Second Installment

(Dear Reader: Thank you for your generous comments. There is much information coming soon. Kevin.)


Energy theory vs. Personality theory,

Whether we know it or not, we all develop highly complex theories for animal behavior, most especially dogs. Even someone who doesn’t own a dog and never thinks about why animals do what they do: nonetheless develops a highly elaborate theory not only for their nature but for their evolution as well, and quite possibly without even knowing it. It’s simply the way the human mind is constructed as a default response to the “nature” of things and situations.
Let me be more specific, anytime we feel powerless, our instinctual intellect kicks in and adds another layer of evidence into the matrix of interconnected assumptions that comprise whatever particular theory we are constructing. These theories are acquired over the years in an unconscious response to our experiences with animals and are based on certain core assumptions that serve as the foundation for the theory. Since I talk to many people about the nature of behavior given the nature of my work, it’s been my experience that these assumptions are universal, which makes sense to me since I believe they are based on an archetypal, instinctual response to nature. We will examine this archetypal granddaddy judgment of all judgments later, however at this point I want to call attention to the fact that these assumptions have never been consciously examined or tested during the process of acquisition.

Some of these core assumptions are the following.

1) The instinct to survive is the strongest influence in the makeup of an organism.
2) The issues of survival and reproduction are problems to be solved in the evolution of organisms.
3) Survival and reproductive advantage are problem # 1and problem #2 to be addressed in the evolution of organisms.
4) The matters of survival and reproduction are separate problems to be solved in the evolution of organisms.
5) Genes are indivisible units – atoms of information – of hereditary.
6) Genes are the sole agency of an organism’s evolution.
7) The fundamental purpose of sexuality is reproduction.

There are many related assumptions that flow from the above, but these comprise the basic set the instinctual intellect operates from as it constructs its theory on the nature of animals.
Now the objective of this article isn’t to examine these assumptions and their interrelatedness in their entirety, I simply want to point out that these assumptions are embedded in our theories as a set, in other words, like a Trojan horse: we let one in and the rest deploy when we’re not looking and go on to multiply and generate subsets of assumptions as their inescapable logical extension.
Imagine for example how we would interpret natural phenomena if we had to reconcile everything the Hubble telescope reveals about the cosmos with the once held view that the sun revolved around the earth. In ancient times this premise seemed self-evident and above question, especially since the foundations of a religious worldview (or shall I say, an archetypal judgment) were based on seeing mankind as the centerpiece of God’s creation. Now eventually “geo-centricity” was questioned in order to make complete sense of celestial movements and this became clear to certain stargazers long before the Hubble space telescope. But what would we have to believe about supernovas or black holes to keep our thoughts in line with the geocentric notion?
What if therefore, our current theories of behavior and evolution are “thought-centric” as the pre-Copernican view of the heavens was geocentric. What would we have to believe about the nature of animals if we believed that thinking were the source of intelligent behavior and adaptability? It is my contention that we would have to believe all of the above. And then as a logical extension of that foundation, the belief would follow that there is such a thing as a “bad energy” so as to account for bad behavior, in other words, energy not controlled by thoughts and reason. We would be prone to believe that there are such things as negative emotions to account for certain self-destructive and irrational actions. We might even believe that sexual energy, in particular male sexual energy, can run contrary to good social energy.
My main point here is that none of the core assumptions listed at the outset have been held up to critical examination in light of other clues to see if they do indeed make sense. Instead, our interpretation of nature has been factored out in terms of these assumptions so that they have multiplied themselves into a vast number of corollaries as our instinctual intellect constructs our theory. It feels free to do so because it’s working from what it assumes to be self-evident and fundamental principles of nature. In this vein if we believe that the fundamental purpose of sexuality is reproduction, and if we think genes are the prime units of hereditary and the prime agency of evolution, then of course it seems axiomatic and self-evident that male dogs will be driven to compete with other male dogs for breeding privileges as a fundamental feature of their sexual nature. This will then seem to make it logical to presume that neutering male dogs will reduce social aggression. In this article we will look at dogs anew and ask if the assumptions mentioned above make sense. From that perspective, we will then revisit all of the arguments in favor of neutering, from health, to sociability, to the pet overpopulation theory and test whether these make sense. .
First a word about the instinctual intellect: whenever one interprets the behavior of something complex, be it the weather, the chemical behavior of molecules, the behavior of planets or of animals, there are only two possibilities; either we interpret the behavior of things in terms of energy, or in terms of thoughts. There is no alternative: either we have an energy theory that works according to an immediate-moment physical dynamic, or a “personality theory” that works according to a who-did-what-to-who-and-when interpretation of events. My premise being that the instinctual intellect always works according to a personality theory whereas the conscious intellect is capable of entertaining an energy theory.
So even though a behaviorist might talk in terms of instincts and genes, if they aren’t talking about an immediate-moment physical dynamic shaping behavior in real time, as for example when chemists talk of molecular behavior by as a function of electrons, neutrons and protons working according to natural law (rather than human reason), or when geologists talk of mountains rising and falling in terms of plate tectonics, wind and rain erosion, by definition such a behaviorist is operating from the instinctual minds’ default setting, a personality theory. In my reading of nature, a person is a being endowed with a brain that thinks thoughts. A person is a self-contained entity of intelligence. One can tell when one is working within a personality theory if one is looking at the behavior of animals as a function of one being acting and reacting relative to another, or of an action being considered relative to the passage of time. Since such notable scientists as Charles Darwin and B.F. Skinner were not articulating an immediate-moment dynamic, then by definition they were interpreting animal behavior and evolution according to a personality theory. My assertion is true since the only way they had for accounting for either adaptability or learning in real time, in the immediate-moment is via thinking. They offered no other possibility.
Of course B.F. Skinner would say in protest to my charge: “Whoa, I specifically said I am not considering what’s going on inside that little black box. I’m putting any and all internal activity aside and rigorously considering only the external behavior of the animal when I construct my theory.” But even that disclaimer proves my point. When I give a talk to psychology students at my local high school, I ask them to point to my drawing of a dog on the classroom whiteboard and show me where they assume the little black box to be located. They all point to the brain. In a personality theory, the mind and the brain are synonymous because only the brain thinks thoughts. While behaviorists say they don’t think dogs are persons, in reality all they study are neurons and neurology to get to the bottom of a behavior. They are studying individual organisms as self-contained entities of intelligence, and as such, as beings acting relative to each other and relative to time.
A biologist would also take issue with me by saying they don’t believe genes have any intention, or that evolution is moving in any particular direction. But they’re still building the same personality theory because what do they think genes build but the brain? So all research into behavior, evolution and the mind is geared toward the brain because in a personality theory the brain is considered to be synonymous with the mind. In a personality theory the mind is about thoughts.
Another way of illuminating the degree to which modern science is “thought-centric” is simply by noting that as things now stand, if an organism isn’t thinking, then science is compelled to say it must be mindless, driven by instincts, habits, or conditioned responses. While at first this sounds scientific, it’s merely transferring a psychology of the individual (person) to a psychology of the gene. For example, the notion of a dominance instinct sounds scientific, but it really is an oxymoron. It really means that an individual animal, or its genes: are thinking about dominance, a so-called instinct. So if an animal is thinking about an instinct, then the behavior is not truly an instinct, it’s a thought mixed with an instinct, and thus, an oxymoron with one part in direct contradiction of the other part. If we focus on the instinctual end of it, in effect the gene is being conferred a “personhood”, it has become an individuated agent of intention, a self-contained entity of intelligence that acts relative to other genes and relative to time.
It’s hard to break out of a personality theory since it’s constructed unconsciously according to an instinctual process, and when evidence comes along that doesn’t fit whatever model the personality theory is operating from, (such models are classical and operant conditioning to account for learning, and dominance and submission to account for social organization) such evidence is actively resisted by the unconscious intellect. No matter what evidence contrary to the model comes forward, intellectual curiosity isn’t aroused to challenge the model because the biologist and behaviorist, unlike physicists, aren’t working within an energy theory. For example: physics is an energy theory and therefore if but one apple were to ever float skyward rather than fall to the ground, a physicist would immediately question the prevailing model of gravity no matter how well over the years it may have served mankind.
And so we find that in modern behaviorism and evolutionary psychology, male dogs are considered more likely to be dominant and hence aggressive than female dogs, but the fact that all female dogs “dominate” the male dogs they live with, fails to register in a behaviorist’s mind as an anomaly and prompt him to call into question the prevailing dominance model that tries to explain social behavior in canines. Instead, some new rule of personality will be concocted to account for such an incongruity. Because the anomalies, contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes are innumerable whenever we’re not dealing with the behavior of complex systems according to an energy theory, behavioral and biological personality theories get hopelessly complex, in stark contrast with physical, energy theories that get simpler as understanding deepens. E=MC2 for example is a spectacularly concise statement of an amazingly profound and infinitely complex relationship between energy and matter.
By design the instinctual intellect is not curious about what is really going on because any and all instincts, including the instinctually driven intellect, is rooted in a sensation of fear. So when the evidence doesn’t fit a personality theory, intellectual curiosity isn’t aroused because unconsciously, the instinctual basis on which the mind’s sense of security rests is being challenged: and this overload consumes all manner of inquiry. The number one function of the instinctual intellect is security rather than growth, stasis rather than change. The instinctual mind is predicated on balance, and so resists shifts in understanding or apprehension because understanding and apprehension isn’t the name of its game.
Finally, the instinctual mind is highly threatened by energy theories of behavior because the energy that is really being dealt with when it comes to the nature of animals is emotion. And since every species of animal corresponds to a specific human feeling, whenever we see an animal, most especially an animal transmitting a lot of energy, we feel something (whether we are aware of it or not) deep within us, and the instinctual intellect registers and categorizes this feeling in terms of the personality theory into which animals and feelings are lumped together. (Note that we use the word “wild” and “crazy” interchangeably when describing animated or excited behavior.) Emotion is animal energy and so what we think about emotion, is what we think about animals and vice versa. For example, if we think a dog can turn on its master, we also believe that an emotion can be self-destructive. If we think animals are unpredictable, we likewise think emotion is impulsive by nature.
The instinctual intellect has a knee jerk reaction to data as it will not let anything free float outside the scope of the model it clings to, and this is because the nervous system’s basic sense of security is always at stake whenever it comes to a feeling. Evidence will either be tuned out, or instantly enfolded into a new corollary of the personality theory. For example, whenever the most revealing clues about dog behavior are encountered, the instinctual response is to see them as comical, rather than illustrative of some deeper mechanism. Thus the theory gets more complex rather than simplified because rather than struggle to find a whole and consistent framework for the evidence, which would mean putting all the evidence into a fluid mix until a clear picture emerges, the reflexive bias of the instinctual mind will be to generate more and more complex concepts as fast as possible in order to keep the evidence contained within the model. So if an owner has a female dog “dominating” their male dog, they will come up with reasons for the particulars of their relationship rather than rethinking their approach to understanding behavior, or they may simply ascribe it to their female dog’s “bitchy” personality. And even though every female dog “dominates” every male dog it lives with, (not to mention little dogs over big ones, or most incongruently, cats over dogs living together in a household) behaviorism doesn’t question the dogma of dominance that maintains that male energy is dominating by its nature.
A good illustration of how modern Darwinian logic generates hopelessly complex and convoluted arguments about sexual energy can be found in Jared Diamond’s book, “Why Sex Is Fun.” Diamond concludes that sex is fun because elderly women of early tribes were generally the repositories of tribal lore and folk wisdom: information that in times of disease or famine might mean the difference between the life or death of the village. So in this convoluted way, menopause is an adaptive feature in the evolutionarily scheme of things. This is a classic case of instinctual intellectualism run amok. I don’t know about you, but somehow the notion that grandmothers are the reason sex is fun doesn’t quite feel satisfying to me. (Below I will propose an immediate-moment energy theory for sexual energy with its foundation my interpretation of what is physically happening within the sexual being in the immediate-moment.)
Of course biology does offer a simpler and more approachable idea about the nature of sex in that beautiful women are attractive to men and vice versa, because such features denote fertility and good health. This seems to make sense and make for good biology at the same time, until we read that during the era when body structure really mattered when it came to surviving child birth, and when food for the larder required hard physical labor from women, men actually selected for less attractive women as good mates. Now in order to square this up with good biology, very complex rules have to be generated, and these rules invariably run into each other, as the model grows bigger.
Evolutionary biology is “thought-centric” because it seeks reasons as to why some genes flourish while others go extinct, rather than seeing genes as an expression of natural laws, and as subordinate to these laws. For example, a lumberjack cuts down a tree for a reason, but a beaver doesn’t cut a tree down for a reason. A beaver chops down a tree as a function of natural law, a distinction I admit might be hard to see at this point, but for the time being I’ll draw a parallel with the following example. A lightning bolt is like a beaver in that it knocks a tree down not for a reason, but by law. The tree was the path of least resistance for electricity to get to the ground. Likewise, I suggest we consider that the beaver cuts a tree down as a way of grounding the energy of rushing water to which it is emotionally attracted. And then once we start to see the natural law inherent in complex behavior, which is most easily seen in the behavior of dogs, an amazing pattern of evolution begins to come into view, one that can only be encompassed by an energy theory.
The closest biology can get to a natural law is when they can reduce the likelihood of a behavior to a mathematical formula as in what percentage of genes will predictably be perpetuated in any particular breeding strategy. These mathematical approximations are where Neo-Darwinian logic draws its rational sustenance, as they seem to make verifiable predictions. Matt Ridley’s “The Red Queen” offers many compelling examples wherein he argues that sexuality evolved as a constantly shifting strategy as in a chess game between parasites and their hosts.
However these mathematical correlations only come close with the most primitive organisms. As we get to more complex organisms such as dogs and man, they start to run into self-defeating logic loops, the inevitable fate of any personality theory that isn’t based on energy proper. For example, if sexuality evolved as a way of protecting hosts from parasitic infection, why then have dogs evolved to be so successful, and so enamored of eating you-know-what, the number one way by which dogs become infested with parasites? The trait is so disgusting that many cultures consider dogs to be unclean pariahs. Interestingly, dogs are the most sexual animals on earth in equal proportion to their propensity for ingesting the unmentionable.
We might recall that Newtonian mechanics is a perfectly good model for calculating the orbit of planets and the trajectories of cannon balls, objects that are relatively large and that travel relatively slow. For many centuries Newtonian mechanics seemed to account for all phenomena and this led to the heady idea that if the momentum and position of every particle in the universe could be known, then the future could be predicted. However as we now know, as objects get smaller and as their speed increases, then a quantum mechanics of subatomic behavior completely obliterates the classical mechanical view of nature. We wouldn’t have cell phones or GPS technology if the universe worked according to Newton. (And no doubt Newton as a pure scientist would have been the first to question classical mechanics in light of what quantum mechanics reveals of nature.)
Behaviorists are mechanists when they search for intention in an animal’s behavior or its genes because this prevents them for searching for the energetic principles that in my view are in fact organizing the individuals in the immediate-moment and then dictating what happens to genes. In other words, once an energy shift or balance attains critical mass, genes then lock this in. A mechanistic view depends on material organs of intelligence, such as a brain or a gene. The behaviorist says he isn’t thinking about thinking, but then what does he study? Neurons, gray matter the neurology of the brain. And when a mechanist sees an animal acting intelligently, as in tool making for example, he reflexively thinks that it must be thinking. Stanley Coren in his book “The Intelligence of Dogs” claims that dogs differ by degree, not in kind, from man in terms of being able to think.
If we were to draw a cartoon balloon over the head of an animal “defending its territory,” given our current models what else could go in there but a thought? I suspect that when even the most clinical and hard-minded behaviorist sees his dog get excited with the jingling of the car keys, he can’t resist saying, “My dog thinks he’s going for a car ride.” {He could on the other hand sober up in time to say, “My dog associates the jingling of car keys with a car ride.” But then, has he really said anything? Hasn’t he simply substituted a new class of reasons for the dog’s excitement? For example, if I say my car starts because it associates starting with the turning of a key, have I really said anything? The question remains, what’s going on inside the car? And if one day the car should fail to start when I turn the key, then hadn’t I’d better open the hood and start considering the natural laws by which a car engine starts? In another discussion on Pavlov I’ll consider what was really discovered in his experiments.}

What’s particularly important in understanding mechanistic views of behavior (which all personality theories must be given that they’re based on thoughts and genes) is that unlike any other system that’s evolved in nature, we suspend our search for an immediate-moment energetic dynamic operating in real time. When it comes to animal behavior and its evolution, and with its fixation on a time-deferred selection process of random mutations meeting environmental exigencies, we are forced to accept a model without any precedent in nature. “Abracadabra, let there be traits, Abracadabra, let there be variability between these traits, Abracadabra: let there be thoughts to explain learning in real time.” These are fantastic assumptions that have been accepted without critical examination.
When I was a boy working for my father, one of my first jobs was ferrying dogs up and down the drive between the admitting office and the kennel building. Even in those early days, while standing around holding their dog as the owner filled out the paperwork in the office or paid their bill, I was surprised to hear these people describe their dogs to me in glowing, saint-like terms. “My dog knows when I’m down.” “He wants to be near me all the time.” “I can tell my dog anything, he understands every word I say.” “He listens as if I’m the most important person in the world.”
I had just spent two weeks cleaning up after this dog, feeding him, brushing him out and taking him for walks. I knew that if that owner never came back, without missing a beat that dog would come to love me as much as he loved his owner. I knew that dog had to love me even if I wasn’t as attentive or committed to him as was his owner, because even then I intuitively understood that dogs are social by nature. Dogs are unconditionally loving: and their love has to go somewhere. The dog has to love me.
Many years later I came to understand why owners talk of their dogs in such lofty terms. They think their dog is a person, but because the dog doesn’t act like one, they are so amazed and grateful that they can only account for the sublime nature of the feeling by ascribing sublime qualities to their dog that don’t belong in any discussion of canine nature.
So I propose a distinction between personifying a dog, the default theory of the human intellect, and projecting emotion onto a dog, an energy theory of behavior.
Personification is the projection of thoughts, intention, values, and concepts onto animals, for example, such notions as jealously, spite, dominance, submission, territoriality, possessiveness, morality, even survival, and most especially, thinking. When we see intelligent behavior, reflexively we think it is a function of thinking, and since a person is capable of thinking, when we say an animal is smart, we’re really saying it is a person. In this instance the charge of anthropomorphism is warranted because the interpretation of the animal acting intelligently as a function of a thought process is incorrect. (My definition of a thought is any concept that entertains one being relative to another, or one moment relative to another in time. In fact, these are both the same thing.)
Personification is an involuntary instinctual response (and one that evokes the intellect’s rational machinery) to strong emotions. It kicks in anytime an overwhelming force kicks in, for example when falling, literally, or for example when “falling” into an emotional relationship. Whenever the intellectual mind senses powerlessness, it gets busy making up reasons so that it can stay safe by encapsulating the feeling within a familiar frame of reference. Another way of saying this: is that the personality theory is the reflex response of the intellect when the rate of change being experienced is too high for the nervous system to process; and the nervous system is quite limited in this regard. The evolutionary precedent for this trait: can be found in an animal’s instinctual process of “attribution” to a predator when it experiences environmental resistance to its movements. For example, when we see a dog unnerved by a statue of a dog, the dog cautiously approaches with a focus on the eye (or predatory, “negative” aspect) of the statue. That’s the instinctual process of attribution, and I will also add, it’s not thinking.
An energy theory on the other hand, is an immediate-moment dynamic wherein a behavior is evaluated in terms of an energy transfer from one variable to another, and according to precise protocols and laws that can become evident once the notion of personality and thought-centric elements are stripped away from any chain of events. So when I speak of an energy theory for a dog’s actions, I am not saying that dogs aren’t creatively adaptive and are not in possession of a free will. I am not saying that dogs are machines. Quite to the contrary, the energy model I’m proposing will prove to be the only one in the marketplace that doesn’t treat the dog as either an instinctual automaton or a learning machine. I’m saying that the source of their creative adaptability is not intellectual and neither is it genetic. In fact, the behavioral plasticity and thus adaptability of dogs is precisely because they are endowed with a capacity that can overrule genetic influences. In other words, I’m saying that dogs go by feel, not by reason because emotion works according to natural law. Dogs (as do all animals) project emotion onto objects of attraction and then “feel” how to connect with the object of their attraction. The information that’s required to complete the connection is already contained within emotion as energy: and it is felt in the heart rather than in the brain. As we shall see, the brain can’t feel a thing.
I have gone to this depth to make the above distinctions in order to set up a new way of appreciating the true role that sexuality plays in nature. I am going to argue that its fundamental role is to transmit energy from species to species to thereby create an ecosystem, and then to similarly distribute energy from individual to individual to create a social way of living in order to maintain and indeed, to increase the energy available to these ecosystems. Within this understanding we can then go on to appreciate that the arguments in favor of neutering are myths devoid of empirical evidence. We will address the myth that neutering a dog has a calming effect, the pet-overpopulation myth, and the myth of neutering as healthful. These myths cajole and coerce dog owners into the mindset that neutering is an essential responsibility of dog ownership. The Pet Over–Population Myth grabs at the social–conscience of the dog owner. The Calming Myth triggers an owner’s fear that the puppy they’re letting into their home and hearts is at heart potentially a “Cujo”. And the Health Myth stirs an owner’s deepest sense of guilt. These three myths trigger our deepest fears and preclude a reasoned examination of the issue.

Debate Over Neutering

What is natural dog training? It means that dogs are social by nature. In other words, every part of a dog, every part of its makeup, both its physical and temperamental constitution, is part and parcel of its social nature. Nothing needs to be "fixed" or eliminated in order to make a dog more social.
A brief note on my background:
I’ve been in the dog business all my life. As a boy I worked my father’s kennel, “Canine College” in Redding, Connecticut. My father, John Behan, began his career in the Army Canine Corps during WW Two, training dogs for deployment in the Pacific theatre of combat. After the war, Dad was one of the first trainers to install service dogs in police departments, and could very well have been the first trainer to apply the idea of wolves as pack animals organized around a pack leader, to the relationship between a dog and its owner. I am well versed in this theory as it comprised my introduction and apprenticeship in dog training.
I can distinctly remember when in the sixties, the question of whether or not to neuter a male puppy started to nag at dog owners. They were beginning to hear from a growing number of veterinarians and dog experts that neutering had many benefits for male dogs, behavioral as well as medical. In the beginning of this trend many owners wondered why (and this was most true of men at that time, however now I see it being more true of women for reasons we shall explore) any part of a happy, healthy puppy’s anatomy be removed?
In those days I didn’t grasp why there was any cause for concern in the first place. My family always had whole males as our family pets. Most of the male dogs we boarded and trained were whole. We trained police and personal protection dogs, all were whole and all were perfectly social when off/duty. When dogs misbehaved we didn’t attribute the problem to too much testosterone. In our minds problem behaviors represented social rather than hormonal imbalances. We believed that any dog raised and trained properly could easily be social and learn to get along with anyone or any other dog or animal. If something was off in a dog’s behavior, our first impulse was to find the cause of the social imbalance and redress it. This was my beginning as a “natural dog trainer,” the first step I was taking in understanding that dogs are social by nature, an understanding however that would ultimately place me far outside the mainstream consensus on dogs.
However in the seventies as behaviorism and the science on wolves and dogs took over the marketplace of ideas and the commerce of dog training, the debate over neutering became more like a theological schism. And by the eighties, whether or not to neuter was a hot-button subject, and whoever stood on the wrong side of the inquisition was treated like a heretic. It became virtually impossible to have a reasoned exchange of ideas on the matter. If I broached the topic at a gathering of dog folk, it provoked anger. I learned to tread softly and carefully pick the time and place for a full disclosure on what my position was. And when puppy owners came to me for consultations or lessons, I noticed owners visibly squirming simply at the prospect of resisting their vet’s, breeder’s, trainer’s or next door neighbor’s arguing the so-called benefits of neutering.
Now today in the 21st century we find that there is virtually no debate on the question of neutering whatsoever. Trainers, behaviorists, breeders and veterinarians have convinced the vast majority of dog owners that there are overwhelming benefits to neutering. Castrating male puppies is now considered a basic rite of passage into human society, as automatic and necessary a procedure as a rabies vaccine. A three-pronged argument in favor of neutering has stamped out the heresy.
First of all, neutering is said to calm a dog, so that he won’t become sexually frustrated, or hyperactive, and he won’t roam the countryside looking for potential mates, and the most often cited behavioral benefit, the dog won’t become aggressive.
Secondly, neutering is said to improve the health of male dogs. Neutered male dogs do not get prostrate cancer.
Thirdly, widespread neutering reduces the number of pets in circulation, and as the reasoning goes, fewer pets in dog pounds means that fewer pets will have to be destroyed.
It would thus appear that the argument in favor of neutering hasn’t a downside in sight. Advocates claim that neutering improves everything about a male dog’s physical and temperamental constitution, and yet has absolutely no impact on a dog’s personality or disposition. It’s the miracle “fix.” Neutering changes everything, and yet it doesn’t change a thing. However I will argue that sexuality is so vital to the canine’s social nature we must reopen the debate on neutering. In this article I am going to present a new explanation for why sexuality evolved in nature, what its real role is in behavior and evolution, and from that perspective, we will revisit each argument that’s made in favor of neutering male dogs. My objections to neutering arise from what I’ve learned about how dogs become social, as well as the correlation between wholeness and health. With an almost universal rate of compliance in the neutering of male dogs, with an exponential increase in the percentage of dogs trained through nationally certified and affordable dog training programs, and with the wealth of behavioral information available through the internet, magazines, videos and television programs, we need to ask therefore, why is there an alarming rise in rates of aggression in dogs these days, at younger and younger ages, and in breeds that would be unthinkable forty years ago?
The next post will outline the issue in new detail.

Natural Dog Training - the blog

Hello,
Welcome to the official blog for my book, Natural Dog Training. Please visit www.naturaldogtraining.com learn more about dog training methods.

Check back for commentary on dogs & humans. Discover what your dog is really trying to tell you.

I look forward to sharing my experiences with dogs with you.