In all the year I’ve been writing commentaries, I’ve never received as many emails as I did for the July commentary on the service animal dilemma. These were sufficiently numerous and thought-provoking that I pondered them while enjoying the sites in Colorado and mastering a new computer and its software.
I’m back in New Hampshire and stuck with my dial-up connection, but pleased to report that a Toshiba Satellite with an external modem and Windows 7 so far works very well. Whew!
But getting back to those responses. These came response came from those who use service animals and/or those who train them. And, not surprisingly, they fell into two categories: those who disagreed with my remarks and those who agreed.
I can sympathize with those who are dependent on the existence of service dogs, either because they train them or because they consider themselves physically and/or emotionally dependent on them. But I don’t think that this should prevent us from exploring the pros and cons of this practice and any negative effects it may have for the animal. Quite the contrary. It’s the willingness to actively explore the downside of all issues related to service dogs (or any animal for that matter) that enables us to find better approaches that will benefit human and animal alike. To deny that such problems exist does a great disservice to the dogs and the people they serve. Worse, this kind of denial attracts those who object to the use of animals for any kind of human activities and sets the stage for emotional confrontations instead of objective discussions.
So what are the alternatives to the service dog dilemma posed in the last commentary? Two come to mind. The first addresses the problem in the existing service dog population. In this group we find service dog contracts that address the working animal’s mental as well as physical health needs. One example is the contract used by behavioral consultant and trainer Deb Winkler of Humane Domain that includes the following:
- Mandatory enrichment, including a daily walk at the dog’s pace, all food from foraging, and working no more than 4 hours daily.
- If the dog accompanies a person to work or school, they usually are just lying around, but we insist on an activity every 2 hours.
- Also playing with another dog a minimum of 3x a week. If the recipient does not have resources for walking or playing with another dog then we find them…lots of people are willing to volunteer for walking and volunteer their dogs for playing.
- Mandatory non-aversive equipment and mandatory training methods for the life of the dog. We use only operant conditioning with strong emphasis on positive reinforcement.
But just as not all of us enjoy the same kind of play, dogs may not, either. While some dogs do enjoy romping with other dogs, others prefer to hang out and play with some person for whose care they feel no responsibility. What’s important is that they have time when they know they don’t have to be on-call.
In her email, behavioral consultant and trainer Caroline Spark described her dream regarding how to help address this dilemma:
I am in the process of starting a non-profit organization, called A Dog’s Dream. The purpose of this foundation would be to organize Relax & Recharge Retreats for service dogs and their handlers, and raise funds to allow people on limited incomes to attend. I also plan to involve local hotels and businesses in hosting and promoting these events, hopefully with reciprocal benefits to them and the local Yachats community.
Relax & Recharge Retreats are 2-3 day country and beach retreats for assistance dogs, puppies-in-training, and their handlers. These retreats are designed around the things dogs love to do—run free in open meadows, follow animal tracks along forest trails, swim, paddle in a creek, play with other dogs, laze in the sun or by a warm fire with their people. They are fun and relaxing for dogs—and for their handlers, who get enormous pleasure from seeing their treasured, hard-working companions relax and enjoy just being dogs. Participants would be accommodated in local dog-friendly lodging, and would enjoy activities at my property in the Yachats River Valley, at the beach, and at the Yachats Commons. The program would be tailored to the participants of each retreat, to accommodate varying degrees of disability.
Like people, dogs have dreams—things they would love to do if only they had the chance! Service dogs work hard. They really need a vacation from time to time—and so do their handlers, but all too often they can’t afford to take one. A Dog’s Dream would be created as a non-profit organization to allow people to make tax-deductible donations, so that such vacations would not be out of reach for financially-challenged service dog teams. I find that the public is often very interested in service dogs and the work they do, and I believe that people would be willing to contribute to the cause of helping a service dog’s dreams come true.
Trainer and consultant Mara Windstar works with people facing mental and physical health challenges and she notes that sometimes it’s as important to the person’s well-being to be away from the dog as it is for the dog. Mara, who also has special needs, pointed out that dealing with such challenges means nurturing a willingness to grow and learn with greater independence being the goal. Having times without the dog helps foster this orientation. The goal is wellness, not dependency. Mara also wrote a thoughtful blog about her choice to give up her service dog, Freely.
The second alternative seems the more viable one for the future: the development of robots to perform functions currently being done by service animals. The robot would do the work of the service animal, freeing the special needs person to have a dog as a companion. While this may seem far-fetched, the Japanese are making phenomenal strides in the design of service robots because their geriatric population will soon exceed the capacity of their younger folks to care for them. Other countries, including the US, will find themselves in similar situations as time goes one. And while some of these robots may not look anything like animals, Paro, a therapeutic robot most certainly does.
The advantages of robots are multiple. Among them is that, as the technology develops, these can be programmed to meet the specific needs of each special needs person and reprogrammed as that person’s needs change. A retraining process that may take weeks or months for an animal to internalize can be accomplished in a matter of hours or less. If a robot malfunctions, it easily can be replaced, which is not the case with a service animal. And how a robot looks could reflect owner preference without negatively affecting robot function. For example, notice Paro’s more infantile features, a look many people find appealing in companion animals. Such looks would be possible without concern about the immature behavior and physiology that may accompany such looks in live animals that could negatively impact their health when placed in stressful service animal situations.
A key point about service robots is that they wouldn’t replace dogs. Instead and except for those robots like Paro designed specifically to provide therapeutic companionship, they would provide mechanical services—guiding the visually impaired, signaling when phones are ringing, carrying objects, offering physical support, etc. —that many service dogs are now trained to perform. Not only would this free those with specials needs to achieve their full potential and independence, it would free the animals to fulfill their natural role as companions whose behavioral and physical health is under the protection of their care-givers. In would be a win-win situation for both.
But until such a time exists, the best approach is to recognize that no matter how effortlessly these animals may perform their functions, being responsible for the physical and/or emotional well-being of a person is a tremendous and unnatural responsibility. Respecting this enough to build sufficient time away from their charges into their daily schedules to relax and enjoy themselves according to their own needs is just common sense.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
I’m back in New Hampshire and stuck with my dial-up connection, but pleased to report that a Toshiba Satellite with an external modem and Windows 7 so far works very well. Whew!
But getting back to those responses. These came response came from those who use service animals and/or those who train them. And, not surprisingly, they fell into two categories: those who disagreed with my remarks and those who agreed.
I can sympathize with those who are dependent on the existence of service dogs, either because they train them or because they consider themselves physically and/or emotionally dependent on them. But I don’t think that this should prevent us from exploring the pros and cons of this practice and any negative effects it may have for the animal. Quite the contrary. It’s the willingness to actively explore the downside of all issues related to service dogs (or any animal for that matter) that enables us to find better approaches that will benefit human and animal alike. To deny that such problems exist does a great disservice to the dogs and the people they serve. Worse, this kind of denial attracts those who object to the use of animals for any kind of human activities and sets the stage for emotional confrontations instead of objective discussions.
So what are the alternatives to the service dog dilemma posed in the last commentary? Two come to mind. The first addresses the problem in the existing service dog population. In this group we find service dog contracts that address the working animal’s mental as well as physical health needs. One example is the contract used by behavioral consultant and trainer Deb Winkler of Humane Domain that includes the following:
But just as not all of us enjoy the same kind of play, dogs may not, either. While some dogs do enjoy romping with other dogs, others prefer to hang out and play with some person for whose care they feel no responsibility. What’s important is that they have time when they know they don’t have to be on-call.
In her email, behavioral consultant and trainer Caroline Spark described her dream regarding how to help address this dilemma:
Trainer and consultant Mara Windstar works with people facing mental and physical health challenges and she notes that sometimes it’s as important to the person’s well-being to be away from the dog as it is for the dog. Mara, who also has special needs, pointed out that dealing with such challenges means nurturing a willingness to grow and learn with greater independence being the goal. Having times without the dog helps foster this orientation. The goal is wellness, not dependency. Mara also wrote a thoughtful blog about her choice to give up her service dog, Freely.
The second alternative seems the more viable one for the future: the development of robots to perform functions currently being done by service animals. The robot would do the work of the service animal, freeing the special needs person to have a dog as a companion. While this may seem far-fetched, the Japanese are making phenomenal strides in the design of service robots because their geriatric population will soon exceed the capacity of their younger folks to care for them. Other countries, including the US, will find themselves in similar situations as time goes one. And while some of these robots may not look anything like animals, Paro, a therapeutic robot most certainly does.
The advantages of robots are multiple. Among them is that, as the technology develops, these can be programmed to meet the specific needs of each special needs person and reprogrammed as that person’s needs change. A retraining process that may take weeks or months for an animal to internalize can be accomplished in a matter of hours or less. If a robot malfunctions, it easily can be replaced, which is not the case with a service animal. And how a robot looks could reflect owner preference without negatively affecting robot function. For example, notice Paro’s more infantile features, a look many people find appealing in companion animals. Such looks would be possible without concern about the immature behavior and physiology that may accompany such looks in live animals that could negatively impact their health when placed in stressful service animal situations.
A key point about service robots is that they wouldn’t replace dogs. Instead and except for those robots like Paro designed specifically to provide therapeutic companionship, they would provide mechanical services—guiding the visually impaired, signaling when phones are ringing, carrying objects, offering physical support, etc. —that many service dogs are now trained to perform. Not only would this free those with specials needs to achieve their full potential and independence, it would free the animals to fulfill their natural role as companions whose behavioral and physical health is under the protection of their care-givers. In would be a win-win situation for both.
But until such a time exists, the best approach is to recognize that no matter how effortlessly these animals may perform their functions, being responsible for the physical and/or emotional well-being of a person is a tremendous and unnatural responsibility. Respecting this enough to build sufficient time away from their charges into their daily schedules to relax and enjoy themselves according to their own needs is just common sense.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.