Scan barcode
sjgrodsky's review against another edition
1.0
My mother taught me to say something nice whenever possible. So I will. I'll praise Thomas's astute observation that peaceful for dog is boring for a primate.
That said, I vigorously agree with all the critical comments. The incident that infuriated me was when she allowed a husky to terrorize some caged parakeets and mice. The author admits that she "should have stopped [the dog] immediately" but didn't because she was "so fascinated" by what she saw and thought the dog "couldn't hurt [the birds and mice] only scare them."
Maybe some day Thomas will be cornered by a toothless, declawed tiger. I'll watch then, fascinated, and not interfere because she can't be hurt, only scared.
That said, I vigorously agree with all the critical comments. The incident that infuriated me was when she allowed a husky to terrorize some caged parakeets and mice. The author admits that she "should have stopped [the dog] immediately" but didn't because she was "so fascinated" by what she saw and thought the dog "couldn't hurt [the birds and mice] only scare them."
Maybe some day Thomas will be cornered by a toothless, declawed tiger. I'll watch then, fascinated, and not interfere because she can't be hurt, only scared.
susanbrearley's review against another edition
5.0
One of the most insightful books I've ever read on dog pack behavior, written by veterinarian who was ill prepared for the barrage of canine behavioral questions that came from her clients, fresh out of vet school, where all that was focused on was the nuts and bolts of physical science.
problemreader's review against another edition
Didn't like it. Couldn't even finish it.
kimberly_b's review against another edition
1.0
I could barely read this book. It was all just too much and not nearly as interesting as I thought it would be.
nighthawk921's review against another edition
3.0
I thought the most interesting chapter was the one on the Baffin Island Wolves. What she observed and how the wolves live and acted was fascinating. I learned more in that chapter than the rest of the book. That being said the most interesting parts of the book were all of the dog behaviors towards other dogs or their surroundings and I found the best parts of this were in the beginning of the book.
There were two things that really bothered me about this book. The first was that she allowed the dogs to wander freely, even when she admits she didnt always want them to go (Like when Misha took his puppy with him.) I understand the leash law was just being adopted so this was sometime in the late 60's early 70's so the culture was very different. But Misha was not neutered and here lies my main complaint. A fertile dog was allowed to roam the streets of Boston at will. He never mounted another dog while she was following but that does not mean he never mounted a stray dog (or a pet dog also allowed to wander) and gifted her with his puppies. Misha was not her dog so I can't be upset with her for not fixing him but its almost unthinkable now adays to 1) let a dog wander freely in an urban area and 2) to allow an unfixed non-wild dog to wander freely. And when Misha impregnated her dog, was that planned or was that a "happy accident"?
My second issue comes with all the females dogs getting pregnant because they were not fixed. I assume that at least the first pregnancy was somewhat wanted so they kept most of the puppies and the second pregnancy with Koki was also wanted, but after that why were the dogs not fixed? Especially after the one dog was raped and Thomas observed how the lowest dog on the totem pole acted towards her puppies and how the other dogs treated her, why would she allow the dog to go through that again? If she really wanted the Dingo to have a litter then she should have removed the dog completely from the house during its pregnancy. She used friends dogs to impregnate hers routinely and often dog-sat dogs for long periods of time. She had no friends who could be relied upon to allow the dog to maybe give birth in a "safer" setting?
I understand anthropologists are not supposed to interact with their subjects, but these were not wild dogs (even though she sometimes treated them as such) and therefore her human interactions for some things really bothered me when she wouldn't then interact or intervene at others.
All in all it wasn't a bad book. It is important to remember it was written in 1993 which meant she was studying the dogs from the 1970's-1990's. It was a different time in dog ownership and responsibility and she could do things then that are mostly unfathomable now. But if you can put all that aside, reading about how the dogs interacted with each other, how they handled the social structure, how Misha handled traffic or dogs he came across on his travels, how pregnancy affected the dogs and the group were all really interesting to read about.
There were two things that really bothered me about this book. The first was that she allowed the dogs to wander freely, even when she admits she didnt always want them to go (Like when Misha took his puppy with him.) I understand the leash law was just being adopted so this was sometime in the late 60's early 70's so the culture was very different. But Misha was not neutered and here lies my main complaint. A fertile dog was allowed to roam the streets of Boston at will. He never mounted another dog while she was following but that does not mean he never mounted a stray dog (or a pet dog also allowed to wander) and gifted her with his puppies. Misha was not her dog so I can't be upset with her for not fixing him but its almost unthinkable now adays to 1) let a dog wander freely in an urban area and 2) to allow an unfixed non-wild dog to wander freely. And when Misha impregnated her dog, was that planned or was that a "happy accident"?
My second issue comes with all the females dogs getting pregnant because they were not fixed. I assume that at least the first pregnancy was somewhat wanted so they kept most of the puppies and the second pregnancy with Koki was also wanted, but after that why were the dogs not fixed? Especially after the one dog was raped and Thomas observed how the lowest dog on the totem pole acted towards her puppies and how the other dogs treated her, why would she allow the dog to go through that again? If she really wanted the Dingo to have a litter then she should have removed the dog completely from the house during its pregnancy. She used friends dogs to impregnate hers routinely and often dog-sat dogs for long periods of time. She had no friends who could be relied upon to allow the dog to maybe give birth in a "safer" setting?
I understand anthropologists are not supposed to interact with their subjects, but these were not wild dogs (even though she sometimes treated them as such) and therefore her human interactions for some things really bothered me when she wouldn't then interact or intervene at others.
All in all it wasn't a bad book. It is important to remember it was written in 1993 which meant she was studying the dogs from the 1970's-1990's. It was a different time in dog ownership and responsibility and she could do things then that are mostly unfathomable now. But if you can put all that aside, reading about how the dogs interacted with each other, how they handled the social structure, how Misha handled traffic or dogs he came across on his travels, how pregnancy affected the dogs and the group were all really interesting to read about.
augustfriend's review against another edition
2.0
Like others who have posted, I think this book is best understood in context of the time period in which it was written. In 1993, the author writes about being amazed at a dog knowing which car was hers without ever seeing it before. In 2013 we know that dogs' sense of smell is so acute that identifying a person's car isn't some sort of ESP or incredible feat of intelligence. It's just a dog being a dog. I also think many readers (including myself) being shocked and horrified at the author letting dogs roam freely is certainly understandable. I take issue, personally, with the fact that she doesn't fix her animals, even after traumatic pregnancies, painful births, and unsuccessful attempts at raising puppies. Especially since she describes her dismay that animals are euthanized in shelters because there are too many unwanted (but completely adoptable) dogs out there.
With so many advances in science, the book itself just doesn't stand up. What I thought was going to be modern scientific research piece interspersed with personal observations was, in reality, a slightly rambling, largely anecdotal, strangely nebulous account of a pack of dogs in which the author hopes to observe anthropologically but can't because of her own emotional attachments.
With so many advances in science, the book itself just doesn't stand up. What I thought was going to be modern scientific research piece interspersed with personal observations was, in reality, a slightly rambling, largely anecdotal, strangely nebulous account of a pack of dogs in which the author hopes to observe anthropologically but can't because of her own emotional attachments.
garyndc's review against another edition
5.0
Excellent narration by Ms Thomas. Gives readers insights into dog behavior, details of the dog "smarts". You'll discover why dogs chase cars, how they know the safest way to cross a busy street. What do dogs want when they are lying atop their "domain"? Great read and detailed sketches accompany the story.
wjread's review against another edition
1.0
The author is so self-congratulatory that it's annoying.