The Dog Listener

I have read it and used the methods up to a point.

What I liked:

• I like the way she eschews any sort of violence, pain or fear in her method.  Even the most severe behaviour problems are tackled without the use of positive punishment, no "corrections".  This has reassured me that this IS possible, despite many folks insistence to the contrary
  
• She also (usually) avoids training tools, or condones them only for a short period.  I just have a dislike for gimmicks to be honest.
• I like that her approach is holistic and tends to affect the dog in many positive ways.... not a case of "tackle this problem, then tackle the next problem, then the next one..." etc.
• I like that it is relationship based... where someting goes wrong, she encourages you to look at what may be lacking in the relationship and fix that.   And that DOES work!
  

What I didn't like:

• The way she links everything back to wolves.  Yes, we can see some similarities between wolves and dog because they are "related", but they
  are two SEPERATE species. 
• The way she makes absolutely EVERY problem about leadership and dominance, when in truth some of those things come back to a simple lack of training  or trust in the owner (although I suppose you could call that a leadership issue in a way )
• The way she makes out that her method is all about making the human the leader.... when IMO it is simpler and more accurate to say she is simply TRAINING the dog, using a successful combination of Learn to Earn, positive reinforcement and negative punishment.
  

Chuffy

Yes, we can see some similarities between wolves and dog because they are "related", but they
are two SEPERATE species. 

Wrong. In fact, genetic analysis shows that wolves and dogs are 99.8% genetically identical:

                                             Wolf:                                                                            Dog:

Kingdom:                         Animalia                                                                        Animalia

Phylum:                           Chordata                                                                      Chordata

Class:                             Mammalia                                                                     Mammalia

Order:                             Carnivora                                                                       Carnivora

Family:                           Canidae                                                                         Canidae

Genus:                           Canis                                                                             Canis

Species:                         Canis Lupus                                                                  Canis Lupus

Subspecies:                                                                                                        Canis Lupus Familiaris

As you can see both are "canis lupus", the dog is a subspecies from the wolf, they are more than just "related", 37 wolf subspecies are currently described, including the dingo and the domestic dog.

Spence,  do you know how similar chimps are to humans, genetically? 

Chuffy

Spence,  do you know how similar chimps are to humans, genetically? 

About 94-95% which is a HUGE difference when we are talking about genes, 80 genes were specifically lost in the human lineage after separation from the last common ancestor with the chimpanzee, do you have an idea how much 80 genes can make the difference?:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#cite_note-ns-42

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

 
Compare that to only 0.2% difference between wolves and dogs 

The Mammalian Society and the Smithsonian Institute changed nomenclature for the dog from canis familiaris to canis lupus familiaris in response to Wayne's work on the canid genome in 1995. This, however, is premature as Wayne's work was based on a singular locus of mtDNA in canids. The nDNA of dogs has 26 markers that are different than a wolf. The nDNA profile of a dog more closely resembles a coyote. Wayne studied one group of genetic markers but was not a canid archeologist.

Humans have a less than 2 % genetic difference with chimps but we are an entirely different species and our size and shape more closely matches a mountain gorilla, as humans, zoologically, are considered great apes.

So, there's not that strong a genetic link to wolves. But even if we were to pattern dog psychology after wolf behavior, there has been much that is misunderstood about wolf behavior. Wolves do not use physical dominance to create society. They use psychological pressure and the society is from the bottom up. That is, the successful wolf learns to say the canid equivalent of yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am.

And wolf packs are ordinarily family units, not groups of stranger wolves.

Also, the addition of lupus in all nomenclature is a recent addition, a bit of historical revisionism, within the last ten years and is, like global warming, based on an incomplete understanding of all the factors involved and includes the exclusion of key evidence.

ron2

And wolf packs are ordinarily family units, not groups of stranger wolves.

And thus it follows that they are, most of the time, the same type of wolf.  I have witnessed, recently, a few things that make me wonder whether there aren't patterns of communication that are breed specific, like birdcalls, if you will. 

ron2

The Mammalian Society and the Smithsonian Institute changed nomenclature for the dog from canis familiaris to canis lupus familiaris in response to Wayne's work on the canid genome in 1995. This, however, is premature as Wayne's work was based on a singular locus of mtDNA in canids. The nDNA of dogs has 26 markers that are different than a wolf. The nDNA profile of a dog more closely resembles a coyote. Wayne studied one group of genetic markers but was not a canid archeologist.

Humans have a less than 2 % genetic difference with chimps but we are an entirely different species and our size and shape more closely matches a mountain gorilla, as humans, zoologically, are considered great apes.

So, there's not that strong a genetic link to wolves. But even if we were to pattern dog psychology after wolf behavior, there has been much that is misunderstood about wolf behavior. Wolves do not use physical dominance to create society. They use psychological pressure and the society is from the bottom up. That is, the successful wolf learns to say the canid equivalent of yes sir, no sir, yes ma'am, no ma'am.

And wolf packs are ordinarily family units, not groups of stranger wolves.

Also, the addition of lupus in all nomenclature is a recent addition, a bit of historical revisionism, within the last ten years and is, like global warming, based on an incomplete understanding of all the factors involved and includes the exclusion of key evidence.

 

Thanks, Ron.  You beat me to it  

ETA - Hasanyone BESIDES me and oranges read the book in question?! 

• The way she links everything back to wolves.  Yes, we can see some similarities between wolves and dog because they are "related", but they
  are two SEPERATE species. 

I haven't read the book but although wolf/dog are clearly closely related biologically there are some really big differences that will strongly affect behavior- wolves are large animal predators. They live in organized groups so they can kill really big animals. Dogs left to themselves are, for the most part, scavengers around the edges of human society- they don't hunt large animals and therefore they have no need to form highly organized groups. Other canines that live as scavengers live in very loose disorganized social structures and are often found alone or in pairs. One of the biggest differences between feral dogs and wolves is that the entire group of wolves, including the males, work to raise the puppies. Feral dogs the bitch goes off and raises the litter entirely on her own. Social structure between the species is bound to be very different. Using "pack theories" on dogs is bound to cause inaccuracies- why would a species that happily hangs out alone or with one buddy or with ten temporary buddies in a food-stuffed garbage dump care in the least about "dominance" or "leadership"? one of the dogs bothers you you just move to the other side of the dump and find a new buddy or do your own thing. Also there are definitely breed differences- some breeds are well-known to not be social and have no interest in forming bonds with other dogs.

Excellent post, Mudpuppy. Your last sentence makes me think of Akitas, who are known not to pack like other canids. And when they fight, it's not for social dominance or ritual, it's to be the one left breathing.

Chuffy

Spence,  do you know how similar chimps are to humans, genetically? 

ROFLMAO  - Sure, dogs are genetically close to wolves, and we are genetically close to chimps.  That doesn't mean we swing from branches and beat our chests.  Well, at least most of us don't.  

Good post MP. 

 Hmm didn't mean for this to turn in to a "debate" over the difference between wolves and dogs. But it is highly interesting.

I've almost finished the book and I've got to agree with Chuffy in the end. She does use the wolf references way to much. And one major thing I've noticed, alot of the procedures she suggests in her book, I do them unknowingly. Example: When I'm making Maze's dinner, I'm usually hungry myself so I'll eat a snack as I'm making it, so techniqually she eats after me.

mudpuppy

Using "pack theories" on dogs is bound to cause inaccuracies- why would a species that happily hangs out alone or with one buddy or with ten temporary buddies in a food-stuffed garbage dump care in the least about "dominance" or "leadership"?

Why there are humans in Africa that still hunt for food when in America you an go to the grocery store and buy it? they are both humans, they are not 2 different species, they are exactly the same, only that in America the humans have the opportunity to get food easier

Bring wolves close to humans and the wolves will also become scavengers, is easier than hunting, they are not stupid and would not turn around to hunt when there is garbage there waiting for them. Dingos are closer to dogs than to wolves and dingos also hunt in packs

Take humans out of the equation and all will act the same way

Scientific proof shows only 0.2% of difference in between, regardless if you like the idea or not

ron2

Humans have a less than 2 % genetic difference with chimps

Wrong, as i already showed, the difference its up to 6%

People around here (not naming anybody in specific) have said that they like to elaborate their point of views based on scientific proof, well i show scientific proof and still manage to be against it, i guess it only depends on if you "feel like" accepting the scientific proof or not

oranges81

She does use the wolf references way to much.

 Even if they are the same speices,  She didn't have to state it in almost every sentence.  I got the idea of what she based her practises on. I just got tired of hearing about it alot!

espencer

People around here (not naming anybody in specific) have said that they like to elaborate their point of views based on scientific proof, well i show scientific proof and still manage to be against it, i guess it only depends on if you "feel like" accepting the scientific proof or not

There's no doubt that you are meaning me.

Secondly, you're correct on the science. The understood difference between human and chimp has increased, although your math is a bit off. If humans and chimps share 96 %, then the difference is 4% not 6 percent. See, 100 - 96 = 4. 100 - 6 = 94. See the difference? So, what kind of math is used for 100 - 96 to be equal to 6? Yeah, I googled the same pages you did.

Anyway, the upshot is that our understanding of canid genetics is expanding, too, and I expect that the gap between dogs and wolves will widen, too. That is, if we understood the difference between humans and chimps to be one amount but further investigation, and let's be honest, changing criteria as methods of differentiation improve, show the gap between humans and chimps to be wider than previously thought, imagine what will happen when applied to canids.

The difference you quote for dogs and wolves comes from the study of one locus of mtDNA done back in the 90's and published in 1995. Do you know if any other extensive work has been done since then? Well, the other bits of science I have read show that comparing species by mtDNA is inaccurate. That is mtDNA is similar in a number of different species. Kind of like saying two creatures are nearly the same species because they have 4 limbs. Also, the difference in that one locus of mtDNA between wolves and dogs is about the same from there to coyotes and another canids, as of the mid 90's. But scientists who specialize in the genetics and evolution of the canid group go by nDNA because it controls what the canid actually is. And the information from that is that the dog more closely resembles a coyote, in structure and behavior. That is also science.

Also, you should read the works of another scientist, L. David Mech. He studies wolves in their natural habitat. They don't scavenge as a rule, and certainly not nearly as much as a coyote or dog. They are most interested in bringing down large, live prey. It is coyotes who most often scavenge off a wolf kill.

espencer

Maybe because they are the same species

They are not the same species. As one genetic scientist pointed out, .2 percent difference is enough to separate two species, especially as the .2 percent are not necessarily confined to one locus of DNA but may be scattered throughout the entire genome. Did you know that two genes can act in combination to control a 3rd thing? For example, a gene for hair color and one for skin color together might also control eye color. Also, again, the nDNA difference between dogs and wolves had at least 26 different markers, which is enough to differentiate between species. Ain't science neat?

I think it's great that you are getting interested in science and I think you should read all the science.