Humanising Dogs

[mita]

Ruthless, I loved that pic!

You'd think there'd be no room for sentiment, when your dog is a military dog & you're in the thick of the war in Afghanistan. The dog would be a 'thing', wouldn't it? Like a rifle.

But here's what an Australian soldier dog handler writes about the dogs that work beside them in the war zone:

Despite the danger, a working dog is at his happiest when he's doing what he was trained for, and wants nothing more than a friend by his side who he can follow or lead into the unknown. In return, he will protect his partner against all enemies, seen and unseen, and will work to earn his keep, because he loves his partner & his job. I know how the dogs feel.

I'd dare anyone to tell that soldier he's just done a bit of bad 'humanising' dogs.

He hasn't. He's described how humans & dogs find a bond in common. Which they've been doing since thousands of years BC.

Great book. War Dogs:An Australian & his dog go to war in Afghanistan. by Shane Bryant with Tony Park

Edited February 1, 2011 by mita

[poodlemum]

No, that was an absolute A$HOLE who treats an animal like a "thing" - every dog has it's own personality, not human - canine - and deserves it's own name.

Why? The dog certainly doesn't care! That he has a name is important, what that name is is purely for our benefit only.

Exactly Haven.. PM, if the dog was called "Deefer" would you still have a problem with it?

My dog answers to nearly *everything* we call him including his name.. so I really don't think he cares as long as he gets love! I agree that the names are for our benefits.

I happen to think "Deefer" is the absolute dumbest, most bogan name anyone could give a dog. I know that a dog doesn't care what it's name is (call me what you like, as long as it's not late for dinner) but I think that giving a dog a meaningful name means that the dog is special to you, rather than just a possession indistinguishable from others you have had.

Names! Clients once had 3 dogs.. at the same time..all black B/C X types..

all called the same thing.. but different

Zero

Zip

Zilch

We have had a

"Bitch"

a "Greydog"

and an "Oi "

We currently have a young dog using the name of one who died last year...she doesn't know/care.

All of my dogs have had a number of different "nicknames" and answered to all of them. And, breaking my own rule for once, I named a bitch puppy after her great-grandmother, who I had PTS about a month before I got the new puppy. As I stroked Sascha & spoke soothingly to her on the exam table at the vets I said "your great grand-daughter will be Sascha II, after you"

Edited February 1, 2011 by poodlemum

[corvus]

I'd dare anyone to tell that soldier he's just done a bit of bad 'humanising' dogs.

He hasn't. He's described how humans & dogs find a bond in common. Which they've been doing since thousands of years BC.

He has, technically, but that doesn't diminish his relationship with the dog in the slightest in my view. Humanising is an integral part of the human-dog bond IMO. Yes, it can go too far, but let's not confuse "humanising" that has a detrimental effect on dogs and "humanising" that doesn't have a detrimental effect. As others have said, it's when dogs are attributed with reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable that humanising becomes a serious issue and something that we should work hard to avoid. My dog is not being "disobedient". He is not giving me the finger, he does not necessarily know the command, he probably doesn't know what he did wrong, he does not need a cupcake every day, he isn't trying to spite me, he is not angry with me because I left him alone all day, he is most likely not acting in third-order intentionality, he is unlikely to make a connection between two events that occurred more than 10 seconds apart, he doesn't lie and he's not trying to trick me or even train me. He just does what tends to work for him.

[kelpiekaye]

I'd dare anyone to tell that soldier he's just done a bit of bad 'humanising' dogs.

He hasn't. He's described how humans & dogs find a bond in common. Which they've been doing since thousands of years BC.

He has, technically, but that doesn't diminish his relationship with the dog in the slightest in my view. Humanising is an integral part of the human-dog bond IMO. Yes, it can go too far, but let's not confuse "humanising" that has a detrimental effect on dogs and "humanising" that doesn't have a detrimental effect. As others have said, it's when dogs are attributed with reasoning powers beyond that which they are capable that humanising becomes a serious issue and something that we should work hard to avoid. My dog is not being "disobedient". He is not giving me the finger, he does not necessarily know the command, he probably doesn't know what he did wrong, he does not need a cupcake every day, he isn't trying to spite me, he is not angry with me because I left him alone all day, he is most likely not acting in third-order intentionality, he is unlikely to make a connection between two events that occurred more than 10 seconds apart, he doesn't lie and he's not trying to trick me or even train me. He just does what tends to work for him.

Agree

[coogie]

I'm loving this thread,it has really made me think about how I interact with the dogs over the last couple of days,I honestly never realised how much I speak to them. Not in a snooky wookums kind of way but just remarks. I don't think I treat them like kids,just very beloved animal family members if that makes sense. It has made me really aware of some of the weird things I say to them,mostly from force of habit - for example ever since we have had Issy I have said "Get your boots on little brown dog" when we are about to head out for a walk - I know it is just a cue she associates with going for a walk and I sure as heck don't think she knows what it means other than it is time to head for the door (and no she doesn't have any boots)- I say other things just to Alfie and not to her - again no idea why,I do think the sound of our voices can have a visibly calming effect on them depending on tone so sometimes speak to them for that reason.

I guess I anthropomorphise them to some degree but do still very much see them as dogs and try to treat them and their behaviour accordingly.

When OH and I first met and when we were first married he would sometimes say to me "come and have a cuddle with your old man" if he wanted a hug,about six months ago we were out on the back patio and I was lighting mozzie candles with my back to him when I heard him say it,I thought how sweet he hasn't said that for a few years - I turned round smiling only to see he was talking to the dog. He would firmly deny that he talks to them other than to issue "commands" ;)

[WoofnHoof]

I do often think that the anthropomorphism label gets thrown around far more so than necessary, yes it can be dangerous but so can the other side which behaviorism tends to favor which results in the animal being thought of as a machine of sorts, simply a product of behaviour with little thought or reasoning, you can be aware that they can't use complex reasoning without taking away their obvious basic reasoning capabilities. It's not humanizing to logically attribute certain traits to animals when their behaviour and physical states correlate closely with that of our own, they are social mammals which have evolved in parallel with humans so it's not much of a stretch to assume the same basic processes are in play.

It is a fine line but one which I think needs to be found because I'm a bit over the constant Skinner references as if that is the be all and end all of animal cognition! Behaviour should be one aspect of animal cognition not the entire spectrum, animals do have thoughts and feelings and while they are simpler and less complex than our own they still need to be acknowledged and understood, as much as they can be anyway. My fear is that people get so hung up on this 'push button' concept of behavioural training that they forget that there is a mind driving that behaviour and like our own minds they don't all work the same way or think the same things.

[OSoSwift]

I do talk to my dogs and yes I humanise because I have no idea what their emotions are called in dog, I only know human so that is the words I use.

Mine get presents and birthday icecream - kids love organising that. But I do not truely believe they are even remotely human. I spend a lot of time reading and researching to try and enable myself to understand dog a little better. To many I may humanise them too much but they are well trained, well behaved and easy to have around BECAUSE I treat them like dogs.

Using mum or dad, talking to them or using human words to describe a particular emotional state they are in is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I am sure more people would be worried if I started barking when decsribing how I believed they felt.

Oh and I like human names for dogs and I never re-use a name as I like each one to have their own name for me, not becaue they give two hoots buts because when I say or here the name I know exactly who they are and all the mental pictures are there. When I am talking to someone they know instantly who I mean, not "oh you remember when Dog did whatever? You know my 5th dog, no not the BC the Wolfhound, yeh that's the one, well remember when...............

[Nekhbet]

I happen to think "Deefer" is the absolute dumbest, most bogan name anyone could give a dog. I know that a dog doesn't care what it's name is (call me what you like, as long as it's not late for dinner) but I think that giving a dog a meaningful name means that the dog is special to you, rather than just a possession indistinguishable from others you have had.

Obviously this guy did not just get his knickers in such a twist over a name. Thats his opinion and being his dog, his right. Abusing people over something so trivial is rather silly isnt it? If someone cares for an animal so much what is there to be so angry about? Not everyone shows their appreciation in the same way as you think is the acceptable level.

[raz]

When OH and I first met and when we were first married he would sometimes say to me "come and have a cuddle with your old man" if he wanted a hug,about six months ago we were out on the back patio and I was lighting mozzie candles with my back to him when I heard him say it,I thought how sweet he hasn't said that for a few years - I turned round smiling only to see he was talking to the dog. He would firmly deny that he talks to them other than to issue "commands" ;)

That is gold. Did you pretend to be really offended?

[Henrietta]

I don't think there is anything wrong with 'humanising' dogs, like celebrating a birthday. The dogs don't understand 'birthday'. They aren't getting some complex because we are making them celebrate their birthday. They aren't thinking, 'Oh dear, am I leader now because my stupid owner has driven me through the Maccas drivethrough and given me a cheeseburger.... am I really a dog at all?'

I'm sure they just enjoy the burger/bone/cake etc that they are given. Extra special treat? Yum.

It's how you treat your dog most of the time that counts. I think that if dogs are thought of as dogs and trained and exercised more, we'd have less problems regardless of whether they slept on the bed or celebrated birthdays.

I don't think it is always actions that matter, it's the thinking behind the action.

[raz]

Article in yesterdays paper about petocracies. Well I'm cancelling going out to a function today because it's the third day of a heat wave and I'm worried about my dogs. Is that a problem? Not for me it isnt, so if my dogs rule the roost, so be it.

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematter...0131-1aapp.html

As a report warns against letting your dog into the bedroom, Lucy Cavendish asks how spoilt pets came to rule the roost.

In my household, we are used to pets. Right now, we've got dogs, cats, fish and ponies. We used to have chickens and, once upon a time, a donkey. I grew up surrounded by pets. Every time you opened a door, one animal or other would pop out. It's a domestic arrangement that me and my siblings have continued. My sister has had hundreds of cats, chickens, dogs, even a badly behaved goat called Esme who lived inside her house.

But if there is one thing that she and I know from experience - some of it bitter - it is that you let your domesticated animals run your life at your peril. You train them. You show them who is the leader. They are animals, you are human. This is your house, not theirs.

But is it? Are we guilty of letting pets rule our roosts? Increasingly, owners find themselves living in a petocracy, in which animals have an equal - and sometimes greater - say than the human in the way the household runs.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Crossing the boundaries ... One expert says we are humanising pets and as a result, they don't know how to behave. Photo: Michelle Mossop

For dog owners, the flow of the working day is dictated by the need for "walkies". Social events are routinely thwarted ("I can't come to lunch because of the dogs..."). The family with a pet can't go anywhere for the entire day unless it is taken with them. They can't go on holiday unless it is to a pet-friendly place. They no longer go abroad unless they put their beloved dogs in kennels. Nowhere is this petocracy more evident than in the bedroom.

A recent survey suggested that 62 per cent of cat owners allow their pets to sleep with them, either on or inside the bed - even though it increases the chances of more than 100 serious illnesses being passed on. Cuddle your beloved animal in bed and you could wake up with anything from worms to the bubonic plague (though the last registered case was in 1974). Chagas disease, which can cause life-threatening heart and digestive disorders, can be transmitted by dogs infected with a parasite that smuggles its DNA into the human genome, while cat-scratch disease, a bacterial infection administered by a nick from a sharp claw, can cause lethal damage to the liver, kidney or spleen. According to the study by the University of California school of veterinary medicine, those who let pets sleep alongside them also had a higher risk of general illness.

But for some people, nothing is too much for their beloved pet. I have friends who painted their walls brown because they claimed it was the colour their cats "liked". I know one woman who married and then divorced a man within a year because she said he put his labrador before her. "He let the dog sleep on the sofa and I couldn't stand it," she says. "I said it's me or the dog - and he chose the dog."

"The domination of pets in our lives is a recent development," says Jackie Chaloner of East Road veterinary clinic in West Sussex, Britain. Many of the pet owners she sees treat their animals better than their children. "The animals rule. The owners have let them take over the house. They let their cats and dogs sleep on the bed while they would never let their children come in to the bed at night. They have blurred the boundaries with their pets. They cook them gourmet food, and over-feed as an act of love - but it's the opposite of that. They're animals, not humans, but often the result of humanising them is that the animals no longer know how to behave."

Pet psychologist Jenny Sullivan, who treats dogs with behavioural problems in the UK, says the petocracy has developed because owners are scared of rejection. "In the same way that other people don't seem to discipline their children much any more, they no longer discipline their pets. There is a great need to be loved by a pet, and so instead of having a pecking order whereby the human is the leader of the pack, the animal is so often left to rule the roost. It has all become very confused. But it's not good for the animals or the owners."

Whose fault is it that we have become so dominated by our pets? Well, it's ours, of course. Man brought animals in from the cold. Domesticated dogs provided early humans with a guard animal and a beast of burden.

But whereas they would hunt and herd alongside humans, receiving little more than a reliable food source in return for their devotion, protection and companionship, now they sit next to us and loll their heads in our laps, demanding treats or their belly rubbed.

According to K Kris Hirst, an American archaeologist and expert in animal domestication, dog history is really the history of the partnership between animals and humans. "Over the past 12,000 years, humans have learnt to control their access to food and other necessities of life by changing the behaviours and natures of wild animals. All of the beasts that we use today, such as dogs, cats, cattle, sheep, camels, geese, horses, and pigs, started out as wild, but were changed over the centuries and millennia into tamer, quieter animals."

Humankind has benefited almost unimaginably from animal domestication, says Hirst. "It enabled us to keep cattle in pens for access to milk and meat, and for pulling ploughs; training dogs to be guardians and companions; teaching horses to adapt to the plough or take a rider; and changing the lean, nasty wild boar into a fat, friendly farm animal."

But having bred natural aggression, snappishness and instincts out of our domestic animals, we have gone further and endowed them with basic, loveable human characteristics. We have turned them into the equivalent of lovers who we must woo - I recently heard a woman utter to her horse, "Himself doesn't like the cold, does himself?", before kissing him tenderly on the nose - and upon whom we can spend too much time and money. The UK pet industry now generates in excess of pounds 5 billion a year.

I have friends who, regardless of the health risk, sleep with their dogs every night - and they wouldn't have it any other way. It is anathema to me; I have no truck with pets who want to sleep either on or in my beds. I've tried desperately to keep ours at the bottom of our household hierarchy. I train them. I feed them in order - humans, then cats, then the dogs, Georgie and her one-year-old puppy Peaches... - and yet our lives are still dominated by them.

For Peaches, who chews up the household when I tell her not to, is like a baby. Despite my protests, she spends half her life jumping on the beds and the sofas. She wags her tail. She opens her brown eyes wide. She looks pleadingly at us all and then, as soon as our backs are turned, she's rolling around the duvet. She looks so happy and delighted to be there. Sometimes she even puts her head on the pillow and tries to snuggle under the covers like a human being allowed a lie-in.

Should we let them on our beds and sofas? Should they dominate our lives in the way that they do? Of course not. I say this, but as I am sitting here, I can see Peaches. She has crawled on to the bed again, looking as guilty as sin, but happy just to be in my presence and living almost like a human.

[Henrietta]

I do talk to my dogs and yes I humanise because I have no idea what their emotions are called in dog, I only know human so that is the words I use.

Mine get presents and birthday icecream - kids love organising that. But I do not truely believe they are even remotely human. I spend a lot of time reading and researching to try and enable myself to understand dog a little better. To many I may humanise them too much but they are well trained, well behaved and easy to have around BECAUSE I treat them like dogs.

Using mum or dad, talking to them or using human words to describe a particular emotional state they are in is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I am sure more people would be worried if I started barking when decsribing how I believed they felt.

I should've just quoted this. I wholeheartedly agree.

[Henrietta]

Lol, "the flow of the working day is dictated by the need for 'walkies.'" Some people would just call that being a responsible owner ensuring that their dogs exercise needs are met.

EFS

Edited February 1, 2011 by Henrietta

[raz]

Lol, "the flow of the working day is dictated by the need for 'walkies.'" Some people would just call that being a responsible owner ensuring that there dogs exercise needs are met.

Exactly. Get up early to walk the dogs rather than sleep in, go home straight after work to walk the dogs rather than go out for work drinkies. I cant really see the big deal.

[WoofnHoof]

A recent survey suggested that 62 per cent of cat owners allow their pets to sleep with them, either on or inside the bed - even though it increases the chances of more than 100 serious illnesses being passed on. Cuddle your beloved animal in bed and you could wake up with anything from worms to the bubonic plague (though the last registered case was in 1974). Chagas disease, which can cause life-threatening heart and digestive disorders, can be transmitted by dogs infected with a parasite that smuggles its DNA into the human genome, while cat-scratch disease, a bacterial infection administered by a nick from a sharp claw, can cause lethal damage to the liver, kidney or spleen. According to the study by the University of California school of veterinary medicine, those who let pets sleep alongside them also had a higher risk of general illness.

Bubonic plague??? OMG that really is clutching at straws, I'd be very interested to see this list of 100+ serious illnesses, I'd put money on 99.9% of them not being zoonotic diseases at all but just random diseases more associated with poor hygiene in general. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of the general public's ignorance of basic microbiology and increasingly irrational fear of 'germs'.

Better go kick the dog off the bed so I don't get the black plague...

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

my dog sleeps on the bed just about every night. sometimes if i am having a restless nights sleep i put her in her crate.....she makes zero fuss when she needs to be crated.

she knows i am the boss and she has no bad behaviours.

sleeping on the bed isn't the issue...if i want jaxx off the bed and she protested then the issue isn't the bed it's me.

[corvus]

It is a fine line but one which I think needs to be found because I'm a bit over the constant Skinner references as if that is the be all and end all of animal cognition! Behaviour should be one aspect of animal cognition not the entire spectrum, animals do have thoughts and feelings and while they are simpler and less complex than our own they still need to be acknowledged and understood, as much as they can be anyway. My fear is that people get so hung up on this 'push button' concept of behavioural training that they forget that there is a mind driving that behaviour and like our own minds they don't all work the same way or think the same things.

Curious - Do you think that extreme Behaviorism is detrimental to dogs? What happens if someone doesn't acknowledge the individual personality, motivation, arousal, and emotional state of a dog, but bases all their interactions with the dog on operant conditioning? Is that just as bad or worse than humanising them in a detrimental way?

[corvus]

Bubonic plague??? OMG that really is clutching at straws, I'd be very interested to see this list of 100+ serious illnesses, I'd put money on 99.9% of them not being zoonotic diseases at all but just random diseases more associated with poor hygiene in general. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of the general public's ignorance of basic microbiology and increasingly irrational fear of 'germs'.

Better go kick the dog off the bed so I don't get the black plague...

Patricia McConnell was talking about that study on her blog. She said let's not confuse correlation with causation. The study is about correlations alone. If there's plague around, you probably shouldn't sleep with a cat that has fleas is what it comes down to.

[Aidan3]

It is a fine line but one which I think needs to be found because I'm a bit over the constant Skinner references as if that is the be all and end all of animal cognition!

I agree. I'm not even sure that Skinner thought that way, he certainly did acknowledge the role of emotions and other "private behaviours" in animals. What Skinner did was to focus on the things we could measure empirically. I don't know why people take that to mean that nothing happens except that which you can observe.

[all creatures]

What great reading. I must admit that my own dogs don't sleep on the bed - but my daughters pup does. When I was old enough my Mum let 'her' dog and the cat sleep on my bed and I loved her for it - as I was scared of the dark. I allow it for my daughter too - but I am a grown up and in control of the pups training etc - there is no roost ruling with my child, let alone our pets....

Anyway - one thing that has been proven is that asthma, dermatitis, eczema - are practically unheard of in 3rd world countries - and it's believe it is because we are too hygenic....pet contact is a good thing for kids and helps build immunity also.

I talk to my dogs all the time (but don't expect an answer!) It's better than talking to myself..... :D

I always find a dogs reaction to any of us crying really interesting....? My BC would always come and gently put his head in my lap and just look up at me and stay there....it 'felt' like there was empathy (so I guess that is humanising of me..) - but maybe he was just smart enough to understand the 'sounds' and the body language - dogs would have to the experts in reading body language wouldn't they?