A Must Read

[Carrie]

Has anyone read this? I got it for my b-day and read it in 2 days. I couldn't put it down. It is absolutely one of the most amazingly fascinating books I ever read. Anyone who is interested in dogs in any way should read this book!

DOGS: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, by: Raymond and Lorna Coppinger.

P.S.....O.C, or anyone into sled dog racing, you might get some specialized and extra enjoyment out of this.

[GoldenPup]

I've read it more than once and really should buy it so I don't have to keep checking it out from the library!

GoldenPup

[Cassiepeia]

Haven't read it, but I'll keep an eye out for it. Sounds good.

Cass.

[britishbandit]

I too will keep an eye out for it.
I have so many books on my "too buy list", I should really start getting on top of that!

[Carrie]

This is an important book, I think. It is a foundation type book, a book that should be read before anything else. Until we have a good idea of where our dogs came from and how they evolved, how they survived, what kind of niche they adapted to, people are going to continue to relate to dogs inappropriately in many instances.

The Coppingers admit that there is "no appreciable differences" in the genetics of coyotes, dogs, jackels and wolves, and note that these species can interbreed. Still, they say, "dogs have diverged, changed, transmutated from their wolflike ancestors."

Thus, training programs that say the owner/trainer should be the "alpha wolf" and the dog a subordinate member of the pack is wrong, because dogs are not wolves.

The brains of dogs are different from the brains of wolves, just as the brains of humans are different from the brains of chimpanzees, a close relative, they argue. Dogs don’t think and react to signals as wolves do.

Ray Coppinger, who has trained hundreds of sled dogs and sheepdogs, says it is wrong to treat our best friends like wolves. "Asserting dominance over one of my favorite working dogs by pressing it on the ground and snarling at it is preposterous." He stresses that he doesn’t want his sled dogs to roll on their backs and urinate like a subordinate wolf every time he shows up.

This is just one of the ideas presented in the book.

Dogs Tamed Themselves -- for the Resources

The second key idea in the book is the concept that dogs evolved from a wolf ancestor in order to feed at human waste dumps. In a sense, they partially tamed themselves, for those that adjusted to eating near the presence of humans were able to make full use of the waste food resources and reproduce, while those more fearful could not. Domestication likely started with these partly tamed canines, not from the capture of wolf pups.

The Coppingers make the case for these novel ideas through detailed exploration of the world’s village dogs, as well as through a look at sled dogs, livestock protection dogs, assistance dogs and more. People who love working dogs will find the book fascinating, if at times disturbing. The Coppingers examine the human-canine bond with a critical eye, asking if the relationship is truly good for human beings and for their dogs.

While sections of the book are technical in nature, overall this book is easily read by dog lovers interested in the origins and evolution of the dog, and how that development effected canine behavior. This is certainly the most important book on dogs of the new century, and is essential reading for anyone who breeds and trains dogs. I've read it once, and expect to read it again more than once. I recommend it highly.

AUTHOR: Raymond and Lorna Coppinger have a combination of real life dog experience coupled with scientific knowledge and expert writing skills that makes this book a truly exceptional one. A professor of biology at Hampshire College, he has raised hundreds of both sled dogs and sheep dogs. She is the author of The World of Sled Dogs. Toether they founded Hampshire's Livestock Dog Project.

[GSD]

The Coppingers admit that there is "no appreciable differences" in the genetics of coyotes, dogs, jackels and wolves, and note that these species can interbreed. Still, they say, "dogs have diverged, changed, transmutated from their wolflike ancestors."

Thus, training programs that say the owner/trainer should be the "alpha wolf" and the dog a subordinate member of the pack is wrong, because dogs are not wolves.

I've read the book as well, and I don't remember them saying dogs are NOT pack animals, dogs do NOT follow pack rules, dogs do NOT have or follow alpha's. Dog's are different than wolves, but are still yet very much alike.

Ray Coppinger, who has trained hundreds of sled dogs and sheepdogs, says it is wrong to treat our best friends like wolves. "Asserting dominance over one of my favorite working dogs by pressing it on the ground and snarling at it is preposterous." He stresses that he doesn’t want his sled dogs to roll on their backs and urinate like a subordinate wolf every time he shows up.

And why such extrememes??? Asserting dominance is never an issue??? I've read Ray's stuff before, he's done it, he knows it. I don't have the book in front of me to go find a quote, but if he had a dog killing sheep, what do you think he'd do?? Of course he wouldn't go towards asserting dominance causet that would be wrong??? Just a question. Would pressing his favorite working dog to the ground and snarling cause it didn't greet him in a way he liked be productive, hell no, that's pretty obvious, but making the quote like above as a reason for "dominance thoery" applications in dog training is short sighted. When taking their whole book into context that isn't the message I got from reading that book.

Dogs Tamed Themselves -- for the Resources

The second key idea in the book is the concept that dogs evolved from a wolf ancestor in order to feed at human waste dumps. In a sense, they partially tamed themselves, for those that adjusted to eating near the presence of humans were able to make full use of the waste food resources and reproduce, while those more fearful could not. Domestication likely started with these partly tamed canines, not from the capture of wolf pups.

Interesting that i've read the same stuff in a book written by Max von Stephanitz in 1925, although the coppinger's book is much easier to read than his, for lack of a better term he writes "funny"

[Carrie]

but making the quote like above as a reason for "dominance thoery" applications in dog training is short sighted. When taking their whole book into context that isn't the message I got from reading that book.

That's not my quote. It's his. You probably need to read the book again. He even says that this IS important in how we relate to dogs and a huge part of the book is about village dogs not being pack animals and describing just why. Are you sure you read this book or could it have been another you're thinking of? I also don't have the book in front of me because I lent it to my Dad.

[GSD]

I"m sure I read the book, and it may very well have been his quote, my point was there was far more to that book than that. ANd yes, even though a man i highly respect and admire made that statement I still ask you and him this,

And why such extrememes??? Asserting dominance is never an issue??? I've read Ray's stuff before, he's done it, he knows it. I don't have the book in front of me to go find a quote, but if he had a dog killing sheep, what do you think he'd do?? Of course he wouldn't go towards asserting dominance causet that would be wrong??? Just a question. Would pressing his favorite working dog to the ground and snarling cause it didn't greet him in a way he liked be productive, hell no, that's pretty obvious, but making the quote like above as a reason for "dominance thoery" applications in dog training is short sighted.

[Carrie]

I don't know what you mean by extremes. In a general sense, the idea which is so prevelent that dogs and we form packs, that we have a heirarchy as a wolf pack sometimes does is not particularily relevent. Neither is the dominance panacea. Of course, we need to have our dogs learn to live in a "civilized" fashion in order that they live with us. But people get so bogged down with attributing behaviors to dominance when they're not. There is indeed more in the book than that. I still recommend the book highly.

If he had a dog who killed a sheep, he most likely wouldn't use that dog for that purpose. The dog would be determined to not be one who shuts off the predatory motor sequence at the proper time....before the grab, bite/kill part. Different dogs have different motor patterns. They do not all have all of them. Sheep guardian dogs have none of the motor patterns to speak of. But herding dogs such as Border Collies have the eye stalk but do not have the grab/bite. The sequence stops. They also have an early onset of this eye stalk in their development, earlier than other breeds. Some other breeds don't develop it at all. Wolves have all of the predatory motor sequence patterns.

[GSD]

I don't know what you mean by extremes.

I meant when he said this:

"Asserting dominance over one of my favorite working dogs by pressing it on the ground and snarling at it is preposterous." He stresses that he doesn’t want his sled dogs to roll on their backs and urinate like a subordinate wolf every time he shows up.

It's extreme. Wolves and dogs alike assert dominance in many ways, and even when it appears like they aren't doing anything to us, they're communicating something to each other. Me being a handler, I do not have to press my dog to the ground and snarl at it to assert dominance, but then for someone to say since I don't do that, dominance theory has nothing to do with dog training is shortsighted in my opinion.

But people get so bogged down with attributing behaviors to dominance when they're not.

Ain't that the truth. That is something I think this book was trying to convey, but it is a complex and simple thing at the same time.

If he had a dog who killed a sheep, he most likely wouldn't use that dog for that purpose.

That wasn't my point, using either herding, or guarding relies mostly on innate motor patterns and not human intervention. I'm guilty of using an extreme example as well I guess. My point is that he would show the dog whatever it was, it was unacceptable, he has had herding dogs that were a little overzealous in their grab bites, and he had to call them off, physically or verbally, either way, it was him that was in control, (shown dominance) and not the dog. Neither case involved pinning to the ground or submisive urination. That was my point.

There is indeed more in the book than that. I still recommend the book highly.

such as stuff like the motor patterns. I never knew why pointers pointed, till I finished reading that book and put it all together. They just couldn't give chase and kill (as a generalization), they wires for that were cut off so to speak. They just had to stop with the alert and paw up (part of the prey sequence) and stare intently, their bodies and brains didn't know what else to do. It does open up a lot as to why certain breeds have the traits they do.

[sammy]

I new debate - yay. What's GP without a spirited debate?
Welcome back Carrie- hope you had a great trip.

[Carrie]

Thanks Sammy. I had a great trip....my car blew a head gasket, over heated and one of my tires was seperating so I had to buy 4 new tires too, as it's all wheel drive. It spent the entire time in the shop. I was carless, so while my daughter was at work, all I did was take a lot of walks with Lyric, clean my daughter's place and read. I think I read 4 books and about 5 National Geographic magazines cover to cover. LOL.

Well, I didn't intend for this to be a debate so I didn't put it in that forum. I was simply recommending a book which I enjoyed and am very enthusiastic about. I don't know why I can't do even that without some form of opposition, mild though it may be. It isn't a negative thing, all is amiable, just perplexing why it turns into a debate.

Backing up......I recommend this book. You read it, didn't you Sammy? How did you like it?

[Cassiepeia]

Yup, this isn't the debate forum and therefore this cannot be a debate. Although healthy discussion is always encouraged.

Carrie...I'm going to try and get a hold of this book as soon as I can. You've made me very eager to read it.

Cass.

[sammy]

ok so not a debate then I just enjoy different points of view and thinking through things better myself because someone sees things differently.

I did read it. I admit I skimmed some and skipped some parts. I thought it was a very interesting read but a bit dry and wordy for my taste. I wish he could have been more concise I'm in that phase of life when your kids are young and you aren't getting enough sleep. Things have to be juicy, funny or really compelling or else I'm asleep in two pages. I just can't stay awake through 40 pages on the difference between a dog psychologist, an ethologist, a biologist and a zoologist I'll go back to it in a few years and probably get more out of it.

Glad you had a good trip. Too bad about your car. I hope you're happy to be home-this place isn't the same without you