In defense of dogs by John Bradshaw

Just picked this up in waterstones, looks really interesting! What grabbed me was this "Overturning the most common myths about dogs emotions and behaviour, this book shows how we should really treat our pets, and stand up for dogdom: not the wolf in canine clothes, not the small furry child, not the trophy winner but the real dog, who wants to be part of the family and enjoy life - mankinds closest friend"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/In-Defence-Dogs-Need-Understanding/dp/014104649X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1352557017&sr=8-1

Theres the amazon link, who has read this or heard of it? Will let you know once I start it how I find it!

Well in the first two pages that I have just quickly scanned he blows the alpha b.s out of the water.

Oh yes, I like this book.

It's ok, but although I agree with a lot of his findings I find it a little flawed.

He bases his assumptions on dogs being descended from a more sociable wolf than the Timber Wolf (the species the whole 'pack leader' thing was based on) that has been extinct for hundreds of years (if it ever existed at all - no proof). He is also not a behaviourist, he's a scientist.

I agree that the pack leader theory is wrong, but do not agree on his assumption that there is no such thing as Dominance or Submissiveness in dogs. This assumption is based on dogs being descended from a species of wolf that may never have existed!

Yes I read through some of that part (I've delving in here and there until I can sit down without the kids around later to read properly) and was a little confused by that whole affiliation thing, all animals will show degrees of submission surely? I have agreed with or found sense in most of what I've read over so far, can you recommend any good similar books Caryll I get the impression you have read a few and this genre is all new to me, definitely want to read more though!

I tend not to read training/behaviour books.

Like you, I bought the Bradshaw book thinking it'd be a good read, and it actually is. I agree with a lot of what he says (not anthropomorphising & not taking any notice of the 'pack leader' stuff), I just feel that, being a scientists, he felt it necessary to get 'proof' and came up with a long extinct wolf pack!

Yeah I can see that him being a scientist (despite his obvious admiration for dogs) will mean he would want a conclusion, even if it's flawed

I noted his mention of our friend CM

Yes, I noticed that!

PygmyParrot wrote:
I noted his mention of our friend CM

Chris Moyles

the very same Dave