This is a long one! Sorry...
I bought this book on whim since I've always been interested in dogs and spent most of my life with them. I picked it up recently because of the section about purebred dogs which I will discuss later on. I may have underestimated this book having read some reviews, mostly negative, I admit that I had a sour attitude going into this book from the start. So let me explain myself.
"Our Dogs, Ourselves: How we live with Dogs Now" goes into detail about how we treated our dogs in the past, how we treat our dogs now (obviously) and how we should treat our dogs in the future. She discusses the topic in a stream of consciousness type way, exploring how we are negligent towards non-human animals in general. We have usually been poor even towards our dogs, who we have decided as a society that deserves our love more then other animals like pigs. Who have the same intellect as dogs and are viewed as food and nothing more.
This is one point that Alexandra Horowitz examines in her book that I agree with. We do need to re-think the way we treat animals in our society and maybe give them credit where credit is due. I also agree with her on the "Humorless" chapter, now knowing what I know about dogs, I do not find people interrogating their dogs and saying they feel "Guilty" when the dog crouches or looks away. Or thinking that the "cute" video of somebody's child hugging their dog while the dog is whale-eyed and stiff is funny.
The chapter about "Sex" and the author's stance on spaying and neutering was interesting, and I do agree that dogs should be allowed to be dogs. That humping isn't always a sign of "Sexual interest" and how people are always embarrassed by this when their dogs perform this act really shouldn't be. But I also think, that maybe she needs to spend time at a doggie daycare, where one unneutered male can upset the balance of a room full of dogs. Yes, looking at research papers can be informative, but nothing beats trying to stop a 100 pound labrador retriever as he barrels through you to mark, hump and piss on everything and everyone. I do think that the policy in North America about spaying and neutering needs to stay put, since I feel that Alexandra Horowitz has too high of expectations of people. Most people are pretty irresponsible when it comes to their dogs so simply "Watch your dog" doesn't always work. Not all of us live in a fancy apartment in NYC with no back doors. Sure, you can say it's for the convivence of the owner, but at the same time accidents happen. Nowadays, breeders, usually tell their new puppy owners to wait until a year to spay or neuter their purebreds for health reasons, like I had to wait with my own. I understand the shelters stance on this since dogs are piling up due to neglectful people being willy-nilly with their pets.
Now this is where my bad attitude originated from with this book. A little detail about me, I like purebred dogs. I like the history of how they became, I like to know that my dog has been tested for genetic problems and I also enjoy being able to meet others of my new puppy's family. I know going to a responsible breeder I am getting a socialized, well-rounded pup. Reading this, you may think I am biased and against adopting, you'd be wrong. I am all for adopting, if the person who is adopting knows what they're doing...which brings me to my next point.
The author writes many false claims that just irked me the wrong way one of these things was the fact that you could just get a purebred dog "on a Saturday from a cutesy kennel", uh no. This is not true. For my own purebred dogs, I had multiple interviews from both breeders. Emails, phone calls and in person interviews before I was allowed to take my dogs home. Also if this person is going through a responsible breeder, usually there is a waiting list, sometimes up to 2 years to get a puppy from their kennel. This claim could also be made for mixed breed dogs as well...Kijiji or Craigslist is just a click away where you can find any dog you're looking for. So not sure what her point was here.
The behavior problems that the author claims that the sweet looking mongrel doesn't have is also false, and that she is against the Kennel clubs warning potential dog owners about this. I disagree. This claim can be refuted by simply going and looking at the adoptable dogs on any rescue, or humane society website. Most of these dogs CANNOT go home with owners who have children under the age of 10 or 12, cannot be with other animals, especially small ones like cats or small dogs, most dogs cannot go to a home with another dog for they are dog aggressive, or has to have another "Confident", "older" dog in the home on whom they can rely. Behavioral issues, like excitability and separation anxiety if not treated properly by people who are knowledgeable can very quickly turn into aggression, which in these problems on its own, can also lead the dog being returned to the shelter or being rehomed privately. Not to mention these aren't quick fixes. She also declares that purebred dogs are "unicorns" stated by the British Kennel Club, that they need no maintenance and are perfect. This is untrue. No breeder is going to give a malinois to a person who lives in an apartment building and never goes outside. Kennel club websites talk extensively about how not all breeds are for everyone, and insist you do well needed research before you decide on a breed. Another thing she mentions is the BSL about pitbulls being bite hazards, but also saying that "pitbulls" are not just purebreds. The BSL states that any dog looking "Pitbull" is deemed dangerous, which I'm guessing goes for her perfect mutts as well. Also in a study, mutts hold 2nd place for highest percentages of dog bites, only to be out done by Pitbulls, which like I stated above is dubious to say the least. Behavioral problems do exist in shelter dogs, it's dumb to say otherwise.
This next point, however, I do agree with. We need to examine at how we're breeding purebred dogs. She claims the standards for purebreds perpetuates unhealthiness in dogs, but if you read them, like the GSD for example, speaks against excessive angulation, and roaching . These problems need to change within the show ring for the judges decide what is the "up and up" and its the winners (usually) that get more breeding opportunities. For pugs, bulldogs, Frenchies and other breeds that have become a welfare concern, should we let their lines die out? I don't know. This can go to the people who are more knowledgeable than me about this topic. Given all this, a lot of breeders are trying to do everything in their power to change some of the genetic problems that come with purebred dogs with health tests like OFA making sure that heritable health problems like hip dysplasia and others are checked before the dog is bred also trying to widen the gene pools. And just to add just because it's purebred, doesn't mean it's well-bred.
Another thing that kind of irritated me, she says that purebred dogs are lacking individuality. I have two bull terriers, and their personalities are so different you wouldn't guess they were the same breed. I just find it moronic that she thinks only mixed breed dogs can be "individuals". Mutts aren't "special snowflakes", stop romanticizing them. This whole chapter made her sound like a ranting fur mommy.
In conclusion, I think this was a fairly interesting book about dogs and how our dogs shape us and our impact on them. The book wasn't some thoughtless dribble that some of the reviews made me assume it was and it also made me think about things I never would've thought of before. Though the chapter on purebreds could use a little work. If this sounds interesting to you, give it a read.