# Very Interesting Read - Ed Frawley



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

What do people on here make of this guy?

Ed Frawley's Philosophy on Dog Training

Ed Frawley

Seems very logical what he is trying to say.


----------



## LouJ69 (Feb 28, 2009)

I stopped reading once i saw pack theory.......


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

LouJ69 said:


> I stopped reading once i saw pack theory.......


LMFAO are people that narrow minded that they wont even read something just because they believe in something else??


----------



## siberiankiss (Sep 24, 2010)

Pack theory was discredited years ago - I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to stop reading the article. I don't read articles written by people who believe the Earth is flat.


----------



## siberiankiss (Sep 24, 2010)

Also worth noting that this guy endorses prong and 'remote' collars.


----------



## Irish Setter Gal (Mar 17, 2011)

Standing above the parapet - feel free to lambast me, but I probably won't respond.

I've just watched a DVD by CM, if you cut through some of the language he uses, underneath it all he's saying the same thing as others who are quoted as being opposite to him.

He merely says that dogs are dogs and have to be approached at that level and not on in humanistic psychological way - talk to the dog rather than the name.

The 'Rules Boundaries & Limitations' mantra he spouts is merely - give the dog some structure, we all like to know where we stand in life - do I get fed before or after you have your tea. A dog doesn't necessarily give two hoots, it just likes a routine.

The 'Exercise Discipline and Affection' mantra is of the same ilk as the above and purely common sense.
Exercise can be either physical or mental, but we all agree dogs need something to 'drain' them.
Discipline is merely the boundaries of above - am I allowed on the couch or not?
Affection is given, but as part of the 'trilogy' and should not be overly weighted at the detriment of the other two. All three together create what humans call 'work life balance' and what CM calls 'balanced energy'.

The one thing of his I do wish I could copy is to roller blade for as long and far as he is able - but we all know that's impossible given the state of our roads here, never more than a 50m stretch of 'smart tarmac' round here :frown2:


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

The guy also witnessed his dog get knocked over by a car and killed which led him to take up dog training.

Pack theory is just that a theory, there will always be different theories..but that does not mean one is wrong or only one is right. Till we can get into the minds of dogs and know for sure what they are thinking no theory can be disproven...unless you guy can of course talk to the animals 

Back to the website, i found it quite logical how he talks about the middle ground for getting 100% total and complete obedience.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

Not that impressed really but then I'm not that impressed by many well known trainers (though I quite like VS).

I feel he bigs himself up rather a lot that guy and if he was seriously that good he wouldn't need a website with all that on. I feel a lot of it is basic info that I could have written also but it's hard to say without seeing proper details bar tables of contents. Saying that I'm not interested enough to want to buy his advice online so I guess that says my view


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

GoldenShadow said:


> Not that impressed really but then I'm not that impressed by many well known trainers (though I quite like VS).
> 
> I feel he bigs himself up rather a lot that guy and if he was seriously that good he wouldn't need a website with all that on. I feel a lot of it is basic info that I could have written also but it's hard to say without seeing proper details bar tables of contents. Saying that I'm not interested enough to want to buy his advice online so I guess that says my view


If its basic info then why do many people not even exercise their dogs properly?? You cant say you could have written it because..you didnt.

Also the website has a lot of free info on training tips so its not all buy buy buy.

Every trainer will big themselves up..its like going for an interview..your not gonna say how sh*t you are..are you?

Anyway my point was not him but more about finding the middle ground to training.


----------



## brackenhwv (Mar 28, 2010)

I am finding this debates about different training styles very interesting. Being relatively new to dogs ( 2 yrs ) and being in my early 50's how much things have changed. When I was but a lass , basically doors were opened and dogs let out to do their own thing , returning home when they chose to, a bit like the kids I suppose ! I don't remember anyone going to training classes with their dog, apart from Adrianne across the road, she had the only pedigree in the street and went to ringcraft classes, cos she showed her shetland sheepdog. How things have changed. There are so many different styles from one end to the other. I suppose I'm in the middle, don't believe in being heavy handed as such, but do believe in action = consequensces, I will remprimand my dogs with my voice if they have been out of line and use rewardbased training with them. Bribery and corruption usualy works ! When anyone posts about different trainers I always read, even tho I may come to the conclusion that their style is not for me, It's all learning. As for Ed Frawley, there is a lot there that makes sense, even tho there are things I don't agree with, prong collars etc, there are things that I do. Everyone is different as are the dogs and what suits one does suit another ,suppose it's up to us as responsible owners to find what does ?


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> The guy also witnessed his dog get knocked over by a car and killed which led him to take up dog training.



Do you really need a dog killed by car to teach next dog basic obedience or to become a dog trainer?

Problem with word pack is that there was so many uses of pack theory than some people feel sick to hear it. I do. I think that's why it isn't so popular here. Pack theory in many cases is a replacement for dominance. 
Problem as well is in labelling. We do like to do it and problem starts when something got wrong label. It is like CM->pack leader-> pack theory-> dominance-> ...
So when I hear pack theory I think pack leader later on...
Do you know what I mean?


----------



## susieborder (Jul 23, 2010)

Andromeda said:


> *Do you really need a dog killed by car to teach next dog basic obedience or to become a dog trainer?*Problem with word pack is that there was so many uses of pack theory than some people feel sick to hear it. I do. I think that's why it isn't so popular here. Pack theory in many cases is a replacement for dominance.
> Problem as well is in labelling. We do like to do it and problem starts when something got wrong label. It is like CM->pack leader-> pack theory-> dominance-> ...
> So when I hear pack theory I think pack leader later on...
> Do you know what I mean?


Did my sister have to witness my father die of brain cancer to instill in her the need to become a nurse? Answer.........Yes, that one incident was the catalyst in her realisation of wanting to help and make a difference to other people in a similar situation, she is now a very much loved and respected McMillan nurse. Sometimes in real life it takes something like that to bring about changes.


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> If its basic info then why do many people not even exercise their dogs properly?? You cant say you could have written it because..you didnt.
> 
> Also the website has a lot of free info on training tips so its not all buy buy buy.
> 
> ...


:lol: Yes I can say I could have written it you can't decide what I can and can't say 

I don't think there is much free info of any use tbh, what I saw was just quite basic that you can Google and get everywhere else.

Nope not every trainer bigs themselves up like that. I bred 350 litters, I've done this I've done that. I used a gundog trainer, all his website says is we are successful and this is what we do, and here are some photos of our champions.

Don't get arsey just because I don't have your opinion 

My issue is him, I don't think he is writing anything particularly worth reading for me. The middle ground IMO is what every dog owner has. The vast majority do not follow one trainer and abide by every single thing they say, they use a few techniques from each and then a bit of their own, ie. the middle ground you mention. I think there is quite a lot of vague waffle and I struggle to see the point of some of the text hence if I was actually looking for advice I would probably opt for something with more direction or even a book which is always classified.

Oh and tbh, I'm quite disappointed he wrote anything whatsoever about dominance because that thwarted any little inkling of curiosity I might have had. Now its a oh he's just like the other trainers I have no interest in reading about because many of the approaches will cross over with dominance which I do not abide by.

Plus he contradicts himself, maybe he's just written it badly but it irritates me because his point is unclear, he writes this:



> DOGS ARE PACK ANIMALS THEY CAN LOVE YOU BUT NOT RESPECT YOU.


Then this a few paragraphs later:



> Respect is gained through hard work, education and experience.


Which leads you to think you can actually have a dog who respects you.

Well then which one is it


----------



## Andromeda (Nov 21, 2010)

susieborder said:


> Did my sister have to witness my father die of brain cancer to instill in her the need to become a nurse? Answer.........


*No, of course sometimes it can become a reason to become a...*

But there is slight difference between lack of training or management and deadly disease or any disease.
When you are buying a dog you become responsible for him and training is huge part of it whatsoever you are a owner or dog trainer. It is like let the child run free on the road and later on blame a driver that he hit a kid.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

He's just another self-proclaimed dog trainer that misunderstands basic concepts of training and behaviour.

_'Pack structure'_
He couldn't describe real pack structure if it hit him in the head. Packs have numerous types of structures, they are dynamic and fluid. They are a family unit, not built on power or domination, but have a pre-formed rank of age and possibly sex. Pack structure applies to wolves- but does it apply to domestic dogs? There's a lot of evidence to suggest it doesn't in the same way.

_Bribery & Rewards_
A bribe is the same as a lure- hold a treat in your hand, and put the dog into a sit. Do this 5 or 6 times, then don't have the food in your hand- the dog sits then gets some food. Then, once this is consistent, only reward once every 2, then once every 3, and so on, until we don't need to reward all the time. This guy lost me at that point completely, as he doesn't even know how to use simple training mechanisms.



> The problem with both categories of dog trainers is that their training produces inconsistent results along with dogs that dont like or respect their owners. You will never reach consistency in training if you dont have a good bond with your dog, or if your dog does not respect you as a pack leader.


Seriously? You are kidding me? The people like Dr Ian Dunbar, Grisha Stewart and co don't have a good relationship with their dog? I'm sure they have some things to say about that, Mr Frawley. You cannot just become a pack leader- its species specific (we are humans!) and NOT earned. NO pack has a leader that is just earned. Every wolf/dog can be a pack leader if they breed- as soon as they have offspring, they are the leader of that pack. :frown2:



> The third category of dog trainer is the where I strive to be. Category three dog trainers want to be in the middle of the other two categories. They balance in the middle but are always prepared to move one way or the other depending on whats going on in their dog training at a given moment or point in time.


Okay, what this means is: I can teach commands and behaviours using rewards, but badly. And what's more, as soon as something goes wrong (the dog barks at another dog or breaks a SIT-STAY) I don't know what to do other than deliver a correction _for my sloppy training_.

'Disobedience' is a funny word. A dog that doesn't SIT when you ask does not do it because it thinks he's in charge of you. It doesn't SIT because it isn't reinforcing enough to do it at that time- simple enough. That's why we have different rates and levels of reinforcements, that's why we start training in low distraction environments and build it up. It may be hard and time consuming, but teaching is- how many years of education do we have? We don't teach kids from SATs to Bachelor or PHD in 2 years do we? No, because it's impossible. But this guy thinks that if his dog doesn't do something (because he hasn't trained it correctly in that particular setting) the dog deserves a correction. :mad2:


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

About the love and respect malarky, I'd also like to say that no organism (possible humans) does things for free or just for love and respect. We always do things because we get things back in return. Humans are exceptions in one sense because we value abstract concepts like happiness and respect- it makes us feel all fuzzy inside. But animals don't do things just for that fuzzy feeling. A wolf pack has a hierarchy because its in everyone's best interests to do so. One wolf defers to another because they will receive more benefits from doing so. They communicate through body language because it is more beneficial to survival than communicating through fighting!

This is why I don't mind using food and toys in training, because I realise that dogs won't' do things for me because they like my smile. It's a balancing act- I get something, you get something. Those things have to be beneficial enough for the relationship to work.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Ok thats all fair enough rottiefan..its good to read your view as you are clearly arguing each case instead of saying its pack theory so i didnt bother reading it 

but what about the point about reward training..if the animal doesn't regard the treat as being of high enough value when it has already set his sights on doing something then what?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Ok thats all fair enough rottiefan..its good to read your view as you are clearly arguing each case instead of saying its pack theory so i didnt bother reading it
> 
> but what about the point about reward training..if the animal doesn't regard the treat as being of high enough value when it has already set his sights on doing something then what?


Get a more reinforcing reward- better food rewards, a toy, or 'life rewards' e.g. jumping up on the couch, or whatever your dog likes to do in life. However, we also need to think about what we are asking and in what context we are asking it. If you teach your dog recall in the garden, a low distraction environment, and if your dog doesn't respond in the park, I would always try and proof the behaviour more in the lower distraction environments first, as going from your house to the park is a huge step-up in distraction levels.

We can improve the rewards, but I would rather do this for 1) a limited time only to teach a new behaviour or help out in a high distraction environment at the beginning and 2) make sure a behaviour is proofed in other environments before putting it 'on the road' so to speak.

For example, I know that I can write on this forum with music on and people around the house making loads of noise, yet if it comes to writing my dissertation or whatever, I know that I need less distractions.

It's a complex process and this is precisely why we need 1) qualified, accredited behaviourists in the world and 2) the scientific elements of dog training placed in the mainstream culture more. Reward training looks as if it has many downfalls in some lights, but it's the way in which you do it that counts. Similarly, it's the trainer you have that counts a lot too.

Just the other day, I was working on position changes with a dog and he stopped going into a 'Down'. I got a little frustrated as he had been doing it fine for a while beforehand. So I gave him a break, then went and tried again (practising SIT, DOWN, STAND) but yet, he still wouldn't do the down. I eventually found out I had changed my hand signal ever so slightly, and due to his prior learning experience with other people, he didn't know what I was asking of him. Now, what would have Mr Frawley done in this instance? I could be wrong, but I imagine after a few 'refusals' of doing a 'Down' he might have corrected the dog, which in my opinion would be wrong and detrimental to the relationship. It's times like this that I like spending time reading the science behind dog training, because I can stay a little more objective and realise that it is something not in the dog's control (and definitely not a conscious decision on their behalf) that is changing their behaviour.

Sorry, long post


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Get a more reinforcing reward- better food rewards, a toy, or 'life rewards' e.g. jumping up on the couch, or whatever your dog likes to do in life. However, we also need to think about what we are asking and in what context we are asking it. If you teach your dog recall in the garden, a low distraction environment, and if your dog doesn't respond in the park, I would always try and proof the behaviour more in the lower distraction environments first, as going from your house to the park is a huge step-up in distraction levels.
> 
> We can improve the rewards, but I would rather do this for 1) a limited time only to teach a new behaviour or help out in a high distraction environment at the beginning and 2) make sure a behaviour is proofed in other environments before putting it 'on the road' so to speak.
> 
> ...


No need to apologise...this is the kind of post i love to read..a post that clearly explains why someone else might be wrong :thumbup1:

This Frawley guy explains that correction should not be used if the dog does not understand what you are saying..so in your scenario i dont think it would have led to a correction...but he wouldhave tried to figure out why the dog wasn't following command just the way you did.

He seems to state that he will only correct if he knows for sure that the dog understands what it is being instructed to do but chooses not to..well thats what i got from reading that page on his site.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> No need to apologise...this is the kind of post i love to read..a post that clearly explains why someone else might be wrong :thumbup1:
> 
> This Frawley guy explains that correction should not be used if the dog does not understand what you are saying..so in your scenario i dont think it would have led to a correction...but he wouldhave tried to figure out why the dog wasn't following command just the way you did.
> 
> He seems to state that he will only correct if he knows for sure that the dog understands what it is being instructed to do but chooses not to..well thats what i got from reading that page on his site.


Yeah, I got that too, but I think that's quite impossible to tell. In my situation, this was a dog that had done maybe 20 successful 'Downs' on hand signal cue. The he just stopped, and wouldn't do any. I'm pretty sure Mr Frawley would see this as a dog that knows the command but is refusing to do it, where in actuality, the dog knew _a_ command, but not the one I was giving him. As soon as I changed it (kept my hand lower, and moved to palm up and not palm down), he got it again.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> Yeah, I got that too, but I think that's quite impossible to tell. In my situation, this was a dog that had done maybe 20 successful 'Downs' on hand signal cue. The he just stopped, and wouldn't do any. I'm pretty sure Mr Frawley would see this as a dog that knows the command but is refusing to do it, where in actuality, the dog knew _a_ command, but not the one I was giving him. As soon as I changed it (kept my hand lower, and moved to palm up and not palm down), he got it again.


How different was the hand signal from the one the dog already knew?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> How different was the hand signal from the one the dog already knew?


Like I said in my post, I was doing it with my palm down (the more conventional) and was delivering the signal a little higher up than before hand.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Moved to dog training and behaviour as a more appropriate section


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Yeh i can see how the dog was getting confused.. changing from palm up to palm down would be a significant change in signal


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh i can see how the dog was getting confused.. changing from palm up to palm down would be a significant change in signal


And this is the biggest reason why dogs don't always respond to cues. Either the environment has changed or your signal has changed, therefore confusing the dog or making it less reinforcing to carry out a behaviour. Not that a dog intentionally sees himself as more high-ranking. :frown2:


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Yeh but thats what i mean, what if the signal had not changed but the dog just refused to do the command?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Yeh but thats what i mean, what if the signal had not changed but the dog just refused to do the command?


'Refused' is a difficult word when applied to dogs. It implies that the dog has taken a stubborn decision not to do what you are asking- but I find this too anthropomorphic and question whether dogs take much time to think over things. It is a split second reaction.

If a dog doesn't respond to a cue, and that cue hasn't changed, it could mean that you have asked it in a different context than the one you trained it in, the environment is too distracting, the dog is not motivated enough and/or could be tired (and thus, not motivated) etc.

I would lower my criteria here, e.g. perhaps train in a lower distraction environment, use a food lure in that particular context, then ask for the same behaviour without the food lure and release the dog when it has been accomplished, or increase the value of the reward.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Are you saying dogs dont think or make decisions?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> Are you saying dogs dont think or make decisions?


Of course not. I am saying that their reactions to stimuli are very instinctual and habitual. I don't believe they have the benefits of retrospection, hindsight and Theory of Mind like we do.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

I guess that would be open to debate too..as imo they at the very least show signs of the ability to retrospect as they show grief if a person or dog they lived with dies..

Back to what i was previously saying..like you said a dog may not follow command if there is an environmental change so go back to the familiar environment and re-inforce the desired command..

However this guys states the dog didnt get a second chance to go back to the familiar setting as it was too late..the dog had died as a result of not following command..yes that is an extreme scenario but one which can and probably does happen..

So does the introduction of subtle correction not outweigh no correction at all?


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> I guess that would be open to debate too..as imo they at the very least show signs of the ability to retrospect as they show grief if a person or dog they lived with dies..
> 
> Back to what i was previously saying..like you said a dog may not follow command if there is an environmental change so go back to the familiar environment and re-inforce the desired command..
> 
> ...


We all use corrections in training- a punishment is a correction. It depends on what level you are prepared to use and how beneficial you think that correction is. I think rewards are much more important than corrections though. Speed cameras are corrections, but we still speed. Yet, if someone gave us money every time we didn't speed, I'm sure there would be a lot less of it!

In his scenario with his dog being hit by a car, that is an extreme case. Kids have been hit by cars too, but it doesn't mean a parent will shout in their faces and forcibly correct their children so as they never do it. They may sit down and/or speak to them civilly and seriously. We can't do that with dogs, but we can train. This is where proofing comes in and a good programme of rewards. Boundary training is still a skill that physical corrections are used a lot, but just look at this video from Kikopup:
YouTube - ‪Invisible barriers- dog training‬‏ (still can't find the training vid though!)


----------



## tripod (Feb 14, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> The guy also witnessed his dog get knocked over by a car and killed which led him to take up dog training.
> 
> *Pack theory is just that a theory, there will always be different theories..*but that does not mean one is wrong or only one is right. Till we can get into the minds of dogs and know for sure what they are thinking no theory can be disproven...unless you guy can of course talk to the animals
> 
> Back to the website, i found it quite logical how he talks about the middle ground for getting 100% total and complete obedience.


Sorry but have not been following this thread  but I have added the above emphasis as this is one of my obsessions and bug-bears. A 'theory' as in a scientific theory is the highest level of credibility that a statement can achieve... gravity, evolution, genetics - all theories and all backed up with copious amounts of evidence.
A theory is a statement that describes something backed up with all the evidence available at this time.

Pack 'theory' is not a theory as it is not backed up by all of the available evidence. It is merely a long disproved hypothesis. Therefore, in scientific terms it can be discounted as like in all scientific study newer and more credible evidence has become available.

And on another note we cannot get into a dog's head so all this supposition is just that, its non-sceintific by definition so cannot and should not be discussed in such terms.

Its not just semantics - if we are going to have discussions about credibility or relevance we have to get the terms right, particularly as we are communicating using the written word primarily.

I don't want to pick on you or anyone else but this just stands out to me because it is a common inaccuracy. Plus I didn't read very far into this thread as the usual heads will bring this thread the way such threads tend to go around here


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> *bold added - *
> 
> Pack theory is just that a theory, there will always be different theories - but *that does not mean one* [theory]
> *is wrong* or only one [theory] is right.
> ...


* a scientific *theory* is quite dfferent from a 'conversational' theory, which is actually a *hypothesis*.

* *scientific theories* are most definitely 'right' or 'wrong'. 
they are _proven_ or _disproven_ - & pack-theory has been *dis*proven. Gravity is a theory. 
Evolution is among the most solidly-proven theories in the history of science; there are still individuals 
who refuse to agree that it's proven. [shrug]

* if U tell me that science does not matter, let me ask U if U'd like to be treated by a faith-healer when U have 
an illness that's normally 100% fatal - like rabies - or be treated using science? :huh: Pick one...

that pack-theory is an incredibly appealing, incredibly sticky meme is not proof of any sort that it's true.

* theories about animal-behavior are *tested* - they test as accurate, inaccurate or uncertain. 
pack-theory has failed the test: linear hierarchy has been proven by long-term observation in the wild, 
not to exist.

* even if linear-hierarchy DID exist - humans would not be *included*. 
social hierarchy is a species-inclusive suite of behaviors, not INTER but INTRAspecific: 
within one species, not between two or among all species.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

leashedForLife said:


> * theories about animal-behavior are *tested* - they test as accurate, inaccurate or uncertain.
> pack-theory has failed the test: linear hierarchy has been proven by long-term observation in the wild,
> not to exist.
> 
> ...


I always wonder what the biggest reason for the intra-/inter-species divide is here and keep coming back to communication. Inter-species groups may communicate in a limited way (like humans and dogs- even with mixed-species communication available) but we cannot be the same species and produce the same communication signals. This, IMO, makes the chances of social hierarchy collapse.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

Rottiefan said:


> Every wolf/dog can be a pack leader if they breed - as soon as they have offspring, they are the leader of that pack. :frown2:


yup - in research on wild-wolves, *every wolf who lived long-enuf - * to 2 to 3-YO - bred, & then was a parent, 
AKA 'pack leader' - male or female. 


Rottiefan said:


> ...what this means is:
> I can teach commands and behaviours using rewards, but badly. And what's more, as soon as something goes wrong
> (the dog barks at another dog or breaks a SIT-STAY), I don't know what to do other than deliver a correction
> _for my sloppy training_.


pretty much - :nonod:

2 alternative translations - 
- the dog has not really learned the CUE at all; only that in this situation, i should ____ for a reward. 
the dog has not generalized the behavior to include this context, OR has no real idea what the heck the cue means.

- the dog has not been sufficiently *proofed* to cope with the given circs or setting. 
sit on dry carpet, dry grass on a lawn, dry sidewalk, dry tanbark, does NOT equal SIT in a foot of water in a pond, 
SIT in dewy knee-high grass on a cold morning in a meadow, SIT in 4-inches of snow, SIT on hot tarmac in full sun... 
heat, cold, environmental differences, *substrate -* pea-gravel, birdshot gravel, mud, a puddle, etc - these all 
create differences in the dog's mind. Dogs need multiple exposures to the same cue under many diffferent circs, 
to even _begin_ to generalize.

_Dogs need to be taught the Same Response to the Same Cue in a *minimum* of 5 distinct settings: 
on the carpet in the lounge, on the lino in the kitchen, on the grass in the park, on the tile-floor at the vet's, 
on the concrete paving outside a pet-supply store... before they *start* to generalize the cue/behavior pair._

another truism - 
_the more settings, sensory variants, & stimuli the cue/behavior pair is practiced in, the more fluent it becomes, 
& the more solidly-proofed; it's less & less likely that they dog will hear the verbal cue or see the hand-signal, 
& NOT understand what's being asked; *however, given the extreme range of dog-senses, it is always 
possible that the dog hears, sees, feels, or otherwise senses something we do not - which can affect 
their behavior outside our senses:* 
we DON't see, hear, feel, smell, etc, whatever-it-may-be; hence the dog *always* gets the benefit 
of the doubt, in any case - since the situation may not be what we humans perceive, & literally outside 
our understanding. _

birds, especially parrots, were reported to behave in various bizarre ways before the last big-quake hit California; 
one researcher logs the number of lost-dogs & finds it correlates to increases in seismic activity: more quakes? 
more lost-dog ads in the classifieds. WE CAN'T sense this; they can, & it affects behavior. 


Rottiefan said:


> 'Disobedience' is a funny word. A dog that doesn't SIT when you ask does not do it because s/he thinks s/he's in charge...
> The dog doesn't SIT because it isn't reinforcing enough to do it at that time- simple enough. That's why we have different
> rates & levels of reinforcements, that's why we start training in low distraction environments & build it up.
> 
> ...


yes - & not only proofing, TEST to be sure the dog groks the meaning of sit! :thumbup:

YouTube - ‪Sit Challenge - National Train Your Dog Month‬‏

find the full description of the Sit Challenge HERE - 
ClickerSolutions Training Articles -- The Sit Test

betcha can't do it all... :lol: try it, then post a video! :thumbup:


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

5rivers79 said:


> [IMO dogs] at the very least show signs of the ability to retrospect as they show grief
> if a person or dog they lived with dies.


that does not require 'retrospective thinking' or indeed much cognition at all; the connection is *emotional*, 
not intellectual - & the dog or other non-human recognizes that their friend is no longer around, obviously.

whether they realize the other animal is *dead* is entirely separate; many pets die at the vet's, & there 
is then no corpse - one of the many reasons that i prefer euthanasia at home, if possible: any other pets 
in the household get to see & smell their buddy one more time, & have some idea of what happened.


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

tripod said:


> A 'theory' as in a scientific theory is the highest level of credibility that a statement can achieve...
> gravity, evolution, genetics - all theories and all backed up with copious amounts of evidence.
> A theory is a statement that describes something backed up with all the evidence available at this time.
> 
> ...


:thumbup: what she said! :thumbup: succinct, coherent, cogent. *Rep!* :001_smile:

'pack-theory' is a disproven hypothesis - that's the best & simplest expression i've heard yet. Well-done!


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

I've come on this late, but just quickly about theory. 

We in western world have a theory about crime and punishment and the way in which we should go about it based on a lot of research, science, psychology, psychiatry.the eastern world has a different theory based no dounbt on their research and science. 
Don't really make much difference which is right or wrong in the eyes of the western world or the eastern world. It's different theories and different theories practiced. 
As for the results. Well!! Is the crime rate lower in the eastern world or higher? 
We practice human rights, democracy and the right to freedom of speech, Is this once again a theory?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

grandad said:


> We in western world have a theory about crime and punishment and the way in which we should go about it based
> on a lot of research, science, psychology, psychiatry.the eastern world has a different theory based no dounbt on their research and science.
> Don't really make much difference which is right or wrong in the eyes of the western world or the eastern world.
> It's different theories and different theories practiced.
> ...


& this has to do with dog-behavior & scientific findings on dog-behavior, how?...

this is not a novel on _Crime & Punishment_, or a treatise on prisons & Western vs Eastern philosophies. 
it's about *solid facts * ascertained by research, & repeatedly proven by other individuals; science is verifiable, 
repeatable, & quantifiable: we can confirm it, repeat it & get the same results, & measure it.

human-criminality also includes _*morality - *_ which is not apropos when discussing non-humans. 
right & wrong for non-humans are functional definitions, not morally weighty or religious or philosophical.


----------



## grandad (Apr 14, 2011)

leashedForLife said:


> & this has to do with dog-behavior & scientific findings on dog-behavior, how?...
> 
> this is not a novel on _Crime & Punishment_, or a treatise on prisons & Western vs Eastern philosophies.
> it's about *solid facts * ascertained by research, & repeatedly proven by other individuals; science is verifiable,
> ...


nack all to do with dog behaviour, but a lot to do with THEORY as descibed by Tripod. Which is what you are basing your arguments on.


----------



## 5rivers79 (Mar 28, 2011)

Rottiefan said:


> We all use corrections in training- a punishment is a correction. It depends on what level you are prepared to use and how beneficial you think that correction is. I think rewards are much more important than corrections though. Speed cameras are corrections, but we still speed. Yet, if someone gave us money every time we didn't speed, I'm sure there would be a lot less of it!
> 
> In his scenario with his dog being hit by a car, that is an extreme case. Kids have been hit by cars too, but it doesn't mean a parent will shout in their faces and forcibly correct their children so as they never do it. They may sit down and/or speak to them civilly and seriously. We can't do that with dogs, but we can train. This is where proofing comes in and a good programme of rewards. Boundary training is still a skill that physical corrections are used a lot, but just look at this video from Kikopup:
> YouTube - ‪Invisible barriers- dog training‬‏ (still can't find the training vid though!)


So what you are saying is although +r should be the basis..there is room for subtle correction based training to be mixed in?

The video you pointed out is incredibly interesting and i like it but my one problem with that is if the dog is being told to go get it why didnt it? The owner is giving it a command to go and get the frisbee but the dog is not following command and going on to the different surface?

The only i worry i have with that is..will the dog develop a fear of particular types of surfaces?


----------



## leashedForLife (Nov 1, 2009)

grandad said:


> nack all to do with dog behaviour, but a lot to do with THEORY as descibed by Tripod.
> Which is what you are basing your arguments on.


no, it does not. :huh:

please see 
Scientific Theory v. Hypothesis v. Scientific Law - The Scientific Method

a *law* is different from a *scientific theory*, which also differs from a *hypothesis*.



> _ Scientific laws must be *simple, true, universal, & absolute*.
> They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science
> based upon that law would collapse.
> 
> ...


these are not up for dispute. 


> _ Theory: A theory is what *one or more hypotheses* become once they *have been verified & accepted to be true.*
> 
> A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon *proven hypotheses & verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. *
> Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term 'theory' in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean
> to say 'hypothesis'. That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public. _


when we colloquially dismiss something as _'just a theory',_ we really mean _'JUST a hypothesis'._


> _In general, both a *scientific theory & a scientific law are accepted to be true* by the scientific community as a whole.
> *Both are used to make predictions of events.* Both are used to advance technology. _





> _ Hypothesis:
> ...*an educated guess based upon observation*. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon
> based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. *Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted
> by experimentation or continued observation.*_


these are very-much under discussion.

pack-theory WAS a hypothesis; continued observation disproved it, & in retrospect the original conditions 
[random assemblies of captive-wolves like Chinese take-out chosen from columns on a menu] should have 
predicted the outcome: escalated tensions & far-more aggressive interactions than normal, with more intense 
aggression & more-serious injuries, as opposed to ritualistic displays & minimal actual fighting.

let's stick to terms used with agreed-upon definitions, not conversational waffle.


----------



## edidasa (May 7, 2011)

To the original post, I have met Ed Frawley, owner of Leerburg; and although he's super opinionated, he does not claim to be the best dog trainer in the world.

I personally think he's a successful business person and he also promotes the likes of trainers who are good (if not great) examples of 'good dog training'.

There are a lot of things on his website that are quite 'dated'. But I think that's because he's been 'in' dog training for so long. 

You'll see that he has Michael Ellis on his website, who is a very highly regarded trainer in the US.


----------



## Rottiefan (Jun 20, 2010)

5rivers79 said:


> So what you are saying is although +r should be the basis..there is room for subtle correction based training to be mixed in?
> 
> The video you pointed out is incredibly interesting and i like it but my one problem with that is if the dog is being told to go get it why didnt it? The owner is giving it a command to go and get the frisbee but the dog is not following command and going on to the different surface?
> 
> The only i worry i have with that is..will the dog develop a fear of particular types of surfaces?


I think it would be easier to talk about corrections as punishments, which, I don't know if you know, there are two kinds of punishments- positive and negative- and we all use some form of them in training, no matter what methods we use!

The type of punishments that get a lot of stick are positive punishments- adding something to the environment to make a behaviour less likely to occur in the future, e.g. an Alpha roll, a check on the choke/prong, an "Ah-ah!" or "No!", or even a firm stare. Whilst I don't mind some of these, most of them I do (the physical ones).

Negative punishments are more favoured by rewards based trainers- taking something reinforcing away from the environment to make a behaviour less likely to occur in the future. So, if a dog pulls, we stop walking (taking away the reinforcing experience of walking forward) or if a dog jumps up, we ignore (taking away the reinforcing experience of us petting/giving any attention to the dog). People often confuse positive reward trainers of advising everyone to just ignore bad behaviour- but this only works if by ignoring we are negatively punishing the behaviour, i.e. by ignoring we are removing our attention, which is what the dog finds reinforcing about a specific behaviour.

Sorry if you know that, just thought I'd clear it up rather than talk about corrections, as that word can imply just physical corrections.

_About the video:_ If we trained a dog through physical punishments (positive punishments) I would say that there is a high chance of a dog becoming fearful of a particular surface. If bad things happen when they go on the surface, then they could generalise this and be scared even to walk on something similar. However, the surface would have to be fairly distinct for this to happen, I think, as a common surface like grass would offer a number of experiences to a dog- both being punished for going on it in one context (maybe to a field behind the house where there's livestock) and being heavily reinforced for it in another (playing in a park with dog friends).

Kikopup will have trained Splash (her dog) to find staying within the boundaries much more reinforcing than going over. Splash has been clicker trained and probably works hard and 'gets' most exercises when the clicker is involved. She will have worked first with low criteria (no frisbee or 'get it' command) just clicking and treating for all the time he is in the right area, then build up the distractions- play with the frisbee in one area, but as soon as the frisbee goes over the boundary, not allow Splash to get it, and then reward massively (maybe with another frisbee and click/treat) when he doesn't go over the boundary or comes back from going over. She will have then have added the 'Go get it!' command as another distraction. So Splash learns that by not responding to reinforcing stimuli when they go over a specific line, he gets even more heavily reinforced.

I could be wrong about how she trained it and would love to see her training vid of that day, but I guess it's something along those lines.


----------

