The advent of canine performance science: Offering a sustainable future for working dogs
Highlights
- •
- Working and sporting dogs are valuable and essential contributors to industries worldwide.
- •
- Inefficiencies throughout the working dog production process result in high failure rates.
- •
- Animal production must be transparent, traceable and ethically acceptable to be sustainable.
- •
- Canine performance science is a model offering the working dog industry a sustainable future.
Abstract
Working
and sporting dogs provide an essential contribution to many industries
worldwide. The common development, maintenance and disposal of working
and sporting dogs can be considered in the same way as other animal
production systems. The process of ‘production’ involves genetic
selection, puppy rearing, recruitment and assessment, training, housing
and handling, handler education, health and working life end-point
management. At present, inefficiencies throughout the production process
result in a high failure rate of dogs attaining operational status.
This level of wastage would be condemned in other animal production
industries for economic reasons and has significant implications for dog
welfare, as well as public perceptions of dog-based industries.
Standards of acceptable animal use are changing and some historically
common uses of animals are no longer publicly acceptable, especially
where harm is caused for purposes deemed trivial, or where alternatives
exist. Public scrutiny of animal use appears likely to increase and
extend to all roles of animals, including working and sporting dogs.
Production system processes therefore need to be transparent, traceable
and ethically acceptable for animal use to be sustainable into the
future. Evidence-based approaches already inform best practice in fields
as diverse as agriculture and human athletic performance. This article
introduces the nascent discipline of canine performance science, which
aims to facilitate optimal product quality and production efficiency,
while also assuring evidence-based increments in dog welfare through a
process of research and development. Our thesis is that the model of
canine performance science offers an objective, transparent and
traceable opportunity for industry development in line with community
expectations and underpins a sustainable future for working dogs.
This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Canine Behavior.
Keywords
- Working dogs;
- Welfare;
- Sustainability;
- Canine performance science;
- Wastage
1. Introduction
Domestic
dogs are represented in a wide range of contexts; as companions,
guardians, stock herders, detectors, guides, assistants and as racing
participants in sporting entertainment. These roles are sometimes
indistinct, in that some dogs bred as companions may find themselves in
working roles, some bred for work may end up living as domestic
companions, and others may perform dual roles, perhaps working during
the week and being a companion on weekends. This paper's focus is on
working dogs identified by their functional context, acknowledging they
do not always fall exclusively into distinct categories or placement on a
continuum. In this discussion, we define a working dog as any domestic
dog that is operational in a private industry, government, assistance or
sporting context, independently of whether it also performs a role as
human companion. This diversity of roles has led to fragmented public
perceptions of working and sporting dogs, but the private, government,
assistance and sporting sectors share many commonalities and can be
considered as sectors of one broad working dog industry (Branson et al., 2012).
Working dog roles are generally undertaken by dogs for reasons of
economy, ease or ability; either humans or machines cannot do the task,
or it is cheaper or easier for a dog to do it.
Although
research assessing economic contributions from working dogs is limited,
a recent estimation of Australian stock herding dogs calculated
AUD$40,000 as the median value of a herding dog's lifetime work (Arnott et al., 2014a and Arnott et al., 2014b)
typically providing a 5.2-fold return on investment. The cost to obtain
a livestock guardian dog has been estimated as returned through stock
retention within 1–3 years of the dog starting work (van Bommel and Johnson, 2012).
The investment of resources to breed and train a guide dog to
operational standard for placement with a person with visual impairment
has been valued at up to USD$50,000 (Wirth and Rein, 2008).
The economic value once placed with a handler with a vision impairment
has not been extensively assessed, but research demonstrates positive
changes to guide dog handlers’ definitions of self, social identity and
public interaction are significant (Sanders, 2000). Across private industry, government, assistance and sporting sectors, working dogs add value and are valuable.
This
is an important point because, although limited, available data suggest
that success rates generally average 50% across working dog industry
sectors (Branson et al., 2010, Arnott et al., 2014a, Arnott et al., 2014b, Slabbert and Odendaal, 1999, Maejima et al., 2007, Batt et al., 2008a, Batt et al., 2008b, Wilsson and Sundgren, 1997 and Sinn et al., 2010).
This means that around half of all dogs being bred, or considered to
work or race, fail to become operational. This so-called wastage is
problematic for the financial sustainability of the industry, with
considerable room for improvement, and subsequent economic advantage,
being evident. It is also problematic in terms of public perceptions of
the sector (Spedding, 1995).
To determine where industry inefficiencies exist that contribute to
this wastage rate, we draw on the emerging field of canine performance
science to objectively assess the life cycle of working dog development.
We also argue the importance of examining public attitudes so that
issues of potential importance can be identified and monitored prior to
industry disruption. This paper outlines the relevance of canine
performance science to the future sustainability of dog-based industries
and sporting groups as an important future direction in canine science.
2. What impacts sustainability of working dog production?
An
overwhelming body of evidence confirms domestic dogs are social
athletes capable of providing humans with emotional support and a wide
range of health benefits. While we fully acknowledge dogs’ sentience and
intrinsic value, working dog programmes can be objectively considered
within the framework of an animal production system. Examples of other
animal production systems include those that produce livestock for use
in agriculture, or laboratory animals for medical experimentation.
Although domesticated animals exist in many forms, from livestock
animals through to companion species, evidence suggests that human-dog
relationships may be particularly enduring and unique (Shipman, 2011). Human attachment to dogs may differ from attachment to other animals (Zasloff, 1996),
and these inconsistencies can result in animal protection legislation
safeguarding animals in some contexts more strongly than others (O'Sullivan, 2007).
It is therefore important for industry stakeholders and scientists
alike to remain mindful of possible bias in our perceptions and to
clarify both the commonalities and differences of human interactions
between various animal species (Zasloff, 1996) and in the complex case of domestic dogs, the potential for this variation to occur within a species.
Genetic
selection, rearing of young animals, recruitment and assessment
processes, housing and handling, training techniques, handler education,
and health and end-point management are all aspects of this production
system that can affect the quality of the final product: the working
dog. It is important to emphasise that, in this context, the term quality
no longer refers only to the observable end product. Of critical import
are the efficiency of the production system and the ethical framework
used to prevent, or sometimes justify, any compromised welfare of the
animals’ involved ( Broom, 2010). Broom (2010)
asserts that animal production systems that are not sustainable will
not be present in the future. A system that is inefficient or results in
poor animal welfare is likely to be unsustainable because it fails to
align with the general public's values ( McGlone, 2001 and Broom, 2011).
Growing awareness of the implications of animal use and management for
welfare have led to rising public expectations and lower levels of
tolerance for conditions perceived as inadequate. Animal welfare issues
are demonstrably important to the general public and therefore relevant
to governments responsible for establishing minimal levels of care. For
example, more letters are received by European Union (EU)
parliamentarians relating to animal welfare than any other issue and led
to the development of EU legislation to improve animal welfare ( Blokhuis et al., 2003, Horgan and Gavinelli, 2006, Ransom, 2007 and Broom, 2010).
