The World Famous Frawley Castle Website
■■■ Copyright Notice ■■■
VIDEO FILES are in Flash Player (.flv) format. AUDIO FILES are in .mp3 format.
designed for viewing at widescreen resolution - 24" monitor - 1920x1080
The WFFCW was created August 5, 2001 :: we're 16 YEARS OLD!
WHAT IS THIS WEBSITE ABOUT? Some of this is a personal website containing REBUTTAL, REPLY, and COMMENT to (primarily) public statements and accusations made by various self proclaimed "internet dog training experts". The majority of the statements and accusations are FALSE, and refer to me, personally. The nucleus of this website is based on verbatim quotes of public messages, most of which are archived with their respective lists. Unless noted, nothing has been altered, other than formatting line length to screen width and changing the font style. Other parts of this site contain OPINIONS, HUMOR, PARODY, COMEDY, and SARCASM which reflect my own personal sense of humor and viewpoints. The First Amendment of the Constitution adequately, particularly, and specifically provides these rights. This site is for educational and entertainment purposes. This is emphatically not a "hate" site. There is no hate, and never was. Profanity is kept to a minimum, but it does exist. If this website seems offensive to you, in any way, please leave now. Please do not subject yourself to being offended.
TO THOSE IN FEAR OF THIS WEBSITE: Websites can be terrifying places. If you're afraid, we'll never understand why, but what can WE do? You're allowed to be frightened of webpages, or anything else. This website contains NO THREATS of any nature - no direct, indirect, implied, supplied, or personified threats - it never did and never will. There is a lot of SARCASM here. If you're afraid, our heart goes out to you - we don't WANT you to be afraid. We want you to get help. Dial 911, and scream for help. If you wind up in a straight jacket, that's your problem. If you don't, that's your problem, too.
COPYRIGHT © is clearly acknowledged where, when, and if applicable. It's even acknowledged where it's not applicable. The USCO website. This link contains verbatim United States Copyright Law, which clearly allows for rebuttal, comment, criticism, etc. United States Copyright Law specifically states "COPYRIGHT DOES NOT APPLY TO FACTUAL INFORMATION". (Read the law - see for yourself.) Rebutting falsified "factual information" is not a violation of copyright law.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE I'M TRUTHFUL, DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL SCREEN CAPTURES
IF I'M NOT 100% HONEST AND ACCURATE, CALL ME A LIAR and CONFRONT ME WITH FACTS
First of all, I'd like to borrow an (approximate) quote from Gene England:
"Dog training is no more and no less than building consistent, reliable, repeatable habits in a dog."
If you believe that, please continue reading. If you don't believe it, this page probably isn't for you.
What if people started really thinking?
What if people thought of protection training in simpler terms, and purely as a function which a dog performs on a specific command OR if certain events take place to create suspicion and/or aggression?
What if we just threw out all this "drive" bullshit, and referred to everything the dog does in protection training in a simpler way? For example: turn on, or turn off. Just like a light. A simple "yes" or a simple "no". "Fight Time" or "Not Fight Time".
Suppose there were no words like "prey drive", "defense drive", "fight drive", "survival drive", "hunt drive", or "truck drive". We seem to be able to discuss and do so many other facets of dog training work without a pail full of different "drives" - what if we left out all these "drives" when we think of protection training, too?
What if we forgot "prey drive" and just said the dog loves to chase a ball, because he really likes playing with a ball and he enjoys it? What if we just said the dog loves to bite a burlap rag because he likes to bite, it's fun for him? Or he loves hot dogs, because he likes food? Is it absolutely mandatory to assign a "drive name" to various behaviors of the dog? What would happen if we didn't assign a "drive name"? Would the dog suddenly stop doing things, because there wasn't a "drive name" attached to it?
You're probably using a computer right now if you're reading this. A computer does require drive names. Most of us would be lost without our C: drive! And how could we play music without our CD drive? That makes sense to me.
How about if a dog is put in a position where a (skilled) helper in hiding begins to sneak out, towards the dog, and the dog's suspicion causes the dog to bark? What if we didn't call that ANY drive, but simply accepted the fact that the dog barked because he saw a stranger behaving in an unusual way? And what if the dog was immediately praised and rewarded by the handler, when the helper ran for cover as an apparent result of the barking?
THEN - What if the helper walked out of the hiding place normally, approached the dog as any person might, and praised and petted him, along with the handler? How about if the handler and the helper even gave the dog a few chunks of hot dog?
Again, I'd like to try and make a point. "Fight" is not "play". A ball, a tug, or a toy are for "play". "Fight" is a result of arousing the dog's suspicion and aggression.
If you agree with this, please keep reading. If not, this page probably isn't for you.
In most areas of training, people accept the idea of "doing exercises".
Lots of people will teach a dog to sit, and the majority will go out and repeat that specific "exercise" many, many times. Some people may notice that the dog learns what "sit" means after enough repetitions. A few people in the world might actually even correct the dog after he's learned what sit means, but fails to do so, or breaks the sit when he decides he wants to. Some people might even realize that training the dog to sit reliably may have actually taken thousands of repetitions, in dozens of different locations.
Of course, there may be trainers that can teach a dog to sit reliably with only one repetition. I've never met one of those trainers, but it's possible he/she exists.
Getting back to protection training, what if there was an exercise called "turn on-turn off", which is essentially (but very briefly) described above? If that exercise was repeated enough times, is it sensible to think the dog would eventually learn to "turn on" when a specific command was given - for example "pass auf" or "watch him"?
What if this training pattern - a helper in hiding who CAUSES suspicion, always followed by the helper causing NO suspicion, was repeated enough times for the dog to learn to recognize not only the behavior of the helper, but the commands associated with the exercise? In this case, "turn on" ("watch him" or "pass auf") and "turn off" (for example "aus" or "leave it" or whatever). Would the dog learn to do this after enough repetitions of the exercise?
What if a person was teaching a dog to sit? As the dog progressively learned what was required, is it sensible to think that the handler might place the dog in a sit, and walk a short distance away? During the learning progression, it might even be possible that the handler would "test" the dog regarding the sit exercise, and create attractions and/or distractions which could cause the dog to break the sit. Or would that be impossible?
If it took 3 days, or 3 weeks, or 3 months, could a dog learn to "turn on" and "turn off" fairly reliably? What if part of the "turn on" was based on the dog's strength? For example, if it was determined the dog was strong enough, what if the helper got close enough to the dog to present a burlap rag for the dog to bite? What if the helper immediately ran away if the dog did bite the burlap rag? And - as stated above - what if the entire pattern was repeated, which always includes the "turn off"?
This short page might give you some things to think about.
This link will show some videos of biting dogs. If you watch the videos, you may notice we have no outing problems at all (with the exception noted). Even with beginning dogs, "aus" is a natural part of the progression. We don't need or use force, balls, toys, food, a second sleeve, or anything ..... we simply tell the dog "aus". In some videos, multiple "aus" commands are given - what you're seeing are not "finished" dogs, and some dogs required more training to release on one command. I think this is both reasonable and expected. Training progresses one step at a time.
The reason this system works is because the dog believes the fight is really over. He's "clear", and has no conflict in his mind.
Anthropomorphosis is a process of turning a dog into a human, comparing what a human thinks and does, and attributing that thinking process to a dog. Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Dogs aren't humans and humans aren't dogs, either. This may have been going on for a few million years, but Walt Disney and the TV really helped.
I've been publicly accused of being a "guard dog trainer", "forcing dogs to bite", "hanging them by their neck until they bite", "shocking them on their testicles to get an out", and assorted other tidbits. It's not true.
I've also been accused of training every dog to be a protection dog. This, too, is not true.
Every dog that has ever come to my school for protection was temperament tested - for a fee. I didn't do free temperament testing, although others might. If the dog showed the nerves and character during the test, a conditional contract was signed, and the testing fee was applied to the contract. For every 100 dogs tested, 15-20 passed the temperament test. I am unable to give a dog the nervous system which is required for protection training, but I am able to test and determine if nerves and character exist. Even then, in the majority of dogs, only conditionally. I have no idea how far a dog's nerves will go, until we conduct many, many training sessions. Some dogs can take far more pressure than others.
What I did do, was to go to school, and learn how to use a tool called TOTO: "turn on-turn off". I discovered that one single tool is the foundation - the basis for training strong, reliable protection dogs. I also discovered that, while I used and advocate table training, tables aren't even remotely a requirement. "Turn on-turn off" can be done anywhere, anytime. All that's really needed is a dog, a leash and collar, a patient helper who understands the concepts, and is able to recognize what he's looking at when he sees it.
In addition, I learned that "turn on-turn off" circumvented several problems because they never were created in the first place. For example:
The dogs never became "sleeve freaks", chewing, ripping, and destroying an object which they had bitten. When a sleeve was "slipped", the dogs ignored it, and focused on the helper.
"Turn on-turn off" created extreme calmness in every dog, based on the fact that the pattern conclusively proved to the dogs that the fight was definitely over, and further suspicion or aggression was unnecessary. My concept of "turn on-turn off" requires that the dogs are never "lied to" - that is to say, "aus" is positively "aus" for everyone involved, with no exception. Exactly like a professional boxing match, when the bell rings the round is OVER.
The dog's self confidence in protection work increased dramatically, and usually, very quickly. This was based on the above statement: the pattern conclusively proved to the dogs that the fight was definitely over. No leaking, whining, extraneous barking - nothing. Just calmness, yet alert for the next (possible) "round".
This calmness allowed the dogs to accept far more pressure in bitework. Stick hits for sport dogs, and, for police and personal dogs, a great deal more pressure was applied during bites. I can't recall any dog coming off the bite at any time. It should be perfectly clear that the increasing pressure was applied gradually. One step at a time.
I believe that "turn on-turn off" additionally proved to the dogs that the helper was not a genuine enemy, determined to kill them. Rather, the dogs seemed to consider me a friend and a fighting partner, much like a boxing partner might be.
In the early stages of training, as a helper, I gave most dogs just as much physical praise and hotdogs as the dog's own handler did. Over time, this stopped, especially with working police dogs. After a certain point in training, I never again touched a dog I was doing bite training with. Logic dictates that it was necessary to make this transition.
"Outing" began from the very first day of "turn on-turn off". It was a natural, integral part of the sequence, therefore, the multitude of problems others experience in ending a bite were never created in the first place.
Through many, many experiences with dogs trained elsewhere, I've solved outing problems in short order - WITH NO USE OF FORCE WHATSOEVER - by using "turn on-turn off". If this took 2 weeks or 2 months - once a week or five times a day - I never deviated from what I already know. The pattern must conclusively prove to the dogs that the fight is definitely over, and no further suspicion or aggression are necessary.
I may add to this page in the future. Realistically, it would take four days or more to clearly explain the details and ramifications of "turn on-turn off", so this tiny introduction is no more than a mini appetizer.
But I did this on purpose. It's good to make people THINK.