03/04/2025
There have already been a lot of excellent rebuttals to the latest post on the supposed evils of playing fetch with your dog. While I get the feeling that everyone is sick of the subject by now and I could just refer to the following article I wrote several years ago: https://www.tarynblyth.co.za/playing-fetch-the-new-prime-evil, I have decided to wade in again to particularly address those who have complained about the backlash the post has received. Those of us who have had a strong negative response to the post have been accused of being overly critical and blowing things out of proportion. I feel I need to explain why I believe the backlash to the post is actually warranted.
While I agree that we can be too quick to criticise and pull the work of other trainers apart over minor details and I try not to do that, I found myself deeply disturbed by this anti-fetch post and couldn't ignore it.
Many people have said that the post just calls for some moderation in playing fetch (which is needed) and we are all completely overreacting to someone who is just recommending common sense and balance. But this is not how I read the article at all.
The post in question sets out to systematically analyse the act of a dog fetching something in a way that paints the very behaviour itself as emotionally and physiologically damaging. What is more, the author uses supposed science or scientific theories in the analysis, which gives the impression of authority and expertise. This puts the reader in a position where, if they do not personally understand the concepts and biology being referenced, they are likely to take the post as a factual scientific analysis of the behaviour – when it is certainly not.
I won’t go into great detail about the hormones and neurotransmitters involved in playing fetch this time, because I want to focus more on the theories around predatory behaviour in dogs, which the post seems to be hinged on. However, here is a quote from another fabulous post that did address the biology a bit:
“CLAIM:
Fetch spikes dopamine and cortisol - so it must be harmful.
REALITY:
Yes, hormones are involved. Because fetch is exciting.
Dopamine = anticipation. Not addiction.
Cortisol rises with arousal - just like when your dog trains, plays, or sees a squirrel.
Or heck, cortisol even spikes when your dog gets off his bed in the morning.
Let’s stop panicking about hormones! Hormones are biology, not pathology.
Arousal isn’t the problem. Recovery is.
And by far the majority of dogs recover just fine. Drink, flop, nap, done.”
Julie Naismith: https://www.facebook.com/julienaismithtraining/posts/pfbid0QYE8SsKBttdqs5JtPhm9NtzhZdujCD5Qt7HtjDZ9h72YnSKZiEVk5ao3QeimTPkYl
Okay, so getting that out of the way, let’s look at the crux of the post in question:
Playing fetch gets dogs stuck partway through the predatory motor pattern and therefore creates massive frustration and leaves dogs in a state of arousal.
Hmm….. In response to questions about the post in the comments, the author mentions the theories of Raymond Coppinger, an evolutionary biologist whose work focused on the evolution of the domestic dog and how we come to have the different types of dogs (in looks and behaviour) that we find ourselves living with today. The author claims to get his ideas about predatory motor patterns in dogs from this work, but oddly, he seems to have missed the most important aspect of Coppinger’s theory: that the vast majority of domestic dogs do NOT have full predatory motor patterns: domestic dogs only have remnants of predatory behaviour, as a result of the selective breeding of dogs for specific tasks over thousands of years.
For those not familiar with it, a very brief explanation of Coppinger’s theory is as follows:
All dogs are “juvenilised” wild canids. Early humans favoured canids that did not show strong predatory behaviours, because they were safer to live with, so dogs with weakened or incomplete predatory behaviours evolved to live among people. Humans then realised that different dogs with different remnants of predatory behaviour could be useful for different types of work and selective breeding for these functions began. Dogs that enjoyed stalking and chasing, but not biting or ripping things to pieces, were great for herding. Dogs that enjoyed grabbing and holding, but not ripping to pieces, were great for retrieving, dogs that had virtually no predatory behaviours remaining were great for living with and guarding livestock and dogs that went straight to grab, bite and shake from just looking at something were excellent “pest control”.
While the full predatory sequence in a wild canid for the purposes of eating is:
ORIENT – EYE – STALK – CHASE – GRAB BITE – SHAKE BITE – KILL BITE – DISSECT – EAT
Our domestic dogs only have bits and pieces of this genetically programmed into them and very seldom go through this entire sequence. Those that do have a fuller predatory motor pattern SELDOM follow through to actually eating things that they catch. Are there exceptions – yes, of course – but it is not the norm. For more details on this, please see my article on the importance of genetics in understanding behaviour: https://www.tarynblyth.co.za/genetics-and-behaviour
The anti-fetch article hinges on dogs not being able to complete the predatory motor pattern, when our dogs have literally evolved and then been selectively bred to NOT have a full predatory motor pattern and to gain satisfaction from rehearsing those segments of the predatory motor pattern that do remain. When it comes to the few dogs that do have a fairly full predatory motor pattern and may actually be proficient hunters if given the chance, I would challenge you to get them to fetch a ball – spoiler, it probably won't happen. The more “mature – wild type” canids that live amongst us are notoriously bad at retrieving – if it is not alive, they have no interest in chasing it and putting it in their mouths. The entire theory the post is based on makes no sense.
In fact, as a behaviourist, one of the most important things that I look at when assessing whether a dog’s needs are being met, is whether they have a suitable outlet for the remnants of predatory behaviour that is specific to that type of dog. Simplistically, is a pointer getting to point? Is a herder getting to herd? Is a retriever getting to retrieve and is a terrier getting to shake and shred stuff? Of course, modern dogs seldom have the option of rehearsing these behaviours on living things (thank goodness!), so engagement with various toys is where we focus this type of behaviour. For some dogs, this will mean that fetching a ball or other item will be immensely enjoyable and satisfying. Far from being a cause of frustration, activities like playing fetch can alleviate frustration by meeting needs hardwired into our dogs.
Does this mean that every dog should fetch a ball or that we should throw a ball 100 times in a row for dogs that do enjoy the activity? Does it mean that dogs cannot get hurt fetching a ball or that there is no repetitive strain on joints during running, breaking and turning? Does this mean that there are no dogs who will become over-aroused by fetching over and over again or that some dogs will find it hard to stop the game? No, of course not.
Firstly, with any activity for our dogs, we have to keep their physical safety in mind and repetitive ball throwing can impact on physical health and lead to injuries if done in excess. As a Rottweiler owner, with heavier built dogs, I am acutely aware of the potential for injuries and am careful to look after my dogs’ joints and ligaments in any activity we engage in. I have also cautioned some clients who I observed overdoing the ball throwing to tone things down and vary ball activities, out of concern that if they continued on as they were, their dogs would be injured. And yes, you do get certain dogs who have a tendency towards over-arousal and fixation, but I would argue that this propensity was inherent and if it was not brought out by the ball, it would have been brought out by something else. In dogs with true compulsive/addictive type behaviours, it is believed that the chemical reward cascade does not function properly – this is a physiological problem and not the result of exposure to a ball. Ball fetching may not be suitable for a dog with such a predisposition but it didn’t cause the condition and taking away the ball (while that might help) won’t fix it either – the answer in such a case would be far more complex and sadly, not that easy.
Finally, I wanted to mention that it is always a good idea to keep in mind who a post is written by and to dig a little bit into their qualifications and training ideology. I don’t want to use this post to pull the author apart, but I would encourage you go onto his website and check whether he has any listed qualifications. In this regard, please keep in mind that “Cynologist” is not a qualification and simply refers to anyone who works with and “studies” dogs. I would also encourage you to read his training philosophy carefully and see where his background lies. Ask yourself whether this person presents any evidence that they are in a position to expound on biology or neurophysiology. Ask yourself what kind of training methods you think they use or condone. Is this someone who you would take advice from, if you are in the positive reinforcement camp?.
So, in summary, why do I find this post so deeply disturbing:
1. It is presented as scientific fact, when it is anything but
2. It completely misunderstands the very theories it is based on
3. It is alarmist and extreme
4. It risks taking away something which can be beneficial for many dogs and their humans
5. It seems to have been shared without anyone looking into or asking important questions about the author
Is this really something we want to spread amongst the dog-owning public?
For the love of our animals, a bit of science and a lot of compassion. Combining Ethology based, concept and positive reinforcement training.
