Karen Pryor Academy In Australia

[corvus]

Corvus- while i certainly acknowledge that we don't have lots of options here, do you not consider Delta and NDTF to be accredited?

I do, but IME it doesn't mean much. I was talking to some Delta trainers recently about my experiences with Delta trainers and they were complaining that there's no ongoing requirement to keep up to date with the latest Delta is teaching. No one ever checks up on them. They get their certificate and that's that. It's not good for them to have people out there doing a shoddy job under their banner, but given they don't do anything to stop it they can't complain. Suffice to say I don't trust the name Delta. I don't know that KPA would be any different, but they talk about ongoing support and they don't even let you into the course unless you have a few professional references. I don't know what happens with NDTF and haven't had any experiences with NDTF trainers to comment.

Is the Karen Pryor Academy National Recognised Training?

Recognised by who?

Its a shame as i would love to do something like that- but i couldn't sign off to only use XYZ techniques. I do understand what Corvus says though with regards to protecting the reputation etc, just think its a shame that it is a graduation requirement. I suppose you could do it, not graduate and then do what you like but i am guessing you couldn't say you had even done the training..?

It's a no-brainer, really. If you would feel limited by the requirements you wouldn't undertake the training in the first place. Not that I'm entirely sure what those requirements would be - Karen Pryor is not exactly a one trick pony. There are other places to learn advanced clicker training. If you want the best, you can go do chicken camp or something (with Terry Ryan, if you want!) and just add it to your CV with no strings attached as far as I know. From what I can gather, most people that are very good at positive methods don't often feel like they need to use anything else. It's not like they have to. They attract customers that want the positive approach and either they can use it or they can't. There are some amazing trainers out there that achieve just about anything with positive methods. The recent APDT conference was pretty inspiring. The level of detail, creativity and pure achievement from these trainers is phenomenal.

It's not a franchise as there is no revenue sharing, but you would get the benefit of Karen Pryor's effective marketing. She's been going strong for ages and is only getting stronger.

I've had enough plugging this. I don't really want to! I just thought it was cool that it was available here. I'm a wee bit cynical about Karen Pryor, but I can't help admiring her. She is very savvy! And she has done so much for animal training on a global scale.

[Cosmolo]

I disagree. I like to learn as much as i can about every element of training- i feel as though if i can learn to use 5 or 10 different things exceptionally well, that suits me better than learning one or two. JMO.

I don't disagree that there are people who stick to one method that do amazing and exceptional things- that is absolutely true and i really respect them. There are certain skills i do better than others but i like to have them all and aim to be better at each of them.

[Staff'n'Toller]

Corvus- while i certainly acknowledge that we don't have lots of options here, do you not consider Delta and NDTF to be accredited?

I do, but IME it doesn't mean much. I was talking to some Delta trainers recently about my experiences with Delta trainers and they were complaining that there's no ongoing requirement to keep up to date with the latest Delta is teaching. No one ever checks up on them. They get their certificate and that's that. It's not good for them to have people out there doing a shoddy job under their banner, but given they don't do anything to stop it they can't complain. Suffice to say I don't trust the name Delta. I don't know that KPA would be any different, but they talk about ongoing support and they don't even let you into the course unless you have a few professional references. I don't know what happens with NDTF and haven't had any experiences with NDTF trainers to comment.

That's incorrect actually, there's a Professional Org in development now.

They also need to do the current best practice seminars to retain their accredited trainer listing with Delta, and to use the logo etc. as endorsement. So I'd say if they weren't getting any post-qualification support it's their own doing.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Staff'n'Toller

[sas]

Well....you could do the course and then carry on using the range of methods you do anyway (+ a greater understanding of Karen's methods) because she can't exactly take off you what you learned after the fact, you can't be forced to only use a certain technique.

[corvus]

I disagree. I like to learn as much as i can about every element of training- i feel as though if i can learn to use 5 or 10 different things exceptionally well, that suits me better than learning one or two. JMO.

Disagree with whom? Personally, I don't have much use for punishing tools and little interest in learning about them, but I do have an interest in learning about what constitutes good use of punishments. Sometimes I find I want to use them. But it's important to me that I don't screw up all the good work I've done with rewards in the process, so I want to go into it with as much information as I can. The more I learn about positive training the less I find I want or need to use anything else, but that's not to say never.

[corvus]

That's incorrect actually, there's a Professional Org in development now.

Thanks for the correction.

They also need to do the current best practice seminars to retain their accredited trainer listing with Delta, and to use the logo etc. as endorsement. So I'd say if they weren't getting any post-qualification support it's their own doing.

That may be so, but it doesn't help me as someone who might think that by going to a Delta trainer I would be getting the latest best practice positive methods.

[Kavik]

I don't know as much about Karen Pryor's methods as I do Susan Garrett's.

SG also does not use corrections, but I know she has a whole program designed to teach self control and focus and she is very strict on how she interacts with her dogs which is how she can get it to work. She also doesn't profess to be able to fix behavioural problems. I don't know if Karen Pryor has any similar methods in place.

Looking at the curriculum it does look more like training rather than behavioural stuff, and for fixing behavioural problems I think it is best to have an open mind and several tools in your toolbox.

[TerraNik]

... for fixing behavioural problems I think it is best to have an open mind and several tools in your toolbox.

+1

[corvus]

She also doesn't profess to be able to fix behavioural problems. I don't know if Karen Pryor has any similar methods in place.

I don't think she is trying to produce behavioural consultants. I think she is trying to produce trainers. My understanding is they teach how to handle common, minor behavioural problems. It takes more than a 6 month training course to learn how to be a behaviourist.

[Erny]

She also doesn't profess to be able to fix behavioural problems. I don't know if Karen Pryor has any similar methods in place.

I don't think she is trying to produce behavioural consultants. I think she is trying to produce trainers. My understanding is they teach how to handle common, minor behavioural problems. It takes more than a 6 month training course to learn how to be a behaviourist.

If you are right, that would be a problem if you are a trainer/behaviourist and prescribe to her course, because her course prohibits you from using any method outside of her approved regime. So even though her approved regime is about training for handling only common, minor behavioural problems her 'prohibitive blanket conditions' extend beyond that regardless. That's quite limiting.

I know the answer is that we don't have to do the course if we don't like the terms of play, but that's a shame as I like to add to my repertoire of learning and experience wherever I can. It is somewhat expensive and it would be difficult to afford, but if I was to pay that sort of price for a course I wouldn't like my graduation to be dependant upon me signing up to someone else's ideals.

[corvus]

So even though her approved regime is about training for handling only common, minor behavioural problems her 'prohibitive blanket conditions' extend beyond that regardless.

Are you sure? I don't even know what those prohibitive blanket conditions are. At any rate, I wouldn't do it if I wanted to be a behaviourist. I'd do a PhD or masters in dog behaviour or psychology.

I know the answer is that we don't have to do the course if we don't like the terms of play, but that's a shame as I like to add to my repertoire of learning and experience wherever I can.

So do so. Like I said, it's not the only place to learn advanced clicker training. You can learn it from the same person that's teaching it here without the strings attached if you want. The APDT conference was excellent for advanced positive training theory. Steve White even got us doing some practical exercises. You told me you weren't allowed to go. I told you you were allowed to go. You didn't go.

It is somewhat expensive and it would be difficult to afford, but if I was to pay that sort of price for a course I wouldn't like my graduation to be dependant upon me signing up to someone else's ideals.

Okay. What's your point? You'd be stupid to do it if you didn't agree with the ideals in the first place, yeah?

[Erny]

So even though her approved regime is about training for handling only common, minor behavioural problems her 'prohibitive blanket conditions' extend beyond that regardless.

Are you sure? I don't even know what those prohibitive blanket conditions are.

Already said.

At any rate, I wouldn't do it if I wanted to be a behaviourist. I'd do a PhD or masters in dog behaviour or psychology.

Good for you. But it's not just about "wanting to be" a Behaviourist. It's about being one and wanting to add to experience and knowledge.

Erny :

I know the answer is that we don't have to do the course if we don't like the terms of play, but that's a shame as I like to add to my repertoire of learning and experience wherever I can.

Corvus :

;) So do so. Like I said, it's not the only place to learn advanced clicker training. You can learn it from the same person that's teaching it here without the strings attached if you want. The APDT conference was excellent for advanced positive training theory. Steve White even got us doing some practical exercises. You told me you weren't allowed to go. I told you you were allowed to go. You didn't go.

No. I didn't go. Your point being?

Erny :

It is somewhat expensive and it would be difficult to afford, but if I was to pay that sort of price for a course I wouldn't like my graduation to be dependant upon me signing up to someone else's ideals.

Corvus :

Okay. What's your point? You'd be stupid to do it if you didn't agree with the ideals in the first place, yeah?

I already said that. You ask me what my point is but I need to ask you yours? You seem quite hell bent on when it comes to my posts. Is it because you were the one who posted the link and I am the one who has pointed out some limitations and you somehow feel responsible ????? I don't get why you begin to argue defensively so often. So what is your point by the above comment? I've already conceded that it is a case that one doesn't need to do the course if one doesn't agree with the terms, but simply mentioned that's a bit of a shame.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Erny

[corvus]

It just seemed like a circular and pointless discussion. You don't like the limitations or the cost and you think it's a shame. I said so don't do it, there are other ways to gain those skills without the limitations. You came back and from what I could gather, repeated yourself. Okay.... Why? That's my point. Did I miss something? I'm not being defensive as I have nothing to be defensive about. I'm not going to do the course. Karen Pryor doesn't pay me. I haven't thrown every inch of my support behind her and I don't have a vested interest in anyone taking the course. I do like to have meaningful discussions, though. I'm quite happy to have a meaningful discussion about the limitations of the Karen Pryor Academy, but I thought we'd already done that. I repeated myself assuming you hadn't taken in what I said before and then you tell me you've already said that. Yes, I know, so what have I missed? It felt like it could go on forever! Believe it or not, I'm just trying to communicate with you. ;) I'm not doing a very good job. Even asking a direct question got misinterpreted as defensiveness!

So, let's start again. I hear that you don't like the limitations, you think it's costly, and it's a shame because you like to learn new skills. I think that's fine and dandy. You don't have to do it and there are other courses that will teach you the same sorts of things without the limitations. Bob Bailey's chicken camps, for instance. They are still expensive because they are overseas, but you can learn the skills KPA might teach you without KPA.

Anything to add?

[koalathebear]

It felt like it could go on forever! Believe it or not, I'm just trying to communicate with you. :p I'm not doing a very good job. Even asking a direct question got misinterpreted as defensiveness!

Well I love your posts and think you communicate just fine! You think about things, you are very eloquent and passionate about what you write and you are clearly articulate based on the way you formulate your posts.

There are some posts on DOL that remind me of clay pigeon shooting. You throw the post up out there and then great fun is had in trying to shoot the crap out of the little post/clay pigeon For me it's always interesting to see the posts that generate consensus or the ones that end up being spirited and divisive. You must enjoy it otherwise you wouldn't post ;)

I think you were right to feel a little defensive because you were just posting some information and it was totally up to everyone whether or not they wanted to go or not. As far as I could see there was no coercion or even encouragement. In terms of the perceived requirement to comply with KP's "principals" [sic] when training, as has been pointed out, this is likely to be a branding issue. If someone is going to hold themselves out as using KP principles/being a KP trainer etc, it's not really acceptable if they use methods that are antithetical to those of KP.

If you're just out to get more qualifications and more methods to pop into your array of learning, I doubt there's anything out there whether moral/legal or other that could compel you to comply with KP's principles.

Furthermore, I'm almost sure that if you want to put KP's name on your advertisements/website/promotional materials, there are no doubt even more rigorous guidelines with which you must comply and to be honest, that's probably fair enough given that she has invested huge resources to developing her product and no doubt wishes to protect the value and integrity of this product. I think the issue is that her methods are well known enough that there probably are people who would want to go out into the world and publicise that they had trained in KP ways whereas with a lot of other courses, people wouldn't bother because no one would have heard of so and so ...

Edited December 3, 2010 by koalathebear

[Staranais]

If you're just out to get more qualifications and more methods to pop into your array of learning, I doubt there's anything out there whether moral/legal or other that could compel you to comply with KP's principles.

Er, except perhaps your own conscience?

You will have signed a declaration promising to abide by a set of principals, if you do that without having any intention of abiding by those principles, I'd call that a moral problem. Sure, she probably won't take you to court over it. But if you don't intend to abide by the principles, seems to me the only moral choice is to not do the course.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Staranais

[koalathebear]

Er, except perhaps your own conscience?

You will have signed a declaration promising to abide by a set of principals, if you do that without having any intention of abiding by those principles, I'd call that a moral problem. Sure, she probably won't take you to court over it. But if you don't intend to abide by the principles, seems to me the only moral choice is to not do the course.

I don't think so. We don't have the full set of documents to hand, but based on the context, it wouldn't be a matter of conscience or law if you're just learning her principles for your own benefit. Nor would it be one if you were teaching others but you were just using your own name/reputation to sell your product and had recourse to the KP training without referring to it at all. In a way, that's almost as if you'd never done the course.

KP would really only care if you were abiding by her principles or not if you were holding yourself out as a KP trainer. The brief provision in the handbook is probably just a very abbreviated version/summary of a much longer legal clause relating to quality standards/conformity and that sort of thing. You aren't likely to be able to access the full suite of disclaimers/contracts because frequently those documents themselves are protected by intellectual property laws and won't be out on there on the Internet for us to access. I think people are misinterpreting the undertaking to adhere to the principles as being something like promising to a higher being that you will be a good person.

If someone has a copy of the commitments that people have to sign then we would know for sure but right now, based on context - it's a purely commercial/legal issue ...

Edited December 3, 2010 by koalathebear

[Staranais]

I don't think so. We don't have the full set of documents to hand, but based on the context, it wouldn't be a matter of conscience or law if you're just learning her principles for your own benefit. Nor would it be one if you were teaching others but you were just using your own name/reputation to sell your product and had recourse to the KP training without referring to it.

KP would really only care if you were abiding by her principles or not if you were holding yourself out as a KP trainer. The brief provision in the handbook is probably just a very abbreviated version/summary of a much longer legal clause relating to quality standards/conformity and that sort of thing.

Are you sure? Cos I think most people here would have no intention of rebranding themselves as a KP trainer, even if they attended the course. However, I got the impression from the quoted material that you couldn't do the course at all unless you promised to abide by the principles in all your future dog training, even if you had no intention of advertising yourself as KP trainer. That would be a sticking point for me, and I suspect many other people.

Not that I'd do the course at all unless I could persuade my future boss to pay - my student loan is big enough already, believe me!

[koalathebear]

Are you sure? Cos I think most people here would have no intention of rebranding themselves as a KP trainer, even if they attended the course. However, I got the impression from the quoted material that you couldn't do the course at all unless you promised to abide by the principles in all your future dog training, even if you had no intention of advertising yourself as KP trainer. That would be a sticking point for me, and I suspect many other people.

Not that I'd do the course at all unless I could persuade my future boss to pay - my student loan is big enough already, believe me!

I've seen pamphlets from trainers/behaviourists where they set out qualifications/training methods they have been taught/schools or courses they have attended. Calling yourself a formal KP trainer seems to require signing additional legal agreements but referencing her in your qualifications/promotional CV is probably when the requirement to adhere to her principles applies? I am merely speculating based on context. In any case, I was just browsing posts. I'm not looking to ever be a trainer/behaviourist :p

[Erny]

, I got the impression from the quoted material that you couldn't do the course at all unless you promised to abide by the principles in all your future dog training, even if you had no intention of advertising yourself as KP trainer. That would be a sticking point for me, and I suspect many other people.

I read it that you will not be permitted to graduate unless you sign up to KP's ideals.

[Jeff Jones]

Brenda Aloff is currently putting together an on-line course....I think I might wait for that one :p

You will of course ensure that I am second in line to you in signing up for that one, Kelpie-i, won't you Kelpie-i ?

I would also be interested in looking at the course Brenda Aloff is putting together. Please give us a nudge when more information comes out.