I got an article popped up in my news search robot today and in reading through it, it seems that the author was on a rant about another author who wrote about "treat training doesn't work". So I did a quick search and found what may be the article and read that also. What bothered me about the criticism the most is that the author seem to challenge assertations of the original article because the credentials of the author and references were not provided. I do not believe the credentials and references are any basis for refuting the the validity of the article. That should be done with counter points to the positions proposed by the original author. If I wanted to know about the use of dogs to hunt Racoons, I would take the word of a Cajun Coon Hunter (who may also be a vet) :) rather than a vet or some peer reviewed papers. What are your thoughts.
Has anyone else read this article about the Molossers? I am curious about your take on the author's claims. I believe that any author can always find support for their position if they are so inclined. What gets me though is how passionate some are about their interpretation of a certain period in history where records are scarce and printed works are the interpretation of the authors of the time when there was a certain romantic flair to story telling. I often wonder how much of what is written about dogs from the B.C. period are romantic stories, half truths, or actual unbiased account of the events of that era. I cannot post from the article here because it is protected by the authors copyright but I am curious as to your opinion of the authors claims.
