The Sheepdog Myth
“There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population.”
“Then there are the wolves, and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.”
“Then there are the sheepdogs, and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”
These quotes are from the popular work of Lieutenant Colonel Dave Grossman’s seminal work in which the sheepdog analogy was born. It has become a nom de guerre for police officers, military members, or anybody who has adopted the mindset of the protector. It has been the catalyst of creativity for tattoos. Social media is inundated with the sheepdog community that has no problem telling anyone that will stand still long enough to listen that they are the sheepdog, and that you my friend, are the helpless sheep. There is an unconfirmed rumor that this was even scribbled on the bathroom wall of a Planet Fitness.
The sheepdog mentality arose from a claim made by Grossman that ordinary people like you and I are sheep. We live our lives, naively meandering through the world tiptoeing through the tulips and delighting in the novel scent of kitten flatulence. But the sheep are always being stalked by the big bad wolf. The criminal. The sexual predator. But Thank God above that the sheepdog stands between the wolf and us and a certain fate of becoming wolf excrement. Here is the mindset concerning all three actors in this drama. Sheep, ordinary citizens, go about their lives innocently. They are harmless and constantly vulnerable to threats. The wolf is a predatory individual that exploits sheep for personal, political, or psychological gain. Then there is the sheepdog, such as the police officer, the soldier, or the vigilant and armed citizen. They possess the capacity for violence, but it is channeled to safeguard the flock
Like any theory or social position though, a claim must stand up to scrutiny.
Unfortunately, the sheepdog ate Grossman’s homework.
I will state up front that this will be an unpopular piece. It is, however, based on a false premise. It sounds great, and I’ll admit that for a very long time I bought into this nonsense. But somewhere along the line, I was diagnosed with a terminal case of critical thinking. So, critical thinking took over and led to a very basic question: In the real world, can a real sheepdog defeat a real wolf in a strategic and physical confrontation?
This exploration will dig deep down into this subject. First, let’s tackle the basic question that got us here in the first place. What happens when a wolf and a sheepdog in the natural world find themselves in a toxic tango? But this is much deeper than natural world truths and fallacies. Is this mentality an explosion of the ego by the sheepdog? Finally, sheep have shepherds. Who is the shepherd that feeds the sheepdog?
A wolf from an ecological point of view is an apex predator. In ecology, an apex predator sits atop the food chain in its natural habitat. It is a Tier One carnivore that hunts other animals but is rarely preyed upon by other animals. In North America, the gray wolf is roughly 26 to 32 inches tall at the shoulder. Males usually weigh 70-145 pounds, while females weigh 50-120 pounds. Generally speaking, wolves have a bite force of 400 PSI. In nature, wolves are cunning and are masters of their environment. They avoid unnecessary confrontations and attack in coordinated ambushes that are deemed advantageous and present with a high likelihood of success. Wolves operate on instinct, efficiency, and necessity. They operate out of a survival instinct instead of the common perception of cruelty and sadism.
The adversary in connection with Grossman’s work is the sheepdog. This is actually a misnomer, in that sheepdogs are categorized as Livestock Guardian Dogs (LGDs). Breeds like Border Collies and Australian Cattle Dogs are not LGDs per se. Breeds such as Kangals, Caucasian Shepherds, Great Pyrenees, Anatolian Shepherds, and Spanish Mastiffs are LGDs that are domesticated descendants of molosser type canines that weigh 80-150 pounds. Their origins are from Molossus in ancient Greece, and they were bred for heavy work and protecting livestock. They have thick coats and powerful physiques. Moreover, they are calm with a pervasive territorial and protective instinct. A Kangal has a bite force of approximately 700+ PSI.
The real question: Can a REAL sheepdog defeat a REAL wolf in a REAL fight? Yes, but the answer to this question is not guaranteed and is largely contextual. There are encounters that have illustrated real life battles involving sheepdogs and wolves. Evenly matched, meaning one-on-one, LGDs are larger in size, have a stronger bite force, and are bred for combative endurance in their protective mission. There are several documented encounters of LGDs protecting the flock from attacking wolves, either alone or in packs. An Anatolian Shepherd survived a vicious wolf attack while protecting a herd, and a Caucasian Shepherd scared off a pack of wolves singlehandedly while on duty. Similarly, two Abruzzese Mastiffs in one case held off a wolfpack of eight predators.
Physical size, however, is only a small piece of a complex puzzle. Wolves fight dirty. They do not follow rules or laws placed on them by external entities. They are cunning in terms of strategy and tactics. Wolves use speed, hit-and-run attacks, and pack tactics. They are also masters at employing the element of surprise. The rules placed on wolves are natural, in that they fight differently than sheepdogs out of necessity. Wolves are not cruel and evil. Yet, they do use tactics that are brutal and ruthless to survive in nature. Wolves do not have a farmer to feed them like their sheepdogs counterparts. In real life encounters, it is optimal for a pack of two to five LGDs to deter or defeat an attack from a single wolf. In documented cases of combat, injuries to wolves and LGDs are common. The difference lies in the size of each adversary. But most important is the natural worldview. This is where Grossman’s theory, taken from nature, falls apart.
Grossman creatively utilizes the trifecta of the sheep, sheepdog, and wolf to effectively illustrate the relationship between good and evil and the need for those in society to stand up for those that cannot stand up for themselves. It also highlights the need for “sheepdogs” to prevent an otherwise civilized society from degrading into a hellish vigilante dystopia. But creativity is the only strength with which Grossman’s ideas have merit. He has a fundamental misunderstanding of criminal behavior and intentions.
The core of Grossman’s idea is that sheepdogs can emulate wolves in strength and their potential for righteous violence. Sheepdogs follow rules, intermingle with society, and protect the innocent sheep that lack the physical capacity and killer instinct to stand face to face with a snarling wolf. Wolves, or criminals, are varmints that stand in the way of normalcy and progress in a civilized society. In law enforcement, this idea has fostered a pseudo-warrior mindset that emphasizes controlled violence within a legal framework to counter the threat of the criminal wolf.
If all criminals are wolves, then Grossman painted himself in a philosophical corner. If criminals are indeed inherently evil, then it must be supposed that they are acting out of survival like their counterparts in nature. This would negate the gold standard of most criminal statutes, that being intent. It would turn ecological principles upside down if we are to assume that human criminals and wolves act on the same mentality and intent. Science has shown this to be false. Wolves act out of a survival instinct to feed themselves, their offspring, and to maintain their status in the natural world. Criminals by contrast act out of a myriad of reasons. Their intent may focus on greed, revenge, lust, or mental or emotional pathology. Additionally, Grossman’s work does not consider macro-level criminological issues such as poverty, individual and social trauma, and singular bad decision making and poor judgment.
The major flaw in this framework though lies not in its moral compass, but its unintended consequences. It would be most unfair to characterize Grossman’s work as an indictment on the social contract that exists between citizens and law enforcement. It does however set a dangerous precedent that is not commensurate with laws of nature in which the analogies of the theory are drawn.
If street criminals are wolves, and everyday citizens are sheep, then a dangerous potential for social separation exists in the law enforcement community. Giving the benefit of the doubt, sheepdogs are bound by rules and laws, whereas wolves are not. Wolves, in nature or in the criminal world, act within a code that is defined by the need to survive and thrive. In other words, by any means necessary. Sheepdogs are judged by their actions. Because of the sheepdog mentality, the imposed need to protect can, and has, caused many law enforcement officers to step beyond their statutory boundaries and become like the wolf in terms of mentality and violence. In other words, self-imposed moral superiority can lead to corruption, abuse, and a shadow world of unchecked power.
This analogy frames law enforcement officers as a rare breed that is set aside from their fellow citizens. They are seen as elite moral actors in a world of passive innocents and predatory villains. This can be the most dangerous opiate injected into the psychological and emotional veins of the law enforcement officer. Power is the most addictive external force amongst humankind. This can dangerously inflate the ego of the police officer who is no longer a mere public servant, but a domestic soldier. This can lead to a separation of police within the communities they serve and turn them into an occupying force. In turn, this mentality can easily translate into abuse of authority, excessive force, and corruption. Sheepdogs exist to protect the sheep, but it is very easy for the sheepdog to look upon the sheep as a lesser entity that is not a social equal.
From a social point of view, the sheepdog analogy can be insulting to everyday citizens who look at police as public servants. If Grossman’s framework is given merit, then the average law-abiding citizen that contributes to society is weak and in need of a protector. This model negates the idea that everyday citizens can mediate their own conflicts or protect themselves from physical harm by criminal wolves.
The main flaw of this framework though lies in its profound misunderstanding of criminal behavior. But this should not be a criticism levied solely at Grossman, as the broader world of criminology has taken leave of their common sense as well. For decades, and perhaps longer, the world of criminology has focused on the criminal mind instead of the criminal heart. Every human mind, even that of the most upright police officer, can mentally devise atrocities against their fellow man that defy explanation. What separates these behaviors though is an engrained morality. In the big scheme of things, the bravado surrounding the sheepdog analogy is laughable. Real world violence is not confined by a use of force continuum or legal self-defense standards. Real world violence and criminality in general is rapid, brutal, messy, and unpredictable. Police officers and security professionals often tout their prowess regarding their ability to think like a criminal. This is professional vaudeville at best. There is a vast difference between thinking like a criminal and thinking as a criminal, as the two are indeed mutually exclusive.
There is a more sinister concept to be explored in the sheepdog framework. Despite the machismo, sheepdogs have masters. In other words, the shepherd uses the sheepdog to protect the flock that he will eventually sheer or slaughter. The social contract in America is inconsistent with this model because the American system of government places the sheep as the master over the sheepdog. To be blunt, law enforcement as a mechanism of government at any level is subservient to the people they serve. That is not a misprint. Although American police have been granted statutory powers to enforce laws, they are still servants that answer to the very people they are sworn to protect.
The image of the roaming wolf is thus the final piece of the puzzle. In terms of science, Grossman’s model is flawed because wolves are not evil by nature. They are ruthless by a naturally instilled instinct to survive. Grossman should be applauded for his creativity, but this illustration has caused a massive amount of social damage.
In reality, the sheepdog (police) cannot compete with the wolf (criminal). Social media and news outlets often promote humorous stories of “dumb criminals.” It would be farcical to assert that there aren’t dumb criminals. There are dumb actors in any endeavor. But consider this: if a criminal is apprehended once after committing nine other successful crimes, it must be asked: who is the real dummy in this scenario? The actor with the 90% success rate or the actor with the 10% success rate?
It would be folly to conclude that this modest essay will change anything. Quite the contrary, it will likely spark outrage. As long as it sparks thought though, it has achieved its purpose.
And so on…..
