Service dog welfare part 1: Guide Dogs and Military dogs

So while I am in Austria, I've become more and more interested in animal training and in particular Canid training. There are some very interesting aspects of how to train dogs and wolves and the results of such training.  When think that has been bothering me for a while is how a lot of people assume that service dogs actually have poor welfare standards and never have fun because they work all the time. So allow me to dispel a few of those myths.

Guide dogs: One of the most common misconception regarding Guide Dogs is  that they are forced to work all the time. While I am not an experienced service dog trainer or handler I managed to get some information from Erin. Erin has just graduated with a Ba(Hons) Psychology from the University of Aberdeen and has been involved with guide dog raising for a long time now.  She is an experienced guide dog raiser and sitter and here blogs can be found here(old blog)  and here(new blog). Also, I got to visit a Guide Dog center in Forfar and I got to see Erin dogsit two puppies so I managed to form an opinion. Guide Dogs are not forced to do anything they do not want to do. Granted raising guide dog puppies includes some rules regarding behaviour, food and the way they are raised. No sleeping on the bed, no begging on the table, no feeding them human food is some of the rules that Guide Dog charities have in place for their pups and it's some rules that a lot of people have  for their pet dogs.

And in regards to the myth that these dogs are forced to work, if a puppy doesn't want to work it doesn't have to. There are dogs that enjoy working and dogs that don't. Those puppies who make it clear that they do not want to be a Guide Dog are dropped from the program. Often times, if the puppy’s temperament isn't right for Guide work then they will be offered to other service dog organisations. If the puppy simply does not like working, then the guide dog school will find a home for them as a pet. In the U.S.A and U.K puppies that don't make it as guide dogs are not put down but instead given a loving home.

Most Guide Dog schools are really familiar with the issues that arise from inbreeding and  often try to ensure genetic diversity within their breeding dog stocks. Guide Dog schools  have really strict breeder evaluation programs to ensure the health and wellbeing of future generations. There are international breeding exchange programs to ensure that the genetic diversity within the breeding stock remains.

One of the biggest myths about Guide dogs( and all service animals) is that they don't get to play. When the harness is on, it's work time. When the harness is off it's play time or chill time.  The dogs know the difference too and it's reflected on their behaviour.  The puppy I got most exposed to was Marco (pictured above). When he was out of "uniform" he was pretty much a regular dog. He runs, jumps, plays with toys and is in general a basket case. When the jacket or harness was on, he was a different dog.He was focused and alert. Granted, Marco is still a puppy and like all puppies he makes mistakes and gets too excited sometimes. But that's why it takes up to 2 years to fully train a Guide Dog. The fact that these dogs can distinguish working and playing time is remarkable.

Military dogs: I've never had much hands on experience with military dogs but I have read a lot about it and I managed to talk to a few people who owned ex military dogs or even active service marines and their canine companion. Everything said about Guide Dogs applies to Military dogs and in fact all service dogs. The only difference is that military dogs have their life on the line. Despite that, the military dogs are not expandable. Soldiers would never send the dog forward to get shot and would never risk the dog's life to save their own. Although dogs are instrumental is several operations such as clearing houses, tracking bombs, smelling insurgents, guarding locations and so forth, military dogs are highly valued due to their training. It would be stupid to spend money and time training a dog just so it would get shot  instead of a soldier. They are of course in risk of injury or death much like the men that handle them and whether or not that should be the case is tricky. The animal is taken care of, only does a limited service and then is retired. From there on it depends on each individual's ethical perspective. For what is worth I think dogs have their own value in warfare and if they aren't abused or misused then it is definitely an interesting relationship.

Military dogs however have a much stricter training regime. They have longer training times, different kinds of training is used on them and some are obviously trained to be aggressive. Not only that but they are exposed to explosions, loud noises, bullets, injuries etc and much like humans, dogs can suffer from PTSD. Is this a welfare violation? Should dogs not be exposed to such situations? Well pretty much like every other dog, military dogs only work if they want to work and they can leave the program anytime they want. Also dogs are retired if they demonstrate signs of PTSD. Is this something that is right to ask of a dog? Well yes in my opinion. Dogs were domesticated to be used by humans and this is one use for them. Given the love they get from their Marine handlers, the often comfortable retirement situations they get and the usually low risk jobs they perform I would say that military dogs have a good welfare or at least as humans in that situation do. It can be argued that dogs don't make the active choice that humans do to join combat and the military and that to an extent is true. However they are exposed to explosions, noises, gunshots etc before they are sent to service and can always opt out if they don't want to.

In the next article I will be discussing police dogs and search and rescue dogs and their relative welfare.

In response to the animal killing in zoos

So Copenhagen Zoo was in the news these last couple of weeks. First for killing a giraffe and now for killing  four lions.  Although the zoo is under fire, they claim they did nothing wrong. What they did complies with EU regulations and zoo guidelines. In fact the zoo is praised for the high standard of animal welfare and educational values they have.  This raises a particularly interesting conflict among my ideals and I would like to discuss this. I am neither 100% pro-captivity nor 100% against it. My ideals are somewhere in the middle. Some animals can be kept in captivity and show no signs of stress. Some thrive under it. Some other animals don’t. Some zoos do a great job in conservation and educations while some don’t. I suppose my ideals are that it depends on the animal, the zoo and the welfare standards.

What the zoo did, makes absolute sense on their behalf. The male lions were killed to allow for the new male they brought in to be the breeding male. The female was killed because she would have prevented the younger females from mating and she would have had complications during pregnancy. So it makes sense for the zoo to put them down. They lived a happy life and their death was quick. Is it right? Well by me no. Since as a zoo you are breeding animals you should have a responsibility towards their welfare throughout their whole life and not cut their life short. It is a duty of care that should be part of the legislation according to me. 

Although zoos can be part of the conservation effort and part of educating the public, there are some zoos that misunderstand their responsibility. People everywhere are campaigning that there are not enough lions out there in the wild but yet zoos(who are meant to educate the general public) go and shoot four. I can see that the oldest ones couldn’t contribute to breeding, and I know that it’s hard to release the younger ones. However they could either give off the younger lions to another breeding program or send them to a sanctuary or a separate enclosure. By treating the animals as property and by strategically planning pregnancies, animal transfers and new animal acquisitions you are unfortunately sending the wrong message that animals are property and that the reason they are there is for money first and the rest come before that.

By not being able to euthanize healthy animals you send the message that wildlife is respected and hat these animals are more than just an item but an entity that should be respected. In my opinion captive animals can suffer captivity if it means the welfare and prosperity of wild animals(that is of course if captivity doesn’t have extreme detrimental effects on them). By keeping your excess breeding and treat animals in such a way, you teach the general public that they should respect animals. The materialistic and consumerist approach is what’s causing habitat fragmentation, habitat loss, illegal wildlife trade and so many other reasons that certain animal species are endangered. So by removing aspects of this approach and portraying animals as entities that should be respected, the public may gain a new perspective on what keeping animals means and how much influence they have over their life.

In the end of the day unfortunately zoos have to make money to continue surviving and it is logical that in some sense they would approach a matter in a more businesslike approach. When the general public opinion changes then perhaps so will zoo management and perhaps there may be a time where zoos are no longer necessary for conservation efforts. Until that time occurs then zoos are necessary and issues over the management of animals will always be present  but it is important to recognize the particular conservation value that some zoos hold.

A wrong cause

A few weeks ago I wrote an article about why you should research the organisations you support and why it is crucial to apply critical thinking and investigating your organisation before you start supporting them. In this article I plan to expand a little bit on causes. People tend to take up causes that although seem to be well intended might end up screwing up with others plans other organisations have in place for the benefit of others. I am talking about wildlife of course and in particular animals.

Conservation has it's dark moments. Not only does it seem like it's a war that seems to be lost with so many defeats and very few victories(depending on where you stand) but working for conservation you might have to be involved with a task that few are happy about. Culling. Culling is basically the act of killing animals in order to thin out their numbers. It is often done to make sure that some animals don't overpopulate, to remove invasive species, to stop a disease from spreading, to prevent inbreeding(this is quite questionable) and to relieve other species from the pressure the culled species might be inflicting on them. For example it is common practice to cull predators in a habitat where a particular prey is considered endangered. As is natural, an animal loving public will protest to the “unjust” killing of these animals and it is true that although it is highly unlikely that an individual animal has done anything to blame, for conservationists they have to go. A recent example of this is the attempt to protect whatever Scottish wildcats(felis silvestris grampia)are left in the wild. One of the methods that this is done with is with the culling of feral cats(with which the wildcats hybridise and also the feral cats spread diseases to the wildcats). The public however was not happy to hear that game keepers will be going around trapping feral cats and killing them. Protests from certain people and specific groups occurred and now plans have changed to neuter and vaccinate the feral cats. Although unknown to me as to whether these plans were already in motion or if they changed from culling to neutering which it is to my opinion a more costly and harmful approach. Another example is the removal of grey squirrels(Sciurus carolinesis) from Scotland and ultimately from the U.K in general in order to allow red squirrels(Sciurus vulgaris) to thrive. Public outcries about the grey squirrel have died out as people realize the necessity of removing them.

If you are going to advocate for certain animals or certain animal rights then make sure you read up on all the facts. The animal may be cute, may be majestic but in the end it might be that it's harming the ecosystem a lot more. However make sure you do your research well. Groups with agendas will often misinform the public by being selective on what they quote and publish(see my previous article). It is often a good practise to contact both sides and then deciding. If you decide for example that grey squirrels shouldn't be killed because of the mistakes humans made then that's fine. Human morals vary after all. Just make sure you are not misled and used for other agendas.

Zoos

This is an issue that bothers me a lot. The cries from people to stop zoos and release the animals seems to be increasing and public outcry about the captive conditions of some animals seems to be forcing zoos to reconsider their policies. I should point out that this is only dealing with zoos as marine parks, such as SeaWorld will be covered another time.

Zoos have positive and negative aspects but I am not going to lie when I say I support some of the zoos out there. Don't get me wrong, I believe that animals should be born free and live free but zoos do have some benefit Firstly zoos can offer stock for genetic variation and can take part in vital conservation work as with the Mexican wolf, the Sumatran and south china tiger as well as the pandas. Several conservation efforts are in part funded through zoos and some of these efforts may have not even started if it wasn't for zoos as public are more likely to donate money when they have seen an animal close up.

What is more, zoos have what I like to call an "exposure effect". People get to see animals up close and in person. Although people will argue that you can see animals in documentaries and online I can guarantee to you that it's a lot different to see animals up close. It usually makes little difference in adults but any difference counts. Even if one of those adults decides to look up tiger conservation, Scottish wildcat conservation and so forth and donate money or time towards a species conservation, then that is a small victory for conservationists everywhere. However in my opinion children are the group which benefits most about zoos. Sure zoos might at points give misinformation and sure children may get upset if animal living conditions are poor, but children are the ones who are more influenced by zoos rather than anyone else. A lot of the people I tend to talk to in my degree and other wildlife related degrees all agree that they do it because they love the animals and the environment. Not all of us however were lucky enough to have an animal experience which actually took place in the wild. For me the first wild animal experience  that I remember wasn't until I was ten years old and saw humpbacks of the East coast of the United States. Until then I was content with the zoo we had in Cyprus(which featured animals in horrible conditions), the rare wild animals of Cyprus and the museums. It was only through documentaries and the zoo that I grew up to love animals. As most children are fascinated by animals in the first place, a visit to the zoo only enhances that fascination. If from a school trip, three or four children end up being fascinated with animals and support a cause then again some small victories are gained.

On the negative side, the demand to see these animals causes animal captures, captive breeding where it may not be necessary and in the end some animals ending up in poor conditions. Not all zoos have proper living conditions for their animals and even so some animals may not be suitable for captive conditions and just die. A lot of animals die every year because of poorly managed zoos, bad living conditions, transportations, vet operations and so forth and this is a sad truth.  Although a lot of zoos are beginning to clean up their acts, provide better habitats for the animals and started aiding conservation efforts there is still a long way to go.

In my opinion zoos are a necessary evil. There may be a time when traveling is cheap and easy and the chance to see a wild lion is only a weekend and a few dollars but for now with travelling still being expensive for some, animals being elusive and rare in the wild, and the demand to see animals up close then zoos will remain around. All we can hope for is that the captive animals live a decent life and the zoos aid conservation efforts.

Animal Rights 2:Pets

I want to talk to you about pets and the arguments some people use. Should pets have more rights? And so forth and so forth. 
For starters several countries in Western Europe as well as the United States and Canada and Australia have all adopted strict regulations when it comes to animal cruelty and animal rights. But are these enough?

I come from Cyprus, a small island in the E.U, where animal rights barely matter. Few movements are starting to appear and they are requesting animal policing and better animal laws. It is a new thing in Cyprus for people to care about animal welfare. What kind of rights should animals have and where do we draw the line between laws affective animals and laws affecting humans.

 Senseless beatings and abuse of animals. This is one thing that really grinds my gears. Want to yell and scream at your pet? Although it does make me uncomfortable and I disagree, it is like parenting  so I kinda can't intervene although I don't like it. However beating up or abusing your pets is a horrible act. Should it be punished the same way as a human being abuse? I hear people saying yes. I am okay with that. I want the same rights for animals and humans. However others don't feel so comfortable with this and need to distinguish themselves from animals due to potential, sentience etc. People argue that the penalty for human murder shouldn't be the same as  an animal  but others argue that if you are willing to torture or kill animals then you are capable of doing the same thing with animals.
 For me it really doesn't matter. I want those people punished. I want them to be punished severely. Whether it is the same as a human equivalent, worse or better I don't mind although I prefer equal rights. As long as the sentence is severe enough to either discourage or punish the perpetrators then I am happy.

Pets in restaurants and public places. This is perhaps the least of our worries but they are important to some. Should pets be allowed in public places such as restaurants, pubs etc? I honestly see no reason not to. If the pets are behaving properly and there are no hygiene reasons(for example a dog or cat pooping in the restaurant, potentially poisonous pets etc) then I see no reason as to why animals shouldn't be allowed in public places. My question however is, should we bring them there? 
A lot of animals have sensitive hearing. Bringing a dog to a restaurant/cafe/pub that plays music that is louder than normal may mean that the animal will suffer. Usually they will show it but just as humans can tolerate loud noises so can some animals. It doesn't mean they enjoy it, but rather that they just tolerate it because they have no other place to go. So maybe we shouldn't be as sensitive about leaving our pets at home or with someone with a little while as we go out. If not then pet friendly places may be a choice. If they don't exist then I agree that they should be introduced, with the government offering incentive to owners allowing pets.

Overall although pets are much better off in Western countries the situation is still bad in a lot of places in the world. Even so regulations need to be stricter and more monitored. But perhaps instead of that maybe we should focus on making sure that the rest of the world shares the same views with us on pets.  

Animal Rights: Part 1 Meat

I have to admit straight up that I am a meat eater. I love meat as well as other assorted animal products. So perhaps this trail of thought is biased but I will try as hard as possible to justify all schools of thoughts. Today I want to share some of my thoughts to you about my views on animal cruelty and particularly the meat industry. I will try to stray away from moral conundrums such as is a chicken better of lobotomized  and being breed from a tree or is it better off the way it is now as these are purely dependant on individual views.

There seems to be an increasing trend of vegetarians and vegans around. This is perhaps because the lifestyle now is much more affordable so more people choose to adopt it. Vegetarians/vegans mostly live this lifestyle due to them not wanting to eat animals because they are either treated horribly or just because they are dead animals. I will talk about the treatment side here. I don’t like it as much as you. The horrible graphic images, the poor treatment of animals in battery farms, the antibiotic full chickens(for those of you not aware, there are a lot of videos online showing the stuff that are going on at a butcheries etc), all make me feel horrible. On the other hand though, I am maintaining a realistic attitude. I tend to shop free-range meat and if possible organic meat (although most of the time free-range may be all that I can afford. I am a student after all!) but I feel that meat production will decrease significantly if all the battery farms were to switch to free range or organic.  Let me give you an example to understand where I am getting at.

This is a made up example though so keep that in mind.  John is a livestock owner. He has 3 acres of land. In those 3 acres he can fit 300 chickens in a battery building. Of those 300 chickens he sells 250(some will die off, diseased, not enough meat etc) for about 2 dollars a chicken. That means that John gets 500 dollars. John has to then pay for food, medicine, maintenance, new chickens etc which cost about 100 dollars. So in total John’s profit is 400 dollars and so he keeps the business going. John however is then forced to convert to free range farm. So in his 3 acres he can now hold only 100 chickens.  John then sells 84 chickens (assuming the same amount of mortality, which may be less as chickens won’t be so crammed and disease won’t spread that easily or chickens won’t heat themselves to death etc., but I assume it is the same mortality just to make a point) Originally he could sell the chickens for 2 dollars each. If he does so then he will get 168 dollars if his costs are the same then that means he will only gain 68 dollars out of the chickens. So John will be forced to raise his price to 5 dollars in order to make the previous profit as before. Hence meat is more expensive; Bear with me, some more assumptions to go. Now, free range or organic meat is more expensive anyway so what’s the deal? The deal is that despite it being more expensive, meat will also be scarcer. Even if John is satisfied with a 68 dollar profit, or even if his profit was highest because there would be less mortality and less maintenance, John would only be able to provide the market with 100 chickens at best. That is 150 chickens less than he could before. That means that 150 people will go to the supermarket and not be able to buy chicken. And as always the rarer the item the more the price increases. John will increase the price in an attempt to make more money so chicken will be expensive and rare.

Don’t get me wrong. I would love to have free range/organic farms around. But with an ever-growing population and with most of it being raised with meat as a stable part of their diet, a conversion to all free range/organic  will lead to less meat being consumed and people freaking out because of that.  I won’t leave it here though I promise.  This is a very controversial subject one on which, in my opinion, both sides have valid points so I will attempt to delve into it more in later posts.