Having a background in experimental psychology, Pitcher's use of terms/theory is not commonly associated with animal learning is interesting, but at this point only is only conjecture. For example, self-actualization, is rooted in humanistic theory which has little cross-over in the animal learning literature. Excuse me, none whatsoever. I laud Ed's forward looking approach, however, it's not psychological science. In my opinion, moving from tradition methods to behaviorism is well underway and Ed's book is clearly pointing the way to a cognitive approach of falconry. The humanistic approach in falconry probably isn't truly possible until we fully understand animal consciousness from a scientific basis. New animal learning research is turning to some consciousness-related areas, such as episodic memory in birds, or symbolic thinking, but it would not touch self-actualization in birds with a 20 ft. pole. Perhaps more precise definitions without the humanistic theory baggage is required before we get too carried away with borrowing humanistic theory concepts. Having read the book, I plan on letting interested academic colleagues read the book. It may be a source of anecdotal evidence not commonly reported, hence may be of interest to animal consciousness theorists.

-- Scott