Rating: 
Summary: Good in its main points
Review: The Coppingers in "Dogs" try to say a few different things. The main topics are how wolves became selected as dogs, what this implies for their behavior and training, and the ethics of pure-breeding and using working dogs as pets. In these core topics, this book is generally well argued and supported in the main, but suffers from hiccups of poor reasoning. In one example, when arguing why bigger dogs are better for the transhumance, the authors state "to cover the distance with half the steps means a longer lasting dog." Well, the bigger dog also takes heavier steps and big dogs are notorious for structural problems. However, these hiccups are minor distractions.The first core topic that dogs evolved first as scavengers of human waste dumps is interesting. While still largely a speculative hypothesis, this idea is shown fairly well in the book to be more reasonable than the idea that humans got a hold of enough wolves to domesticate them by selecting the tamest ones and tossing the others. This has implications for training in that essentially sedentary dogs foraging at a dump are not going to have wolf behaviors, particularly the widely assumed pack hierarchy. Another major topic is the discussion on why working dogs, with strongly ingrained motor patterns of behavior, are not going to be well suited for living in a house - unless you like being herded by your border collie. This too is well done and promoting the option of a more "generic" dog as a better household companion will do much good. There is also a section on how assistance dogs suffer by being bred and developed in manners inconstant with what makes for a good working dog. While this has been criticized as an argument against assistance dogs, a careful reading will show that it is a valid critique of how the system can be improved. The Coppingers' critique of the profound wrong that is breeding for show will upset the most people. But it is also the best and most important argument in the book. And no, breeding for work, for behavior, which doesn't involve closing a stud book, is not just as bad or the same thing as breeding for appearance from a closed stud book. Throughout the book, the Coppingers also try to discuss what canine evolution implies for Darwinian theories of evolution, but do so in a confused manner by misunderstanding gradualism in the modern sense as being slow, constant changes in morphology (they also use the word "saltation" in a broad and confused way) rather than the actual meaning of continuous, though possibly quite fast, change at the genetic level. They themselves argue that canids have not changed much genetically and that their diversity of form is due to developmental reasons with the needed genetic variation provided by hybridization within the species. Fortunately, these discussions are not central to enjoying the book. The Coppingers write with a bit of wit, which I enjoyed. But most importantly, this book is unique to my knowledge in trying to be rational, rather than sentimentally anthropomorphic, towards dogs. As such should be read by anyone with an interest in them and their true well-being.
Rating:
Summary: Good in its main points
Review: The Coppingers in "Dogs" try to say a few different things. The main topics are how wolves became selected as dogs, what this implies for their behavior and training, and the ethics of pure-breeding and using working dogs as pets. In these core topics, this book is generally well argued and supported in the main, but suffers from hiccups of poor reasoning. In one example, when arguing why bigger dogs are better for the transhumance, the authors state "to cover the distance with half the steps means a longer lasting dog." Well, the bigger dog also takes heavier steps and big dogs are notorious for structural problems. However, these hiccups are minor distractions. The first core topic that dogs evolved first as scavengers of human waste dumps is interesting. While still largely a speculative hypothesis, this idea is shown fairly well in the book to be more reasonable than the idea that humans got a hold of enough wolves to domesticate them by selecting the tamest ones and tossing the others. This has implications for training in that essentially sedentary dogs foraging at a dump are not going to have wolf behaviors, particularly the widely assumed pack hierarchy. Another major topic is the discussion on why working dogs, with strongly ingrained motor patterns of behavior, are not going to be well suited for living in a house - unless you like being herded by your border collie. This too is well done and promoting the option of a more "generic" dog as a better household companion will do much good. There is also a section on how assistance dogs suffer by being bred and developed in manners inconstant with what makes for a good working dog. While this has been criticized as an argument against assistance dogs, a careful reading will show that it is a valid critique of how the system can be improved. The Coppingers' critique of the profound wrong that is breeding for show will upset the most people. But it is also the best and most important argument in the book. And no, breeding for work, for behavior, which doesn't involve closing a stud book, is not just as bad or the same thing as breeding for appearance from a closed stud book. Throughout the book, the Coppingers also try to discuss what canine evolution implies for Darwinian theories of evolution, but do so in a confused manner by misunderstanding gradualism in the modern sense as being slow, constant changes in morphology (they also use the word "saltation" in a broad and confused way) rather than the actual meaning of continuous, though possibly quite fast, change at the genetic level. They themselves argue that canids have not changed much genetically and that their diversity of form is due to developmental reasons with the needed genetic variation provided by hybridization within the species. Fortunately, these discussions are not central to enjoying the book. The Coppingers write with a bit of wit, which I enjoyed. But most importantly, this book is unique to my knowledge in trying to be rational, rather than sentimentally anthropomorphic, towards dogs. As such should be read by anyone with an interest in them and their true well-being.
Rating:
Summary: Reasonable Explanations and an eye opener
Review: The Coppingers present (in my opinion) a reasonable explanation for how we domesticated dogs, as well as insights into modern dogbreeding and behavior.
The point that modern dogs are descendents of 'village dogs' - which were wolf-like animals makes sense - they weren't wolves as we see them today. (Just as humans may have evolved from an ape-like ancestor - not the modern chimp).
It's explained how humans have bred dogs for certain traits that are exaggerated from their prey-chase cycle, and I found it very helpful for understanding dog behavior in general. He mentions how the AKC doesn't have dogs interest in their breeding programs - but this is obvious - if humans had the same type of inbreeding, we'd be appalled.
I found his criticism of service dogs surprising, although warranted. He is critical of their training - which is disjointed and doesn't prepare them for serving someone in a wheelchair.
As far as the dump dogs being happier - I believe he meant that biologically speaking, they weren't inbred and those with non-survivable traits (such as those pets with breathing problems) weren't around. And biologically speaking, dogs would be happier if they were breeding, but the authors aren't recommending that we let our pets breed freely.
All of the information is presented in a manner that what the reader wants can be picked through - there may have been a couple arguments in the book which I didn't personally agree with, but they didn't stop me from enjoying the rest of the book.
Rating: 
Summary: thought-provoking, but some points overstated
Review: 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 hypocritcal, 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Prepare to be annoyed and fascinated
Review: This book blew me away with its insights and made me want to throw it across the room many times. It is simply the best evolutionary and biological look at dogs around, while at the same time is seriously marred by the authors' excursions out of science into a weird pseudo-ethical debate about "what's REALLY best for dogs." As the owner of a young Great Pryrenees (now 20 months) brought home at 5-1/2 weeks as a pet out of a litter of working livestock guardian dogs, I was fascinated by the Coppingers' description of the "predatory sequence." I could suddenly understand the behaviors I'd observed at the dog park, the startling differences between my dog and the border collies there. The very idea that there are literally millions of the type of dog I own--a breed that seems unusual if not rare in the U.S.--out there in central Asia even today migrating with herds of sheep as they have done for millenia...this just gives me chills. As humans we like to tell ourselves stories about our breeds: how they developed, why they have this or that characteristic that was "bred into them" for some special purpose. And yet the story the Coppingers tell about the livestock guardian "breeds" rings so true in a historical, scientific and geographical context that it is awe-inspiring. All of this part of the book is well-argued and based on convincing evidence. While I do agree that human breeding of dogs according to strict, but essentially fanciful, "breed-types" should be subject to serious ethical discussion, I wish the Coppingers had simply made their effective points about the underlying nature of breeds and left it at that. The cloudy discussion of whether or not people's present-day association with dogs is really "bad" in some esoteric way for dogs just doesn't come across as convincing in this book. Their ideas, which are not very precise, seem to be based on biological definitions of "evolutionary success" that are in themselves just human words and concepts with no more functional weight than an AKC breed definition. This is an area where the Coppingers seem to have abandoned their incisive real-world observations and fallen for their own "scientific" jargon. Do we want to know if the human-dog association is bad for dogs? That's like asking the question, Is marriage bad for people? Obviously for some dogs it is wonderful, for others it is a disaster, for others it is irrelevant. Dogs hardly seem to be going extinct--what more can they ask from an evolutionary perspective?
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating look at dogs
Review: This book is a fascinating examination of the familiar dog by a professor of biology, who is also a former sled dog racing champion and dog trainer, and his wife, who is also an expert at the raising and training of dogs. Studying where dogs came from, what they are and where they are going, the authors reach some startling conclusions. They reject that idea that Mesolithic hunters stole wolf puppies to originally domesticate dogs, instead following the flow of adaptation to suggest that the path of domestication leads through the Neolithic garbage dump! After that, the role and attributes of modern dogs are examined. Finally, the explosion of genetic "diseases" among purebred dogs is examined, and its causes laid bare. This is a fascinating look at dogs. Much that I have noticed about the dogs in my life has been explained to me, and a great deal of food for thought given. I highly recommend this book; it will answer many questions, including some you never thought to ask.
Rating:
Summary: Must read for the dedicated dog trainer
Review: This book is a must read for anyone who intends to train their dog or wants to have a better understanding of the relationship between man and dog. Thought provoking and easy to read, Coppinger's explanation of he domestic dog's origin and relationship with man provides the reader with a good understanding of canine behavior.
Rating:
Summary: Opinions, facts, and some other things
Review: This book is basically a mash of opinions, facts, hypocrisy, and some good reading. I generally enjoyed reading most of this book. It really helped me see how dogs did evolve from wolf-like ancestor and how they think. But Coppinger is a stereotypical scientist and goes about everything unanthropomorphically. He does have some obvious points, that AKC inbreeding does not benefit dogs, but he also makes it out that we should not own pet dogs, only working dogs. He describes herding dogs, flock guarding dogs, bird dogs and sled dogs, but not working dogs, like Dobermans. He did not go into topics like police dogs, who are trained to aprehend criminals, or personal protection dogs. Which I was hoping would be covered. This is a somewhat pleasant read, and I do recommend it, but take some of it with caution. It's not all fact, it's highly opinionated. But a lot of books are. The authors owned several hundred dogs all at once. Which is horrible. That type of upkeep does not allow dogs to have any emotional attachments to people, and they are more like moving objects, not living things.
Rating:
Summary: Bad Science
Review: This book is littered with mistakes. For instance the author in chapter 10, The Age of the Dog, would have us believe that if dogs are older than 12,000 years bp then they would have to have been created by Neanderthal people. Excuse me? The Neanderthal was a dead end line that is extinct. We are not descended from them. This book was published in 2001 and this information was widely available. There are other mistakes like calling the Pemba island dogs "walking hounds" when they are clearly not hounds but Cur dogs. He characterizes all modern "hounds" and the hunting of them in hunt clubs, i.e. fox hunts (he uses the newer mink hunts), as the only use of hounds when, in fact, this is an isolated use found only in Britain. There is more but suffice to say that when you find numerous mistakes it calls into question the rest of the science in a text. The author seems to be on solid ground when he sticks to what he knows, but the depth of knowledge necessary for this book to have been successful is just not there. As another reviewer wrote: "Startlingly shallow". I couldn't agree more.
Rating: 
Summary: dogs, a startling new understanding of canine origin, behavi
Review: This book is very poorly written and very redundant throughout. The authors seem to take some pleasure from continuously posing esoteric questions, instead of just trying to provide some straight forward useful information. There is nothing that is particularly startling in this book, as the title trys to suggest. The authors should remove all of the subjective and quasi-conversational text from this book and submit it as a paper to a journal.
|
