His stuff is very readable, and I can't help myself - I read every new dog book he produces. But he's not a particularly good writer, or a very interesting person in general. When you read one book or article, he seems ok, a little eccentric maybe, but a good guy. When you read all his work, he comes across as a terrible misogynist. I personally loathed the New Work of Dogs book because he repeatedly went after women in it. The rescue people, the divorcees, his own sister - all women he assessed as emotional wrecks who virtually abused dogs with their own selfish needs. His keen insightfulness is nowhere in evidence in his latest book, where he never seems to realize that it's his own emotional need to have the dog (can't remember the name offhand) unleashed on the farm that lead directly to the dog biting repeatedly.
However - I don't fault him for his attitude toward aggressive dogs. I think he's right there. There is too much leniency toward aggression in dogs in the dog world, and a lot of it is tied to pity rather than to anything positive. I can see where he begins with his criticism of rescue, which has increasingly become associated with 'desperate lost cause' instead of saving solid, sane adoptable pets from euthanasia. He goes too far, though, when he decides to take on himself the mantle of psychiatrist who thinks the people are behaving in unhealthy ways.