"Good Dog?"

AKC's Canine Good Citizen program is in many ways excellent: it invites people to begin training their dogs, to teach basic manners, to go to classes, and even to walk into the "ring" for the first time.  I have long supported this appealing program, have taught CGC classes, and have directed many novices to it as an appropriate beginning… 

However, the CGC program, and in particular legislation endorsing this program, has some profoundly worrisome potential consequences for future dogs and their owners.  Please take a few minutes to carefully consider not only the details of the program and legislation, but also the way it might be used or manipulated in coming years. These questions may not immediately seem correct—they are contrary to how you have likely thought about the CGC program for years or decades—but they are well worth our careful contemplation.

First, let me recount a disturbing historical pattern: time after time leaders in the dog world have supported seemingly positive ideas that have been usurped by the Animal Rights movement to divide animal owners into little groups that could easily be conquered. Our own programs have repeatedly been twisted into weapons against dogs and the people who love them:

 

1.       We encouraged spaying and neutering for most casual owners for lots of seemingly good reasons and for years we told people it was the responsible thing to do. Animal Rights supporters took it over and legislated mandatory S/N.

2.      We encouraged people to revile pet stores, backyard breeders, puppymills, designer breeds. We said adoption was wonderful.  They took it a step further and said only adopt, and let's make all those bad options illegal.

3.      We said vaccinate your dogs as appropriate.  They said keep all dogs 'utd' on all shots on our schedule, even if it is a bad schedule; otherwise, you are abusing your dog.  

4.      We said that people should not get more dogs than they could handle as this would lead to inadequate care; they legislated that nobody can own more than "X" number of  dogs.  

5.      We preached that people not leave dogs in hot cars with the windows rolled up.  They tweaked that message to become never leave any dog in any car or you are an abuser.

6.      We encouraged people to provide better veterinary care for their animals, and now absurd veterinary choices like how often to clean teeth are being used to seize people's dogs. 

In essence, we have spent decades trying to share our views of the ideal, and how we can all nudge closer to perfection for our animals, and AR advocates have twisted our fundamentally good ideas to be horrific ideas by insisting that the loftiest of ideals ought to become the legal minimum.

I believe that the CGC is another initially positive program that will soon be used to divide dogs and owners. Just as in all the other cases above, the distance between the message that people SHOULD teach their dogs basic manners and the message that every dog MUST pass this test is a VERY short and slippery one. 

Not only does the CGC set a very dangerous precedent, but also it contains some intrinsic problems:

1.      Dogs are NOT citizens.  People are.  People are responsible for ensuring that their dogs' behavior is not disruptive to society.  The onus must ALWAYS remain on owners to be responsible citizens, not dogs.  Otherwise we set ourselves up for ARs to start passing not only breed specific laws, but soon behavior specific laws. 

2.      Dogs are not good or bad. They simply are what their nature and experiences make them, and "goodness" is not a relevant value judgment. Dogs that cannot pass this test are NOT bad.  Not even less good. Low drive, non-reactive, docile, agreeable dogs are NOT the only good dogs! There are many sorts of dogs (and other species) that may not be well suited to the CGC test but are fabulous pets.  People own different sorts of dogs for countless different reasons and in countless different ways. So long as they can keep those pets safely and humanely, that should be just fine.

The CGC program perpetuates the ever narrowing range of what is a "good" dog.  Prey drive, reactivity, fearfulness, over-confidence, exuberance, protectiveness, and playfulness are not bad. Whatever dog an individual wants to own is a good dog if its owner keeps it safely and does not allow it to impinge upon anyone else's rights.  Nothing else should matter to society or our legislature.

People absolutely should be encouraged to teach their dogs basic manners, and much more, but as we support this process we must be extremely careful that we do not inadvertently support the notion that any dog that cannot pass a particular test must be a bad dog. If this is endorsed at the state level, what municipality would want to welcome dogs that are not good citizens?  What will happen to the millions of great dogs who are not suited to this test, or the millions of dogs whose owners are not willing or able to pursue the CGC?

The language and attitude of the CGC program plays perfectly into the hands of the AR movement. I have little doubt that the AKC believes it is a DEFENSE against such attacks—that by demonstrating how well-mannered these dogs are we prevent bad laws, but I believe this is exactly the same as the other examples I cited in that it will have the opposite effect over time—it will create a line that will eventually be used to criminalize everyone who is on the wrong side.  It may temporarily save the handful of dogs that have CGCs, but it will do so by sacrificing the vast majority of dogs and owners. Admittedly the CGC program becoming mandatory would be a huge financial victory for the AKC, and a huge practical victory for the AR movement , but it would be a huge loss for dogs everywhere.

40 states and the US Senate have already passed resolutions "endorsing the CGC test and supporting its effort to promote responsible dog ownership."  Insurance companies have already offered discounts for dogs with CGCs. These are the first steps on a short path to making dogs without CGCs uninsurable and ultimately illegal. This test will simply become one more excuse to eliminate millions of pet homes and pets.

Furt hermore, the specific language of HRC12 raises some questions:

… responsible owners should properly control and provide adequate training for their dogs [Who defines "adequate training" now and in the future? HSUS would be happy to do so in the next legislative session, will you agree with their definition?]

…dogs should exhibit "good citizen" behavior in the presence of other people and animals in both the home and the community [Why is it anyone's business how a dog behaves in a private home?]

…dog bites and animal concerns are on the rise [According to whom?  Is this really a statement we want codified into our legislature?]

…there is a need for dogs to remain well-behaved community members [No, there is a need for people to remain well behaved community members and as such to control their pets in a manner such that they are not disruptive. If people want to train their dogs to be well behaved that is their choice.]

Some readers will perceive this email as being overly paranoid, others will feel that the benefits of a state recognized CGC program outweigh the risks, others stopped reading long ago! These are all fine responses, you must decide for yourself how you feel, I merely wanted to lay out some issues in hopes that before you support or oppose HRC12, or the CGC program in general, you will give some serious thought to future consequences.  It is no longer sufficient for us to innocently create programs or propose legislation that under ideal circumstances might be a good idea. 

We MUST ask ourselves: How will this tool be used by those who seek to eliminate animal ownership?

Author unknown

Dogs and the Ethics of Training

Dogs and the Ethics of Training

Carlotta Cooper

This article originally appeared in the December 3, 2010 issue of Dog News.

It’s a fact that many of the breeds we have today were originally bred to do some very tough jobs. We have mastiff breeds which were dogs of war at one time. We have terriers who not only bolted but killed fox and vermin. We have sighthounds who coursed wolves, deer and hare; and we have other hounds who could corner bear, raccoons, and wild boar.

Times change, of course. Bear baiting was made illegal in England in 1835, resulting in changes to many breeds which had been used for that sport. Breeders worked hard to change the temperament of many of the bully breeds which had been used for bear baiting prior to that time, making them excellent family pets today.

However, there are many breeds today which are still used for their original purposes, at least part-time. Greyhounds still race and course. Many sporting dogs are still used as working bird dogs. And foxhounds and other treeing hounds are still used for hunting.

Recently in South Carolina the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released film footage of the practice of bear “baying.” This is a training exercise during which a bear is staked out in a pen and hunting dogs (in this case Plott hounds) are taught how to attack the bear without getting hurt. The bear is not allowed to be hurt either.

You’re probably wondering why anyone would want to do such a thing. The answer is that Plott hounds are still used for actual bear hunting. They corner or tree bears and, in an actual hunting situation, the dogs need to know how to approach a bear without being torn to shreds. It’s the dogs’ job to hold the bear in place until the hunter can arrive on the scene. Presumably, if you simply take the dogs out to hunt without any training or experience they would be at greater risk of being killed by a bear they try to tree or corner. So, bear baying serves a training purpose.

South Carolina seems to be the only state where bear baying is still legal, according to HSUS.

Now, is bear baying a pleasant experience for a bear? I’m sure it’s not. Does it prepare the dogs for meeting a bear under actual hunting circumstances in the woods? It seems likely that it does. Is bear baying something that I personally approve of? That’s not really relevant. Done properly, the bear is not supposed to be injured during bear baying as the dogs are supposed to learn how to hold the bear in place without injuring the bear or being injured themselves. That’s the whole point of the training.

You should keep in mind, too, that bear “baying” is NOT the same thing as bear baiting, which was a bloody sport which resulted in the death of the animal.

This case has become important for several reasons. The American Kennel Club asked the American Plott Association to disavow bear baying and the club refused to do so. As a result, the AKC has severed ties with the parent club over this issue.

It’s easy to sympathize with the bear in this instance, but it’s important to remember the purpose of this training: to keep dogs safer during hunting.

This is not an easy issue. Before you decide that the AKC is correct in this instance, consider that there are many breeds which have advanced training which could be construed as being “cruel” by some observers. For example, shepherds and sheepdog trainers often train herding dogs with cows and sheep which will give them a kick in order to teach them better herding and nipping skills. Some gundog trainers in the U.S. use electronic collars, which are considered “cruel” in the UK — the Kennel Club in Britain is seeking to have them banned by the government. Hunting fox, deer and hare with dogs in the UK is banned as cruel, despite the fact that we have countless breeds which were developed for these purposes. There are people in the United States who believe it’s cruel to use hounds to course hare and other animals.

Just where do you draw the line?

In this case, HSUS has produced, once again, a video that certainly looks terrible, on first viewing. It looks like a bear is being abused by dogs. However, there is often more to consider. I would hate for any dogs to die during hunting because they were not properly trained, especially when bears are not physically harmed during the training process.

Many of us have breeds with long historical traditions. We’re proud of those traditions and some people try to maintain them as much as possible today. That’s not easy to do in an increasingly urban world. I don’t think we should be so quick to label those traditions “cruel” or try to eliminate them, especially without more evidence or without making more effort to understand them. Afterall, part of our job as breed custodians is to maintain our breeds and their traditions. That includes the work that our dogs were bred to do.