There are two things out there; reality and our perception of reality. In the world of behavioral science, that is of paramount importance. The researchers draw conclusions that are the product of their perspective. In real science, that is not possible. Either a compound is potassium sulfate or it’s not. Either this is its chemical signature or its not. (K2SO4) 1,000 scientists examining a white chemical with this signature are going to say “potassium sulfate”. It’s not their perspective that matters. It’s their ability to objectively observe reality.

Now we get to behavior – the fantasyland of pretend science. Consider the mighty wolf. It hunts with its eyes. What do scientists focus on? Its sense of smell and hearing. The animal is very simple. What do scientists focus on? Whether this simple creature had mental abilities as compared to humans. The wolf is alternately courageous and cowardly as a matter of its continued existence. What do scientists focus on? Alleged long-term ‘dominance’ that implies that a wolf can be always valiant.
Continue reading →

If you ever go to Kansas in November to hunt pheasants there is something you should know. There are two types of pheasants; pen-raised and wild. You can kill pen-raised pheasants with bird-shot normally used for much smaller birds. To kill wild pheasants it takes bigger balls. Why? Wild pheasants are toughened up by the environment. Pen-raised pheasants are wussies, by comparison.

This is not an isolated example. One type of pine tree in Yellowstone won’t open up its cones to drop seeds if the tree isn’t exposed to extreme heat – like a forest fire. No forest fire, no replication. By fighting forest fires, a natural event, forest service workers have limited the population of those trees.

The point is that Darwin never said, “Survival of the fittest”. Even if he did, he would have meant that the species ‘fit’ a niche, like a hand to a glove. The needs of a species are not always predictable based on human perceptions. Some of the things we do to our dogs are based on what we like rather than what they need. There are many examples where stress actually causes improved health, both mental and physical.

For instance, Norwegian Elkhounds won’t grow a full undercoat unless they live through at least one cold winter. A California Elkhound isn’t going to get that thick, plush undercoat…that it’s owner will have to strip out for hours before a conformation show. If you have a large breed originally intended for hunting but never do anything that requires a hardy physique? The result is long term weakening of the physiology of the breed.

If you never stress a dog you can expect behavioral overreaction to small things. Do we think that wolves and coyotes freak out during every thunder storm and run willy-nilly away from their family group, trembling all the way?

Our current attitudes about training and behavior depend on the idea that never stressing a dog is a good thing. Then we spend money on psychotropic drugs and tedious processes to ‘desensitize’ them to normal living. If you raise a puppy in a protective bubble you better keep them bubbled-up for life. If you learn to apply stress in an environment that is also rich with new things, fun things and positive training that leads to structure you have the best formula to create a behavioral hardy dog. If you don’t, I have job security.