Karen Pryor Academy In Australia

[Staranais]

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

And also we have had stories from people like myself, who have in the past been duped by absolutely useless trainers who used corrections from check chains and prong collars. It goes both ways... using correction tools does not automatically make you a good trainer, nor does it mean you know what you're doing. You can waste just as much money and time employing an incompetent traditional behaviourist, as you can employing an incompetent positive one.

I don't even know that Karen Prior claims to be a behaviourist and work with aggression. If she doesn't, then it doesn't really matter if she can't fix aggression, since she doesn't claim she can. Does anyone know if the KPA is even claiming to produce graduates that can stop dogs from acting aggressively?

[Aidan3]

Does anyone know if the KPA is even claiming to produce graduates that can stop dogs from acting aggressively?

Some very skilled behaviourists (who do work with serious aggression) have done the KPA course, but the course itself is not designed to produce these skills specifically and no claims or recommendations are made to that effect.

[corvus]

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.

I don't. How many of these duped people were duped by a KPA graduate? If you have an issue you think needs to be discussed, start a thread about it. This one is about KPA, of which you appear to have zero experience.

[Aidan3]

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

The problem is that you have directly implied that KPA graduates cannot work with certain types of dog and have been responsible for these dogs being destroyed. Unless this is actually true and can be supported by evidence, then it is just libel and frankly, you shouldn't expect anyone to take your opinion seriously.

If you have issues with KPA policy, then discussing those issues would be fine but the discussion needs to be based on reality. Your opinion may be completely valid, but only if your opinion is based on things that have actually happened. If you have questions about things you don't understand or that you are unclear on, then of course it is fair to ask.

[OSoSwift]

People who have clickers, treats, halti's, check chains, e-collars, prong collars or anything else in their "tool box" can be hopeless dog trainers who have no idea about anything. What type of training you use does not make you useless or an idiot or hopeless. Having a closed mind and being a know-it-all usually means you are an idiot.

Funnily enough I was a check chain trainer and quite good at it. My dog got titles and was a well behaved pet. I discovered clicker training and trained that way and I am okay at that as well. I had a well trained dog that got more titles and was happier to work and was still a great pet. She only retired due to medical reasons.

My two dogs now are clicker trained and work very well and I have a breed many consider is not the easist to train, my dogs work and well. They are handler inpaired to a degree but they are happy and willing to work. I have read Karon Pryors books - along with other positive trainers - and whilst I will tell the dogs off if they try to chase the cats, or I do yell leave it if they are near a snake, I do consider I am a mostly positive trainier. I do not own a check chain, e-collar or prong collar because I don't need to.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

People who have clickers, treats, halti's, check chains, e-collars, prong collars or anything else in their "tool box" can be hopeless dog trainers who have no idea about anything. What type of training you use does not make you useless or an idiot or hopeless. Having a closed mind and being a know-it-all usually means you are an idiot.

snip

very very true

[Agility Dogs]

Anyone who discounts anyone else's techniques and feels they have nothing to learn from them needs to take a good long look at themselves. NO trainer has all the answers IMO. The best ones are the ones who remember they are still learning - regardless of their preferred technique.

People who have clickers, treats, halti's, check chains, e-collars, prong collars or anything else in their "tool box" can be hopeless dog trainers who have no idea about anything. What type of training you use does not make you useless or an idiot or hopeless. Having a closed mind and being a know-it-all usually means you are an idiot.

Funnily enough I was a check chain trainer and quite good at it. My dog got titles and was a well behaved pet. I discovered clicker training and trained that way and I am okay at that as well. I had a well trained dog that got more titles and was happier to work and was still a great pet. She only retired due to medical reasons.

My two dogs now are clicker trained and work very well and I have a breed many consider is not the easist to train, my dogs work and well. They are handler inpaired to a degree but they are happy and willing to work. I have read Karon Pryors books - along with other positive trainers - and whilst I will tell the dogs off if they try to chase the cats, or I do yell leave it if they are near a snake, I do consider I am a mostly positive trainier. I do not own a check chain, e-collar or prong collar because I don't need to.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

and who continue to learn over their lifetime and who change when we find better ways to manage dog behaviour

eta its called continuous improvement and the best of the best do this regardless of their methodology

they use what helps the dog and they leave their ego at the door

Edited December 5, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[JulesP]

Yep and I personally would (and have) walked away from trainers that have bagged out other trainers or methods.

[Staranais]

Yep and I personally would (and have) walked away from trainers that have bagged out other trainers or methods.

It's just so unprofessional, isn't it? I had a consult once with a dog behaviourist/trainer who was very outspoken in bagging all clicker trainers and all food trainers - but as the session proceeded it became clear that he didn't actually understand what he was bagging nor had he tried it for himself. That's IMO just as silly as the positive trainers who bag pinch collars or e-collars without ever having seen or felt one. It doesn't make you have confidence in anything else they're saying.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Yep and I personally would (and have) walked away from trainers that have bagged out other trainers or methods.

also very true. i have done this in other areas as well.

if someone needs to bag something or someone else then i see this as a smoke screen to deflect from their lack of experience or skill.

that may not be the truth but its how i react to bagging

Edited December 5, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[55chevy]

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

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.

[Janba]

55 Chevy

What exactly are you aiming at when training a dog? What do you want your dogs to do?

It seems your replies are all based around dogs with aggression problems and from a lot of your posts dogs hard working dogs with unstable temperaments.

Have you ever trained and competed with a dog at high levels of obedience, agility, sheepdog trialling etc?

Edited because I left out the un in unstable

Edited December 5, 2010 by Janba

[OSoSwift]

The best ones are the ones who remember they are still learning - regardless of their preferred technique

What I was trying to say, but said better!

I am also wondering what exactly it is you train for and what you do with your dogs.

My dogs do not need a check chain or anything else and if you did give one of them a decent check, of put an e-collar on them or a PP collar they would see it as a major aversive and it would be a very long term issue to get them past it.

I have never had dogs with major aggression issues as i have them from pups and they have never been a problem or needed heavy handed techniques. Sometimes I have had to train smarter and they have really made me think, but I guess our relationship is one of understanding of what is expected when.

[bedazzledx2]

If you wanted to teach a dog that, regardless of whether the door is open or not, they are not permitted to jump out of a car or the back of a SUV unless on command...how would you go about it 55chevy?

edited for clarity

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

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.

Edited December 5, 2010 by bedazzledx2

[Kavik]

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

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 see it as teaching the dog about choices, giving them choices, showing them how to choose the one you want, and how to overcome the stress of choosing incorrectly (when dogs shut down), letting them fail and learning to work through that. Because of the groundwork, there is no need for SG to use corrections. They are not going to do something as drastic as come up leash as they have learnt self control and impulse control through the groundwork. Since a lot of her training is done through shaping and having the dog offer behaviours and learn to work through failure this is very important. The seminar showed that most people are too quick to help their dogs and not confident enough to let them work through a period of frustration and failure. She is NOT a soft trainer! She was much more stringent with her criteria and not helping the dog too much and let them figure it out.

It would certainly be more difficult to try to use no corrections with a dog with ingrained problems such as handler aggression, but SG's program done properly means that you can avoid those problems in the first place.

[Jeff Jones]

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

Sorry did not see this till now, have sent you an email Kelpie-i.