Customer Reviews

Dogs: A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior and Evolution

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The Coppingers in "Dogs" try to say a few different things. The main topics are how wolves became selected as dogs, what this implies for their behavior and training, and the ethics of pure-breeding and using working dogs as pets. In these core topics, this book is generally well argued and supported in the main, but suffers from hiccups of poor reasoning. In one example, when arguing why bigger dogs are better for the transhumance, the authors state "to cover the distance with half the steps means a longer lasting dog." Well, the bigger dog also takes heavier steps and big dogs are notorious for structural problems. However, these hiccups are minor distractions.

The first core topic that dogs evolved first as scavengers of human waste dumps is interesting. While still largely a speculative hypothesis, this idea is shown fairly well in the book to be more reasonable than the idea that humans got a hold of enough wolves to domesticate them by selecting the tamest ones and tossing the others. This has implications for training in that essentially sedentary dogs foraging at a dump are not going to have wolf behaviors, particularly the widely assumed pack hierarchy.

Another major topic is the discussion on why working dogs, with strongly ingrained motor patterns of behavior, are not going to be well suited for living in a house - unless you like being herded by your border collie. This too is well done and promoting the option of a more "generic" dog as a better household companion will do much good. There is also a section on how assistance dogs suffer by being bred and developed in manners inconstant with what makes for a good working dog. While this has been criticized as an argument against assistance dogs, a careful reading will show that it is a valid critique of how the system can be improved.

The Coppingers' critique of the profound wrong that is breeding for show will upset the most people. But it is also the best and most important argument in the book. And no, breeding for work, for behavior, which doesn't involve closing a stud book, is not just as bad or the same thing as breeding for appearance from a closed stud book.

Throughout the book, the Coppingers also try to discuss what canine evolution implies for Darwinian theories of evolution, but do so in a confused manner by misunderstanding gradualism in the modern sense as being slow, constant changes in morphology (they also use the word "saltation" in a broad and confused way) rather than the actual meaning of continuous, though possibly quite fast, change at the genetic level. They themselves argue that canids have not changed much genetically and that their diversity of form is due to developmental reasons with the needed genetic variation provided by hybridization within the species. Fortunately, these discussions are not central to enjoying the book.

The Coppingers write with a bit of wit, which I enjoyed. But most importantly, this book is unique to my knowledge in trying to be rational, rather than sentimentally anthropomorphic, towards dogs. As such should be read by anyone with an interest in them and their true well-being.

This is a book about dogs as a species, not dogs as pets. This is a science book, and a really good one. The author is a full-time biologist who knows genetics, environments, dogs (Canines), and field work. Starting with the question "Why are dogs different from wolves, coyotes, and jackals when they are genetically the same?" the author takes the reader along for field work, studies, and a look at working dogs, pet dogs, and village dogs. The work reads like a collection of after-dinner stories told to regular people, all woven together around the central point.

The reader will have to set aside bias about dog 'breeds' as canine genetics takes front seat. Further, some issues about 'breeds' run counter to what many people believe about their fine registered pet. This is often what happens when science bumps into belief.

This is an excellent read for anyone with an interest in humans, dogs, science, and the planet. It just happens to be about dogs.

Heard Dr. Coppinger speak at the APDT conference and was fascinated by his theories, and the fact that he's able to change his opinions as insights, training and knowledge evolves. Not someone that's afraid to say he was wrong or has changed his opinion. Some VERY interesting arguments and absolute bolts of insight that should be obvious, but sometimes isn't, things like why infant, puppy, adolescent and adult dogs have different behaviors and why those behaviors aren't carried from one stage of life to the next, heat exchange principles in working dogs (primarily sled dogs, but applies to all dogs), cognitive vs. inherent behaviors, and the argument as to why we wouldn't be thinking of dogs with regard to their "wolf" ancestry, but that they've evolved so far past that the analogy is no longer applicable. A little "wonky" and research"y" in tone, but totally worth the effort for the insights! Scholar meets technician, clearly someone with real world dog experience.

Let's see now--a dozen dogs eating their heads off so that you can run them in sled races for sport is mutualistic while one pet dog eating its head off in your home is parasitism. A shepherd culling all non-white puppies or a sportsman breeding sled dogs to be faster and faster is beneficial, but the AKC doing the same kind of selection is evil. If you like this kind of logic, you will love this book. I am always amused by the sanctimony of the "working dog" enthusiasts who fail to see that inbreeding is inbreeding, whether for working behavior or looks. Anybody who thinks that the working dog people aren't just as fanatical as the AKC is invited to surf puppy-for-sale websites where we see the same emphasis on pedigree that we see among the AKC purists. The only difference is that one group is selecting for behavioral characteristics and the other for aesthetic ones. You will note that although the authors condemn inbreeding, it appears that most of the dogs they have owned belong to a breed, as we hear about Border Collies, Chesapeake Bay Retrievers, Alaskan Huskies, Marammano-Abruzzese, etc. Indeed, they consider themselves to be quite daring in having crossed a couple of exotic herding breeds. So, if mongrels are so great, why aren't they talking about their black-and-white dogs, or their shepherd mixes?
Speaking of behavior, the discussion of the genetics of behavior in this book is nearly incomprehensible, and I'm still not sure what the point was. That behavior has a genetic component cannot be denied. Their examples of why certain breeds aren't good for particular jobs continually confuse physical limitations with behavioral ones. Thus, a Newfoundland likes water because it is big, never mind that water spaniels and border collies are about the same size and guess which one is most likely to go jump in the lake? Their view of behavior is quite mechanistic, relying on a very simplistic idea that underlying physical characteristics determine behavior, e.g. a Newfie is more comfortable in the water therefore is more likely to go in. However, the most completely discussed model of behavior in the book, the predatory motor pattern, has no inherent physical component, and presumably physical limitations have not played a part in selecting the behaviors derived from it.
This is not to say that there aren't a few good things about the book. The untestable hypothesis that dogs evolved as commensals isn't a bad one, although I'd be surprised to learn that anyone took the suckling of wolves hypothesis very seriously to begin with. They were also right on in poking a hole in the hot-air balloon sent up by the mtDNA biologists who wanted to get a paper in Science by inflating their data. And I completely agree with them about the evils of inbreeding--I just think it applies to working dogs as well as pets.
Overall, I think the main weakness of this book is that it doesn't consider the human component of the equation at all. This is no doubt an attempt to counteract the many sentimental and sometimes silly books that have been written about dogs, but they miss the point on a couple of occasions because they don't consider the interaction between dogs and people. For example, they didn't like the "mean" dogs in the Tijuana dump, whose meaness they attribute to interbreeding with the local fighting pet dogs. I've spent time in Mexico where I saw a grandmother kick a 4-week old puppy across a yard and a starving mongrel whose mouth had been tied shut, to mention only a couple of the more egregious cases of cruelty. This contrasts with many other countries I've visited in which dogs are treated with the same benign neglect as the dogs of Pemba. It seems to me that the human perception of "meanness" might have something to do with the different interactions between humans and dogs in these cultures.
Several other reviewers mentioned the last sentence of the book--"they are only dogs". But the fact is a dog ISN'T just a dog in our society and we don't treat them like livestock (even the authors admit to letting Jane into the house when she got old--did they do the same for their old ewes? Have they ever eaten any of their dogs?). In its way, this book, with its idealization of dogs as workers and demonization of dogs as pets, serves as a perfect example of the bias and emotional baggage most of us bring to our relationships with dogs. And for the record, the feelings I have for my black-and-white mongrel are nothing like those I felt for the tapeworms I got last year.

This book is a fascinating examination of the familiar dog by a professor of biology, who is also a former sled dog racing champion and dog trainer, and his wife, who is also an expert at the raising and training of dogs. Studying where dogs came from, what they are and where they are going, the authors reach some startling conclusions. They reject that idea that Mesolithic hunters stole wolf puppies to originally domesticate dogs, instead following the flow of adaptation to suggest that the path of domestication leads through the Neolithic garbage dump!

After that, the role and attributes of modern dogs are examined. Finally, the explosion of genetic "diseases" among purebred dogs is examined, and its causes laid bare.

This is a fascinating look at dogs. Much that I have noticed about the dogs in my life has been explained to me, and a great deal of food for thought given. I highly recommend this book; it will answer many questions, including some you never thought to ask.

This is one of the best modern (about 2001) reviews of the nature and potential of working dogs, and their evolution. Their philosophical treatment of the relationships between humans and their companion canines are the best that we know of to this time. Our only "flinch" was in the short section about neonatal canines, where our family canines seemed not to have read their guidelines. Most of the text deals carefully with specific breeds and avoids the fallacy of "THE DOG," who as Adam Miklo'si pointed out doesn't exist - there are "many dogs," who differ in significant ways.

The author's frequent referral to dominant/submissive terminology give the impression that this book was written without knowledge that the linear hierarchy philosophy of canids has been defunct for some time. Then when referring to a group of dogs in Tijuana, he says "It would be interesting to know what their problem is. Why are they such meanies? I didn't like them." You would never hear a legitimate animal behaviorist use that diction. Dogs are not "mean." That's an anthropomorphized human term. More recent research into canine aggression suggests that this behavior is an outward manifestation of increased levels of stress hormone. More recently apprised dog trainers interpret this as anxiety aggression, or fear of having a valuable resource (food, shelter) being taken away.

Furthermore, after the author admits to "having no more than a reading knowledge of these dogs"(215) he goes on to describe fighting dogs as not having "submission." This is nonsense. I have had first hand experience with dogs bred for fighting because I used to volunteer at a Chicago shelter. From my experience, these dogs were more scared than anything else. It was also disturbing how he seemed to justify using dogs to fight: "As disagreeable as this may seem, people claim benefit just as a pet owner would claim satisfaction from owning a good dog. The successful fighting dog can produce for the owner a cash prize and the increased sale of puppies from a superior individual. The dogs get cared for and the survivors get to leave their superior fighting genes to the next generation."

If you want to really understand your dog, read the book Dog Sense: How the New Science of Dog Behavior Can Make You A Better Friend to Your Pet This is much more recent and accurate.

I use this text in my Canine Behavior class, and I believe it to be the most important contribution to the literature of domestication that we have available. The Drs. Coppiner argue that the dog is not a wolf, and they go on to develop a very rational explanation of why. The description of the differences in the critical period of socialization among breeds is also very important. This is a huge contribution to the scholarly literature about dogs.

Dogs are such a common household animal that we assume we know a great deal about them. I was very surprised at what I didn't know about the evolution and behavior of dogs. A little dry in places, but a good book for people serious about learning more about canines.

An absolutely brilliant read with details of some truly insightful experiments. This book is a great read for anyone studying canine evolution, or just the average dog lover that is interested to learn some facinating ideas about the evolution of the domestic dog.