Episodes

  • The Invention of the Modern Dog

    The Invention of the Modern Dog
    Apr 18 2025
    In this episode, we trace the origins of the modern pedigree dog, exploring how today’s breeds were shaped not just by biology, but by social class, fashion, blood sports, and emerging Victorian ideas about heredity. Drawing on Michael Brandow’s A Matter of Breeding and Michael Worboys’ historical analysis of breed invention in Britain, we examine how breeding moved from practical function to aesthetic ideal, and how the development of dog shows and breed clubs entrenched narrow definitions of what a dog should be. From dished bulldog faces to designer Labs, this episode explores the cost of perfection.Key topics* From function to form: how working dogs became breed stereotypes* Dog shows, conformation, and the creation of the breed standard* Victorian science, social class, and early genetics* Fashion, celebrity, and cultural trends in breed popularity* The health and welfare consequences of selective breeding* The rise of the commercial dog industryLong-read articleBook overviewThis episode draws on two complementary sources:* Michael Brandow’s A Matter of Breeding is a polemical critique of the modern dog fancy, blending personal narrative with social history. * Michael Worboys’ essay The Invention of the Modern Dog Breed and Blood in Victorian Britain offers a more academic analysis of how 19th-century British culture—and emerging ideas of heredity and animal classification—produced the concept of the pedigree breed.Together, they tell a story of transformation: from dogs as functional animals with diverse forms and roles, to dogs as aesthetic commodities, shaped to meet the social, scientific, and cultural ideals of the humans who breed, own, and display them.From function to fashion: the artificiality of breedBrandow’s critique opens with Bob, a bulldog whose anatomy illustrates how far selective breeding has strayed from canine function. His “super-sized skull,” “collapsed snout,” and immobile gait embody the disconnection between what dogs are shaped to look like and what they can actually do. This isn’t evolutionary adaptation—it’s human projection, exaggerated over generations.Breeds like the Jack Russell, Basenji, and Shiba Inu rise and fall in popularity not due to function, but because they match a cultural moment. Sleek and minimal, exotic and primitive, youthful and cheeky—dogs become lifestyle symbols, their popularity driven by advertising campaigns and celebrity endorsements rather than suitability to task or temperament.Inventing breeds: how Victorian Britain redefined the dogWorboys describes how, prior to the 1860s, dogs were classified loosely as “types,” “sorts,” or “varieties.” A retriever was something that retrieved. A spaniel was named for its region or behaviour. Variation within these groups was accepted. Breed, in the modern sense—fixed, repeatable, with a written standard—didn’t yet exist.That changed with the rise of livestock breeding models, applied first to cattle and sheep, and then to dogs. Breed became a system for controlling bloodlines. Stud books, conformation shows, and detailed descriptions of the “ideal dog” emerged. What mattered now was not what a dog could do, but how closely it matched the standard.Dog shows and the pursuit of perfectionThe Bulldog Club (founded 1875) exemplified this shift. It defined not just what a bulldog should look like, but how it must look—"broken noses," "dished faces," "broken backs." These standards were enforced through the show ring, with judges trained to reward conformity. Some features were so extreme that puppies underwent painful modifications to better match the standard.John Henry Walsh (“Stonehenge”) hoped to unify breed definitions nationally through his publications. His goal was consistency. But critics feared that rigid definitions would prioritise appearance over health, leading to exaggerated, fragile animals—an early warning still relevant today.Class, fashion, and the shaping of tasteThe Victorian elite used dogs as markers of social distinction. Breed ownership signalled wealth, status, and masculinity. The English bulldog became a mascot for elite institutions. The Labrador retriever became synonymous with landed gentry and private estates.The Duke of Windsor’s fondness for yellow Labs helped make the colour fashionable. In modern advertising, breed choice becomes an extension of identity—urban chic, rugged independence, old-money tradition. As Brandow notes, “tastes in dogs are in a constant state of flux.” But that flux reflects the culture, not the dog.Victorian science and breeding ideologyWorboys highlights the influence of scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas on dog breeding. Craniology linked skull shape to temperament. Telegony—the idea that a female dog’s first mate permanently influenced all future offspring—shaped mating decisions and female dog value. Even attempts at “rational breeding,” like Everett Millais’s ...
    Show More Show Less
    18 mins
  • The Value of Sniffing

    The Value of Sniffing
    Apr 15 2025
    In this episode, we explore what sniffing really means for dogs—beyond enrichment or obedience practice. Drawing on the scoping review The Value of Sniffing (Cameron et al., 2023), we examine the behavioural and physiological evidence that scent-based activities aren’t just enjoyable for dogs—they’re fundamental to their wellbeing. From scent walks to nosework training, the paper reviews how olfactory engagement can reduce stress, support agency, and build emotional resilience.Key topics* What counts as a scent activity?* Links between sniffing, wellbeing, and agency* Scent work as both enrichment and intervention* Physiological and behavioural outcomes* Practical applications for trainers and ownersLong-read articleStudy overviewCameron et al. (2023) conducted a scoping review to consolidate current research on the value of scent-based activities for dogs. Rather than focusing on scent detection or working dog performance, the review examined how everyday olfactory activities influence welfare, agency, and behaviour. The authors found consistent evidence that allowing dogs to engage their nose—through tracking, scavenging, or enrichment tasks—can reduce physiological stress markers, encourage exploratory behaviour, and support dogs’ ability to self-regulate.Crucially, the review framed sniffing not just as a tool for obedience or stimulation, but as a behavioural need. Echoing trends in animal welfare and human psychology, the paper highlighted how olfactory engagement contributes to autonomy, resilience, and emotional stability.Thematic analysisDefining scent activities: from decompression walks to structured trackingThe review distinguished between passive and active scent activities. Passive options include letting dogs sniff on walks or scatter-feeding in the garden. Active forms include structured nosework classes, mantrailing, or scent games. The key is that these activities allow dogs to use their noses voluntarily and without time pressure—supporting intrinsic motivation.Importantly, the review noted that even low-effort scent activities showed measurable benefits, suggesting that you don’t need to train a detection dog to support wellbeing.Stress and scent: sniffing as a behavioural bufferSeveral studies reviewed by Cameron et al. showed that dogs allowed to sniff more frequently had lower heart rates, more stable cortisol levels, and fewer signs of arousal or frustration. For example, one study found that dogs on “sniffari” walks had lower pulse rates than dogs walked on a strict heel. Another linked frequent sniffing with improved rest quality and reduced vocalisation in kennelled dogs.These outcomes point to sniffing as a regulatory behaviour—akin to fidgeting or daydreaming in humans—which helps modulate arousal and support calmness.Scent and agency: the right to choose where your nose goesOne of the paper’s most interesting contributions was the connection between olfactory activities and behavioural agency. Dogs who were allowed to explore scent trails at their own pace showed more exploratory behaviour overall, suggesting that giving dogs control over sensory input can improve environmental engagement and emotional confidence.Agency isn’t just a feel-good concept—it’s a measurable factor in animal welfare. The authors argue that sniffing supports agency by giving dogs meaningful control over their time, movements, and attention.Structured scent work: resilience through olfactionThe review also explored the growing use of scent work in behaviour modification, particularly for dogs with anxiety or reactivity. While not a replacement for therapeutic protocols, scent games were found to improve dogs’ tolerance for challenging situations. For example, dogs exposed to scent training during a kennel stay were more relaxed during handling sessions and showed fewer stress-related behaviours.This suggests that olfactory enrichment may act as a form of psychological buffering, helping dogs build resilience and regulate emotional responses over time.Practical takeaways* Prioritise sniffing on walks: Let dogs explore at their own pace for at least part of the walk.* Use scatter feeding or scent puzzles: Especially valuable for kennelled, anxious, or under-stimulated dogs.* Integrate scent work into training plans: Not just for fun, but as a tool for emotional regulation.* Recognise olfaction as a core need: Denying scent opportunities may be as limiting as restricting movement or social contact.Further reading* Cameron, S., Redgate, S. E., & Zulch, H. (2023). The value of sniffing: A scoping review of scent activities for canines. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 261, 105820.* Horowitz, A. (2016). Being a Dog: Following the Dog Into a World of Smell.* Rooney, N. J., & Cowan, S. (2011). Training methods and owner-dog interactions: Links with dog behaviour and learning ability. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 132(3–4), 169–177. This is a public episode. If ...
    Show More Show Less
    15 mins
  • The Art of the Sniff

    The Art of the Sniff
    Apr 15 2025
    In this episode, we explore the science behind the sniff—what actually happens when dogs engage with scent. Drawing from recent research on canine olfactory physiology and neuroscience, we unpack how sniffing differs from passive smelling, how dogs adjust their sniffing patterns based on context, and what happens in their brain and body as they search, discriminate, and react to smells. We also explore lateralisation, heart rate dynamics, and the cognitive and emotional consequences of the canine nose at work.Key topics* Sniffing as a cognitive and physiological process* Neural pathways linking olfaction to emotion* Lateralised nostril use and hemispheric processing* Cardiac and cortical correlates of high-frequency sniffing* Differences between ground and air sniffing* The role of efficient sniffing in scent detection and learningLong-read articleStudy overviewThis episode draws on The Art of the Sniff, a synthesis of current literature on canine olfactory mechanisms, including sniffing patterns, olfactory neuroanatomy, physiological correlates of olfaction, and the emotional significance of scent. The reviewed material spans research on dogs and rats, highlighting shared mechanisms and species-specific nuances in how scent is processed, interpreted, and acted upon. The article situates sniffing not merely as a sensory act, but as a gateway into the dog’s cognitive and affective world.Sniffing is not just smelling: the anatomy of active olfactionDogs sniff at frequencies between 4–7 Hz—up to 200 times per minute. This rapid, sharp inhalation creates turbulence in the nasal cavity, enhancing the delivery of odour molecules to the olfactory epithelium (Berg et al., 2024). Approximately 12–13% of each breath is diverted via an upper flow path directly to the olfactory region, where molecules accumulate and are exposed for longer—crucial for signal detection.Unlike humans, dogs inhale from the front and exhale to the side, and each nostril samples air separately. This bilateral sampling enables precise localisation of odours in space, a critical function during tracking or detection tasks. Passive smelling, by contrast, is a lower-resolution, unconscious process that lacks the directional, cognitive engagement of sniffing.The sniffing brain: from olfactory bulb to emotion circuitsSniffing activates distinct areas of the dog’s brain compared to passive odour detection. Functional imaging studies show that the piriform cortex and medial/posterior orbitofrontal gyri are active during active sniffing—even when no odour is present. In contrast, passive smelling primarily engages lateral/anterior orbitofrontal areas, suggesting sniffing is not just a sensory act but a preparatory and attentional one.The olfactory bulb connects directly to emotional and memory-related areas including the amygdala, frontal cortex, and hippocampus. This olfactory–limbic connection explains why scent can trigger strong emotions or memories in dogs, and why familiar human scents activate the caudate nucleus, a reward-related region (Berns et al., 2015).High-frequency sniffing: what the heart and brain revealStudies in rats show that high-frequency (HF) sniffing—above 6 Hz—is not just linked to odour sampling but reflects a shift in overall arousal and motivational state. During HF sniffing, heart rate increases and the motor cortex shows elevated theta/delta ratios—typically associated with attentiveness and engagement. These physiological markers occur even when the animal is stationary, suggesting that sniffing, not movement, is driving the response.While direct canine equivalents are less studied, canine olfaction is similarly tied to heart rate and HRV (heart rate variability), particularly during emotionally charged or cognitively demanding tasks. This suggests that sniffing may serve as a marker for heightened internal engagement.The emotional nose: scent as feelingDogs process emotionally charged odours differently depending on context. They tend to initiate sniffing with the right nostril, particularly for novel or arousing scents. If the odour proves non-threatening or familiar, they may switch to the left nostril. This lateralised behaviour implies hemispheric specialisation in the processing of emotional valence: right hemisphere for vigilance and arousal, left for positive or familiar signals.Olfactory input doesn’t just inform behaviour—it modulates affect. Sniffing and scent work have been shown to increase optimistic judgement in dogs, likely through dopaminergic reward pathways. Human emotional odours also influence dogs: the scent of human fear produces longer sniff durations and more alert behaviour than happiness scents, suggesting interspecies chemosignalling plays a role in emotional contagion.Ground vs air sniffing: strategies and structureDogs shift between ground sniffing and air sniffing depending on the nature of the task. Ground sniffing involves following settled odour ...
    Show More Show Less
    34 mins
  • Kindness as Control: The Rise of Positive Training (Part 2)

    Kindness as Control: The Rise of Positive Training (Part 2)
    Apr 7 2025
    In the second part of our series on Genealogy of Obedience, we follow the rise of positive reinforcement training from the 1980s to the early 21st century. This period is often seen as a moral turning point in dog training where science and compassion replaced dominance and force. But as Justyna Wlodarczyk shows, the story is more complicated. Even the kindest training methods can carry hidden forms of control. Drawing on Foucault’s idea of biopower, we explore how obedience became wrapped up in wellness, consumer culture, and the demand to self-regulate—for both dogs and their owners.Key topics* The rise of positive reinforcement and the Karen Pryor era* Crossover trainers and the language of conversion* From physical control to behavioural science* Neoliberal self-regulation and “responsible ownership”* Emotional labour and the feminisation of training* Affirmative biopolitics and the compliant animalLong-read articleThe Karen Pryor moment: Science, dolphins, and the rejection of punishmentIn the 1980s, Karen Pryor’s Don’t Shoot the Dog! became a foundational text for the modern positive training movement. Drawing on her work with dolphins, Pryor introduced operant conditioning as a humane, scientific alternative to dominance-based training. Her influence redefined what it meant to be a “good” trainer: not a disciplinarian, but a benevolent shaper of behaviour.This shift marked a key discursive break. Training was no longer framed as domination but as cooperation, replacing coercion with reinforcement. Yet, as Wlodarczyk argues, the goal remained the same: the production of compliant, socially acceptable behaviour. The mode of power had changed—but not its function​.Crossover narratives: Redemption through rewardA new genre of dog training literature emerged: the crossover story, in which trainers publicly renounced punitive methods in favour of positive reinforcement. These stories, often structured like religious conversions, reinforced a moral hierarchy between “enlightened” science-based trainers and outdated, authoritarian ones.This narrative served both ideological and commercial purposes. Trainers could establish credibility by confessing past sins, while aligning themselves with a growing market for “ethical” expertise. Wlodarczyk frames this as a technologisation of virtue: the dog becomes not just a well-behaved pet, but evidence of the owner’s moral progress​.From correction to cognition: Training as information managementAs operant conditioning replaced leash jerks, training manuals began to adopt the language of learning theory and cognition. The dog was reframed as a thinking subject—a creature who could be taught to make good choices through environmental manipulation and feedback loops.This mirrors what Foucault called the shift from disciplinary power to biopower: from punishing deviance to optimising life. Trainers stopped trying to “break” dogs and instead sought to shape their choices, anticipate their needs, and redirect their instincts. The leash was replaced by the clicker, but the logic of management remained​.Obedience in the age of neoliberalismModern training reflects not just scientific progress but broader political and economic shifts. In the neoliberal era, responsible dog ownership became a form of self-governance: owners are expected to manage their dogs’ behaviour in public, meet behavioural benchmarks, and perform emotional labour to ensure smooth social integration.Dogs are now judged not only by what they do, but by how well they match middle-class ideals of restraint, sociability, and responsiveness. “Good” dogs reflect “good” owners—disciplined, self-improving, emotionally intelligent. Wlodarczyk argues that training has become a form of neoliberal governmentality, turning both human and dog into projects of optimisation​.The feminisation of training: Empathy, patience, and moral labourAlongside this shift, dog training has been rhetorically and culturally feminised. Qualities once seen as weak—empathy, patience, emotional attunement—are now framed as necessary competencies. Trainers are expected to understand canine body language, manage their own emotions, and “listen” to the dog.This shift has opened space for alternative epistemologies, including embodied and intuitive knowledge. But it also places new burdens on trainers and owners, especially women, to manage risk, emotion, and social harmony. Training becomes emotional labour—one that demands constant vigilance and self-regulation​.Affirmative biopolitics: Training as wellnessIn the most recent phase of training discourse, obedience is reframed as well-being. Rather than just producing compliance, training is said to build confidence, reduce anxiety, and promote a dog’s true potential. This aligns with broader wellness culture, where optimisation is not just a duty but a path to happiness.Wlodarczyk calls this affirmative biopolitics: ...
    Show More Show Less
    27 mins
  • Obedience and Empire: The Hidden History of Dog Training (Part 1)

    Obedience and Empire: The Hidden History of Dog Training (Part 1)
    Apr 5 2025
    What if obedience isn’t just about control—but about culture?In this two-part series, we dig into the surprising history of North American dog training, guided by Justyna Wlodarczyk’s Genealogy of Obedience. From Victorian drawing rooms to modern training seminars, we uncover how obedience has reflected deeper anxieties about gender, class, race, war, and what it means to be a “good” human—or a “good” dog.In this episode, we explore the evolution of dog training in North America from the Victorian era to the early 1980s, drawing on Justyna Wlodarczyk’s Genealogy of Obedience. Far from a steady march toward kindness, dog training reflects shifting power structures, cultural anxieties, and changing ideas about utility, intelligence, and control. We trace how ideas about discipline, gender, and the state converged to shape the modern concept of obedience and the dogs who learned to perform it.Key topics* Victorian ideals of trainability and canine “sagacity”* The emergence of eugenic biopolitics in dog breeding* Konrad Most and the institutionalisation of disciplinary training* Obedience as a tool of urban regulation and wartime utility* Shifting masculinity and the gendering of training methods* Foucauldian readings of power, punishment, and “gentling”Long-read articleOverview of the bookIn Genealogy of Obedience, Justyna Wlodarczyk offers a Foucauldian analysis of North American dog training literature, tracing its evolution from the mid-19th century to the early 21st century. Rather than framing this history as a moral progression, she argues that dog training practices mirror broader power structures—shaped by race, gender, class, and shifting political rationalities. Through a close reading of manuals, philosophies, and key figures, she uncovers how obedience became entangled with biopolitics, governmentality, and the production of docile animal bodies​.Victorian values: Trainability as class performanceIn the 19th century, trainability was seen not merely as a cognitive trait but as a moral and social virtue. A “trainable” dog was one who could suppress instinct in favour of self-control—a reflection of Victorian ideals of restraint, civility, and social hierarchy. Manuals framed training as a civilising act, helping dogs become more human-like without challenging the hierarchical boundary between species​.This ideal was classed and racialised. Purebred dogs owned by white, middle-class individuals were seen as more inherently trainable, while dogs owned by marginalised groups were often dismissed as unmanageable. Trainability became both a behavioural and biological criterion, justifying selective breeding within a framework of eugenic biopolitics​.From civilising to taming: Konrad Most and the disciplinary turnIn the early 20th century, German trainer Konrad Most redefined the purpose of training. Where Victorian approaches aimed to “elevate” dogs through benevolent guidance, Most advocated for taming—breaking the dog’s resistance and reshaping its instincts to serve human utility. His methods relied on confrontation, compulsion, and hierarchy. The ideal dog was not expressive or intelligent, but useful and obedient.Most’s philosophy shaped the institutionalisation of dog training through schools and police programmes, bringing canine education into line with Foucault’s concept of disciplinary institutions—spaces that produce docile bodies through surveillance and correction​.Obedience and the state: War, regulation, and governmentalityThe interwar years and World War II cemented the dog’s role as a servant of the state. Through initiatives like “Dogs for Defense,” the US military trained thousands of dogs for wartime roles, transforming obedience into a civic and national virtue. Post-war, these methods were transferred to civilian contexts: obedience trials, training clubs, and leash laws.This era marked the rise of what Foucault called governmentality—techniques for managing populations by shaping conduct. Pet training was redefined from making a dog bite to ensuring it would not. Urban spaces required controllable, non-threatening dogs, and obedience became both a behavioural goal and a social necessity​.Masculinity, violence, and controlDog training also became a site for performing masculinity. In contrast to earlier associations with gentility, 20th-century training emphasised domination and control, especially in police and military contexts. The act of “breaking” the dog became a metaphor for the human conquest of nature—reinforcing white, male authority through physical struggle.Konrad Most’s model of pack hierarchy, based on competitive dominance rather than cooperation, fed into this narrative. The human–dog relationship was framed as a perpetual contest of wills, with successful training defined as total submission. This ethos persisted in mainstream pet training long after its origins in wartime ...
    Show More Show Less
    30 mins
  • Canine Stress Mirrors Human Stress

    Canine Stress Mirrors Human Stress
    Apr 5 2025
    In this episode, we explore how stress in dogs reflects the stress of their human companions—but only for some breeds. Drawing on two studies by Lina Roth and colleagues, we examine how long-term stress synchronisation between dogs and owners is shaped by breed history, owner personality, and the perceived burden of dog ownership. One study found that herding dogs often mirror their owners' stress physiology, while another found that ancient and solitary hunting breeds do not show this same synchrony. Together, these findings offer a nuanced picture of emotional contagion and cooperation in the human–dog relationship.Key topics* Long-term stress synchronisation in dog–owner dyads* Differences between herding, ancient, and solitary hunting breeds* Role of owner personality in shaping canine stress* The impact of perceived costs in the human–dog relationship* Seasonal variation in dog stress levels* Implications for welfare and breed-specific understandingLong-read article Overview of the studiesThis article draws from two empirical studies published in Scientific Reports by research teams led by Lina Roth and Per Jensen, based at Linköping University in Sweden. Together, these studies investigate whether dogs reflect the long-term stress of their owners and under what conditions such physiological synchronisation occurs.The first study (Sundman et al., 2019) focused on herding breeds and was the first to demonstrate interspecies synchronisation of long-term cortisol levels—specifically, hair cortisol concentrations (HCC)—between humans and dogs. The second study (Höglin et al., 2021) expanded the inquiry to ancient and solitary hunting breeds, exploring whether similar stress alignment could be observed in breeds with different evolutionary histories and behavioural profiles.The core hypothesis tested across both studies is whether dogs mirror their owners' chronic stress—and if so, what variables influence this mirroring: breed, personality, sex, lifestyle, or the quality of the human–dog relationship.Dogs as mirrors: Synchronised stress in herding breedsIn the 2019 study, researchers recruited 58 dog–owner dyads, including Shetland Sheepdogs and Border Collies. Hair samples were collected from both dogs and their owners during the summer and winter to track cortisol levels over time. The primary measure—hair cortisol concentration (HCC)—offers a retrospective view of chronic stress over weeks or months, unlike saliva or blood which capture acute responses.Key finding: A strong, statistically significant correlation was found between dog and owner HCC across both seasons​. The synchrony persisted even after accounting for lifestyle differences (e.g., pet vs. competition dogs), suggesting a robust interspecies alignment.Interestingly, the direction of influence appeared asymmetrical. Owner personality traits (measured via the Big Five Inventory) were significantly associated with dog stress levels, while the reverse was not true. For instance:* Higher owner neuroticism predicted lower dog HCC.* Higher conscientiousness and openness predicted higher dog HCC—but only in winter.* Dog personality traits (assessed via the Dog Personality Questionnaire) and activity levels did not significantly affect cortisol levels.This implies that dogs do not merely reflect shared environments or routines—they appear to internalise aspects of their owners' emotional world.Not all dogs mirror us: The case of ancient and solitary huntersThe 2021 follow-up study explored whether this synchronisation was a universal feature of the dog–human bond or one shaped by specific breed histories. It included:* Ancient breeds (e.g., Basenjis, Akitas) with genetic proximity to wolves and minimal selection for human cooperation.* Solitary hunting breeds (e.g., Elkhounds, dachshunds), bred to work independently, often at a distance from humans.Researchers used the same methodology—HCC from hair samples—but added several new layers:* The Monash Dog–Owner Relationship Scale (MDORS) to assess perceived emotional closeness, interaction quality, and the perceived cost of ownership.* Owner and dog personality questionnaires.* Lifestyle data, including kennel use, household composition, training routines, and physical activity.Key result: No significant correlation was found between dog and owner HCC in either ancient or solitary hunting breeds​. Unlike the herding group, there was no physiological synchrony.This absence was not due to measurement artefacts. Dogs from these groups still showed variation in stress levels—but this variation was explained by other factors:* In solitary hunting dogs, dog HCC correlated with owner personality: lower agreeableness and higher openness were associated with higher cortisol levels in dogs.* In ancient breeds, owner personality had no clear effect, but there was a trend suggesting increased HCC in dogs rated as more aggressive toward people.* The perceived cost of ...
    Show More Show Less
    22 mins
  • Wolves, Dogs, and the Evolution of Cooperation

    Wolves, Dogs, and the Evolution of Cooperation
    Apr 5 2025
    In this episode of Dog Science Digest, we delve into the roots of cooperation between dogs and humans by exploring its evolutionary foundation: wolf social behaviour. Drawing on a comprehensive review by Cordoni and Palagi, we examine how social tolerance, leverage, conflict management, and play dynamics within wolf packs may have shaped the traits selected during domestication. This episode challenges oversimplified dominance-based views of wolf society and offers fresh insight into what makes dogs such extraordinary human companions.Key topics* Wolf cooperation and leverage power* Post-conflict behaviours: reconciliation, consolation, appeasement* Adult play and social flexibility* The domestication hypothesis vs the canine cooperation hypothesis* Implications for dog-human bonding and trainingLong-read articleFrom packmates to partners: how wolf social life shaped the dog-human bondFor decades, popular understandings of wolf behaviour painted a rigid picture: packs governed by dominance hierarchies, driven by conflict and control. But contemporary research reveals something far more nuanced—and far more relevant for understanding dogs. Cooperative tendencies, subtle negotiation, and social attentiveness underpin wolf society. These same traits likely provided the evolutionary foundation upon which domestication acted, shaping dogs into the deeply affiliative, cooperative partners we know today.Cooperation beyond hierarchyWolf packs are not despotic monarchies. While a hierarchy exists, its function is not pure dominance but coordinated cooperation. Each member contributes to hunting, territory defence, and pup rearing. Subordinates aren't just tolerated; they bring value to the group. Their support earns them what researchers call "leverage power"—a form of influence based not on physical control, but on their indispensable role in pack life.Leverage power allows lower-ranking individuals to exert social influence. For example, a subordinate wolf that is skilled at babysitting or hunting may receive tolerance from dominants despite occasional disobedience. This type of reciprocal exchange fosters cohesion. It also shifts our view of pack structure from a top-down enforcement model to a more distributed, dynamic network of social exchange.Repairing relationships: conflict isn’t the endWhen conflicts do occur, wolves don’t simply move on—they actively repair relationships. Post-conflict behaviours such as:* Reconciliation (affiliative contact between former opponents)* Consolation (comforting the victim by a third party)* Appeasement (calming an aggressor by a third party)...have been widely observed in both wild and captive packs.These behaviours reflect a level of emotional awareness and social memory. They’re more likely to occur between individuals who share strong pre-existing bonds—especially those who have cooperated in the past. Reconciliation is a strategy to preserve future cooperation; it’s not just emotional repair but also practical maintenance of alliance.In dogs, these behaviours are less commonly observed. Domestic dogs may instead avoid conflict partners after altercations. This difference is likely shaped by the fact that most pet dogs don’t rely on conspecifics for survival—so repairing intraspecific relationships is less essential than it is for wolves.The role of play: adult strategies and flexible mindsPlay isn’t just for puppies. Adult wolves play too—and not randomly. Adult social play is:* More frequent in stable groups with high tolerance* Modulated to avoid escalation (e.g. self-handicapping, role reversal)* Temporally sensitive—declining during periods of social tension or before feedingThis suggests that play is a tool for assessing social safety and managing uncertainty. Dyads that play frequently tend to also engage more in affiliative behaviours like grooming or resting in contact. In essence, play acts as both a barometer and builder of social bonds.Play also requires cognitive flexibility: the ability to shift roles, read nuanced cues, and suppress aggressive tendencies. These traits likely provided fertile ground for selection during domestication. A dog’s ability to engage in extended social play with humans may stem directly from these evolved wolf traits.Domestication: redirection, not reinventionThe Domestication Hypothesis suggests that dogs were selected for increased docility and social tolerance, evolving new traits through domestication. But a growing body of research supports the Canine Cooperation Hypothesis: that dogs didn’t evolve new social capacities, but redirected pre-existing ones.Wolves already exhibit:* Cooperative hunting and pup rearing* Coalition formation* Tolerance towards helpful subordinates* Conflict repair behaviours* High sensitivity to social contextThrough domestication, these existing abilities were repurposed. Dogs transferred their social attention from conspecifics to humans. This reorientation ...
    Show More Show Less
    17 mins
  • Understanding Canine Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction

    Understanding Canine Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction
    Apr 3 2025
    In this episode, we delve into the complexities of the canine sacroiliac joint (SIJ), exploring its anatomy, dysfunction, and treatment options, based on the latest research on biomechanics, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic interventions.Note: This episode is not meant to be taken as veterinary advice. It was created for background information for anyone interested in the topic. In this episode, we explore a commonly overlooked source of pain and performance issues in dogs: sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction. Drawing on veterinary physiotherapy sources and clinical experience, we examine the structure and function of the SIJ, the challenges of diagnosing dysfunction, and its relevance for working dogs, agility competitors, and companion animals alike. We also consider how SIJ dysfunction interacts with other musculoskeletal issues, the behavioural signs owners might notice, and the treatment options available.Key topics* Anatomy and biomechanics of the sacroiliac joint* Causes and consequences of SIJ dysfunction in dogs* Clinical signs and behavioural indicators* Challenges in diagnosis and differential considerations* Manual therapy, rehabilitation, and management options* Relevance for trainers, owners, and allied professionalsLong-read articleIntroduction: the hidden hinge of canine movementThe sacroiliac joint is a crucial but often neglected component of the canine musculoskeletal system. Located where the sacrum meets the ilium on each side of the pelvis, it forms a weight-transferring bridge between the hindlimbs and the spine. Unlike freely mobile joints, the SIJ is a combination of a fibrous and synovial joint, allowing only small degrees of movement—but those micromovements are essential for shock absorption and locomotor coordination.When functioning well, the SIJ supports efficient, powerful movement. When compromised, it can become a source of pain, instability, and compensation throughout the body. Yet because its symptoms often mimic or overlap with other conditions, SIJ dysfunction in dogs remains underdiagnosed.Anatomy and biomechanicsThe sacroiliac joint consists of:* A cranial synovial portion that permits minimal gliding movements* A caudal fibrous portion with ligamentous stabilisation* Surrounding ligaments including the sacrotuberous ligament and dorsal sacroiliac ligamentsThe joint's stability depends more on ligamentous support and muscular tension than bony congruence. Key muscles influencing SIJ mechanics include the gluteals, multifidus, iliopsoas, and hamstrings. These muscles form part of the lumbopelvic stabilising system and are also involved in broader locomotor chains. Even minor disruptions in this system—from injury, overuse, or compensation—can destabilise the joint.Because the SIJ lies at the intersection of load transfer between the hindlimbs and spine, even subtle biomechanical inefficiencies can have far-reaching effects. Instability here often creates a chain reaction: altered stride mechanics, compensatory lumbar stiffness, and chronic muscle tension in surrounding areas.Causes of dysfunctionSIJ dysfunction can result from:* Repetitive strain (e.g., agility, flyball, or working dogs performing repeated high-impact movements)* Trauma (e.g., slipping on slick surfaces, being knocked over, vehicular accidents)* Compensation from other lameness or spinal issues (e.g., stifle or hip pathology, intervertebral disc disease)* Pelvic asymmetry or chronic postural imbalances (e.g., habitual crooked sitting or trotting)* Inadequate core strength or poor proprioceptive trainingIn younger dogs, trauma or early-onset lameness may be the trigger. In older dogs, SIJ dysfunction may develop gradually due to cumulative biomechanical stress, arthritis, or muscle weakness. Dogs with hypermobility or underlying connective tissue laxity may be especially prone. In b*****s, parturition or hormone-related ligamentous changes may also play a role.Signs and symptomsSIJ dysfunction presents with a mix of vague and specific signs, such as:* Hindlimb lameness or gait asymmetry, often intermittent or shifting* Shortened stride length or reduced drive from the rear limbs* Difficulty rising, jumping, climbing stairs, or making tight turns* Pelvic stiffness or a 'bunny hop' motion in fast trot or canter* Discomfort on palpation or mobilisation of the pelvis, particularly asymmetrically* Uneven muscle development or tone in the gluteals, hamstrings, or lumbar spine* Behavioural signs such as irritability, flinching when touched, reluctance to work or play, or loss of performance in trained dogsIt may coexist with or mimic hip dysplasia, stifle instability, lumbosacral disease, iliopsoas strain, or lumbar facet joint pain. Without careful assessment, it can easily be missed or misattributed.Assessment and diagnosisVeterinary diagnosis typically requires a combination of:* Orthopaedic and neurological exams to rule out primary limb or spinal causes* Careful palpation of the pelvis ...
    Show More Show Less
    23 mins