55chevy

What I found fascinating about the Susan Garrett seminar was exactly how she approached teaching boundaries and consequences for actions without the use of corrections. She teaches self control in the face of distractions and temptations as well as teaching the dogs to bounce back from failure in a training exercise and how to try again to give the correct response without shutting down. She emphasises giving the dog the choice to make the right or the wrong decision and each one has consequences. She has high drive dogs, and Decaf was a challenge in other ways as well. What are the consequences of making a wrong decision in the Susan Garrett system???. SG prefers to start the teaching of consequences and self control outside her main training area of agility. She does this with her program of Crate Games and It's Yer Choice. The dog has the choice of eg in Crate Games to stay sitting when the door is opened and so earn its release and reward and opportunity to work and earn more rewards or to try and barge through the door and get the consequence of the door being shut and so not earn its release and reward and miss the opportunity to work and earn more rewards. She teaches the dog to want to make the right choice and a lot of her training involves the control of resources. They have to earn priveleges from showing that they can make smart correct choices. With a more difficult behavioural problem I believe she would approach the problem as a symptom of a wider problem to do with relationship, understanding and choice rather than the problem being an end in itself to fix. So she would go back to her foundation work program and go from there. I understand the strategy, but I see the strategy as ultimately a means for avoiding an aversive correction as the priority on the assumption that administering an aversive will result in a serious detriment to the dog which IMHO is completely over dramatised. I don't see these strategies in the most part to result in achieving better training and handler control with greater reliability, I see the basis of these strategies being all about training without the use of an aversive as the major promotion from a commercial perspective.

I spent 22 years in the job, 10 years as a handler, 12 years full time training tactical service dogs with a sideline in rehabilititation of pet dogs, mainly working breeds with aggression issues. We have lived in Australia from the UK for 5 years and haven't worked with many pet dogs here in that time around 15/16 dogs to date with aggression issues. Around 12 of the dogs I have worked with were previously under behaviorist/trainers who in combination with the owners had made little progress in the dogs behaviour with what I saw as elementary mistakes. Training programs with food motivation used for insecure dogs that lacked food drive from nerves in public places, toy motivation for dogs low in prey drive and complex psychotic behaviour management systems with drug induction that I didn't really understand what that system was about other than tranquilising the dog to lower reactivity Far more dog owners seek professional training in Australia than they seemed to in the UK with problem behaviours which is good thing, providing the professionals can determine the right program to suit the individual dog and owner with the primary goal to get the dog trained. From the dogs I have worked with that have been under positive motivational trainers to rehabilitate aggression issues with little improvement, the problem I found with these behaviourist/trainers is that their primary promotion of their business is heavily based on method, in other words, it's all about their systems containing no aversive methods and tools and heavily publicise why dog owners should avoid behaviourists/trainers who use aversives from a humanity angle. To me, that concept says the methodology is the priority and the dog is secondary, where I believe and practice that the dog is the priority and to use whatever it takes in methodology to improve the behaviour to a safe, managable and reliable level and in a severe case of aggression, the hope of being able to save the dogs life if in jeopardy of euthanasia.

I spent 22 years in the job, 10 years as a handler, 12 years full time training tactical service dogs with a sideline in rehabilititation of pet dogs, mainly working breeds with aggression issues.

I think it's fair, how many people have been duped by these trainers with a toolbox full of clickers, treats and haltis trying to apply these methods on every dog to uphold their methodolist theories. We have had stories from SkyeGSD, the lady with the Husky named Zero, Donegal and a few more I have read here, reactive dogs being kicked out of training classes and the horror stories go on all because their methods are not adaptable to every type of dog behaviour. Bit like a mechanic saying they can do any job on a any car with a screwdriver and shifter

The thread is about the Karen Pryor Academy and I have voiced an opinion and provided an explanation why I don't like the type of training that she promotes which is hardly a thread derailment , If you like Karen Pryor excellent then tell us why, if you don't, tell us that too, it's called a discussion.........are we not capable of that??? What's the point of a discussion if we all post the same thing and agree with each other, pretty dull don't you think???, The "derailed" threads are the one's everyone keeps coming back to and providing the discussions are kept clean without nastiness, what's the problem???

What an excellent post Kavik, very nice Most behavioual issues are the result of poor foundation training and there is a massive difference applying a method strategy when a dog is young and working on that program from there, than trying to apply a program midway through a dog's learning curve of poor behaviour. The problem is when trainers/behaviourists experienced in non aversive training methods are faced with a problem dog especially aggression and they try to apply their methods on a seasoned aggressor, the amount of work required to undo the learned behaviour enough to apply their methods effectively and in hope that the owner follows the program correctly is a major task that has a high level of failure rate due to the complexities of getting each and every desensitisation exercise exactly right in those methods. One step in the desensitisation exercises not proofed correctly will ruin and prolong the result. A trainer/behaviourist when faced with a seasoned aggressor may need to use an aversive method in the circumstances to render the dog safe in a short period of time where a narrow field of vision dismissing aversives and promoting a one method fixes all is the downfall of a methodoligist trainer over a trainer who has a wider vison and larger box of tools.

What I found fascinating about the Susan Garrett seminar was exactly how she approached teaching boundaries and consequences for actions without the use of corrections. She teaches self control in the face of distractions and temptations as well as teaching the dogs to bounce back from failure in a training exercise and how to try again to give the correct response without shutting down. She emphasises giving the dog the choice to make the right or the wrong decision and each one has consequences. She has high drive dogs, and Decaf was a challenge in other ways as well. What are the consequences of making a wrong decision in the Susan Garrett system???.

What has this got to do with the Karen Pryor Academy? Their professional model isn't built around working protection breeds. One training organisation that teaches a particular set of skills doesn't eliminate a diversity of other skills. As it happens I know a lot of KPA graduates. As any reasonable person would expect, there is a diversity among them. Some of them can and do work with extreme dogs. A surprising number own them and compete in Schutzhund. I'm not a KPA graduate (although it's no secret that Karen Pryor and I have a professional relationship), and I work with these dogs too. Although I do use aversives, I have never done anything with an aggressive dog in the course of treating it's aggression that a KPA wouldn't be allowed to do. Underlying all the stories you have a passion for dogs, but you keep believing your own stories. I think you need to step back and take stock of reality. If you know any actual KPA graduates and you know a real story that actually happened, that is evidence. If you have to make it up or make broad generalisations, then it is fiction. People are saying that the KPA graduates must follow a particular training protocol, is that correct or not???. If they are required to follow a particular protocol and are not allowed to use the diversity of all training methods and equipment best suited for a particular type of dog, it does eliminate skill diversity in major way.............that is what I am talking about???. Any training system that outlaws the use of prong collars, E collars and aversive methods and claims to provide a workable system for any dog, are doing the dog fraternity a dis-service. I have been down that path before several times and conducted invitations for the anit aversion brigade to show us the alternatives to training and handling a serious working dog and they failed dismally, each and every one of them, because, they refused to use the appropriate methods and tools to train that type of dog so from a reality aspect, I can't get much more real than that???. What's fiction Aidan, is the people who believe what they can achieve without the results to prove it

You would be looking around 10, 15 minutes to correct the behaviour in time frame, maybe less depending on the hardness of the dog's temperament

That's fine if they stick to their niches of expertise, but the problem is based on their niche experience, they think they can train any dog for any purpose in the same methods limiting their overall training ability. Family pets are the dog category that needs the widest range of training methods available as they come in all varieties of temperaments, traits and dispositions IMHO

Yes I have, very good for training a learning phase, a good trick training program, but lacking in her systems IMHO is a correction phase with more tricks trained to avoid applying corrections from the articles I have read.

I would have thought that this was a leadership problem rather than a working dog problem Surely one of the characteristics of a GOOD working dog is the desire to work with and obey the trainer and also a good off switch as well as on switch. A working dog, no matter what discipline, who expends energy unecessarily when not working may end up not having the energy reserves necessary when he is required to work In a trained dog correct, but we are talking about punishing a dog that disobeyed a command to come and leaving it outside. Obviously in this scenario the dog is partially trained. If you want to talk ideal working dog characteristics, reading a breed standard and finding a compliant dog is not always an easy task. In reference to your GSD ideal, most that on the outside appear of rock solid temperament don't have enough prey drive to be disobedient or enough fighting drive to mount a serious challenge in defence. Most of the GSD's that can fulfill a protection role successfully are driven by genetic sharpness and civil aggression which is not a perfect model by breed standards and is the result of the type of dog commonly bred.

,That's a good example with your Poodle X Fuzzy82 and not a whole different to a hard working dog in principal execpt it takes a harder correction to stop the behaviour. Leave a working dog outside when he doesn't like it, can often cause drive satisfaction as he tries to tear the door down to get in

I don't use prong or e collars(though I can see that under the supervision of a knowledgable and experienced trainer they can help) and have no intention of doing so but I do correct my dogs. I have done a lot of training with aggresive dogs and quite honestly high drive dominant working line dogs (unless the person on the other end of the lead was a testosterone driven macho he man) were not the porbroblem that the over spoilt allowed to rule the roost SWF was as the handler was most of the problem. These courses are not necessarily aimed towards behavioural problems but about dog training and quite honestly what a good clicker trainer or similar can train a dog to do is amazing. Just out of interest surely isn't one of the characteristics of a good working line GSD, belgium or similar the rock steady temperament? I agree Janba, what you can make a dog do with positive motivation is fantastic and is a method I use all the time, most of the time infact, but it's not the best method of teaching a dog what not to do reliably without leaning boundaries and consequences for it's actions. A properly trained dog needs a balance of both methods IMHO

Are you sure of your facts there? These pet dogs who don't walk nicely on the leash get PTS? And the trainers never refer? And Karen Pryor never uses punishment under any circumstances? From my experience of methodoligist trainers that is exactly what happens Not so fast, you just said that "dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS" and I asked if you were sure of your facts. Now you are making the assertion that in your experience with "methodoligist" trainers, dogs are PTS if they don't respond to whatever method they use. So this could mean any method - Koehler, for e.g So let's be specific, have you had a specific experience with a KPA graduate who attempted to train a dog, the dog didn't respond, and the KPA graduate recommended that the dog be destroyed? I would like to know the circumstances if this really is the case. Or, if it was some other method, then let's be specific about this because this thread pertains only to the Karen Pryor Academy and what you are saying, unless you have evidence, is libel. Maybe I have a different perspective because all the dogs who come to me have been referred. I would expect any trainer incapable of solving a problem to refer to someone with proven ability to work with that sort of problem. I would imagine the KPA curriculum covers this in some detail, from what I have seen it is very thorough. Does the KPA curriculum cover the use of prong and E collars and teach their students how to use them???, I am assuming they don't and if they don't, why not if they are promoting a curriculum for the advantages of being able to train any dog. Aversive methods will work on any dog, even the positive only trainers admit that it works and provides a good result, but they don't like it, fair enough, but their methods don't work on all dogs which is the point I am making. Being incapable of solving a problem and refusing to resolve a problem due to the appropriate tooling exceeding the systems protocol are two different things. Anyway Aidan, you are not a purely positive trainer, you told us that in another thread, so you would understand what I am talking about in that case