Dog Sense

by John Bradshaw

  I don’t know what methods, if any, these owners had used to try to train their dogs to come back to them on command, but I’m willing to bet that many had tried punishment. Certainly I saw several owners remonstrating with their dogs once they were able to wrench them away from whatever they had been doing. Although this may have been more for the benefit of the people their dogs had been annoying than for that of the dogs themselves, it is unlikely to have promoted the idea that coming back to their owners is a pleasant thing to do. It’s more logical and straightforward to train dogs to come back to their owner because they want to than because they’re scared not to, so there’s clearly still a big gap between the ideal and the realities of dog ownership.

  Proper understanding of training techniques and their diligent application are not only essential from a social perspective but also good for the dog-owner relationship. Moreover, it’s been known for nearly two decades that attending training classes results in a more fulfilling dog-owner relationship.5 Most dogs and their owners, whether they know it or not, desperately need easier access to better standards of dog training—but at present they are faced with a bewildering variety of claims and counterclaims from the various schools of trainer.

  Unfortunately, there are no universally recognized standards for dog trainers.6 The deep divisions between the various camps in the world of dog training, fueled by the rise of the Internet, have instead resulted in an explosion of “registers,” “associations,” “guilds,” and “institutes,” each claiming to be the last word in training and the treatment of behavioral disorders. Faced with a bewildering array of titles and their even more confusing acronyms, how are novice owners to choose a trainer who not only satisfies their training needs but also meets their ethical standards? Attempting to bring some clarity to this confusion is the Animal Behaviour and Training Council in the UK and at least three sets of dog-training guidelines in the United States: one contained in the mission statement of the Association of Pet Dog Trainers (APDT), one published by the Delta Society, and one disseminated by the American Humane Association. However, the plethora of organizations at both the state and national levels militates against the adoption of any universal set of standards. Effective self-regulation of the dog-training industry will be essential if we want to improve the lives of dogs (and their owners) in the twenty-first century.

  Just as vexed as the question of proper training techniques is the question of what the next generations of dogs should look like, and where they should come from. The majority of dogs in Western countries are pedigree animals, produced by breeders who, to a greater or lesser extent, are associated with the world of dog shows and breed standards. It is now abundantly clear that this bias and its genetic consequences do not serve the best interests of dogs.

  That said, rescue dogs are also problematic. In the UK at least, many of the dogs who end up in rescue are already psychologically troubled. They are therefore ill-equipped to cope with “rescue” itself, which involves an indeterminate period of kenneling and, if they are lucky, rehoming. Such dogs find unfamiliar environments and new routines highly stressful, so the rescue process, however necessary, must be managed carefully if it is not to tip an already fragile personality further toward instability. Although some dogs are rehomed due to genuine changes in the owners’ circumstances, many more are given up due to behavioral problems. Of the dog relinquishments to the Dogs Trust rehoming charity in the UK in 2005, 34 percent were due to problematic behavior, and 28 percent had been abandoned because they “needed more attention than could be given”7—a category that sounds as though it could include many dogs with separation disorders.

  Improved understanding of how to deal with behavioral disorders, and indeed how to prevent them in the first place, might therefore eventually revolutionize dog “rescue.” For now, however, the best strategy is prevention—mitigation of the circumstances that put dogs into shelters in the first place. Each year, millions of dogs end up in kennels run by local authorities and charities, in many cases because their owners have, largely through ignorance, mismanaged their behavior. Once sufficient numbers of people are properly trained in how to recognize and deal with the simpler behavioral problems of dogs, it may be possible for the charities to shift away from their current default of taking the dogs into rescue kennels. They might then be able to focus more on working with owners to correct the behavior in their own home, thereby eliminating the need for the stressful intermediate of kenneling. (The dogs who find kenneling least stressful are generally repeat offenders—a finding that further emphasizes this point.)

  Of course, even in the West, more dogs are born each year than there are owners for, and thus many abandoned dogs never make it to new homes. In the United States alone, more than 1 million abandoned dogs are euthanized each year. Although as many as a quarter of these may be essentially unhomeable because of chronic disease or extreme old age, the number needlessly destroyed indicates a serious mismatch between supply and demand for pet dogs. Euthanasia, when properly conducted, should not be a welfare issue in itself, since the dogs are presumably unaware of their fate. However, it is most definitely an ethical issue—one whose acceptability must ultimately be decided by human, not canine, society. Canine science itself cannot provide any kind of answer.

  Moral trade-offs regarding animal euthanasia have changed considerably with time and, today, vary substantially between cultures. Dogs in many non-Western countries (and, albeit to a declining extent, in some Western countries as well) experience a spectrum of welfare issues very different from those in the United States and Western Europe. In some societies, it is still commonplace to let dogs roam the streets, and traditions of ownership may be different; for example, dogs may be fed and cared for by a whole community rather than having a single, legally identifiable “owner.” But free-roaming dogs contribute to numerous problems: They may potentially transmit diseases such as rabies, become a nuisance due to fouling and noise, cause traffic accidents, and injure livestock or humans. Population control under these circumstances is often a necessity, whereby the welfare emphasis has to shift from the individual dog to the population as a whole: For every dog euthanized in a cull, another’s welfare may be improved as reduced competition allows it an adequate share of the community’s resources. (This is particularly true if a sterilization program is put in place simultaneously to prevent the population from rebounding to its former level.)

  Although village dogs have more control over their own lives than pet dogs do, and are in that sense more “natural,” their individual welfare is often compromised. They have little or no access to veterinary treatment for disease or injury; they may go hungry; they may be mistreated by people who know that they will not be penalized for doing so. Those village dogs who are alive today are a population of survivors; over the generations, vast numbers less suited to the environment they live in (e.g., less resistant to local diseases or parasites) will have died without leaving offspring, and most will have suffered before they died.

  The modern pedigree dog lies at the other end of this spectrum, inasmuch as we aim to protect the welfare of each individual animal throughout its lifespan. We shield such dogs from the most dangerous aspects of the man-made environment—for example, by leashing them near traffic. We feed them nutritionally complete and biologically safe foods. We give them veterinary care that seeks to reduce discomfort and pain. None of these advantages are routinely extended to village dogs.

  In taking dogs into full ownership, removing their “right” to breed at will, we should be able to improve their individual welfare. Unfortunately, although all concerned state that they have dogs’ welfare at heart, the result has not been an unqualified success. One set of challenges to welfare—those imposed by the outside world and by competition between dogs—has been replaced by another—those that have emerged as the inexorable consequences of inbreeding.

  No one is advocating a return to a free-for-all where pet dogs choose their own
mates in the way that village dogs do. Controlled breeding is not inherently bad for dogs. By artificially controlling breeding, we have the power to prevent the birth of those dogs who are more prone to suffering, thus raising the overall level of canine welfare. Yet despite many good intentions, humankind has not entirely succeeded in this endeavor. Many pedigree dogs suffer from debilitating conditions that are the direct result of our choosing which animals to breed from, and which not to.

  We must radically change the way that dogs are bred—not only to eliminate genetically based defects but also to establish temperaments that maximize dogs’ capacity to become rewarding pets. Currently, most dogs born each year are the outcome either of the “show-ring” mentality or of unplanned matings. Neither approach is designed to produce pet dogs.

  One possible alternative is the commercial breeding of dogs specifically intended to be pets, with no regard for the artificial demands of the show-ring. After all, if owners are prepared to pay a sizable amount of money for a puppy whose parents have been selected primarily for conformity to a breed standard, might they not be persuaded to pay the same amount for a dog designed specifically for life as a pet? So far, commercial pet breeding has not lived up to its potential. “Pet factories” are beginning to appear in continental Europe, producing dogs specifically for the pet market; some are derived from existing breeds such as golden retrievers, but there are others too, such as the “boomer,” a fluffy, mainly white toy dog that trades on the popularity of the fictional TV dog star “Boomer” and can thus claim to be a new type of non-pedigree companion dog. However, there is little indication, so far, that the products of these establishments make better pets than the average dog from show-ring breeds.

  While it should theoretically be possible to get the genetics right in a commercial setting, there’s some doubt as to whether it will ever be commercially viable to provide puppies with all the socialization they need during the first eight weeks of their life, before they are put on sale. In a strictly commercial setting, it would simply be prohibitively expensive to arrange for all the experiences that puppies require during their socialization period, to say nothing of the logistical difficulties that would follow once the puppies are the right age to be displayed for sale. Commercial breeding is therefore unlikely to produce perfect pet dogs for any but the well-off few.

  If dog-keeping is to retain its mass appeal without compromising the welfare of the dogs themselves, small-scale enthusiast breeders should be encouraged to continue providing the majority of pet dogs. These hobby breeders, who breed dogs because they love them, have the opportunity to provide adequate socialization at no financial cost to themselves, simply by keeping the puppies and their mother within their own home rather than in an isolated pen or kennel. Indeed, small breeders—provided they start with the right stock and implement the most up-to-date information on how to provide socialization—still have the potential to turn out the best pet dogs.

  Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is unlikely to improve the welfare of dogs. Despite the myriad shapes and sizes that dogs already come in, some constraints linger on, imposed by the developmental trajectories of the wolf. Radically new kinds of dog could hypothetically be generated if the dog’s gestation period, currently fixed at between sixty and sixty-three days, could be altered from that of the wolf. Incorporation of genes from other canids might make it possible to generate dogs who look more like foxes, or like the round-headed and undeniably cute bush dog.8 Yet while this approach would undoubtedly generate novelties, along with a great deal of controversy, it is not what is needed to save the dog. More than enough genetic variation already exists among today’s dogs to generate a wide variety of animals well suited to life as pets; what is needed, then, is to recognize this role as the dog’s main function, and to take the initiative away from those who conceive of dogs as a means to win prizes, whether in the show-ring or the working trial.

  Nor is another application of genetic engineering, cloning, the solution to producing the perfect companion dog. Texas billionaire John Sperling cloned his border collie/husky cross Missy, and the clones certainly do look like her. But was he primarily fond of Missy’s looks—or her personality? Because a dog’s personality is largely a product of his or her early life experience, it cannot be replicated using in vitro genetics.

  So what are the barriers that impede the development of a better companion dog? Leaving aside the characteristics of such a dog for a moment, there seem to be at least two. The first is that dog breeders rarely make their decisions about which dogs to breed from based on which ones have proven themselves the best companions. They may lack information concerning how well the animals they have produced have fulfilled their function as companions. Or they may be primarily focused on whether or not their dogs will be competitive in the show ring—even though most dogs are not purchased for competition. Moreover, it is difficult to hold breeders accountable for the quality of the puppies they produce. Failures can readily be blamed on mistakes made by inexperienced owners who have purchased puppies—feeding them the wrong diet, not giving them enough exercise, giving too much exercise, and so on.

  The second barrier is a classic catch-22: The more responsible the owner of a dog, the more likely that dog is to be neutered. In short, many of the most carefully selected and nurtured dogs, those who fit the companion niche perfectly, almost never pass on their genes to the next generation. Filling their place in the population are puppies produced more or less by accident by irresponsible owners, many of whom are attracted to “status” dogs such as Staffordshire bull terriers and German shepherds (hence the large numbers of these breeds and their accidental crosses who end up, and often end their days, in rescue). While all dog owners are rightly encouraged to neuter their pets in order to reduce the oversupply of dogs, doing so unfortunately works against the goal of creating a more companionate population of dogs.

  Also unfortunate is the fact that breeding for personality is not as straightforward as breeding for looks. Part of the explanation is that genes don’t code for behavior as such—but another part is that the companionship role itself is not clearly defined. Presumably every dog owner and prospective owner has an ideal dog in mind, so there are many such ideals. Yet certain traits seem universally desired. Specifically, most people believe that companion dogs should be friendly, obedient, robustly healthy, easy to manage, safe with children, easily housetrained, and able to show affection to their owners.9 Many owners also value physical contact with their dog—an unsurprising finding, given that we now know that stroking a dog not only reduces stress hormones but also leads to a surge of the “love” hormone, oxytocin.

  Other characteristics are rated differently by different owners. Some people prefer a dog who is friendly toward everyone; others, especially men, value a degree of territoriality that they see as helping to protect their household. Men also tend to express a preference for energetic, loyal dogs, while many women give a higher rating to calmness and sociability.

  But more importantly, most owners just don’t prioritize personality when they’re picking out a dog; for example, many rate looks over good behavior and view trainability as relatively unimportant even though they expect dogs to be obedient. In addition, the reality of what type of dog best fits a person’s lifestyle will change as that person’s circumstances change. Although dogs’ life spans are shorter than our own, they are still long by comparison with the modern pace of change in lifestyles.

  That said, personality-based selection becomes even more challenging when we consider how many variations there are even within a specific breed. Many of the “companion” traits listed above are only marginally influenced by genetics. Genetically based physical abnormalities and predispositions to disease can—and should—be targeted through more enlightened breeding, but many other desirable traits such as friendliness, obedience, lack of aggression, and a predisposition to affection are strongly influenced by early environment and learning. It is
difficult to see how such traits could be actively selected for without, in parallel, improving owners’ understanding of how to inculcate them into their new dogs or puppies.

  Companionship traits may be difficult to select for, but certain other type-specific behavioral traits need to be reduced in companion dogs. Most of the genetic selection imposed upon dogs during their long association with man has been directed toward useful traits such as ability in herding, hunting, and guarding. But now that most dogs in the West are no longer required to carry out such tasks, we need to reduce these links; otherwise, frustration will ensue. I have lost count of the times that I’ve been asked for advice on whether a cute sheepdog puppy will make a good pet. I always say No, these dogs are bred to work and will probably find living in a town intolerable. Yet most of the people I’ve advised in this way have gone ahead and gotten sheepdogs anyway, and most have regretted doing so—though not as much as would the dogs concerned, if regret was in their emotional armory. If such dogs are to fit the companion niche, we need to reconfigure the breed so that they no longer feel this way.

  Finally, although the extent to which we can breed dogs for companionship roles is limited, we must also be careful about going too far in the opposite direction—by increasing our dogs’ capacity for affection to the point where it becomes a burden to them. There is already an epidemic of separation disorders among companion dogs; those who are overwhelmingly motivated to be with people would presumably also suffer disproportionately if left alone. Most owners don’t want their dog to be too “clingy.” (Or, for that matter, too bouncy: Companion dogs are required to be inactive an average of three-quarters of their lives.)

  There is no reason why more dogs cannot be better fitted to the companion role that many clearly already fulfill today. Hopefully, the pressure now placed upon breed clubs to produce happier, healthier dogs will not only succeed but also spark a reappraisal of what the show-ring is intended to produce: greater emphasis on dogs’ role as companions and less on their largely outmoded role as working animals. Furthermore, dogs not only need to be bred as companions, they need to be raised as companions—and the most efficient way for this to happen is for puppies to be born in domestic environments, not in barren outdoor kennels or sterile commercial production units. There are considerable challenges to be faced before rearing methods improve, not only because many breeders still underestimate puppies’ need for socialization but also because there is no obvious mechanism whereby best practice will become widespread, given the sheer number of people involved. The information that breeders need in order to produce well-socialized puppies is now widely available—and hopefully its universal adoption is just a matter of time.