Stop Being Terrible at Werewolves: A Friendly Guide for Fantasy Writers

The modern concept of werewolves originated some time after we stopped being hunter-gatherers -  who weren't afraid^[1] of wolves, and in fact made friends of them and turned them into dogs - and sometime before the Renaissance. Wolves were the last widespread, man-eating large predator in Eurasia. They could leap out of the dark woods to attack livestock and eat children and unarmed peasants. The perfect animal to hang our collective monster fears on.

This wolf, the "werewolf-wolf", is not based on real Canis lupus; it's simply a stand-in for all things savage and animalistic. Fantasy need not be "realistic", but a problem arises when writers create a werewolf that isn't a generic savage beast, but a detailed, fleshed-out species with its own society based on the way wolves actually operate in the wild. And it's almost always done poorly. I don't care if your lycanthropy is based on magic, Magik, viruses, or aliens;  If you want to base your fantasy creature on real-world animals, you need to base it on real, up-to-date science about those animals.

I recently had to quit an urban fantasy series^[2] I liked because I just couldn't stand the werewolves any longer. The rest of the world-building was great, but bad science will get to me every time. Here's an excerpt from the first chapter of the first book in the series:

"'...eat, then come back out when you're ready.' ... He heard the command and stiffened, raising his eyes to meet mine. ... I knew better than to give orders to a werewolf - it's that whole dominance reflex thing. Werewolf instincts are inconvenient - that's why they don't tend to live long. Those same instincts are the reason their wild brothers lost to civilization, while the coyotes were thriving^[3], even in urban areas."

Keep in mind, the werewolf character in that excerpt is young, injured, and came to this person for help. And yet even in such a state he still "instinctively" hates receiving even the mildest form of an "order", to the point that the person trying to help worries that he'll attack her because of the way she phrased a single sentence.

This lays the ground work for werewolf social interaction for the rest of the multi-book, best-selling series. Werewolves are obsessed with hierarchy and dominance. To the point of stupidity - they often get distracted in the middle of things they're doing, including fighting an enemy, to turn on each other and fight their own comrades and family. All of them (except for some very rare individuals) are constantly, every moment, every single interaction, battling to become the "Alpha" and control the rest of the group.

I read a fair amount of contemporary urban fantasy, and this is a very typical example of how werewolves are portrayed. And it stems from an outdated and over-rated idea of wolf psychology, which can be summed up in one word:

The "Alpha"

Please, for the love of doG, stop with the "alpha wolf", "pack leader", "dominance is everything" crap. That's not how real wolves (or dogs, for that matter) work. We (western science anyway) used to think that's how canines worked. But we've learned a lot in the last 40 years. In fact, one of the originators of the term "alpha wolf", who is still a wildlife researcher, has since strongly rejected it, going so far as to beg publishers to stop reprinting his older work.

I get why fantasy authors continue to use this outdated theory of dominance as a framework for werewolf world-building. It's simple, most laypeople are familiar with the concept, and it's satisfying to the chimpanzee inside our brains. But it's boring, it's unscientific, and it's a sign of lazy researching.

How To Be Better at Writing Canine-Based Fantasy Creatures 

Wolf packs are families. There is a father and a mother, who mate for life, and their children. There may also be aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins in the same pack. There is no all-powerful king. The mom and dad may not even have many leadership roles. They often do, simply because they're also the oldest and most experienced in the family, but it's by no means a given. It may be other family members who decide when and where to hunt, or where to get water, or when and where to explore/check territorial marks, how harshly to discipline trespassers, etc.

The main thing the "alphas" are concerned with is that they are the only ones allowed to have babies (this isn't a strict rule either! More on that in a moment). This is for good, evolutionary reason: puppies survive better if the whole pack focuses on sustaining just one litter at a time, sharing the duties of babysitting, providing food, and teaching. Too many puppies at once, and all the puppies starve or die from accidents because there weren't enough adult eyes watching.

This "law" of no babies is loosely enforced by the mom and dad by discouraging the rest of the family from mating. The type of discouragement, and how rigidly it is enforced, will vary a lot from pack to pack and depend on how plentiful resources are. There's no need to "fight" their parents for leadership - if a son or daughter wants to have babies, they just leave and start their own pack. Even if one of them did feel the need to fight their parent, what would be their prize? Wolves mate for life, and they choose each other. If a son kills his father, there is no crown or queen to inherit, he's just as likely to be driven off by the rest of the family as he is to "win" a kingdom.

If a daughter does get pregnant while still living with her natal pack, it is usually by a rogue male (scientifically known as a "Casanova male", which is fantastic) who's been creepin' around the edges of the family's territory. Under normal circumstances, these puppies would be ignored by the rest of the pack, and die of neglect. It's possible they may be outright murdered by their own grandparents and/or the daughter may be shunned or kicked out of the pack. When resources are plentiful, however, sometimes the parents allow their daughters to have puppies, too, and the whole pack raises all of them at once.

Another "law" that is often bent and broken: territory. Wolves are often very territorial, and spend a good amount of time patrolling and marking the family's property line. Trespassing wolves may be killed on sight, but not always. Sometimes, new wolves are welcomed into the pack. Sometimes, they're allowed to visit and even mate with some of the females, but aren't really welcome to hang out very long. Sometimes, families join together into "super packs" for awhile, then go their separate ways after awhile. Some children are kicked out of the pack when they're mature; some choose to leave on their own; some choose to stay with their parents for many years; some may leave for awhile and then come back.

Like human families, each pack is different. Some will be more egalitarian, while others will indeed have authoritarian parents that are every bit the stereotypical "alpha". But they are also dynamic. If a father or mother is too much of an a-hole, members may simply leave, which would be detrimental to the "alphas" because then they have less help raising their puppies, deincentivizing extremely aggressive kin behavior. If a younger member of a family fights or kills their parent (which does happen sometimes), it's a lot less less about "fighting to be dominant" and a lot more, "jeeze, dad was such an abusive dick, it's so much better since he moved out".

Wolves can indeed be brutal, but it's not a given. Wolves are flexible, adaptable, social, and intelligent. It makes no sense for werewolves to be mindless, rigidly adhering to hierarchy, and wasting energy fighting each other. The real lives of werewolves could be just as complex, dynamic, rich, brutal, bloody, as real wolves. Let's not limit ourselves.

Some examples of good werewolf world-building

Shout out to Hemlock Grove for creative and well thought-out werewolves that have an animalistic nature and all that fun duality symbolism without the weird baggage of dominance theory.

Shout out to DiscWorld for a well-formed and complex werewolf society that does not involve any "alpha dog" nonsense (that I've seen; I haven't read all the DiscWorld books). Although werewolves are quite harshly hierarchical, in typical Pratchett fashion, it's allegory about human monarchy/authoritarianism rather than anything to do with real wolf "pack dynamics". Bonus love to Pratchett for pointing out many times that wolves and dogs are not very different at all.

Shout out to Harry Potter, in which lycanthropy is treated mostly as a disfiguring disease. There isn't so much a society of werewolves, as there is a loose association of people who come together because they're infected by the same disease, and therefore face the same discrimination from the rest of the world. Werewolves who are bad, violent, or authoritarian, would be so whether or not they were infected with lycanthropy, not because of anything to do with wolf psychology. J.K. Rowling goes out of the way to point out in the text that werewolves don't act much at all like real wolves.

~~~*~~~

Footnotes
[1] The old paradigm of early dog domestication (where cave men hated wolves and wolves were scared of cave men) is falling out of favor. The newer theory, is that wolves and early humans were hunting partners to one extent or another as far back as the Neanderthals or earlier. For more info, read the wonderful book How the Dog Became the Dog, by Mark Derr (or google his essays), and the many essays on the subject by Scottie Westfall. This is also something I explore in my "Domestication Stories" series of short stories.
[2] Which I won't name. You can probably figure it out
[3] A side note of irritation for this quote specifically: new research suggests coyotes are much closer genetically to wolves than originally thought, and may actually be a subspecies of wolf, or that wolves and coyotes make up a species complex. This makes sense, because they are identical in almost every way to wolves. The only reason they're currently thriving, and wolves aren't, is that they are smaller. They can live off smaller prey and lower quality foods like fruit and garbage that simply won't sustain the mass of a wolf, a diet that means they slip under the radar easier than an animal that requires large prey. It means that  a century ago, when the government was giving out bounties on a whole list of "unwanted" animals, coyotes weren't as heavily persecuted as wolves were. Coyotes only managed to expand their range after humans systematically killed off most of the wolves in North America. Not because they're smarter or have somehow less "volatile instincts" than wolves.

Everyone Uses Bleach Wrong: A PSA with BONUS! Super Hero Analogy

I worked in an animal shelter once upon a time, and as you can imagine it was both rewarding and stressful; there were high highs, and low lows of all kinds, but there was one area that never failed to suck me into a twilight zone of misery: catching a volunteer or co-worker in the act of -- and then correcting on -- the improper use of chlorine bleach.

Bleach is our friend. It is the most effective, cheapest, most environmentally-friendly option for killing most of the terrible germs out there. And everyone seems to use it incorrectly. Too many people treat bleach more like a magic talisman than a disinfectant, filling a spray bottle and spritzing it on everything in the style of Windex Mom in My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Bleach is like a comic book hero who has super strength only under the right circumstances. If the "bad guys" are hanging out somewhere wide open and clean, bleach is unstoppable. Other disinfectants like QAC's are more like stealthy assassins, sneaking in through the air ducts to get to the center of the bad guys' hideouts. The bad guys can learn to stop the assassins by simply blocking the air ducts, but they have no defense against the brute-force of bleach. (This is also why germs are not likely to develop resistance to chlorine bleach the way they can to the QAC's).

Except... like all good super heroes, bleach has a major weakness: dirt (all organic material, actually). The moment bleach touches dirt, it loses all its power. The bad guys can hide inside a microscopic ball of organic matter all day long. It's like a giant, multi-room mansion to them, and all bleach can do is peek in the windows.

Chlorine bleach does not work on:

Wood 
Carpet
Plush toys 
Most furniture
Fabric* (gray area, see below)
Dirty dishes
Dirty concrete
Dirty anything

Dirt

Let me repeat this, because I've talked to a lot of people about this, from all walks of life, and it's always a hard sell: I swear to you, no matter what you've heard (or who you've heard it from): Bleach will not work on porous or dirty things. I'm sorry, you can't disinfect that cutting board you bought from the thrift store. Or the second-hand drift wood for your lizard's terrarium. We've all done it at one time or another. You're not the first one to dump bleach onto the slobbery dog toys, or litter-encrusted cat box, or into your parvo-contaminated lawn, or spritz it on your ringworm-covered clothes, and think that you killed a few germs. It really doesn't do anything except sometimes change the object's color.

And I have more bad news: the same is true for all the other disinfectants out there; there is no such thing as a magic disinfectant that will solve all your organic material problems, no matter what certain brands' marketing implies. (With the possible exception of accelerated hydrogen peroxide and potassium peroxymonosulfate, but even those are only slightly better in the presence of organic matter. Plus they're much more expensive, and have higher health risks to users, than bleach).

But do not despair! Microorganisms don't always need to be killed, they can be PHYSICALLY removed from their hideouts. Washing with detergent, tons of rinsing, hot dry cycles. Don't forget about that overlooked hero, Heat. The most important disinfection process of all, autoclaving surgical instruments, doesn't use any special chemicals at all, just heat.

And sometimes you have to just bite the bullet and throw contaminated things away. If that thing is your yard, digging out the contaminated soil and throwing it away, or burying it in a thick layer of mulch may be a better answer than trying to clean it. Speaking of...

Soiled soil
Yes, it's tough when an outdoor area is contaminated by something nasty and contagious. The most porous and dirt-laden place of all is the same place most likely to be contaminated when you have a sick pet. Most of our worst enemies like parvo, panleukopenia, crypto, and ringworm can live for a long time in the soil. Many pet websites (and a lot of veterinarians) recommend, in addition to other protocols, at least giving a chemical disinfectant a try on your yard if you've had for example, parvo dogs pooping there. I could probably get on board with the idea of giving it a try, just in case it kills a few baddies, except for one problem: if it doesn't work, (and the science tells us it probably doesn't) you won't be able to tell, and you risk getting complacent.

Fabric
Dealing with contaminated clothing is almost as fraught as a contaminated yard. Yes, some bleach products are labeled to disinfect clothing - but in a very limited way: Adding the correct amount to a load of laundry in a washing machine run with cold water that doesn't contain very much organic material. In which case, the action of the detergent and water alone may physically remove more germs than the bleach will kill.

The problem is, I've seen way more people using bleach incorrectly with clothing than any other application. I've observed multiple professionals (veterinarians, certified vet techs, nurses) recommend spraying contaminated clothing with a bleach solution (or other disinfectant, like a quat, usually). This isn't doing jack sh*t. I totally understand you want to feel like you're doing something, but using it this way isn't just useless, it may make things worse by encouraging less caution with the (still contaminated) clothing.

Proper use of bleach: an original mnemomic, just for you!

If you have a non-porous thingy to disinfect, remember to S.W.A.P.

Stay cool! Heat kills bleach (aka, it accelerates the loss of the chlorine ions before they can do their work). Mix with cold water only; if you're going to use in a washing machine, set it to cold; don't use bleach on something hot, like recently washed dishes.

Wash First! -- always pre-clean before disinfecting.

Alone! -- Bleach works best alone. Don't mix it with anything besides water. Unless you're experimenting with re-creating mustard gas, and want to burn your lungs out, then by all means.

Yes, I know they make "cleaner and disinfectant in one" products that had to have passed some efficacy tests before being sold. Buy them if you can afford it, but please, please, don't try to mix your own. Don't try to mix in an essential oil because you don't like the smell of bleach (yes, I once had to stop a volunteer from doing this at the shelter).

Proper dilution! more is not always better. Believe it or not, for some germs, more concentrated bleach doesn't work as well as properly diluted bleach - I suppose it would be as if Super Bleach were all hopped up on Angry Acid and screamed the whole time he ran down the street before attacking the bad guys' hideout - announcing his presence so forcefully would give the bad guys a chance to run away (non-enveloped bacteria link). The perfect dilution of Bleach allows it to punch through the bad guy's defenses with exactly the right amount of force and speed to complete demolish them it before they know what's happening.

OK, that's one of the worst mnemonics I've ever heard, but you get it.

Now, go forth and kill some parvo!

References:
Bleach factsheet from the NIH
Bleach factsheet from the CDC
Cleaning and disinfecting in shelters
UW FAQ on killing parvo
UC Davis FAQ on killing parvo in yards
Resistance mechanisms of bacteria to antimicrobial compounds (PDF)
Antiseptics and Disinfectants: Activity, Action, and Resistance
Bacterial resistance to disinfectants containing quaternary ammonium compounds
How long can different germs survive on surfaces?
Air temperature greatly affects how long crypto can live on the ground: one day vs. 73 days

Image description: a crude cartoon drawing of a anthropomorphized bottle of bleach, labeled "super bleach" and wearing a mask and cape, as it faces off against a blob of brown substance containing anthropomorphized microorganisms, who are frowning at the hero.

If logic ruled the day...

When Taxonomy Meets Dunning and Kruger

This started out as a short rant about how some people purposely misinterpreted a recent scientific paper because they have an agenda ... but who am I kidding? There's really only one fool who has "misinterpreted" the study, and if this person didn't have such a wide audience I wouldn't care. But for some reason, despite multiple abuses of science and historical facts over the years, Patrick Burns, aka Terrierman, continues to be considered some kind of expert. 

I normally let his posts slide on by without comment. But, like the festering sore he reminds me of, sometimes things just have to pop.

Here's just the latest example: Some scientists who are a whole lot smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject did some research on golden jackal DNA and decided that they'd found enough evidence to designate one of the populations as a new species, which will be called the African golden wolf instead of the African golden jackal. 

You've probably heard of it. It's the type of scientific finding that scientists publish widely and loudly because it's the kind of feel-good, easy-for-laymen-to-understand study about a recognizable charismatic megafauna. As they should, because it's interesting and we always need to do as much as we can to encourage the public's interest in science. Most scientists accepted it as another small building block in our understanding of the natural world, and then moved on.

Terrierman, using his typical "OMG LOOKIT ME I'M DIFFERENT AND SPECIAL method of discourse, dismisses the findings so quickly it left BURN marks on my screen[1][2]

"like, whatever"

Alrighty, then. Perhaps TM has some new insight that all the other experts missed? 

Yeah, not really. He has a scant few paragraphs full of condensation and non sequiturs. 

"If scientists have "discovered' anything in this instance, it is simply that Jackals are every bit as diverse as we have always known, and that a few populations may be a little farther along in the speciation process than what some other scientists have previously acknowledged. A little new information, but is a debate ender?  Not by a long shot."

Any biologist reading that paragraph would find it pure gobbly gook. Who called this a "debate ender" [3]? Even the NatGeo article he quoted points out that other biologists have some quibbles. What the heck is he even talking about when he says "speciation"? No scientist I've ever read has used the term speciation the way TM does. 

TM doesn't seem to understand how new species designations are assigned in modern times. There may not be a simple definition of what a species is, but there are many legitimate and accepted ways to designate a new one. As he himself points out, biology is messy, and what we see in our short lifetimes is a snapshot of evolution in constant motion. But just because there's gray area, doesn't mean the concept of a species is irrelevant or unobtainable.

The scientists who wrote the paper have solid, well-justified reasons to define this population as a new species, and they're laid out in detail in, y'know, the paper he's dismissing. He doesn't address a single one of their findings.

He's really hung up on how and when animals mate. It's a very odd obsession that he's seemed to have for years (see below), and he uses examples differently depending on how they can best serve his opinion. For example: it's well accepted science that animals will continue to hybridize long after it's useful to call them different species, as he has pointed out numerous times when it comes to the relationship between dogs and wolves! But he uses it to dismiss the African golden wolf designation because... "jackals have diversity".

Someone in the comments tried to gently correct him on his misconceptions, including his grim determination to call dingoes a separate species [4]. He responds with more handwaving that at times becomes incomprehensible. The comment section alone would need a separate post to explain all the gish galloping going on.

But here's the most telling comment from TM, at 5:01:

"The simple point is that your points all depend on ink from a library, while I am making a case based on real fur, feather, and fin.
You salute words, not fulling understand the fragility of those words historically or scientifically. How many genus and species have been created and merged, split and absorbed in the last 40 years? All ink and artifice as the animals themselves remain the same."

In the end, the only thing he has to fall back on is: "Enough of yer book learnin', you need STREET SMARTS...(like me)".

Yes. Let's all do science by instinct and gut feelings. Eliminate all the tedious counting and measuring.

What the heck would he make of all the other interesting puzzles of taxonomy, I wonder?

I'd like to introduce PB to the concept of "cryptic species". I know he's stuck in pre-1980's biology, but the wonder of DNA is it allows us to uncover all kinds of interesting things, like different species hiding in plain sight. Like African butterfly fish, where two species look identical despite 50 million years of separation. 

Or zebras, where the battle over names and subspecies designations has raged since the 1900's, and continues today, except better and smarter because of all the new knowledge we keep accumulating. The plains zebra alone has 50 possible names, and currently 6 relatively accepted subspecies. Every time a new study comes out, we add to and revise our understanding of the evolutionary relationships within Equus, just as we do with Canis. Using TM's logic, we should throw up our hands and ignore DNA, stop studying family tree relationships at all because it's complicated and there's gray area.

Or African elephants. When TM complains that "taxonomic debate these days is about humans looking to publish papers, get grants, name new species, and secure habitat protection"[9], the relatively recent designation of the African forest elephant as distinct from the savannah is exactly the type of thing he's whining about. Would he care that it was based on multiple robust studies of morphology, DNA, and behavior? What is enough evidence for assigning a new species for him?

These examples do not weaken the idea of "species" as a useful scientific and colloquial term; they're just part of the reality of cladistics. Anyone who knows what they're talking about has no problem rolling with fuzzy areas because discovering and defining the differences and similarities between closely related species is a rich mine for scientists. 

Whereas TM on the other hand, seems not only confused, but bored by any evolutionary relationship that a) was discovered after about the 1970's and b) is not very clear cut. He instead simply waves away complications by saying species isn't a useful concept (well, unless he says it is). How can he be against assigning species status based on autosomal DNA, but OK with assigning it based on geography and "culture"? He offers no reasons, just keeps repeating (and has since 2005 at least, see below), "just ask the animals, they know where the species boundary is." This is weird on several levels.

How does he know that they know? Is he telepathic? Does he mean it literally? Because I asked my dog and she didn't answer. And if he doesn't mean quite literally, does he mean "study the animals"... because... uh, that's exactly what the authors of this paper (and all the other papers he's dismissed over the years) did!

He just got done telling us that "species" isn't a useful term, anyway. Which is it? Do the animals "know" what species they are, or is there no such thing as a species?

Wolves and coyotes, and wolves and dogs, apparently don't "know", because they exchange genes a lot more often than he's implying. Notice that though he's forced to admit that canids mate, he very carefully never provides citations and always says "but it's not very often". He's relying on purposefully vague language. This allows him to dismiss any published data about gene transfer as irrelevant because "it's still a rare occurrence". There's no way for him to be proved wrong!

As many people have tried to point out to TM, it's a simple fact that dogs are a subspecies of wolf, whether you like it (or understand it) or not. [8]

Related: Desperately needing dogs and wolves to be different species despite the overwhelming data is a purely emotional response, and can only be due to his opinions and philosophies about dog ownership. What he repeatedly misses is the fact that, whether they are or aren't from a scientific perspective is moot when it comes to how we handle, train, and live with dogs and wolves. And no one argues otherwise except his very own strawmen.

This isn't an isolated case, either; Patrick Burns has a history of cherry picking data that fits his favorite theories, and applying purposely vague anti-science rhetoric when it doesn't.

Example 2: He thinks there are red wolves in West Virginia

"That's no coyote, it's a space station red wolf!"

From a scientific perspective, "red wolves" are at best barely recognized as a distinct species. We got more data and realized they're wolf/coyote hybrids, and that there is no real reason to classify red wolves simply by morphology, but it's still contentious, people get very emotional on the subject. It is a great example of a movement successfully using anti-science to muddle the waters to the point a layman would not be able to find accurate information on the subject. So perhaps PB could be forgiven for thinking that red wolves are still a thing, but.... even if red wolf was a species... there's no reason to think they're in WV [5]. Identifying a species from a single blurry photograph, in a place it shouldn't be, when it looks identical to another species that does live in the area... occam's razer, anyone?

Example 3: In a blog post he titled "Canis Soupus" 10/1/2010, he says some weird things. So many weird things, it almost deserves its own response in a separate post, but I'll keep it short and skip over most of the "WTF-ery".

Notice that this post is from five years ago, yet it's the exact same thing, almost word for word, that he keeps repeating when this subject comes up. Compare his comments over the years, and see if he's learned anything new: 

2005: "The simple truth is that dogs know they are not wolves, just as wolves know they are not dogs, and humans know they are not apes." 3/11/2005 "The Wolf Within"

2010: "And while wolves, dogs, coyotes dingos (sic), and golden jackals CAN interbreed amd (sic) produce fecund young, they rarely do, and the reason for this is that the REAL EXPERTS on species, the animals themselvs (sic), know they are very, very different." 10/1/2010

2015: "The real experts in these matters are not scientists, or even humans, of course, but the animals themselves. Jackals, dog, wolves, and coyotes seem to recognize major differences between themselves and give a hat tip to those differences 99.999 percent of the time." 7/31/2015 

This is also funny because he still treats dingoes like they're a different species[3] even as the graphic he uses doesn't even show dingoes because all scientists by 2010 group them with "dogs".

He pulled a quote from a NYT article. Unsurprisingly, he took the quote out of context. Ironically, the writer of that particular quote is Carol Kaesuk Yoon. She actually studied evolutionary biology, and in fact wrote an entire book on the subject of naming and differentiating species. A book I've actually read and highly recommend. You can read an excerpt, or listen to her talk about it, or read one of her essays on the same subject at the link above. 

She is an actual expert in the very area that TM is pretending to be an expert. Compare TM's rants to even a casual glance through her book, or even the freaking publisher's summary:
TM:

"In fact, scientists are starting to come to terms with an important idea, which is that a lot of animals are in the process of speciating ... and that the notion of species is a human idea that still needs a lot of work..."

Book summary:

 "...[this book] is a rich journey from Linnaeus, whose system turned classification from a hobby to a science, and Darwin, who ended the idea of rigid species definitions..."

Yes, that's right, TM is trying to pass off the well established, century-old concept that species have fuzzy edges as "new". What's worse, he's doing it to try to make scientists look like confused idiots too wrapped up in their book learnin', and himself look like a wise paradigm-shifter.

I wonder what Yoon would think of her own words being used as anti-science rhetoric? Well, I have a guess. Here is another quote of hers, taken from another NYT essay: 

"...the ordering and naming of life is no esoteric science. .. sorting and naming the natural world is a universal, deep-seated and fundamental human activity, one we cannot afford to lose because it is essential to understanding the living world, and our place in it."

Example 3.5: In 2006, in a blog post titled "The Wolf Within", 12/11/2006, which is mostly a repost from 3/11/2005 [6]. He says Darren Naish is awesome, which, like quoting Yoon, is ironic, because Darren Naish now heartily disagrees with him about canid taxonomy, and since 2006 has drastically revised his position on the origin of domestic dogs based on new data. He would also, I suspect, disagree with TM about how scientists nowadays are tedious, attention-seekers who don't know how to make "real discoveries" anymore.[7]

TM's post from June 2015 titled "A Dog is Not A wolf" is nothing but a rehash of all his previous posts on the subject. Nothing new, and he suddenly doesn't seem to want to cite Naish anymore... hmm...

Example 4: He denies that black wolves got their melanistic gene from dogs. ("And White Wolves Come from Mars" 2/6/2009)

Look how he uses the same language and dismissive tone as he does every time he talks about science he doesn't like. He uses a few simple, accurate statements ("melanism is common", "dogs and wolves are related") then adds in his unjustified opinion ("therefore, the scientists can't prove the gene is from dogs"). It's like the definition of a non secitur. He seems to think that one can be correct simply if one is forceful and confident, but that's nothing but the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Notice how he also doesn't link to or critique the study itself, just the newspaper article about it, of which the most damning fact he can come up with is the author doesn't speak in absolutes.  

Example 5: He thinks DDT didn't affect raptors ("Bald Is Beautiful" September 5, 2008)

... and was called out on it here. 

The best that can be said about TM is that he wrote a few good blog posts about dog breeding and working animals. Unfortunately, he thinks that gives him authority to post many, many bad blog posts on subjects he's clearly not well versed. What's worse, he does so with the most condescending, uncompromising, unearned superiority complex I've seen outside of a politician.

No one ever told him, in the case of science writing, "fake it 'til you make it" is not the best motto to follow.

He uses anti-intellectualism when it suits him, and as an insult for people who disagree with him when it doesn't. He cherry picks data in the worst way. He holds on to outdated theories with an iron grip, violently denying all evidence against them. His blog is mostly a long list of non sequiturs he uses to boost his opinions, and he does nothing but add to the white noise of the anti-science movement. This is all the more insidious because he cloaks himself in the trappings of "science-ness" - and is believed by a depressing number of people.

Please, if you're a regular reader of TM, don't allow him to get away with this any longer. Start looking at his words more critically. Post skeptical comments and see how he responds. Don't share his posts without double checking his facts first. 

----------------------------------------------------------------

[1] SEE WHAT I DID THERE
[2] see terriermandotcom (dot) blogspot (dot) com (yes, that really is the address he chose for his blog), 7/31/2015 "First New Canine in 150 Years?"
[3] Aside from his strawmen, of course. Oh, Patty looooves his imaginary strawmen opponents

[4] Back in olden times, before DNA was used in biology, it was logical to argue that dingoes were a separate species based on morphology and geography. Now, with new data, we know better. Dingoes are just dogs. You can call them a breed, or a population, or type, or regional variant, or whatever, but the science is pretty clear: they're dogs, closely related to other native breeds from east Asia.

[5] except to get attention for his blog

[6] He quotes himself almost as often as he quotes newspaper headlines.

[7] I can only assume that he finds all new species discoveries that don't involve Englishmen in tweed stomping through jungles as boring. Finding the new olinguito? Just some bookworms digging through a library, how boring!
[8]  Savolainen et al. 2002, Lindblad-Toh et al. 2005, Pang et al. 2009, vonHoldt et al. 2010, Larson et al. 2012, Freedman et al. 2014...
[9] as if any of those things are automatically bad, or not useful, or not interesting, or even new (from his 7/31/2015 post "First New Canine in 150 Years?")

NOTE: I did not provide links because I don't want to encourage traffic to his site, which gets more than enough undeserved attention as it is. If you want to read his posts, my citations should be adequate to find them. If you can't, ask and I will provide a link via email. Or the screencaps in case some editing or "disappearing" occurs.

Help a Naturalist Stuff His Weasel

Scottie Westfall, the writer of the Retriever, Dog, and Wildlife blog, needs help stuffing a weasel.

Not just any weasel; a white long-tailed weasel collected in West Virginia. There shouldn't be any white weasels in that part of the state. HOW INTERESTING you say. Sadly, it's been languishing in a freezer for over a decade. It's an interesting specimen that deserves to be professionally mounted.

Support by going to this page and pledging just $1 a month (with a special reward!)
or  make a one time donation through Paypal.

Child Development plus Dogs

A little dog/toddler interaction that I found interesting.

The other night we went to a friend's house, a place new to Cora, where she met six dogs for the first time. For the first two hours we were inside with just one, a large calm doberman, who Cora patted a few times but otherwise they ignored each other. Later, the rest of the dogs were let inside and a 9-month-old malinois ran up to Cora and greeted her very excited and roughly, nearly knocking her down and it was obvious from her face she was overwhelmed. The interaction only lasted a few seconds before I scooped her up, and by no means was she upset enough to cry or yell or do anything more than frown.

Over the next few minutes the other dogs came to say hi while Cora was in the safety of my lap, including a second (calmer adult) malinois who looks very similar to the first. Similar enough that I would have assumed a baby could not tell them apart after only just meeting them, but she treated the two very differently: for the rest of our visit, if any of the dogs brought their heads within reach, she would attempt to pet them, except for the puppy. She wanted nothing to do with him, if he tried to sniff her, even if it was polite this time, she had a very strong negative reaction, saying "no, no" (well, more accurately, "doh, doh") and emphatically waving her "stop hands" at him (the way she reacts to food she doesn't want, or a person she doesn't want to hold her). But later, when the puppy had been put away and Cora was back on the floor, she happily sought out interaction with the adult malenvois and two other smaller dogs she'd just me.

There's been some study on if and when babies can tell apart animals, but it's mostly been about monkeys.

15-month-olds can be very judgy, as I'm sure other parents can attest.

All Natural BS

My baby is fourteen months old now. Plenty coordinated enough to hold a bottle or sippy cup on her own, but I still feed her on my lap when I can. Like when she was younger, she will completely relax into my arms, glassy eyed and limp except for slowly fidgeting hands. It's very sweet and relaxing, and I know soon she will graduate out of babyhood and moments like this will be gone. I'm enjoying it while I can, even though it's during these moments that I still get occasional twinges of regret (salted with guilt, of course) for not being able to breast feed past five months. "In the wild" humans would breast feed until at least age seven or eight, right? Stealing a few minutes to feed a bottle of cow's milk to my one year old is hardly "natural". Then I quickly remember that, "in the wild", my baby and I would both be dead, killed due to minor complications I experienced during childbirth. Nothing "natural" about me being alive in the first place, why would I wring my hands over the way my daughter gets nutrition (especially since she's incredibly healthy and happy.)

Fuck "natural", or, at least, the version of the concept our society is currently using. What, after all, could be more natural than using our big, naturally-derived brains to invent helpful technology?

Vaccinating cats and dogs: should you ever use less than the full dose?

Should these two canines receive different doses of vaccine based on size?

Short answer: no.

No, not even for kittens/puppies.

I've done this too, don't feel bad. There's this widespread feeling, especially among dog breeders and animal rescue folks, that splitting vaccines between young/small animals is a good thing. It saves money and seems like it would be safer somehow. The thought process goes: if a one mL dose is good for an 80lb dog, than shouldn't half or less of that amount be fine for a 10 lb dog?

But vaccines aren't drugs. You don't measure dosing by weight.

And everyone who knows what they're talking about says don't do it.

All you need to know is in the following email response from an expert to one of our board members' request for clarification:

You are correct regarding the recommendation AGAINST splitting vaccines.  This is applicable for both dog and cat vaccines.  The idea behind the recommended vaccine dose is that it contains what has been determined to be the minimum amount of antigen needed to adequately stimulate the immune system- regardless of the pet's size.  If you do not administer the vaccine properly (route, dosage), then not only can this result in vaccine failure but it also negates the manufacturer's warranty regarding the efficacy of the vaccine.  

 Regarding references: it is difficult to locate primary references since these concepts were validated in studies done some time ago.  I did find two references that might help you though - one is a recent publication, "2013 update on current vaccination strategies in puppies and kittens" by GM Davis-Wurzler (Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 2014 Mar;44(2):235-63.).  Here is the applicable quote from this publication: 

 

"The practitioner is advised to always follow the manufacturer’s directions for dose

and route of administration. Using a topical product parenterally or splitting doses

should never be done. A full dose is required to stimulate the immune system; there

is no medical basis for giving a smaller dose to a toy breed dog, and this practice could

lead to vaccine failure in that animal. If done with a rabies vaccine the practitioner is

not following federal requirements, which carries potential legal implications."

Also, WSAVA (the World Small Animal Veterinary Association) publishes vaccination guidelines for cats and dogs and under its FAQ section it states, 

"26. May I use smaller vaccine doses in small breeds to reduce the risk of adverse reactions?

No. The volume (e.g. 1.0 ml) as recommended by the manufacturer generally represents the minimum immunizing dose, therefore the total amount must be given."

(http://www.wsava.org/sites/default/files/VaccinationGuidelines2010.pdf)

I hope this helps, 

Chumkee 

Chumkee Aziz, DVM 

Resident, Koret Shelter Medicine Program

UC Davis Center for Companion Animal Health

www.sheltermedicine.com

www.facebook.com/sheltermedicine

Responsible Dog Breeding

What is 'responsible breeding'? If you want to buy a puppy, how do you choose a breeder who is 'ethical'? It may not be what you've been lead to think.

 Most people think that a responsible, ethical breeder only breeds purebred dogs that can be registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC) (in the US), or one of the other large breed clubs. Having "papers" is supposed to increase a dog's value, and ensure they're a healthy, typical specimen of the breed. It doesn't. This popular style of breeding is hurting dogs, and it's up to puppy buyers to stop it.

Although distinct dog breeds have been around for thousands, the current extremes in dog breeding became popular only about 150 years ago. That's when three things started to go wrong:

1) Closed studbooks leading to loss of genetic diversity
2) Increased genetic disease due to inbreeding
3) Breeding for extreme physical traits that affect dogs' quality of life

Unfortunately, many dog breeders don't think this is a problem. Many people are caught up in this fad of breeding and can't see that they're hurting the dogs they love. Other breeders simply don't care as long as it gets them a ribbon in the show ring and/or money from puppy sales.

Whether they're good people or not, whether they love dogs or not, whether they commit these crimes out of ignorance or not, these types of breeding practices should not be supported.

Here are some rough guidelines to choosing an ethical dog breeder. They are different from what you've probably read from the ASPCA or other animal welfare groups, and very different from what the AKC would have you believe. But, choosing a puppy based on these guidelines is one small step to ensuring that we have a healthy population of dogs for years to come.


How to Spot an Ethical Dog Breeder:


1) Their animals are housed, fed, and exercised appropriately based on individual needs
2) They use inbreeding sparingly, if at all
3) They support outcrossing/backcrossing
4) They avoid increasing obvious heritable disease in the population
5) They don't breed for extreme physical traits
6) They genuinely like dogs, and do things with them besides breed them
7) They take genuine interest in their puppies, and will always take them back if needed


Explanation:

1) Their animals are housed, fed, and exercised appropriately based on individual needs
There's no checklist for this. For example, dogs and puppies with "ribs showing" is normal on say, a Boxer, Saluki or German shorthair pointer. Likewise, many people think dogs should never live outdoors, but there are lots of dogs who are happy, or are actually meant to live outside 24/7. Having a large number of dogs on the property also isn't necessarily a bad thing: many breeding programs focused on genetic diversity, for example, require having lots of dogs around. It's also good for young puppies to socialize with adult dogs who aren't their parents. And some breeders just really like having a lot of dogs, which isn't bad if they're all cared for appropriately. Cleanliness is often misleading: some of the worst puppymills in the world are as sterile as a hospital room, while some of the best breeders, if caught on a bad day, will have puppies temporarily covered in their own poop.

Red flags: the dogs show signs of kennel insanity, (repetitive behaviors like spinning, ceaseless barking or lunging, etc); the breeders won't let you see the dogs "behind the barn"; they have small breed dogs that are never allowed inside; extreme matting on long-haired dogs; any dog that is housed with little to no human contact (with the rare possible exception of working livestock guardian dogs); puppies are listless, dull eyes, dull coats, bellies look bloated with worms, etc. or adult dogs are unhealthily fat; etc.

Good signs: they are happy to show you any and all animals on their property (not just dogs) and don't get offended by questions; even dogs that are kenneled/crated seem content (though they may be excited to see you);

2) They use inbreeding sparingly, if at all
Breeding close relatives on purpose is a tool that has been used for thousands of years in dog breeding. However, it is being over-used to the extreme today. Even healthy-looking dogs without obvious genetic disease are affected by a thing called "inbreeding depression". It causes immune system problems, difficulty conceiving, and small litter sizes, and shorter life spans. Inbreeding also reduces genetic diversity. Inbreeding is easy to avoid in this day and age, with most pedigrees available online, and so many ways to network and find mates for dogs. And we have so much knowledge about genetics now it's really a crime to ignore or deny it.

Red flags: they make excuses for why they "have to" breed close relatives; they claim that certain bad things are "normal for the breed" like small litter size, short life span, certain deformities or disease, etc;

Good signs: they are happy to explain their dogs' pedigree and breeding choices; they are outspoken about going out of there way to to avoid inbreeding even when it's difficult; they support outcrossing (see below);


3) They support outcrossing/backcrossing
Outcrossing is another tool that has been used in dog breeding for thousands of years (see below for more info). Unfortunately, (and inexplicably) many breeders and breed clubs like the AKC, are rabidly against backcrossing. They have been duped into believing a closed studbook is not only a good thing, it's the only way to breed dogs. Even though studbooks have only been closed for about 150 years or less (depending on the breed). They think that bringing in new blood somehow diminishes the breed, when in fact, when done thoughtfully, it only makes dogs healthier, happier, and longer-lived (see below for examples of outcrossing).

Red flags: they become angry at the mere mention of outcrossing; they claim outcrossing actually increases disease; they deny it's needed; they think it's possible to "breed out" disease within a closed studbook (this is a very common myth which simply isn't true: see below for more information).

Good signs: they actively support outcrossing for any breed, especially within their own; if they're breeding crossbreeds like labrodoodles, for example, they do so just as thoughtfully as if they were "purebred" breeders (with a critical eye on each parent, basic health screening, etc).

4) They avoid increasing obvious heritable disease
Most genetic disease is "invisible" meaning you can't tell a dog is affected or an unaffected carrier just by looking at it. Some diseases are visible or can be tested for. Still others occur on a gradient, meaning some dogs are affected worse than others. Sadly, many breeders will still breed dogs even when they know have diseases they will pass on to their puppies. This is another negative effect of closed studbooks being considered "normal", and considering many inbred-caused diseases to be "normal for the breed" and "not a big deal".

Before looking for a puppy, find out what diseases the breed is prone, and what kind of tests are available/common for the breed. Ask questions of the breeder, like: are the parents affected? The grandparents or aunts and uncles? Try to choose breeders that are actively outcrossing to eliminate or or "dilute" the disease (for example, if you want a dalmatian, only choose a one that is a LUA dalmatian).

Red flags: They don't do any testing at all (though many things don't have a "test"); they make excuses for diseases "it's normal", "it's not that bad", or that it's impossible to avoid breeding a carrier .

Good signs: the breeder is open and honest about diseases in their breed and/or in their dogs; the breeder has changed their mind about breeding a litter based on known or possible heritable disease (and is happy to explain why); they are actively outcrossing/crossbreeding to improve genetic health.

5) They don't breed for extreme physical traits
This is sometimes the hardest to convince people about, but extreme traits make life miserable for many dogs, all in the name of "fashion".

We all think pugs are cute, for example. But unfortunately, the average pug suffers every day of its life because of its physical deformities (see below for more info).  Dogs are great at putting on a brave face even while suffering, so even though they seem happy, they would be so much happier if we stopped supporting breeders who make them so extreme, and instead choose puppies that are more moderate in appearance (they're still cute!).

Pictured: illustration c. 1900 of non-extreme pugs that still look like pugs

It's not just pugs of course. English bulldogs and pekes have noses too short to breath properly; a lot of German shepherds have crooked backs and legs; most basset hounds have too much skin and parts of them drag on the ground; most Neapolitan mastiffs have way too much skin and are prone to skin ear and eye infections/injury... the list goes on.

There's even a word for it: "Qualzucht" which means "torture breeding", and it's so widespread that there is legislation against it in some European countries.

None of them have to look this way, despite what many people think. And what's more, and up until about 150 years ago, they didn't. Over just a few generations breeders have gotten off track to the point that even the general public thinks certain breeds "always look like that". Dogs are suffering for it.

All the excuses for keeping extreme traits are wrong. They're wrong morally, ethically, historically, and biologically.

Finding ethical breeders is harder for some breeds than others. For example, currently people who breed English bulldogs are almost all unethically breeding dogs with extreme short muzzles, skin problems, inability to conceive or give birth naturally, and can't cool themselves properly. They may be nice people and even think they love their dogs, but it doesn't change that what they do is horrible. Ethical breeders are out there, you just have to look harder to find them.

Red flags: simply having lots of ribbons in the show ring is a red flag since right now judges for most breed clubs reward extreme traits; the look of their dogs should speak for themselves: if it can't run, can't breath, or some part of it drags on the ground, too many wrinkles, too short of a nose... odds are it's suffering needlessly; they make excuses for extreme traits: "it's not that bad", "if it doesn't look like that, it's not really a (insert breed name here)", "it's cuter that way", "it's meant to be that way"; another red flag is breeders who focus strongly on one or two physical things about their "special line" of dogs, color or ear shape, for example, it probably means they're losing sight of health and temperament.

Good signs: again, the shape of the dog (usually) speaks for itself. Currently a breeder who focuses on a healthy shape is sometimes considered an "outcast" in the mainstream breeding culture (depending on the breed: it's especially true of the breeds listed above). They often advertise the fact that they're breeding this way, often using words like "working strain", or "old fashioned" or "moderate" versions of the breed. Keep in mind there are many ethical breeders that don't go dog shows, and often their dogs aren't able to be registered with a breed club. Sometimes breeders who want to reform or stop the downslide of a breed end up changing the name, or give a new name to their particular strain. For example, compare the "Olde English Bulldogge" or a "Leavitt Bulldog" to the modern "English Bulldog".


6) They genuinely like dogs, and do things with them besides breed them
Working, hunting, herding, playing, hiking, sports, etc. This criteria eliminates puppymill breeders from the equation, and also some show ring breeders  Remember: just because it has a shiny coat and "papers", doesn't mean it's not being abused or neglected.

There's nothing wrong with a dog who's only job is to hang out with people, but we should expect a bit more from dog breeders than we do the average dog owner.

Red Flags: they only touch their dogs to breed them, or show them; especially if they breed dogs with a lot of drive and energy whose original purpose involved work in some way.

Good signs: they are happy to talk about all the activities their dogs do, even the ones they sold years ago; at least some of their dogs do breed-specific activities (border collies and agility or herding; retrievers and dock diving or hunting; pit bulls and weight pulling; lap dogs and service dog work; etc, the list goes on, but you should know it when you see it).

 7) They take genuine interest in their puppies, and will take them back if needed
No ethical breeder wants any of their dogs to end up in an animal shelter, and they will take steps to make sure that doesn't happen. They may not have a written contract, but it should be clear that if a puppy buyer has to rehome a dog at any time, even if the dog is 15 years old, the breeder wants it back.

Red flags: they sell puppies to whoever comes with cash in hand, without giving out any information, business cards, signing a contract, getting contact information, etc. They don't show interest in puppies they've made in the past, or in who wants to buy their puppies or where they're going.

Good signs: a written contract that states clearly that they will take the dog back, no matter how much time as passed; the breeder microchips the puppies and lists themselves as a permanent secondary contact on the chip registry; the breeder wants to stay in contact, and wants occasional updates on how their dogs are doing, if they're good workers, if they've developed disease, etc.


NOTE:
There are many good, dog-loving people (who would be considered "responsible" by many) who are actually unethical dog breeders under these guidelines. The main culture of dog breeders have deeply held beliefs that they cling to with almost religious-like fervor, even as they're hurting dogs in both the short and long term.  As the saying goes, good intentions pave the way to hell. In the end, it doesn't matter if a breeder is a good person, or if they THINK they're doing the right thing. If Mother Teresa was breeding inbred pugs with no noses, I would criticize her, too.



Further Reading


Pedigreed Dogs Exposed - the documentary


The Canine Diversity Project

The Institute of Canine Biology

Canine Inherited Disorders Database

Inbreeding

Why is science so important to dog breeding? 
Why closed stud books are bad and outcrossing is good
Why is inbreeding bad?
The Science of Inbreeding 
What is Popular Sire Syndrome?
What is Inbreeding Depression

How to breed dogs with stronger immune systems
Why is inbreeding wrong? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Why health testing in purebred dogs is limited and won't save us from too much inbreeding
Poodles are in trouble from inbreeding

What has closed stud book done to the Afghan Hound
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel and Episodic Falling Syndrome 


Outcrossing

How Backcrossing Works
Are Mixed Breeds Healthier?

Crossbreeds generally live longer
Outcross example in German Pinschers
Outcross example in Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retrievers
Outcross example in Dalmatians

Extreme Physical Traits

What is 'Torture Breeding'
Another example of torture breeding
True history of the pug

Pug snores aren't "cute", they're slow, life-long torture
How the West ruined the Shar-pei
Show vs. working strain Labradors
Deformed basset hounds winning awards in the show ring
Deformed mastiff won "Best of Breed" at a Club UK's Breed Open Show
Structural problems in Frenchies (and what breeders AREN'T doing about it)
English bulldogs are all handicapped
100 years of breed "improvement"

Cultural Problems

Ignoring history and biology, breeders freak out over minor things like coat color
Kennel clubs don't guarantee healthy animals nor stop puppy mills


Acknowledgements
I'd like to especially thank a few people who are far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, have been writing about it longer than me, and are all-around inspiring and you should read their stuff:

Scott Westfall
Jess Ruffner
Christopher Landauer
Jemima Harrison
Heather Houlahan