Defining Dogs

Here goes a tongue-in-cheek look at definitions created by the culture of dogs:

There is a Great Divide in dogs today. The interpretations below are based on the context of their use through the ages, dating back many decades wherever dogs and humans found themselves together.

In his book 'Fetch and Carry; A Treatise on Retrieving' by Bernard Waters (circa 1894) the argument was much the same. I can remember these discussions way back in the late '60's and 70's when I acquired my very first dog; an Irish Setter from a renowned breeder in my area. My brother and I hunted over this dog and his successors for years, something that would not be thought of today, with all that hair, with none of those brains...

Working Dog: a dog that has a job, like hunting, retrieving, scent detection, protection, stock work (more commonly called herding), Service and Assistance dogs, Search and Rescue, even diagnosing human ailments. Working dogs are traditionally bred to a purpose-specific task; their parents were Working dogs as were 90% or more of the animals represented in their pedigree.

They are genetically endowed with qualities that make it easier to teach them their life tasks since they have a genetic predisposition to do so. Working dogs can be but may not be purebred. They are often recognized by performance registries where the emphasis is not on racial purity, but in the ability to perform a specific task well.

Show Dog: a dog that may or may not originally have been bred for a task-specific purpose, is the product of breeding practices that are more focused on looks than performance to a specific task, may be attractive in the way Paris Hilton is attractive (pleasant to look at but vacuous and not a serious contributor to anything of real value), but are considered useless by Working Dog standards.

An occasional Show Dog may in fact be a Working Dog, but it does not occur with the regularity that it had in previous, even recent, generations. Some Show Dog breeders think that their Show Dogs are as competitive in working dog venues as intentionally bred Working Dogs, but they are truly not. Show Dog breeders adhere to a principal of function following form where Working Dog breeders adhere to the principal of function above all.

Show Dog people thing Working Dogs are ugly. Working Dog people thing Show Dogs are genetic cesspools and stupid. Show Dogs are always purebred, are recognized by purebred dog registries, are judged on the merit of their looks as conforming to a written standard overseen by parent breed clubs and giant registries like the American Kennel Club.

Pet Dog: can be a Working Dog, can also be a Show Dog, but is often heard as a term of derision from Show Dog communities who consider a 'pet dog' to be of little value and of less genetic quality. The Pet Dog is often a dog acquired for the purpose of 'being a pet' or companion to humans in a human environment, like a home.

Pet dogs can serve many purposes, are often recognized for incredible acts of heroism and bravery and there are approximately 70 million of them throughout the United States. (based on a census where the collected statistics were generated through the tracking of license purchases and subsequent registrations of individual ownership from reporting communities across the nation. It is not an accurate number of owned dogs, it is simply a numeric sampling of licensed dogs). Pet dogs outnumber Working or Show dogs, since most people just want A Dog, not a specialty dog.

Purebred pet dogs are the byproduct of what Author Donald McCaig calls "Victorian Excess".

Either way, there has grown a colossal market for the production of purebred dogs for a consumer market and most recently for 'designer breeds' of dogs who have been successfully marketed as somehow superior to purebreds.

Pet Dogs can come from many sources; Show Dog breeders really don't breed as many litters as some people would have you believe, but they supply more pets to the Pet Dog buying market than they do Show Dogs to the show dog buying market. Since it is not that easy to breed a Champion Show Dog, many breeders breed for years in pursuit of anatomical perfection with limited success.

Historically, there are very few multi-Champion litters of any breed, so the numbers of pet dogs produced from Show Dog litters is proportionately higher than pet dogs from Working Dog litters, which are known to produce proportionately higher numbers of Working Dog prospects than Show Dog litters are for producing Champion Show Dog prospects.

Got that?

A pet pup from a Show Dog litter is no guarantee of soundness, smarts or working ability, and the only thing you can be assured of is that they look like the breed they are supposed to represent. That is not to say that there are not good, versatile Show Dog breeders; there are. I have had several successful working dogs from Show Dog breeders who were judicious in their selection process of sires and dams, genetically screened all of their breeding stock and had a variety of genetic wells from which to dip from, either domestically or from overseas; preventing the genetic bottleneck that occurs with a lot of dog breeds that are over-bred (through popularity, which is the death knell for all breeds) and heavily used individuals (Popular Sire syndrome). There is a number of Sporting dogs who can still successfully fulfill the task of their original conception and purpose over other traditional working breeds, but these numbers are dwindling rapidly.

Although a pup acquired from Working Dog blood is no guarantee that he has what it takes to fulfill his original intent, Working Dogs produce working pups with high energy levels and a keen desire to work. Not all working bred pups will end up as working adults, but the percentages of carefully planned Working Dog litters yield more working capable dogs than the most carefully bred Show Dog litter yields Show Dog Champions.

A pup from a Working Dog litter is a better guarantee of soundness, smarts and working ability, and the one thing you can be assured of is that they perform like the breed they are supposed to represent. There is a disproportionate number of 'Working' and 'Herding' breeds of Show Dogs who are incapable of fulfilling the task of their original conception and purpose over individuals bred exclusively to purpose, and these numbers are growing rapidly.

True Working Dog breeders produce the lowest average numbers of puppies overall, breeding only to incorporate new blood into already successful breeding programs and to replace their aged working dog with a new pup. They are careful how they breed and how they place their puppies.

So where does one get a 'pet'?

There are a variety of places to get a dog, but first one must define what (s)he wants in a dog.

If you absolutely must get a 'Designer Dog', please be careful that you are selecting a pup from a breeder who has seen past the dollar and is selecting sires and dams that are genetically clean of the diseases that are inherent for their respective breed(s). Junk bred to junk will produce more junk, no less so than in purebred dog populations. Just because it has a hefty price tag, it is no guarantee of quality or soundness.

If you must have a purebred dog, the same rules apply. Research the breed and look for breeders who certify their breeding stock against the diseases that each and every breed is predisposed to. It is not so much that there are Champions in the pedigree, it is more important that the breeder is conscientious enough to carefully select good breeding partners who are genetically 'clean'. Expect to pay more. Careful breeders are more concerned with where their pups end up and maintain a responsibility for the pups long after they leave the whelping box.

If you have decided to graze a couple hundred head of sheep, are a policeman looking for your next K-9 partner or an avid hunter looking for the premier hunting companion to take afield, look to breeders who's breeding programs reflect excellence in performance in those events. Purposefully bred working dogs are not easy to breed, nor are they easy to come by. Increase your success rate of getting the dog you want by looking in the right place to begin with.

Thoughtful breeding always produces good dogs, whether they are Show Dogs, Working Dogs or just pets.

You increase your likelihood of finding a good dog if you research before you buy. Talk to professionals, like Groomers, Pro Trainers, kennel boarding facilities for input on what the 'easy keeper' breeds are.

Stay away from breeders who sell on the internet. Although an internet presence is often a means to view many of the dogs a breeder has produced, good sites don't offer dogs for sale through the site and will require you to contact them directly before any purchase is possible. Visit a couple of breeders in your area. Although many breeders do have stud dogs, most conscientious breeders will more often opt to breed their bitches to dogs from other breeding programs to enhance bloodlines they already have.

You should ALWAYS be able to see the dam of the litter and although she may be protective of her brood, look to see that she is well cared for and in good weight. If the sire is from another area, ask to see pictures, look online for awards he may have received or if possible, view video clips of him at work or in the ring. Through the popularity of the internet, much can be learned from databases created by many breed or performance dog clubs and as a result, massive online resources are available.

There are always shelters and breed rescues local to you as well. If you are looking for a pet, but are not interested in the commitment a puppy requires, there are always local alternatives for older dogs and even purebred dogs through these sources. Every dog is entitled to a good home and if you are willing to acquire a pet through a shelter or breed rescue, you would be amazed at the variety of animals available through these alternatives.

Rescues Rescues Everywhere.....

My personal thanks to my colleague Roger for allowing me the privilege of posting this. Be assured that his open letter mirrors the sentiment of many dog trainers who are actively involved in rescue, breed specific rescue and dog concentric activities.

Some comments that appear in parenthesis are mine and will be addressed as such.

Rescues, Rescues Everywhere Till Not A Dog In Sight

In considering how to approach a subject like dog rescue, it is
important to recognize the potential for controversy as it relates to
the facts and the conclusions one might arrive at. It is with this in
mind that I write; acknowledging the risk that the points I am trying
to make might be misinterpreted. Therefore, let me state clearly that
I admire and respect those who dedicate time and effort to dog rescue.
When addressing any topic where passions are high, one can be sure the
feelings that are touched lie just below the surface. In fact, as I
will discuss later in this article, it is these very passions that are
sometimes played with, manipulated and preyed upon in driving an
agenda that is very much anti-dog.

While I generally support the work of many rescue organizations, I do
have concerns with how some operate. A list of those concerns might
look something like this:
- An attitude of save 'em all at any cost
- Poor utilization of scarce resources
- Bad matches resulting in wrong dog placed with wrong family
- Agendas driven by idealism interfering with effective and efficient
operation
- Animal Rights proponents infiltrating, taking over the cause,
re-framing the issue and driving the agenda. Many, if not most, of the
issues on that list are connected to some degree though they manifest
in different ways.

(BLOGGER COMMENT:My only addition to the above mentioned concerns is the OPPOSITE of bullet point one, the faction of people who condemn perfectly good dogs to die for some arbitrary testing criterion that in no way can accurately measure a dog's temperament)

Those who participate in rescue are understandably passionate about
saving dogs. Some would say "All Dogs" - even those dogs that are
un-salvageable and cannot safely be re-homed. With the growing move
toward "no kill" shelters and rescues, some dogs are simply being
locked away indefinitely at a very high cost and sometimes already
tight budgets get stretched to a breaking point. The fact is, you
cannot save them all and in trying to do so, pressure is being allowed
to build up within the rescue/welfare system that helps fuel the
concept of crisis…a concept that is then being used to fuel the
support of some anti-dog agendas.

For some unscrupulous folks, people's concern for animals is something
that can be exploited and the rescue concept can be used as a
political and/or a business opportunity. Not long ago a couple dog
owners contacted me to help train their dog Nikki. Nikki is a handsome
medium sized dog of unknown mixed parentage. His owners, a young
professional couple, report, "Nikki is a wonderful dog, he just has a
few issues we must get under control."

As it turns out, Nikki has a propensity to get into fights with other
dogs, runs off any chance he gets, steals stuff, can be very
destructive and is almost impossible to walk. His owners inform me
that they got Nikki through a rescue organization in the mid-west USA
and that he got there from someplace in Mexico. Noting my puzzled
expression, they explain that even though they know there are dogs
available locally, they wanted to contribute to a larger cause and
help a dog from more difficult circumstances.

Nikki is not unique in my experience. I've had clients tell me of the
hundreds of dollars they paid for the Bouvier that was "rescued" from
a puppy farm in Quebec – they got him by arranging to meet some guy on
the side of the highway. The dog was transferred from his van to their
car and the deal was sealed by them handing over a considerable sum of
money "to help defray expenses." Or how about the Chihuahua obtained
from someone's basement in Toronto for several hundred dollars. They
were told the place was a foster residence and the money helped cover
costs – they were also told they could pick any kind of small dog they
liked and the foster residence could get it for them. They believed
the story that all the dogs were rescues and therefore they were doing
a good thing. From the dogs reportedly rescued from the puppy mill in
northern Quebec to the side street operations in Toronto, it is
becoming more and more common to see
'rescue' dogs being shipped far and wide…sometimes with exorbitant
price tags attached to boot.

Every year millions of concerned citizens mistakenly believe they are
helping, to take care of pets in need, by donating millions of dollars
to Animal Rights organizations (some posing as animal welfare groups).
Fact is that while most front line rescue groups have almost no money,
very few resources and rely on donations from patrons within the
community to survive, outfits like HSUS have their coffers full and
very little ever finds it's way back to actually helping the animals.
What do such groups use the money for? While I don't have access to
their budgets and can't give a full accounting, there seems to be
plenty of evidence that a good portion of it goes to fund political
activities in line with promoting the AR agenda. Some of the money
goes directly into funding unreasonable restrictions on dog ownership,
dog care, reproduction and various other anti-dog type laws – all with
a view to first restrict and ultimately eliminate the
ability to own and enjoy the company of a dog.

When considering the very limited resources that some rescues are
faced with, it always amazes me to see some of the spending choices
that are made. Excessive numbers of man-hours and finances will
sometimes be dedicated to single projects resulting in even less to go
around to those other equally worthy dogs that remain. It's not just a
case of poor financial choices either. I've seen many cases where
rescues, crying they are overcrowded, because of some questionable
idealistic criteria, refuse perfectly good homes. Multi page
questionnaires complete with reference requirements, home-visits,
contracts limiting ownership, requirements and restrictions concerning
training that are permitted and even the physical structure of the
home are often cited as reasons an adoption was turned down. Some
rescues criteria would rival that of any child-adoption process.

Earlier, I gave an example of a "long-distance" rescue that happened
to be a problem dog. Of course not all long distance rescues are
problem dogs – many are just "normal" dogs with nothing to distinguish
them from any other dog found in any other place. Many, if not most of
the problem rescue dogs ending up in people's homes come from local
rescues.

It has been my experience that some rescues are much better than
others at screening out dogs which should be placed very carefully or
not be placed at all. For example, one rescue that comes to mind has
repeatedly placed dangerous dogs in the homes of unsuspecting
families. Zealously operating from a viewpoint that suggests all dogs
must be saved, they will place dogs with serious bite histories in a
succession of homes (taking it back after every incident and then
re-homing in a different unsuspecting household).

All the concerns I've noted so far represent challenges that can be
overcome by knowledgeable individuals that are committed to
strengthening the dog-owner relationship and are dedicated to this
cause. Unfortunately, these difficulties are also proving to be
fertile ground for the much more sinister agenda of the Animal Rights
movement.

"When an enemy tells you he is going to kill you believe him." This
quote, attributed to Congressman Lungren, is based on a holocaust
survivor that, when asked the one thing he learned, reportedly said,
"When your enemy says he will exterminate you, believe him." When
exploring the efforts of those that would see us loose our right to
own and train our dogs, it is worth keeping this thought in mind and
not minimize the intention and efforts invested by such individuals.

The Animal Rights movement has been both insidious and relentless in
their efforts to successfully infiltrate and distort the principles of
animal welfare. Rescues, shelters and pounds have not been immune from
this onslaught. Indeed, many of the initiatives and legislative pushes
(behind restricting/eliminating dog ownership) can be found in the way
these well meaning groups have been vulnerable to exploitation and
manipulation by the Animal Rights agenda.

It would be impossible to fully discuss the Animal Rights agenda in an
article such as this – indeed whole books have been written on the
subject that I'd encourage each person (reading this) to seek out and
read for them self. Briefly stated, however, the AR movement seeks to
end all use of animals and/or ownership in any form. They'd like to
see the extinction of any animal that is domesticated or "man made,"
and with respect to our pets and companion animals…they would sever
that relationship entirely.

If this is indeed their agenda, what factors (within the shelter
movement) might they distort and exploit? The most obvious is the
"overcrowded" conditions and lay the blame for it at the feet of the
dog fancy. They also use their own peculiar take on this to push for
the mandatory sterilization of dogs. Their hope is to slowly drain the
gene pool until it is dry. Recently they have become emboldened in
their attacks against those breeding and showing their dogs – painting
all with the image of "puppy millers." All "man made" breeds are at
risk as they push for creative ways to limit/prevent breeding. They
use everything from pushing mandatory spay/neuter laws, to laws that
outright ban or at least unreasonably restrict breeding and they
couple this with the liberal use of the puppy mill label. In their use
of these initiatives, they use every opportunity to pit those involved
in rescue against those who participate in the dog fancy.

The fact is however, that of the millions of dogs that end up in the
shelter/rescue system, very few are purebred dogs produced by
responsible breeders within the dog fancy. Indeed, among the main
reasons that dogs are given up to shelters or rescues are behavioural
issues.

The following is quoted from the "Dog Owners Guide" an online magazine
for pet and show dog owners
(http://www.canismajor.com/dog/surrend1.html). A bit of research
reveals that numerous articles support these same conclusions. To
illustrate the point, here then is the quote:

"Several years ago, the Humane Society of the US initiated a
"voluntary breeding moratorium" to urge dog breeders to stop producing
puppies until all dogs in shelters were adopted to new homes.

"Until there are none, adopt one," the slogan said.

"Thoughtful and caring dog breeders were put on the defensive, pet
stores were vilified, and all commercial kennels were lumped together
as "puppy mills" no matter how they provided for their animals.

"A new study that examined the reasons dogs — about two million each
year — are surrendered to animal shelters has shed new light on the
problem. The main reasons dogs are surrendered is that owners fail to
obedience train or have unrealistic expectations of their pet; the
dogs at highest risk of surrender are those acquired at low or no
cost, especially those that do not visit a veterinarian regularly.

"Gary Patronek VMD, PhD, one of the principle investigators on the
study, presented the results at the NAIA Purebred Rescue Symposium
last March. The work was published in the Journal of the American
Veterinary Medical Association on August 1, and is corroborated in
another study reported in the August 15 issue of the Journal.

"Patronek and his Purdue University colleagues concluded that dog
owners who pay more than $100 for a dog, take him to a veterinarian
more than once a year, and participate in obedience classes are more
likely to provide a long-term home for the animal.

"Veterinary care and obedience classes may reinforce the bonding of
pet and owner, the researchers wrote ". . . by allowing the owner to
experience and appreciate the positive aspects of pet ownership such
as companionship, affection, entertainment, and security without
overreacting to or being distracted by disruptive or unwanted behavior."

"Their conclusions challenge the assertions of activists that breeders
directly and indirectly produce an "overpopulation" of pets and
provide testimony for early intervention through education, a solution
that breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs, and the American Kennel Club
have promoted for years."
*******

If well trained, mannerly dogs are way more likely to remain happily
in their homes and out of the shelter system, why is so much emphasis
placed on neutering and very little on training? I can think of a few
possible reasons:
1. The AR movement is not likely to promote strategies that are more
likely to succeed and are at odds with their agenda and basic views.
2. Poorly mannered dogs help create an overall negative view of ALL
dogs in the eyes of the public. This negative image can then be used
to support and promote all sorts of anti-dog legislation.
3. Related to number 2 is the concept of "Untrainability." In
researching what (if any) training various AR groups might support, I
found the sorts of training declared "acceptable" are among the least
effective. The kinds of training that the most difficult and the most
dangerous are unlikely to respond favourably to. If they can "show"
training to be unreliable (and/or cruel) they can maintain the overall
negative view of keeping dogs.

If we are to maintain our relationship with "man's best friend," a
relationship that has survived for thousands of years, we must do
something to effectively address the problems of unwanted and
abandoned dogs. We must not allow ourselves to be sucked into the
emotionally laden arguments of the AR zealots – arguments that are
designed to ultimately see the end of this valued relationship – but
instead, we must be prepared to offer a wide array of solutions that
work. Education and training top such a list of solutions. This factor
alone should be viewed as both an alarming challenge and an
opportunity to effective dog trainers everywhere.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger Hild, CDT
Port Hope, ON, Canada
Professional member IACP #1185
Founding member and past Chairman of the CAPPDT

Animal Cognition, Strictly Speculation....

Funny this should show up on one of my email lists:

Wolves Make Dogs' Dinner out of Domestication Theory

Funny because a few days ago I was a participant in a discussion about Animal Cognition and an article that had appeared in National Geographic magazine in March 2008 of the same name. I had read the article and had seen various televised specials regarding it on Maryland's PBS and the National Geographic channel.

The article appeared to contradict the recent assertions from the scientific community about animal cognition, dogs specifically; refuting the 'theory of mind' in which it is thought that through the evolutionary process, dogs were endowed with an ability to communicate with us in a way that wolves could not have. The experiment details the study of wolves, household (owned) dogs who fared as well and the study of institutionalized dogs in shelters, who fared poorly.

Since no-one knows for sure how domestication came to pass, the dogs aren't talking, don't have a written history and all of our primal ancestors are decedent; I speculate that dogs developed a symbiotic relationship with man by virtue of a common usury. Raymond Coppinger believes it had to do with the by-products of pre-civilization.

Our own waste. Middlings from our campfires, the leavings of a species on the move.

I support that theory in part only because it makes sense that we as a species are a messy lot. I can't imagine much thought was given to concealing our waste products, but I disagree that that's all it was. I think that early man was compelled to follow wild dogs on the hunt for game, allowing them their successes, only to drive them off and consume the game for themselves. In this way a few things may have occurred; the two species would have become quite familiar with the movements and activities of each other, become rather comfortable in a "Know Thy Enemy" sort of way and became dependent upon each other through that process.

As the millennium creeped on and the two species became more comfortable with the presence of each other, that same familiarity enabled each to become more predictable in their mutual behaviors. Since the goal of survival was the same for both, it makes sense that each could become co-dependent on the other to locate and bring down game. When game was difficult to locate, man tracked the animal tracking the game animal. If the human was successful on the hunt, there would certainly be leavings for his erstwhile canine companion from his abandoned campfires. If the wild dog was successful, man learned how to overcome his fear and scare the wild dog off of the game to consume it for himself. And still leave enough for his reluctant companions.

It becomes easy to visualize a suspension of fear between the two parties and a union develop that allowed for more intimate contact, the securing and raising of pups to do what they had always done, but this time from within the lights of the campfires.

It is not too much of a stretch to see this happening in human populations across the globe, using what raw material they had available to work with. Selection begins here, with cognitive decisions for choosing and rearing the young animals.

I believe it is not necessarily one wild dog population that acted as the genetic raw material for all dogs, but I would like to think it was many separate genetic pools that didn't begin to intermingle until trade routes developed through the passage of man to other areas beyond his home range. A wolf on the steppes of Siberia during these times may have shared some of the genetic material as a wild counterpart in what is now known as Africa, but the diversity of each was coupled with his environment and his capability to survive in it.

The recruitment of dogs for specific tasks was a direct result of this symbiotic relationship. This symbiosis continued throughout much of the evolution of both species until within the last one hundred years. Hunting dogs will have always been first. Without them, the success of early man's survival may have been questionable. Sentry or guarding type dogs would have been right up there with the hunting dog if not one in the same animal. To this day, there are populations of indigenous people across the globe that are wholly dependent on their dogs to help locate game, act as sentries to their villages and encampments and protect their flocks and herds from predators.

The wolves they used for this experiment were intensely socialized from early ages and trained much like a dog could be. Some of the dogs they used for the study were in effect tested twice; once in a laboratory type environment where they tested poorly and again in their own surroundings, where they fared equally with the wolves. The last group of dogs tested were dogs in an institutionalized environment like a shelter.

After reading the remainder of this post and following the links, you can draw your own conclusions both about the study and about the evolution of dogs or animal cognition on the whole.

There were studies conducted on a fox farm in Siberia more than half a century ago based on genetic selection and it's impact on a population of foxes raised for fur. The discoveries offered telling arguments for domestication through selection for "tameness" in their pursuit of animals that were easier to handle. What transpired over many generations were measured in the alterations of physical attributes that changed along with the fox's temperamental changes. Folding or hanging ears, alterations in coat color, tail carriage and shape. Genetically, they were still foxes.

The original foxes used in this study were wild animals who were captured and then selectively bred for their fur. Successive generations were bred specifically for tameness, proving the genetic diversity within the species itself. These successive generations were born with largely patterned coat color, soft ears, different eye colors, other physiological differences that made them more "dog-like" than fox-like.

Since the wolves in the study were trained much like one would a dog, how are their cognitive skills anything more than a by-product of that conditioning? It is clear that the dogs in the study who were tested in their own homes fared just as well and it is also clear that the institutionalized dogs failed. I construe these findings as a result of the relationships, of the training and socialization that they had received. It had nothing, in my mind, to do with genetic influence, cognition or racial differences.

Wolves and other wild canids are by nature a suspicious lot. Brilliantly observant and cautious. Their survival depends on their abilities to adapt. Through whatever domestication process that transpired, the one thing that was removed from the equation was caution. The wild beast through whatever process; capture, peripheral association, familiarity that came in some way, lost his basic fear of man and man for his part lost his fear of the wild beast.

The caution that kept the wild dog in the distance was eroded to a point to make it possible for humans to exploit it. If they captured pups in the den, these pups were raised in the company of humans for whatever length of time and the rudiments of communication must have occurred on some level. I venture to guess that even back then our progenitors knew the value of a tasty morsel when made available to a hungry animal.

Surely our ancestors knew when they were being followed and by what. I can imagine somewhere in the past when we were not the highest predator on the food chain. Just speculation on my part, but I would also venture to guess that the 'domestication' occurred by design when it was discovered how alike as a species we really were.

Wild dogs of any species are keen observers. They see better than the average dog, hear better than the average dog, have olfactory capabilities beyond the average dog. These are all skills necessary to make them successful predators. I would surmise that early on in our association with wild dogs that we recognized the VALUE of these attributes and learned to work with them.

One of the folks that had been discussing the National Geographic article also read the results of this study. His comment to me encapsulated my question perfectly.

He wanted to know what kind of dogs the research participants were working with.

The wolves in the study were nurtured to a point that they lost their natural caution of humans and were able to react to the test using the function of their inherent abilities. That which makes them successful predators.

The dogs used in the study ranged from the average house pet (who were tested both in the institutional environment and in their familiar surroundings) and either failed or succeeded according to the environment. In the confines of the lab, they were inhibited, cautious and failed; while tested at home they were comfortable and conversely, successful in equal measure to the wolves.

The institutionalized dogs failed miserably.

This is not a measure of cognition. This is a measure of the nurturing component that affected all three populations.

The domestic dog is considered to be the most successful species on the planet. Within his genetic potential lies the capability to reinvent himself in as many ways, with as many skills as necessary to continue to survive. Early on we found those traits to be indispensable for our own survival and began to mold them in our image.

Border Collies are the penultimate stock dog for a reason. For centuries they have been selected not only for their ability to round up sheep and deliver them to their masters' feet, but all of the qualities that enable them to do that. Keen hearing, keen sight, a keen sense of smell and the willingness to cooperate with a human.

The hounds, all with noses like double barreled shotguns to locate game, again endowed with skills inherited from their wild ancestors. Endurance, scenting ability, excellent hearing.

Other breeds, other tasks, all extrapolations of what was considered valuable by humans and selected for.

All of these skills are the direct result of selection from an ancestor richly endowed with them. What makes them useful to us is the willingness to cooperate, a lack of inhibition and for us to recognize and select those inherent skills and direct them to a specific task. To nurture them.

So of course the wolves did well. They are naturals.

The dogs from the group of house pets also did well, but not when taken out of an environment familiar to them.

The institutionalized dogs did the worst of all the groups.

But what kind of dogs were they?

Of the institutionalized dogs, it is easy to determine that they are certainly a product of their environment. What considerations were made to their selection for this experiment? Breed? Age? Reasons for surrender? But still, there remains a question regarding their selection as dogs or rather, why they came to be? Were they purposefully bred working dogs? The product of a puppy mill or pet shop? Random-bred mutts from the cities or farm communities surrounding a particular area? What breeds did they have in common if they were of mixed ancestry? What breed or breeds did they represent if they were 'pure'? Had there been any prior training? Was the training conducted by a professional trainer of dogs or by lab technicians much like the Scott and Fuller experiments conducted throughout the mid part of the 20th century.

Of the owned dogs, what were their statistics?

The argument that dogs 'read' humans better than any other animal based almost exclusively on their route to domestication just doesn't appeal to me. I have owned, bred and trained them for many years. Although I have owned some very special dogs, they had to LEARN to read me. Once they 'knew' me, they could anticipate my intentions based solely on cues I offered, either with movement no matter how subtle, sounds I made no matter how hard or soft or even the casting of my eyes from one direction to another. This is a testament to their skills of observation, handed down to them from ancient contributors whose very lives depended on these same skills.

But they had to know me first. They had to adapt and conform to the signals passed on to them through me and observe the outcomes each and every time.

Does this diminish them as cognitive beings? Certainly not. It places them on a level of capability that to this day we depend upon. Since we have moved through the need for dogs as hunters and guards in most parts of the modern world, we still select for the excellence of their attributes for sport, for protection, for service and even now for detection of things as insignificant as insects and mold to life threatening cancers.

Does this make them better than wolves? No, it simply makes them less cautious.