The relative importance of adaptation and individual ontogenetic experience in dogs' high levels of behavioral compatibility with humans has been a topic of intense scientific attention over the past two decades. Salomons et al. Current Biology, 31, 3137-3144, (2021) recently presented a particularly rich data set of observations on both wolf and dog puppies that has the potential to contribute substantially to this debate. In their study subjecting wolf and dog puppies to batteries of tests, including the ability to follow human pointing gestures, Salomons et al. (2021) reported that dogs, but not wolves, have a specialized innate capacity for cooperation with humans. However, upon reanalyzing this data set, we reach a different conclusion-namely, that when controlling adequately for various environmental factors, wolves and dogs perform similarly in their cooperation with humans.

In this paper, I outline the drawbacks with the two main behavioral approaches to animal behavior problems and argue that each alone is insufficient to underpin a field of clinical animal behavior. Applied ethology offers an interest in an animal’s spontaneous behavior in natural contexts, understood within an ecological and evolutionary context, but lacks an awareness of mechanisms that can be manipulated to modify the behavior of individual animals. Behaviorism in the form of Applied Behavior Analysis offers a toolkit of techniques for modifying the behavior of individual animals, but has seldom been applied to non-human species, and often overlooks phylogenetic aspects of behavior. Notwithstanding the historical animosities between the two fields of animal behavior they are philosophically highly compatible – both being empiricist schools stemming ultimately from Darwin’s insights. Though each individually is incomplete, I argue that an integrated approach that synthesizes the strengths of each holds great promise in helping the many animals who need our assistance to survive and thrive in human-dominated environments.