Karen Pryor Academy In Australia

[pipsqueak]

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.

And, if you're starting a mailing list, I'd be very interested in Brenda Aloff's course too.

[Kelpie-i]

I would be happy to start a database for those interested in Brenda's on-line course. That way she can see that there are a heap of people interested here in Oz which may hopefully speed things up a little.

Please send me a PM or email me directly on [email protected] (preferred)

I have sent Brenda an email and am waiting on her reply. Hopefully she will shed more light on this.

[corvus]

Aw, thanks KtB. Nice to know I'm sometimes appreciated.

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.

Why would you fork out over $5000 in course fees if you didn't want to use Karen Pryor's name in your marketing of yourself in some way? She and her trainers are good, but I thought we'd already established that you're not just paying for the tuition. You're paying for the right to use her name, which has some 20 years or so of marketing behind it and is already associated with a high standard. That doesn't come for free, and why should it?

The way I see it, this course is aimed squarely at people who are already professional trainers and already committed to positive methods, particularly clicker training. Folks that are looking to go into more advanced clicker training and wouldn't even blink at the thought of signing something pertaining to methods because they already stick to positive methods. It's a way for them to advance their training and buy into a strong marketing force while they're at it. It is not aimed at people that just want to advance their positive training skills and knowledge in addition to the other methods in their toolbox. There are other, cheaper ways of doing that.

I think I'm going to bow out. I'm getting dizzy!

[Kavik]

Corvus,

Seeing it is a course through a well known trainer/organisation, and charging fees that are as much or more than other dog trainer courses that are accredited, I don't see why it should be immune to the same kind of discussion that the Delta/NDTF threads generate in terms of skills learnt, theory, use or prohibition of corrections in training etc.

[Erny]

I would be happy to start a database for those interested in Brenda's on-line course. That way she can see that there are a heap of people interested here in Oz which may hopefully speed things up a little.

Please send me a PM or email me directly on [email protected] (preferred)

I have sent Brenda an email and am waiting on her reply. Hopefully she will shed more light on this. ;)

Sending you an email, Kelpie-i.

Cheers

Erny

[Lablover]

Has anyone signed up?

[55chevy]

Perhaps I'm by myself in thinking this way, but I figure that if a training principal or principals are the best and work the best for the animals we are training with, then why do the organisations who run the courses feel they need to bind you in writing to being allowed to only use the principals they teach and no other? Why would we want to use any other training principals if theirs does the best with all things taken into account? Results should be able to speak for themselves, IMO.

I would still love to do such a course and I'm sure I would take some things away from having done it, but I'm afraid that type of attitude feels cultish to me.

You going to do it, Corvus?

Because they are methodolists Erny, not dog trainers, and dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS.

[55chevy]

name='corvus' date='2nd Dec 2010 - 04:43 PM' post='4996551']

I imagine they do that because they have a standard to uphold. Karen Pryor DOES have her name at stake. You get a trainer that's been through KPA, you don't expect them to whip out the e-collar. You expect them to be able to do the job with a marker and rewards, and do it well. Karen Pryor is a smart businesswoman and seems to appreciate the power of a good name. She keeps her good name by only attaching it to things of a high standard that align with what she's all about (let's ignore my Karen Pryor extendable target stick that lasted about 2 weeks, though). If I were looking for a trainer and chose one on the basis of the fact they had been trained through KPA, my trust in Karen Pryor's name would be shattered if the trainer used force or punishments. Who cares if they are needed? I made a choice based on what I expect, and what I expect has been moulded by every product attached to Karen Pryor's name I have ever used. It's her own marketing that has created that expectation. She'd be mad not to protect it.

The standards of people like Karen Prior, is to uphold a method, not train dogs. When the dog doesn't respond to their methods and the E collar should be whipped out, they claim their is something wrong with the dog, it must have a brain tumour or some other obscure illness or maybe it needs some drugs to clam it down. When all that fails, the dog is deemed untrainable with a psychotic problem and should be PTS. Take the Standards of a proper dog trainer like Mike Ellis, Ed Frawley, Ivan Balabanov, Cesar Milan even dear old Bill (Koehler), the standard is to do what ever is necessary to train the dog and allow the dog the opportunity to live it's life.

So what is the best standard to aspire to as a trainer, being someone who can apply a particular method, or someone who can train a dog is what I ask myself???.

Edited December 3, 2010 by 55chevy

[55chevy]

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.

I love your strategy Cosmolo, the essence of a real dog trainer, excellent

[Aidan3]

dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS.

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?

[Janba]

name='corvus' date='2nd Dec 2010 - 04:43 PM' post='4996551']

I imagine they do that because they have a standard to uphold. Karen Pryor DOES have her name at stake. You get a trainer that's been through KPA, you don't expect them to whip out the e-collar. You expect them to be able to do the job with a marker and rewards, and do it well. Karen Pryor is a smart businesswoman and seems to appreciate the power of a good name. She keeps her good name by only attaching it to things of a high standard that align with what she's all about (let's ignore my Karen Pryor extendable target stick that lasted about 2 weeks, though). If I were looking for a trainer and chose one on the basis of the fact they had been trained through KPA, my trust in Karen Pryor's name would be shattered if the trainer used force or punishments. Who cares if they are needed? I made a choice based on what I expect, and what I expect has been moulded by every product attached to Karen Pryor's name I have ever used. It's her own marketing that has created that expectation. She'd be mad not to protect it.

The standards of people like Karen Prior, is to uphold a method, not train dogs. When the dog doesn't respond to their methods and the E collar should be whipped out, they claim their is something wrong with the dog, it must have a brain tumour or some other obscure illness or maybe it needs some drugs to clam it down. When all that fails, the dog is deemed untrainable with a psychotic problem and should be PTS. Take the Standards of a proper dog trainer like Mike Ellis, Ed Frawley, Ivan Balabanov, Cesar Milan even dear old Bill (Koehler), the standard is to do what ever is necessary to train the dog and allow the dog the opportunity to live it's life.

So what is the best standard to aspire to as a trainer, being someone who can apply a particular method, or someone who can train a dog is what I ask myself???.

I've stayed out of this so far but what you are saying is crap. Have you ever attended a clinic by someone like Terry Ryan who is the teaching this one? I have been 2 x 5 day clinics with her and what I learnt was far more than from watching years of some of the trainers you have mentioned and she did do at one of the clinics the best example of operant conditioning I have seen.

[55chevy]

dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS.

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, and they usually refer the dog to a vet in the vision that the dog not responding effectively to their methods must have something wrong with it. Apparantly the Karen Prior system in relation to this thread, they are not allowed to use any punitive or aversive training methods or devices???. I may be wrong and happy to be corrected if this is not the case???.

I don't like trainers who prioritise methods as their primary goal and sacrifice a dog to do so. Lying at my feet here is a GSD that was deemed untrainable and viscious by methodoligist trainers awaiting the long sleep, nothing a prong collar and a few good corrections didn't fix

Edited December 3, 2010 by 55chevy

[55chevy]

name='corvus' date='2nd Dec 2010 - 04:43 PM' post='4996551']

I imagine they do that because they have a standard to uphold. Karen Pryor DOES have her name at stake. You get a trainer that's been through KPA, you don't expect them to whip out the e-collar. You expect them to be able to do the job with a marker and rewards, and do it well. Karen Pryor is a smart businesswoman and seems to appreciate the power of a good name. She keeps her good name by only attaching it to things of a high standard that align with what she's all about (let's ignore my Karen Pryor extendable target stick that lasted about 2 weeks, though). If I were looking for a trainer and chose one on the basis of the fact they had been trained through KPA, my trust in Karen Pryor's name would be shattered if the trainer used force or punishments. Who cares if they are needed? I made a choice based on what I expect, and what I expect has been moulded by every product attached to Karen Pryor's name I have ever used. It's her own marketing that has created that expectation. She'd be mad not to protect it.

The standards of people like Karen Prior, is to uphold a method, not train dogs. When the dog doesn't respond to their methods and the E collar should be whipped out, they claim their is something wrong with the dog, it must have a brain tumour or some other obscure illness or maybe it needs some drugs to clam it down. When all that fails, the dog is deemed untrainable with a psychotic problem and should be PTS. Take the Standards of a proper dog trainer like Mike Ellis, Ed Frawley, Ivan Balabanov, Cesar Milan even dear old Bill (Koehler), the standard is to do what ever is necessary to train the dog and allow the dog the opportunity to live it's life.

So what is the best standard to aspire to as a trainer, being someone who can apply a particular method, or someone who can train a dog is what I ask myself???.

I've stayed out of this so far but what you are saying is crap. Have you ever attended a clinic by someone like Terry Ryan who is the teaching this one? I have been 2 x 5 day clinics with her and what I learnt was far more than from watching years of some of the trainers you have mentioned and she did do at one of the clinics the best example of operant conditioning I have seen.

She did what Janba, operant condition some Border Collies

[Janba]

name='corvus' date='2nd Dec 2010 - 04:43 PM' post='4996551']

I imagine they do that because they have a standard to uphold. Karen Pryor DOES have her name at stake. You get a trainer that's been through KPA, you don't expect them to whip out the e-collar. You expect them to be able to do the job with a marker and rewards, and do it well. Karen Pryor is a smart businesswoman and seems to appreciate the power of a good name. She keeps her good name by only attaching it to things of a high standard that align with what she's all about (let's ignore my Karen Pryor extendable target stick that lasted about 2 weeks, though). If I were looking for a trainer and chose one on the basis of the fact they had been trained through KPA, my trust in Karen Pryor's name would be shattered if the trainer used force or punishments. Who cares if they are needed? I made a choice based on what I expect, and what I expect has been moulded by every product attached to Karen Pryor's name I have ever used. It's her own marketing that has created that expectation. She'd be mad not to protect it.

The standards of people like Karen Prior, is to uphold a method, not train dogs. When the dog doesn't respond to their methods and the E collar should be whipped out, they claim their is something wrong with the dog, it must have a brain tumour or some other obscure illness or maybe it needs some drugs to clam it down. When all that fails, the dog is deemed untrainable with a psychotic problem and should be PTS. Take the Standards of a proper dog trainer like Mike Ellis, Ed Frawley, Ivan Balabanov, Cesar Milan even dear old Bill (Koehler), the standard is to do what ever is necessary to train the dog and allow the dog the opportunity to live it's life.

So what is the best standard to aspire to as a trainer, being someone who can apply a particular method, or someone who can train a dog is what I ask myself???.

I've stayed out of this so far but what you are saying is crap. Have you ever attended a clinic by someone like Terry Ryan who is the teaching this one? I have been 2 x 5 day clinics with her and what I learnt was far more than from watching years of some of the trainers you have mentioned and she did do at one of the clinics the best example of operant conditioning I have seen.

She did what Janba, operant condition some Border Collies

No people to salivate every time a long legged blond walked past.

[JulesP]

dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS.

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, and they usually refer the dog to a vet in the vision that the dog not responding effectively to their methods must have something wrong with it. Apparantly the Karen Prior system in relation to this thread, they are not allowed to use any punitive or aversive training methods or devices???. I may be wrong and happy to be corrected if this is not the case???.

I don't like trainers who prioritise methods as their primary goal and sacrifice a dog to do so. Lying at my feet here is a GSD that was deemed untrainable and viscious by methodoligist trainers awaiting the long sleep, nothing a prong collar and a few good corrections didn't fix

Do you actually know anything about this particular trainer?? You obviously didn't know anything about Susan Garrett either judging by your rant on the crate games thread.

[Janba]

She did what Janba, operant condition some Border Collies

From an earlier post of yours

I have 2 GSD's I train on an amateur basis, one is from highly driven working line ancestory

Why do you think that is any different to a high drive working bred BC?

I have a friend who has had GSDs for over 30 years and done Schutzund etc. She said to me one day that she couldn't cope with owning a BC because of their brains and inventiveness and that is a breed characteristic of the ultimate sheepdog (sorry kelpie people). Enough breed bashing.

[JulesP]

No border collie would work for 55chevy. They are too smart to work for a tosser.

[Aidan3]

dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS.

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.

I don't like trainers who prioritise methods as their primary goal and sacrifice a dog to do so. Lying at my feet here is a GSD that was deemed untrainable and viscious by methodoligist trainers awaiting the long sleep, nothing a prong collar and a few good corrections didn't fix

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.

[Janba]

No border collie would work for 55chevy. They are too smart to work for a tosser.

[55chevy]

dogs that don't respond to their methods are PTS.

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, and they usually refer the dog to a vet in the vision that the dog not responding effectively to their methods must have something wrong with it. Apparantly the Karen Prior system in relation to this thread, they are not allowed to use any punitive or aversive training methods or devices???. I may be wrong and happy to be corrected if this is not the case???.

I don't like trainers who prioritise methods as their primary goal and sacrifice a dog to do so. Lying at my feet here is a GSD that was deemed untrainable and viscious by methodoligist trainers awaiting the long sleep, nothing a prong collar and a few good corrections didn't fix

Do you actually know anything about this particular trainer?? You obviously didn't know anything about Susan Garrett either judging by your rant on the crate games thread.

It's interesting to note how many people are happy to ignor the failures of methodoligist trainers and to make it clear what I am referring to, are trainers who believe that any dog can be trained without aversives successfully and who refuse to use the likes of prong collars, E collars etc or administer corrections to a dog. Much to the contrary, there are some dogs that cannot be trained successfully and reliably without aversions especially working breeds that are driven by dominance, aggression and disrespect. As I mentioned in the crate games thread, in an open mind we invited these trainers to show us how it's done and most were too scared of the dogs we presented for training to even begin.

Why were they scared of the dogs???, because they wouldn't use aversives to control the dog if it came back up the leash, they would be attacked, if they did use an aversive do dominate the dog their methods went out the window. A clicker and treat will not stop a handler aggressive dog re-direct back up the leash and they know that, so they walk away deeming the dog should be PTS which happened on most occassions. They couldn't handle these dogs, let alone train them and the reason for that was simply, they were promoting methods, not training dogs. We offered them to try the prong in certain dogs to get some feedback on what we do, they refused on the basis, "we don't use prongs they are inhumane", but they didn't mind seeing a dog get euthanased when their methods failed, how humane is their alternative I ask

Edited December 3, 2010 by 55chevy