Dear Dog Whisperer:
Your website and TV show often make reference to dogs being a "pack animal". While this is an interesting idea, I have traveled all over the world and have rarely seen dogs form anything resembling a cohesive social group, never mind a "pack". Can you please explain to me how you define a pack, and show me some evidence, other than your words, that dogs actually do form packs? Once you do that, maybe you could explain to me how this is relevant to the dog-human relationship. See, after years of working with dogs I have seen plenty of dogs who are dog-aggressive but not human-aggressive, and vice versa, so clearly dogs understand that people are not dogs. Why then, I'm wondering, do you then suggest we need to act like dogs, but mimic the supposed social behaviours of wolves, in order to communicate with our dogs? My dog knows I'm not a dog and shows no preference for the company of other dogs (we have two, they both prefer me to each other), so why should I pretend I'm a wolf to communicate with my dog?
Part of my confusion, it would seem, is that it's very hard to nail down a definition of what a "pack" is. Is a pack, as some people suggest, formed when a group of dogs get together at day care for an afternoon? Does this mean that a pack is just another term for "group of dogs"? In that case, why can't we just say group? But the thing is, although I've been to many countries where dogs roam free, I've never seen a pack. I've seen plenty of solitary dogs; I've seen a lot of dogs who were interested in people and antisocial towards other dogs. And I've seen small groups that looked like family groups (mother and pups) that sometimes played and associated with each other. I have never seen a group of 30 unrelated dogs with a strict linear hierarchical relationship to each other hanging out and dominating each other. So I'm a bit confused.
And here's the thing about wolves: in a natural situation where they are not confined by human means, they don't even form packs! They form families! Wolf packs tend to be made up of a mother wolf, a father wolf, and their offspring. Sure, mom and dad are "dominant", just like human moms and dads could be considered "dominant" (although to describe our relationship to our children in that way seems a bit odd), but we don't spend time waxing about how our kids aren't being "submissive" enough, then slap an electric shocking device to their necks and zap them every time they try to explore the world without us. Well, some parents do, but we call that abuse. We'd also call it abuse if we put sliding chains around our kids' necks and hung them in the air while they suffocated, and wouldn't be surprised if a child subjected to that sort of "correction" turned out a little weird.
What's that you say? Dogs aren't people? That's my other point! Is it possible that we really, desperately, want to see hierarchical relationships in dogs because we ourselves love those relationships? At least some of us do. And where do we actually see linear hierarchical relationships? We see them in the military. We see them in the corporate world. They existed in the traditional, patriarchal, human family (a construct that, at least for the developed world, has faded from popularity). People understand hierarchies and they understand simple relationships. They love things that are simple and straightforward. People form hierarchies; dogs must form hierarchies! But, in most cases, they just don't.
Even wolves don't form hierarchies. Wolf researchers are moving away from the term "alpha" because, as I said, wolves don't normally form "packs" of unrelated animals. Don't believe me? Go ahead and listen to Dr. David Mech, the wolf researcher credited with coining the term "alpha" for the head of a wolf pack.
So if wolves don't form packs and dogs don't form packs, why do we cling so fervently to this construct? Because it's simple and it's easy and it allows a great number of so-called trainers to justify harsh methods. We do things to dogs that dogs don't, and couldn't, do to each other. We do this in the name of training and, if anyone questions it, the wolf paradigm emerges. We have to be alpha! We have to dominate! But do we have to dominate, or can we just set clear boundaries and rules?
I've always encouraged my students to question what they're told. I want them to ask me questions. I want them to question my methods. I want them to use methods that leave them with a clear conscience. And, given the fact that dogs aren't even on the list of animal species who can recognize themselves in a mirror, is it really fair to inflict harsh punishments on them, whose cognitive capabilities in most cases lag behind those of a 2 year old human child? Maybe, dear Dog Whisperer, you'll answer yes to this. Some readers may answer yes to this. But the thing is, after working with hundreds of dogs, I've yet to meet an animal that I could shock or hang or kick with a clear conscience. I can always find a more humane way to interact with my fellow creatures. And I've yet to meet a sane person, wiggly new puppy in arms, who couldn't wait to put it on a chain and choke it.
Maybe dogs are "pack" animals. Maybe, in some cases, hierarchies are formed. But I can absolutely guarantee that the hierarchies are not maintained by chains, shocks and repeated violence. Causing physical pain to your dog cannot be justified by claiming that dogs are like wolves, or that dogs are like pack animals. Dear Dog Whisperer, you can go ahead and keep showing the world's dog owners (and I know it's the at least a significant portion of world because I have watched you from Malaysia) how to choke their dogs - certainly National Geographic condones it as they're still airing your show - but please, until you can show us some real evidence, stop justifying it by claiming to be the "pack leader" and citing flawed research from the 1970s.
And dog owners: listen to your conscience, try branching out and reading a book by another trainer, and do what you think is right. If a trainer is telling you to hit or hurt your dog and you're questioning it, know that there are other ways, other methods, and plenty of other trainers out there who would love to work with you.
Your website and TV show often make reference to dogs being a "pack animal". While this is an interesting idea, I have traveled all over the world and have rarely seen dogs form anything resembling a cohesive social group, never mind a "pack". Can you please explain to me how you define a pack, and show me some evidence, other than your words, that dogs actually do form packs? Once you do that, maybe you could explain to me how this is relevant to the dog-human relationship. See, after years of working with dogs I have seen plenty of dogs who are dog-aggressive but not human-aggressive, and vice versa, so clearly dogs understand that people are not dogs. Why then, I'm wondering, do you then suggest we need to act like dogs, but mimic the supposed social behaviours of wolves, in order to communicate with our dogs? My dog knows I'm not a dog and shows no preference for the company of other dogs (we have two, they both prefer me to each other), so why should I pretend I'm a wolf to communicate with my dog?
Part of my confusion, it would seem, is that it's very hard to nail down a definition of what a "pack" is. Is a pack, as some people suggest, formed when a group of dogs get together at day care for an afternoon? Does this mean that a pack is just another term for "group of dogs"? In that case, why can't we just say group? But the thing is, although I've been to many countries where dogs roam free, I've never seen a pack. I've seen plenty of solitary dogs; I've seen a lot of dogs who were interested in people and antisocial towards other dogs. And I've seen small groups that looked like family groups (mother and pups) that sometimes played and associated with each other. I have never seen a group of 30 unrelated dogs with a strict linear hierarchical relationship to each other hanging out and dominating each other. So I'm a bit confused.
And here's the thing about wolves: in a natural situation where they are not confined by human means, they don't even form packs! They form families! Wolf packs tend to be made up of a mother wolf, a father wolf, and their offspring. Sure, mom and dad are "dominant", just like human moms and dads could be considered "dominant" (although to describe our relationship to our children in that way seems a bit odd), but we don't spend time waxing about how our kids aren't being "submissive" enough, then slap an electric shocking device to their necks and zap them every time they try to explore the world without us. Well, some parents do, but we call that abuse. We'd also call it abuse if we put sliding chains around our kids' necks and hung them in the air while they suffocated, and wouldn't be surprised if a child subjected to that sort of "correction" turned out a little weird.
What's that you say? Dogs aren't people? That's my other point! Is it possible that we really, desperately, want to see hierarchical relationships in dogs because we ourselves love those relationships? At least some of us do. And where do we actually see linear hierarchical relationships? We see them in the military. We see them in the corporate world. They existed in the traditional, patriarchal, human family (a construct that, at least for the developed world, has faded from popularity). People understand hierarchies and they understand simple relationships. They love things that are simple and straightforward. People form hierarchies; dogs must form hierarchies! But, in most cases, they just don't.
Even wolves don't form hierarchies. Wolf researchers are moving away from the term "alpha" because, as I said, wolves don't normally form "packs" of unrelated animals. Don't believe me? Go ahead and listen to Dr. David Mech, the wolf researcher credited with coining the term "alpha" for the head of a wolf pack.
So if wolves don't form packs and dogs don't form packs, why do we cling so fervently to this construct? Because it's simple and it's easy and it allows a great number of so-called trainers to justify harsh methods. We do things to dogs that dogs don't, and couldn't, do to each other. We do this in the name of training and, if anyone questions it, the wolf paradigm emerges. We have to be alpha! We have to dominate! But do we have to dominate, or can we just set clear boundaries and rules?
I've always encouraged my students to question what they're told. I want them to ask me questions. I want them to question my methods. I want them to use methods that leave them with a clear conscience. And, given the fact that dogs aren't even on the list of animal species who can recognize themselves in a mirror, is it really fair to inflict harsh punishments on them, whose cognitive capabilities in most cases lag behind those of a 2 year old human child? Maybe, dear Dog Whisperer, you'll answer yes to this. Some readers may answer yes to this. But the thing is, after working with hundreds of dogs, I've yet to meet an animal that I could shock or hang or kick with a clear conscience. I can always find a more humane way to interact with my fellow creatures. And I've yet to meet a sane person, wiggly new puppy in arms, who couldn't wait to put it on a chain and choke it.
Maybe dogs are "pack" animals. Maybe, in some cases, hierarchies are formed. But I can absolutely guarantee that the hierarchies are not maintained by chains, shocks and repeated violence. Causing physical pain to your dog cannot be justified by claiming that dogs are like wolves, or that dogs are like pack animals. Dear Dog Whisperer, you can go ahead and keep showing the world's dog owners (and I know it's the at least a significant portion of world because I have watched you from Malaysia) how to choke their dogs - certainly National Geographic condones it as they're still airing your show - but please, until you can show us some real evidence, stop justifying it by claiming to be the "pack leader" and citing flawed research from the 1970s.
And dog owners: listen to your conscience, try branching out and reading a book by another trainer, and do what you think is right. If a trainer is telling you to hit or hurt your dog and you're questioning it, know that there are other ways, other methods, and plenty of other trainers out there who would love to work with you.
