sports

My beloved dog Lilibet, a rescued setter–spaniel cross, almost died because the wrong training model was forced onto the wrong kind of dog. 

She was a gentle gundog‑type family companion who loved people and tried her best to do everything we asked of her. But she was subjected to high‑arousal, protection‑style obedience work – a model designed for police and military dogs, not for sensitive gundogs living as pets. The trainer who did this to her held a qualification from the Korean Kennel Federation (KKF), an FCI‑affiliated body. Lilibet was left severely injured and traumatised, and she fought for her life. Her story is not an isolated accident. It is a warning about how Korea’s current system is failing dogs and guardians.

In reality, Korea’s pet dog population is made up overwhelmingly of micro, toy and small breeds. 

Gundog breeds such as spaniels and retrievers are also common family companions, while true protection‑type working dogs like German Shepherds and Belgian Malinois remain rare in ordinary homes. Yet the top‑level practical exam for Korea’s national lince for “companion animal behaviourist / pet animal behaviour consultant” has been built on a high‑arousal working‑dog obedience model, very similar to the routines used in IGP‑style protection‑dog sports. These sports were originally created as working and breeding tests for highly selected protection breeds, not as a universal standard for all pet dogs. 

This is the heart of the problem. 

The current 1st‑grade practical exam for the national licence strongly reflects IGP‑style working‑dog obedience routines: off‑lead heeling, positions out of motion, high‑energy recalls, dumbbell retrieves on the flat and over hurdles, fast send‑away and down, and prolonged stays. This is a high‑arousal obedience model – designed to push dogs into intense excitement and drive, and then demand precise, fast responses at that arousal level. 

That may suit carefully selected protection breeds that have been developed to work in such states. But it is neither necessary nor appropriate for all dog breeds, and being able to perform this kind of routine does not in itself prove that a trainer can safely and effectively support toy‑group or small companion dogs. According to official data released in response to an information disclosure request, there were no small‑breed dogs at all among the dogs that passed the national 1st‑grade exam, which clearly shows that the current standard favours protection‑type working dogs rather than reflecting the reality of Korea’s pet population.

These trials were developed as suitability tests for specific working breeds with particular drives and body types, and reward speed, power and intensity under pressure. Passing such a test may show that a team can perform demanding obedience in that narrow context – it does not guarantee the ability to assess and support toy breeds, sensitive gundogs, brachycephalic pets, elderly dogs, or entirely different species such as cats, rabbits, birds or reptiles. 

Modern behaviour practice is built on a simple principle: we must respect species and breed differences. 

A training and behaviour plan that is appropriate for a purpose‑bred protection dog is not automatically appropriate for a family spaniel, a toy poodle, a brachycephalic companion dog, or a cat. Good companion animal behaviourists adapt their methods to the species, breed group and individual in front of them, instead of forcing every dog – and certainly every animal – into a single high‑arousal working‑dog mould. 

The problem runs even deeper than the choice of exercises. 

Korea’s national licence is officially called a “companion animal behaviourist/ companion animal behaviour consultant” qualification – a title that clearly suggests expertise across companion animals, including dogs, cats, rabbits, small mammals, birds, reptiles and fish. Yet the practical exam is conducted only with dogs, and in reality only evaluates high‑arousal working‑dog style obedience in a fixed trial‑field setting. There is no assessment of skills with cats or other companion species. This mismatch between a species‑wide title and a dog‑only, protection‑sport‑style test misleads guardians and sidelines professionals who specialise in other companion animals.

A true companion animal behaviourist does far more than show precise obedience in a sports‑style field. 

They must be able to coach guardians, take careful histories, read subtle body language, design tailored behaviour plans, and support families in real homes, parks and city streets. None of this is meaningfully assessed in the current national practical exam. Instead, candidates are judged almost entirely on the final performance of the dog’s movements in a pre‑set ring, at a pre‑set location, under artificial trial conditions. This may tell us something about how a dog has been drilled to perform a routine, but it tells us almost nothing about the candidate’s ability to guide stressed guardians, prevent welfare problems, or work safely and humanely with diverse dogs and other companion animals. 

Modern companion animal behaviour research and welfare studies show that training methods matter. 

Studies consistently find that dogs exposed to high proportions of aversive, high‑pressure training experience more stress behaviours, higher cortisol levels and poorer overall welfare than dogs trained with reward‑based methods. For many pet dogs – especially sensitive gundogs and toy/companion breeds – being pushed into repeated high‑arousal obedience under pressure does not create “reliability”. It creates fear, shutdown or long‑term behavioural problems. Lilibet’s suffering is one example of what happens when a protection‑sport mindset is treated as the gold standard for all dogs, regardless of breed group or individual temperament. 

Despite this, our authorities have designed and defended the national system without even understanding the basic composition of the dog population they regulate. 

When asked, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) has stated that they do not know the registration numbers by breed and do not see why they need to know. But any responsible government that regulates training, licensing and public safety must understand which breeds and breed groups actually fill our homes, parks and city streets. It is impossible to design safe, fair standards for education and qualifications if you do not look at the real dog population you are regulating. 

Serious concerns inside the current licence system are also being minimised instead of addressed. 

Trainers and candidates have reported cases where people were allowed to take a national qualification exam with dogs that had been trained for years by third‑party professionals, rather than demonstrating their own handling and training skills. Incidents like this undermine the credibility of the entire qualification, raise questions about fairness and safety, and show how far the system has drifted from its stated goal of supporting real‑world family companion dogs and their guardians. Instead of transparent investigation and reform, many of these concerns have been met with silence. 

I am calling on the President of the Republic of Korea, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of MAFRA to urgently reform Korea’s national companion animal trainer licence system so that it reflects modern science, real population data and the lived reality of families with dogs. 

We need a framework that:

- requires regulators to collect and use accurate breed and population statistics;

- replaces the single, catch‑all title with clearly separated licences – for example, specialised handlers for police and military/protection dogs, and distinct companion‑dog and companion‑cat behaviourist licences grouped by function and breed type (toy/small‑breed dogs, gundogs, herding dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, etc.);

- clearly distinguishes between high‑drive working/protection dogs and ordinary companion dogs;

- sets different standards and tracks for different roles and breed types, instead of using a single protection‑sport‑based model for all;

- and assesses not just ring‑style obedience, but also humane coaching, communication and behaviour‑consulting skills in real‑life contexts.

Around the world, more and more countries and professionals are moving toward training and assessment systems that start from the dog’s role, breed tendencies and individual temperament, rather than forcing all dogs and all professionals into one high‑arousal working‑dog pattern. Korea must not lag behind while our dogs and guardians pay the price for an outdated, one‑track system. 

The time for change is now. 

With the support of advocates, veterinarians, trainers, pet guardians, and kennel clubs who respect the nature of each species, the traits of each breed, and the individuality of every single animal we can build a modern, humane and evidence‑based companion dog licence structure that truly protects both dogs and people. Please sign this petition to demand reform. Together, we can ensure that dogs like Lilibet are seen and supported for who they are – diverse individuals and beloved family members – instead of being forced into a mould that was never meant for them.