Aidan3

I've never tried the T-touch method, but I like the double-ended leash because you can attach it to the collar for two reasons (1) safety in case the harness clips break (had it happen with a client's dog, faulty clip, not because the dog was pulling) and (2) so we can wean the dog off the harness, simply by changing where we hold the leash. Personally, I've not seen too many problems with the front-attaching harness. One is my own dog when my dog walker uses it, I don't know what she does, I can't repeat it even if I try. I suspect he pulled once (probably near the water) and she let him get away with it, despite the leverage. The same rules have to apply, a tight leash gets you no-where. The difference is that you have leverage and if the dog lunges there is a tendency to turn back to you.

As yet unpublished, long process because it will be a "real" book. She has a few people "beta-testing" it though.

Yes, definitely. I'm not a neuropsych so I couldn't speak with any authority but my understanding is that once a safety signal is learned (it could be virtually anything) fear is actively inhibited in the brain. I won't risk embarrassment by guessing which neurotransmitters in which part of the brain, but there has been some very good research on this recently and a picture is definitely emerging. How robust this is isn't clear from the research. It's something I'd like to play a part in researching myself when the time comes. Anxiety is so often treated with drugs becase drugs increase the effects of certain neurotransmitters in the brain, and they do this more or less on demand. It has been demonstrated (in rodents so far) that deliberately conditioned safety can be at least as powerful as drugs, if not more so. But getting back on topic, if a trainer or behaviourist is paying attention when what Kelpie-i has described happens, things can move ahead in leaps and bounds. I use Look at That type exercises because we can get to that point very efficiently, all of a sudden the ball is rolling so you have to be prepared to tick off a lot of those goals or even skip a few steps. It's never been linear for me.

Loving a pup very much is a good reason to teach it not to bite or nip inappropriately. Follow the link that Persephone gave you, it has good instructions and there is nothing Dr Dunbar suggests that should cause your friend any concern at all. It is not harsh or violent at all, very gentle - but you both need to be consistent. I have a high-drive GSD from working lines and she adores both of my cats. One of the cats plays with her, the other cat has trained her to stand perfectly still while she weaves in and out of her legs, purring.

Anyone who doesn't have a GSD or Rottie, apparently. Or lives outside of NSW, don't forget!

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.

We are living in the Panopticon.

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.

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. Then you won't mind telling us your real name then. You must be telling the truth because it is an offence to impersonate a police officer, even on-line.

Ahh, got it! I do it with balls, tugs and bite sleeves. Never thought to do it with food but now that you mention what you've been doing with it I can see the benefits, very cool! Here's a good vid for anyone working on the stop-sit - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=playe...p;v=dOgGcUd_GcA

Depends on the goal. I do expect to see goals met every single session, but I wouldn't guess at how big they might be!

Hi TSD, could you explain the 2 food game for me? Sounds interesting. I'm all inspired, might take the old boy out for a few sessions in between semesters. He was looking pretty good last summer, then we did nothing during winter and now he is running in.

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.

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.

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?

9/day is about right for an adult male. At times I have taken much more to counter exercise-induced inflammation. I get the good quality concentrated stuff that isn't rancid to begin with, only need 3/day then. There is no benefit in taking cheap, rancid fish oil unless you really enjoy fishy burps.

Google "brain tanning", it's certainly something you can do at home. Get enough of them and you could make yourself a fine coat or a pair of chaps.

That's a terrible experience and a good case for better education of behaviourists. I have a working line GSD and she is a wonderful pet, but hasn't always been good with other dogs. We do most of our walking with her dragging a long-line and we do come across other dogs fairly often. She is able to work closely with several other dogs, too. Although I am not a purely positive trainer, I can honestly say that I have not ever used anything more than a collar pop on her around other dogs. You cannot use positive reinforcement if you don't set the dogs up for success. I'm not sure who the behaviourist you saw was, but I don't mind saying they are not a good example based on your description of what happened. I run reactive dog classes, and yes sometimes we have ten dogs on the field together (when they are ready), but most of the time we work in small groups (2-3 dogs at a time) while the others wait in the car. If you aren't seeing an increase in the response you are rewarding, then it isn't positive reinforcement, it's just feeding (or pushing food in a dogs face). I would think anyone who believes they are qualified to be called a "behaviourist" should know this at least, but apparently not!

Almost universally DOL members will ask where the poster lives, then suggest a competent professional in their area. That doesn't solve the problem of people who don't use forums, so there is still a problem.

Nekhbet and Staranais make excellent points regarding the double-edged nature of qualification. FWIW, the Australian Psychological Society avoids these sorts of problems by firstly ensuring that members are educated, then mentored, then that they use only methods that are scientifically defensible. Whilst cognitive behavioural therapy, for e.g, is the gold standard for anxiety disorders, there is nothing forcing a therapist competent with the psychodynamic approach from using those methods so long as they have data supporting their choice (which they do).

Actually that's a valid point, we do take a leap of faith and there are many behaviourists who merely suppress the precursors to aggression without really addressing the problem. But SAS also has a very strong argument, while there are no guarantees, many problems cannot be addressed over the internet and I would argue that referral to a competent person was still the responsible thing to do. Just because someone isn't licensing applied animal behaviourists, there are bodies that train and qualify them and we know that there are competent people out there. Usually DOL asks where the person is located and provides a referral, so users of this forum are really getting very sensible advice.

Not necessarily. Although there is no legal requirement for formal qualifications, someone who identifies as a "behaviourist" should be competent at behaviour modification and will usually have a formal qualification. Your reputation will precede you, and no-one is willing to hand over the higher fee without some evidence that it will be worth it.

Behaviourism is a specific field of science. A behaviourist, strictly speaking, should follow behaviourist principles which CM does not acknowledge. There is no body who oversees the licensing of applied animal behaviourists so anyone can use the term, unlike say, veterinarians or psychologists.

Same thing in most cases, the distinction is that it is implied that people would refer them to someone who has proven to be able to work with behaviour problems (as opposed to being able to train the dog to come when called, sit, drop etc)