Service Dogs': slavery?

[Carrie]

(pardon the boo boo....didn't mean to put an apostrophie after Dogs. lol)

After reading and thoroughly enjoying the book, DOGS: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution, By: Raymond and Lorna Coppinger, which I found to be highly interesting, believable and well supported, I thought I'd share one aspect of the authors' opinion and deep concern for the welfare of some service dogs, like seeing eye dogs, dogs who pull wheel chairs for people, hearing dogs etc. This book made me think and has an incredible characteristic of prolonging my thoughts on the content and the vastness of the research and thought that went into this book by two scientists who not only did a tremendous amount of research, but have a years of personal experience. It was also exceedingly well written.

In one small part of this book they discussed various types of relationships we have with dogs; mutualistic, where both benefit, parasitic relationships, slave type relationships, where one gets something out of it, but the other does not, relationships where each party depends on the other for existence and relationships where one depends on the other, but the other does not depend on the other. In other words, (lol) if we disappeared from the planet, domestic dogs would not survive unless they evolved very fast into an animal which can live in the wild. But if they disappeared, we'd survive. There are relationships where one party uses the other to his benefit, but it does not harm the one being used and there are relationships where using one party does hurt that party.

In the case of some of these service dogs, their opinion is, and I tend to agree and see their point, that they are not living a very good or happy life and not a life which is conducive to the nature or the way dogs should live. For example, many of these dogs used are from the working, hunting or herding group. They should be out doing what their natural motor drives urge them to do; pointing, retrieving, running (chasing), herding, stalking. i.e.: (Border Collies). Dogs who are used for hearing impaired people, blind people, people in wheel chairs may be living a life of drudgery. They walk slowly and patiently on leashes with their people on city sidewalks, they pull wheel chairs which are to their sides where by the harness and the angle of the weight of the chair is pulling their muscles and joints at horrible angles, which has the potential of eventually breaking down the dog and causing injury. They hang out in apartments and pull open cupboard doors and refrigerators for people. They walk slowly down the sidewalk, stopping at crosswalks for their blind owners. There are so many more examples, but you get my point. This is all so admirable and such a great thing for these people. But, what does it do for the dogs? Are the dogs receiving a life that they deserve or that is in line with how a dog should live?

Now, of course, we've had discussions before about this sort of thing. For example, one thread I think, there was the discussion about sled dogs, the Ididerod race and how kind was that to dogs. These authors have run sled dogs for years and he explained in terrific detail how it's all done, how the dogs love to run and how most of them are well cared for and treated kindly. The point is that they get to do something they have a natural drive for and that is to run and run with each other. They apparently are quite ecstatic when they're running and pulling the sled. He describes how the harness fits so that the leverage is slight and there is not very much strain on them at all. Conversely, he described what he saw with a harness on a dog pulling a wheel chair and in fact showed a photo and it was ill fitting and horribly straining to the dog.

My opinion is that unless something is missing from the story, many of the service dogs live a life of drudgery, a slave like relationship, where the human is benefiting greatly, but the dog is not, although I'm sure most of these people love their dogs and treat them kindly. I still think, unless someone is giving them more to do than what is described, it's pretty sad. I think a mutual relationship is something that we, as humans owe our domestic dogs.

[sammy]

I think it depends entirely on the situation. As some of you know my 4yr old son is blind, so we're quite connected to the blind community here. The seeing eye dogs I know live very happy full filled lives where they do work but are also much loved and well cared for. When a seeing eye dog is home they are usually "off duty" as most blind people navigate around their homes perfectly well unassisted. So the harness comes off and the dog can just be a dog. Also, while working, the dogs also often get to curl up on a bed and snooze under their owners desks for much of a day while the owner works. It's not the are working in a coal mine all day It doesn't seem to bad to me at all. I would venture to say that the dogs probably enjoy that more than they would 8,9 or more hours of solitude at home. The people I have seen with seeing eye dogs have very close bonds with their dogs. The gift of mobility and independence isn't easily taken for granted. Not too mention two beings spending so much time together, working together are naturally going to have a bond. An unhappy dog isn't going to work as well.

In a good service dog program the dogs are carefully selected. They love to work with/for a human counterpart and are highly reinforced for it. I would say they enjoy it. I have seen people who have retired a dog from working, kept it as a pet and the dog has been extremely put out when it is left at home and the new dog takes on the responsibility.

Loads of pet dogs have a far worse life as lonely, bored,couch potatoes or solitary yard dogs. Your average pet dog doesn't get even one walk per day. I could see the point with other types of working dogs IF they don't get to go home and live within a family on their off hours. A life of work and living in a kennel environment seems cruel to me although it's still better than some pet dogs live. In general, I have no problem with a dog working for a living. I have a WAY bigger problem with people owning pet dogs and never walking them, hardly doing anything with them, relegating them to a life worse than a zoo animal's. Don't most of the working/sporting/herding dogs you know love to work and love to go everywhere with their owners?

Assistance dog training is changing too-- an article you might be interested in-http://www.behavior.org/animals/
I don't think that link will get you right to the article but scroll down and click on "Changing times in service dog training" by Debi Davis. I think you'll like it.

As for dogs having lives they were not bred for- I'm ok with that too. My dogs were bred to herd and we herd when we can but they are also very happy doing agility, rally and most of all being frisbee dogs or going for hikes. They eat the best food money can buy, are never hungry, sleep in comfy beds are never cold, lonely or scared. It looks pretty good from where I'm sitting.

[D.Schäferhund]

that really depends....

Just a thought to be thrown in the about the abillity to adaption...

humans are made for running, walking long distances, but sitting for long periods of time, they are just not build for that, but yet they do and a lot of them anjoy it...

All that depends on how much balance is in the work how the dispositon of each dog is...
these dogs are carefully selected, to be capable to do the job.

But I see your concern and i guess the greatest responsibility is in the hands of trainers and a control of how happy the dog is working or if there might be a differnt job better for him....

[Spiritus]

A lot of the working/herding/sporting breeds used are breeds that are known to "think" - that is, to use their own minds. Herding dogs need to be able to counter-act how livestock moves, and a lot of that is done way too quickly for human "commands". They think.

There was a debate on a list I was on about BC's being bred for fly-ball... being bred faster and faster, more and more compulsive for the ball and/or the tug. BC's are herding dogs. They were not designed to be dog-sport dogs, but their very design for herding is what makes them such great fly-ball dogs. But, in the line of them being a herding breed, what's in it for them in flyball? It's not like they herd the balls....

In every breed, there are higher drive dogs, dogs that need to go-go-go. And in every breed, there are thinking dogs, dogs that want to be with people, dogs who excel in homes where they do mental "work" over physical work. Not all BC's are great herding dogs. Not all Golden's are great hunters. So why not use those dogs who would not be "happy" doing what they were originally bred to do, to do things that make them happy?

[Cassiepeia]

I had never thought about this before, but as far as guide dogs are concerned I can't see how they could be leading a good fulfilled life.
Unless the blind person who owns them is really active with them in 'doggy' things or has someone else who can take the dog and do those 'doggy' things with it.
Yes dogs like to walk, yes dogs like to be with their owners, but surely walking to the shops and back, or (worse) to work...sitting under a desk all day and then going home again, is incredibly boring and becomes routine after a while.
Not to mention the fact that the dogs can't (or at least aren't generally allowed to) interact with anyone at all while they're working. So there is no meeting of new friends.
Do the dogs get to play fetch or other games in the backyard with their owners? Go for 'play dates' with other dogs? Are they taken for walks where they don't have to 'work' at all, but instead get to sniff the ground and bark at birds and swim in the lake or ocean?
I don't see how being 'off duty' at home is any reward. How is lazying around the house any different from having to sit under a desk all day? Except maybe the bed's more comfy.

So anyway that's my only concern...do they actually get to really be 'dogs' occasionally?

Cass.

[bigdoglover]

I can see the point, and the concern.....but I have seen several (not as many as the authors of the book) of service dogs. What I noticed was that periodically during the day, the people they "serve" will take them for a break. That is, they take them to a park, big field, etc and just let them be a dog. Play ball, frisbee, run, sniff, pee...lol you name it.

I watched a documentary about service dogs a long time ago (on Discovery? maybe?) and it did show even those people who couldn't throw a ball had friends/relatives that helped out. The dogs also received a ton of "off duty" social interaction.

So I guess I don't view them as "slaves"....dogs were domesticated in order to assist and serve man. From the Native Americans using them for hunting, and through the ages, herding, guarding, sniffing, etc.

[Pondwader]

As far as I know, guide dogs are also provided with "free time" to play and romp and get more exercise etc....

I think service dogs wonderfully demonstrate the bond between canine and human.
Same with horses... they have been "used" for assisting humans in work and recreational activities for centuries.
Dogs are only here because of humans really... wolves would not have been domesticated if humans had not taken any in, and the domestic dog may not have existed.

[Carrie]

BC's are herding dogs. They were not designed to be dog-sport dogs, but their very design for herding is what makes them such great fly-ball dogs. But, in the line of them being a herding breed, what's in it for them in flyball? It's not like they herd the balls....

The difference is that dogs (breed aside) for a minute.....all dogs have innate predatory motor sequences. They all have certain needs for an outlet for that. It's a dog thing, not a breed thing. There is neurological activity intrinsic in predators which comes out in various forms. Flyball satisfies that. Running, sniffing, chasing down a ball are all outlets for what is needed. That is why the sled dogs these people ran were used as an example. Running was fun for them while it was an outlet for one of the motor patterns. Border Collies have one strong motor pattern and that is the eye stalk. They have the chase also. They are lacking in the grab/bite, grab/kill, dissect/consume motor patterns. (the ones who they use for sheep herding) After the eye stalk and chase, the rest of the predatory motor patterns shut off. So chasing a ball is using some motor patterns and there is an outlet. And it's fun! There are indeed more or less of these patterns in various dogs. Sheep guarding dogs have none basically.

Taking a leash walk around the block probably doesn't satisfy these drives, at least not very well. Hopefully, someone in the family or a neighbor takes these dogs for some fun too besides being in a loving home with people who care and appreciate these lovely creatures, which I have no doubt they do.

The photo of the dog pulling the wheel chair sort of made me sick. It was a Golden and he was straining to pull this heavy thing up an upgrade on an asphalt street. His whole body was leaning way over, his feet digging into the street. His legs were almost at a 45 degree angle, his feet closer to the wheel chair, his body way away from it. The harness was dragging down in front of his shoulders which could not move properly. It was rubbing on his chest and shoulders as he tried to make his way up this hill. He did not look very happy.

So, although I see the huge benefit for people, I do not see the benefit for dogs. Yes indeed, there are many pet dogs who don't have a very good life. For the purpose of this debate, I just pulled this one aspect or venue in which dogs are used. I certainly hope it does not offend anyone. It's just something to think about. I've never thought about it much before...thought it was all great. But then I read that book and some things were pointed out which have made me think more.

[GSD]

You could look at it as slavery I guess. I did get his point when I read the book, but after I thought about it, if you have a group of dogs and they form a pack, loose or tight, becaues they do vary from "pack" to "pack", each dog has its own niche or job that it does. Some on hunts if they pack up to hunt will be the ones that steer the quarry to the others, some give the kill bite, some grab at the neck to drag it down, others will grab at the hind legs to knock it off balance, some will look after young, some get closer to humans, some crave that contact, and it is enough for them to be by their sides day after day with just meanial scraps to eat.

Many things make many different dogs "happy". By choosing the right dogs, I think you can avoid the drudgery and slavery, and chose dogs that will be happy sitting idly by until its time to flip a switch or pull open a fridge or have some sore paws or shoulders from pulling a wheel chair.

a lot of his basis came from the present world scenerios, but were also pulled from the pariah dogs and village dogs that were considered to be more like the "original" dogs than what we commonly think of as dogs. They have a much different relationship with humans than say my GSD. They have loose relationships with humans, but nothing like my dog has with me, or most any of us have with our dogs. Taking one of those dogs and making it a service dog would be a tragedy for the dog, but take some of the tamer more docile offspring, put them under human intervention for a few thousand, or hundred years and you'd probably get some dogs that loved pulling open fridge doors and laying by his masters feet and not much more.

[Carrie]

Wow, the last two posts were written while I was typing, so I didn't acknowledge those.

dogs were domesticated in order to assist and serve man

Well, you'd have to read the book. They make a heck of a good case from a biological standpoint for the idea that dogs were not domesticated in order to assist and serve man. Man didn't take wolf pups and tame them. There would not be enough of a population at one place to selectively breed them. Wolves are incredibly shy and afraid of man. So to produce and propagate a new animal is extremely unlikely. Wolves, during mating time split. They are escape artists. How could these people devote what would be needed to selectively breed tamer wolves? (It's all detailedly and exceptionally explained from a biologist's, ethologist's and ecolist's standpoint in the book.) Also there wasn't enough time in evolution to cause these changes from wolves to dogs in the Darwinian sense....gradually.

The less shy wolves found a niche around the outskirts of villages, the dumps during the neolithic period, where man went from being hunter gatherers to being more in a continuous place, being agriculturists. The wolves who could eat in the presence of humans were able to reproduce. They tamed themselves basically....natural selection vs. artificial selection at that point. The early people, the first people who they think were in proximately to these tamer, less shy wolves really didn't care about the dogs, didn't really like them but tolerated them. It wasn't until much later that any real bonding took place. People from all over the world have different views about dogs for religious reasons, superstitious reasons....some think of them as unclean. In fact, on the island where they think the first village dogs developed, the people still, for the most part won't touch a dog. They are interested in watching them, but find them to be untouchable, unclean.

So, while domesticating themselves, becomming less and less shy, other phisiological changes took place, just like the wild foxes in the 40 year long experiment which the Russian scientist conducted. When tameness occurs, mysteriously so do physical and neurological changes, such as curly tails, tulip ears, various coat colors, smaller heads, changes in brain chemistry. It wasn't until much, much later that humans had anything to do with artificial selection and breeding. These village dogs changed on their own and quite apart from any relations with humans other than their scavenging from them. These are the dogs our modern dogs are descended from. They and our dogs have a common ancestor which is a wolf-like animal, not the wolves we see today. Our dogs are distant cousins of this wolf-like animal.

Our dogs have a different brain, different way of thinking, different motor patterns, instincts, smaller skull, teeth, different bio-chemistry than wolves. They should be considered a different specie. The main thing they do have in common is their near identical DNA. Otherwise they are almost entirely different.

So, IMO also, dogs were not originally designed to serve man. They found a niche. At some point, man interviened and started artifiicially selecting for traits we wanted. In that way, yes, they were then designed to serve man. But is that morally right when the dog is not served with his needs also?

I am glad to hear that these dogs often have someone to play with them, to have an outlet for their natural drives. I am concerned though for the life they lead, in a general way.

Even my pet dogs, when they're not doing something I'm providing them with, chase squirrels and rabbits, tear off into the woods behind my house, play fight with eachother, leap over logs. They are able to utilize their predatory motor drives which is, in part essential to a happy dog. IMO.

[mulroony]

Carrie that situation with the golden sounds horrible, but I have never seen a service dog that lives that kind of life. We have a large number of people with various disabilities in our town, and a housing complex for disabled students was on the same block I used to live on and many of them have service dogs. For the most part I would not say they are living any worse of a life then a dog whose owners work 8 hours a day. Many of the labs looked happy to be out and about even if they were not allowed to play when they were working.

To dispell some of the comments so far... I have seen at least three different service dogs getting plenty of play time. One guy used to bring his service dog to our local dog park and allow him to run around for an hour and also they lived with another dog (roommates) and the dog was allowed to play with the other dog during his "down" time. I have witnessed another service dog (on a couple occassions) being taken out to one of the fields on campus and playing frisbee for 15 minutes or so during the day. People I know with service dogs that work will allow visitors to pet their dogs while they are not on duty (aka when the owner is working and they are sleeping/relaxing) I have just never seen a service dog that lives a life any worse then a large majority of the other dogs out there.

As far as the not what they were designed for, this is why only select breeds and select dogs within those breeds can be service dogs. Labs and Goldens were not originally breed for these purposes, but who cares... We have much more need for labs and goldens as service dogs then we do for what they were originally breed. I have only seen a handful of people who use labs for hunting versus the many I have seen that are perfect as service animals.

[Carrie]

Again, I missed your post while I was writing GSD.

Taking one of those dogs and making it a service dog would be a tragedy for the dog, but take some of the tamer more docile offspring, put them under human intervention for a few thousand, or hundred years and you'd probably get some dogs that loved pulling open fridge doors and laying by his masters feet and not much more.

Yes, I see your point there. It would take time to achieve that...going from new niche to a totally adapted dog. Right now, I see that some of the service dogs used are put out of their niche by humans, not that they are finding a niche on their own as they did during their evolution. It would be nice to see some dogs who are more adapted to being only a companion dog and not ones who have these strong drives, such as the ones so often used.

Yes, the early village dogs had very little up close and personal contact with humans. They merely ate in the presence of humans and hung out in their yards a little bit, wandered around the village. But they also were not pack animals. There are still village dogs and they are still relatively solitary, on their own to find their food even though they are seen in proximatey to one another. When food is plentiful and dogs are scavengers, there is no need for a pack. A pack situation is used for a purpose and even with wolves, they are not always seen in a pack...only when they need to be.