This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.
McGreevy posed some interesting and deep questions regarding working dogs, their welfare, and the morals of owning working dogs. Dogs have served us in a number of ways: Police dogs, pastoral dogs, customs, quarantine, racing, sledding, security and guarding, vermin control… These dogs are admired and placed on a pedestal, but there are ethical questions surrounding their work.
Herding and Pastoral Dogs
Dogs that herd find this itself, work itself, rewarding. These dogs can be punished from being removed from work (negative punishment). Why do dogs find work so innately rewarding?
Part of the reason may be the conditions that many working dogs live in. McGreevy showed a slide with dog kennels from a working farm. These dogs were on a chain, attached to metal (i.e. hot) kennels, confined to an area with their own faeces, and surrounded by flies and fleas. Of course these dogs want to work, if that means they get to leave these substandard conditions. Obviously, there are welfare issues associated with this treatment.
McGreevy called for more research into pastoral working dogs, particularly in regard to the financial contributions these animals make to farmers.
A smooth Collie goes through sheep herding practice.
Australian Animal Welfare Strategy – Australian Working Dog Survey
McGreevy made reference to the government-funded research he was involved in, which say 4000 working dog owners and handlers surveyed. Several trouble matters were identified from this survey. One being: 20% of professional dog trainers use electric shock collars. McGreevy asked, “How educated are these trainers?” Typically shock collar advocates are not extensively trained or educated on dogs training, and work on intuition. Additionally, it was found that 50% of government working dogs are euthanised at the end of their career. (However, McGreevy doesn’t believe that euthanasia itself is an issue, instead that it poses questions about the psychological state of the dogs if rehoming is not an option.)
I plan to do a more extensive review of this survey at a later date, but in the meantime, you can download the pdf.
Normalised Unnormal Behaviours
McGreevy was concerned that any ‘unnormal’ behaviours, that are a sign of psychological distress, have become ‘normal’ in some settings.
He said that 97% of military dogs perform problematic or OCD behaviours, such as spinning, licking, jumping, and barking. For the military, this is ‘normal’ behaviour for their dogs, and they fail to see it as a welfare issue. (Additionally, these dogs, arguably, are harder to train due to stress.)
Also, the majority of guide dogs eat their own faeces overnight. This has become normal.
Is it behaviours like these meaning that the majority of working dogs are destroyed at the end of their working careers?
Detection Dogs
McGreevy had praises for the training of detection dogs through customs and quarantine, who are chiefly trained through positive methods. These dogs are enthused, they want to work, and they enjoy working.
Why should we improve health and welfare?
Beyond any moral or ethical reasons, there are other motivations for improving the health and welfare of working dogs. Firstly, they may live longer, and so have longer and more productive working lives. Secondly, enriched environments have been shown to make animals ‘cleverer’, and so imagine if working dogs were even better able to perform their work. Many kennel environments try to make their kennels neat and tidy, but McGreevy said “dogs don’t find neatness enriching”!
Ethical Questions
McGreevy posed a number of hypothetical questions about using dogs for work.
- Is it right or wrong to use animals to work for us? (For example, guide dogs?)
- Are certain behaviours undignified?
- Is making animals work for our won purposes justified?
- Do any animals actually enjoy working for us?
- Do different training methods change the welfare conditions for individual animals?
- How do we ensure animal welfare when animals have to ‘work for a living’?
- Should zoos ask their animals to perform? (Could this enrich their lives?)
This post is part of the McGreevy seminar series. Click here for the index.
Perhaps read ‘Animal Rights and Wrongs’ by Roger Scruton.
Basically, he argues against Peter Singer’s popular stance of utilitarianism. That is,
seeking to maximise happiness and minimising pain when treating animals ethically. The
distinction we make between ‘pets’ and ‘pests’ is usually derived from this kind of morality.
He first distinguishes moral (Humans) from non-moral (animals) beings. Human’s exist in a web of reciprocal rights and obligations (social norms, laws, rules and regulations). Animals can not enter into these kinds of relations. It is therefore senseless and cruel to try and bind them into it (i.e hunt down that shark who killed my friend). Since they cannot choose a career, is therefore ‘right’ to choose one for them. Animals are never happy in the way we are, but are rather content and satisfied. They lack imagination, are unmusical and humourless. Because they lack language they have a narrower band of emotions to draw upon. For example, a bull in a bull fight feels pain, but not suffering, humiliation and fear it may not ‘exist’ or die at the end.
Animals therefore have no rights. However, this does not mean we have no duties towards them. These duties are required when an animal is dependant on humans for its survival and well-being. Even is such duties of care has been assumed our dealings with animals are governed by moral considerations. These are not derived from moral law but from moral feeling (virtue, sympathy and piety).
To ask whether animals ‘enjoy’ working for us maybe a redundant question. An animal who is enabled to play out its instinctual drives to hunt and gather would be clearly more satisfied than those dogs who sit a home all day while their owners work from 9 to 5. Most dogs in the world, in that sense, probably bored to the point of insanity.
The problematic behaviours you described are most likely problems. I doubt it is normal to eat your own poo. They really should do improve these dogs welfare because they are dependant on them.
Perhaps read ‘Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals’ to read more up-to-date information. They argue animals are in fact moral.
But the problem / issue is the interface between animals and humans.
(p.s. sorry, I do not have the time to complete this post).
Hey Jonathon. Thanks for your thoughts! I’ll definitely add those books to my ‘to read’ list.
Pingback: Dog Health- How to Keep your Canine Fit | TreatingRheumatoidArthritis.net
Pingback: Paul McGreevy Seminars | Some Thoughts About Dogs
Wow. Johnathon’s comment is way deeper than my knowledge would allow me to comment. I do have a personal opinion though…and it may not be popular in the animal community. I don’t see anything wrong with using dogs to work for us. Our ancestors did and and historically that has been the primary use for dogs. Could some conditions that working dogs live in be improved though? Yes.
Hi Jessica. Thanks for your comment – and I went ‘wow’ a bit at Jonathon’s comment too! (Obviously well read in this area.) I agree, I don’t think there’s anything too ‘wrong’ about how dogs work for us, but some of their conditions need improvement. Some work environments are more questionable than others… For example, the life of a pastoral dog or a guide dog is far different than a dog in a research setting or as a bomb detection dog, in terms of the risks involved.
Great post! Been reading about different opinions on this. Thanks for the info!