Raymond and Lorna Coppinger

Carol Whitney @Pos-4-ReactiveDogs writes that "the traditional model of dominance and submission has been thoroughly and effectively debunked". (So has the moonlanding by the way.)

She cites the book Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolutions by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger. Here's an excerpt of a review.

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.

Anyway, this interview was interesting and so are some comments at Amazon.

The first half of the book was quite enjoyable and thought-provoking. The authors describe how dogs evolved from scavenger village dogs, rather than directly from wolves. They argue that dogs are a distinct and extraordinary creature, not an inferior subspecies of wolves, with behavioral traits that are different from and often surpassing wolves.

I found the second half of the book, however, to be a bit preachy, pessimistic, and overstated. One main premise seemed to be that keeping dogs as household pets (as opposed to working dogs) is a lose-lose situation for the dog and the owner. Humans lose because pet dogs take valuable resources, time and money, away from our species, resources we should be investing in our offspring. Pet dogs rarely give back to us in terms of affection or whatever enough to make up for what they take from us. Dogs lose because they are slaves to our every whim, often subjected to inadequate care and boredom, and purebreds are being bred for appearance at the expense of their own health and genetic vitality. The author lashed out at showdog breeders.

Point taken, but I think the authors overstated their case, throwing the baby out with the bath water. I don't believe dogs tap us out of resources to an unhealthy degree. If anything the huge dog industry (food, supplies, vet care...etc.) benefits our economy. I know many families who find great joy in owning a dog as a pet, and I think dogs add to a parent-child relationship rather than detract.

I also thought it quite hypocritical, given the author's use of dogs for sled racing, when the author ripped on the use of dogs to assist people with special needs, such as people bound to a wheelchair. The author argued that it is unhealthy and unnatural for the dog, but that sled dog racing was somehow exempt from the criticism.