Could "Service Dog" Programs Be Good for Both Dogs and Veterans?
Published November 11, 2009 @ 08:34AM PT
This morning, I learned for the first time of the Service Dogs for Veterans Act, a bill cosponsored by Senator Al Franken and described by OpenCongress.org as "a bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using service dogs for the treatment or rehabilitation of veterans with physical or mental injuries or disabilities, and for other purposes." A related provision was recently passed as part of the Defense Authorization Bill.
The details aren't terribly clear -- I've seen variations from place to place -- but a Minnesota Public Radio report summarized it thus: "The Veterans Administration would develop partnerships with organizations that provide disabled veterans with service dogs." Other sources have indicated that the "effectiveness" of the program will be studied, with possible expansion to come. One dog blog post, published a couple months before the legislation passed, indicated that "half the service dogs will be for veterans with mental health disabilities and the other half will help those with physical disabilities," but I haven't been able to determine yet whether those specifics and others made it into the final legislation.
The issue of nonhuman animals, dogs in most cases, as "service" animals for humans is not a black-and-white one in the animal rights community. On one hand, it can be argued that using animals in this way is just that -- using them and further building on our view of them as tools. On the other hand is the common argument that the dogs can benefit from the relationship as well and can be well loved and cared for, just as they would be in a home in which they're not also service-providers.
I'll not go too deep into the philosophical implications of all this, but I will say that if animals are going to be used to provide help and service to humans -- whether disabled veterans, such as in these programs, or anyone else -- there should be firm policies in place not only protecting the animals once they've become service animals, but also helping animals in the process.
What do I mean by "helping animals in the process"? What I'm certainly not OK with, even remotely, is the practice of breeding dogs specifically for the purpose of turning them into service animals. Churning animals out like plastic purchasable products from a factory is a despicable thought to me. So whether a program breeds dogs itself or purchases dogs from breeders, that practice is unacceptable. But tell me that a service dog program is going to adopt all the dogs in its program from shelters -- tell me that the program is going to save dogs' lives, rather than breed them like commodities while millions die in shelters -- and I'll unclench my jaw. Freedom Service Dogs in Colorado, for example, points out that "FSD rescues and trains only unwanted and abandoned dogs, helping solve the pet overpopulation problem. There is no puppy-raising program or breeding." And those dogs who "do not fulfill all the comprehensive training requirements are found adoptive homes."
The other guarantee that should absolutely be required for these programs relates to what happens to the dogs as they age, grow ill, and/or are injured. When a person doesn't need or want the dog anymore, or the dog's usefulness (god, I hate that word) to the person declines, and the dog starts needing care, is he or she still guaranteed a home? What protections are in place to make sure the dog isn't abandoned, neglected, or traumatically bounced around from home to home?
The issue is one about which I have mixed feelings. Millions of dogs are being killed in shelters each year. Countless dogs are languishing on the streets. So if these programs would commit to rescuing and training those dogs, rather than purpose-breeding dogs, and they and the people being helped by the dogs would commit to providing lifelong, loving care and protection to the dogs, shouldn't animal rights advocates get behind them? And in a society that is still killing these millions of dogs each year, while breeders are continuing to treat other dogs like puppy machines and products, when we need people to adopt dogs, shouldn't we also consider the possibility that many disabled veterans would still want to rescue and adopt a dog even if they weren't injured -- and that in this case, a program that rescues dogs from shelters (not breeds them) and provides them with training could indeed be helping both people and dogs at the same time? What if some injured veterans who want to rescue a dog can share a home with a dog and provide care for (as well as receive care from) that dog only if the dog has received specialized training?
There's a lot to think about here. My gut feelings do include discomfort. My instinct is to hate the way it's too easy for some of these programs to look at the dogs as tools. And as much as all traumatized veterans deserve help and care, I also must admit to feeling some anxiousness about the potential for cases in which the traumatized veterans' mental and emotional struggles could put the dogs in danger. I'd want to know what guidelines are in place for where dogs go and how much careful, consistent, and close supervision and checking on the dogs there is after they've been placed in a home if the person's struggles could impact the dog. I'm sure that most in the armed forces would be and are perfectly suitable, capable, loving guardians. But we also know that this isn't always the case, and we're also talking about a system that forced many of these same veterans to cruelly maim and kill animals as part of their training. So it's important to consider the issue from all angles.
My fellow animal advocates -- what do you think?
---
A note for the record: This is a completely different issue, for me, from the practice of breeding, training, using, and endangering dogs in the military, which you're not going to catch me being wishy-washy about. Somewhat related post: "Animals in War: You Don't Have to Be Human to Die by the Millions."
Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull. In her advocacy, she works to challenge prevailing perceptions of animals, to show the connections between animal exploitation and other injustices, to help people see that animals are more like us than different, and to encourage compassionate, nonviolent living and eating.
This one always baffles me. I used to be PART of a group who used animals for rehabilitation purposes, and I've seen both sides. I've seen animals in desperate need of a home, or something to do, or who genuinely seem to enjoy the interaction, find what seems like happiness and peace when they are included in the rehabilitation process of a human. I've seen animals who needed rehabilitation in some form or another (from abuse, or neglect, or well-meant mishandling) gain something in the process too. My own horse, Rivet, participated in a therapeutic equine program. He seemed to enjoy it, and watching him with battered children and Autistic kids usually brought tears to my eyes. Rivet has always been his own man, and the gentle kindness he showed people who really needed it has strengthened my convictions that there is some value in that relationship.
On the flip side, my recent adoptee, Charlie, has seen the bad half of that relationship and is a prime example of the truly despicable side that comes from seeing these animals as tools. Charlie was part of the same program as Rivet, and when Charlie became to old to efficiently participate in the program, he was scheduled to be killed. He is alive today because my friends (former staffers) and I wouldn't let that happen, because he deserves so much better than to be killed for being old and stiff.
I myself believe that the refusal of most service-animal groups to use rescued animals is pure stupidity. Many of the organizations which "certify" service animals have contacts (and contracts) with animal breeders, and the breeders won't want to loose those. While there are probably many, many animals in shelters who don't have what it takes to become service animals, there are just as many animals bred specifically for that purpose who are rejected from programs. So yes, I think if they were to agree to use only rescued animals, this could be something I'm on board with. Maybe it does back up the idea that these animals are "tools", but ask most people with a service dog and they're going to tell you the exact opposite - that these animals are their friends, their loved ones, and that they owe them a debt that can't be repaid.
There is very little evidence of the long-term effects of being a psychiatric service dog (or any service dog) on the dogs themselves. Some dogs may see it as a game, perhaps enjoy it. Others may be too traumatized by their own lives, or become unstable by feeding off their person's energy. However, I think careful checking and putting in fail safes for such situations which guarantee the dog a home, may make the program more palatable.
I'd also want to make sure the program doesn't ally it's self with organizations that promote breed-ism in service dogs (Canine Companions For Independence, for example). What good is this to dogs if they are rejected based on breed or appearance?
Ideally, this program is something that may not fulfill all the philosophical stances taken by the AR community, but if it saves lives, I don't know if I can argue against it.
Posted by Jen Ruff on 11/11/2009 @ 09:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Stephanie! This is an issue that I've done a lot of thinking about myself, both as the human half of a service dog team and an animal rights advocate.Service animals that are also adopted are even one of the 'solutions' in my thesis project;I'm that strong a believer in them! Like you, I dislike the idea of selective breeding of animals for any express purpose--and service dogs are no exception. That is a huge reason for my personal decision to rescue a dog when I chose to obtain a service dog. My dog is a Border Collie mix who is completely custom-trained for me, and the relationship that we have is special and symbiotic. I depend on him, he depends on me.
Like many people who are partnered with a service dog, I am completely respectful of his right to be a,well, dog. He is not a machine, period. If I wanted a robot to serve me I'd get one--this is 2009, after all--they exist. Robots don't eat much and they don't talk back, but a dog can love you completely and unconditionally. I chose this life--I chose dog partnership as way to mitigate my disability rather than some other 'therapies'.
Posted by Annemari Romero on 11/11/2009 @ 09:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I used to select dogs from the shelter where I volunteered for the now-defunct hearing dog program in SF. I expanded the program a little to include dogs who appeared behaviorally and temperamentally sound for therapy work as well. The shelter had a 60% kill rate for dogs (higher for cats). Since the programs accounted for life-long care and applicants were appropriately screened, I felt comfortable with it.
As to this particular program, I have all the same concerns as you. I tend to hope that the suicide and domestic violence rate might decrease if this was a complementary treatment program (even just having animals present during therapy sessions can help alleviate stress without the added burden of caring for the animal). I certainly think only rescued dogs should be "used" (hard to avoid that term).
Posted by Marji Beach on 11/11/2009 @ 09:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My little thought...
We humans are ironic, aren't we?? I mean, on one hand we use dogs to service and help humans, a "guardian angel" so to speak; then on the other hand we also skin them alive for their fur, abuse and kill them, beat them, neglect them, cut them up and eat them, and experiment on them.
Very ironic.
Posted by K J on 11/11/2009 @ 11:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If the animals are RESCUED from shelters, puppymills, abusive situations, research labs and those animals' specific needs and talents are KINDLY funneled into a program through 100% POSITIVE training and "retirement" is planned for, then I can support that.
Like you, Stephanie, I don't support breeding.
All that said, I don't think that even the most terrible service animal program could possibly be remotely as cruel as a factory farm, fur farm, or animal-research lab. So, on my list of things to worry about, service animal breeders are way, way, way down on that list.
Posted by Elaine Vigneault on 11/11/2009 @ 04:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with you on all aspects of the matter - no dogs for this specific program, should come from anywhere other than a shelter or rescue and never from a breeder. And no breed-discrimination either. What FSD rescue in Co. is doing is a perfect example.
And yes there definitely needs to be safeguards in place to guarantee the lifelong well-being of that dog. Similar to an adoption contract through a rescue group, where the adoptee commits to proper care, exercise, diet, etc. and if cannot for any reason provide the necessary requirements, the dog goes back to the rescue.
Because, and I think many of us know, that once our veterans return (and budgets are tight) they are not provided all the services they need - especially after seeing and experiencing such traumatic events. And dogs who are emotionally-tied to their guardians, if there aren't the proper safeguards to check up on both the veteran and dog's well being, then I would be fearful myself. It would seem a miserable existence to live as a service dog only, under constant mental duress and possible abuse without any canine freedoms whatsoever, even if rescued from the death camps of our nations shelters. And I am not saying that this is the case for many vets or even a certain percentage, but from all I've read about returning vets and PTSD, a good set of guidelines would need to be established for this program to safeguard both individuals.
The few people I've met with service dogs consider them their best friends & family. I don't see how it would be any different for a vet, as long as there aren't any underlining mental issues. And Marji's suggestion of dogs present in therapy sessions is a great idea and could promote those service members to want to adopt a dog of their own.
Posted by Joseph S. Cox on 11/12/2009 @ 02:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes! The answer is YES! :) Also working with criminals on reform. I saw a great documentary on how caring for abandoned animals helped criminal youths to find a positive purpose.
Posted by CherokeeGirl for Change on 11/12/2009 @ 05:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very interesting point. I always kind of squirmed whenever I heard of those programs with service dogs that were "bred" with the "right characteristics" to be service dogs. It was always an awkward warm, fuzzy feeling for those benefitting from having the dogs and then a strange not-sure-this-is-okay feeling for the dogs. I think you hit it on the nose. I support what you're saying.
This article talks about prison dogs programs that are brought in to get basic training so they can find adoptive families and KEEP those homes. In the process of getting what they need, the dogs help out with the prisoners' rehabilitation. Sounds like good programs to me http://bit.ly/1rwfCp
Posted by L. Morales on 11/13/2009 @ 04:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.