[ SHOWGSD-L ] Dogs DO NOT bond!
- From: "David Fritsche" <d_fritsche@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Alycia Partei" <frontiergsd@xxxxxxx>, <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:17:37 -0800
* Forgot that attachments do not go through, so here it is - LONG!
11-10-2006
Editor, Northwest Seniors News
4159 Cherry Ave., NE
Keiser, OR 97303
My sister, who lives in your fair city, sent me a copy of your November
Edition with markings all over the Front page lead article entitled 'Dogs in
Pursuit.' She, probably like many of your readers, is an animal lover and
took offense to the characterization of dogs by the retired K-9 officer you
quoted. She thought I ought to respond. I suppose she thought that because,
I might be uniquely qualified to do so.
I am also a retired police officer and have been involved with German
Shepherd Dogs for over 52 years. I got my first one at age 15, and now I am,
well, in my golden years, so they tell me. So, I am familiar with police
work, K-9 dogs and, along the way I have accumulated some educational
credentials also. I hold a Doctorate in Theology, and Masters in Psychology
and a few other fields. Not sure why I have such a fascination with
education and dogs, but I do, and, if you will pardon my bluster to
establish my credentials and credibility, I will join my dear sister in
disagreeing with your fine K-9 officer.
I am quite familiar with the mentality and the general view of dogs that he
presents. It is neither new nor unique to the profession of K-9 handlers.
Many police agencies own the dogs that are used in the K-9 function, and
?loan? them to the officer for their assignment. I am not aware of the
arrangement made with the Eugene Police Department, but it is common for the
status of the relationship and purpose of the dog to create a context of
understanding of the animal. That is, the dog is a tool, used in the pursuit
of violence. The dog is there to be an effective instrument of force in the
apprehension of the criminal. OK, the dog is used for more than that. It is
a public relations expert (they are good at that), it is a search and rescue
instrument, it is a visible symbol of authority, and many other things, but
primarily, it is a tool, an EXPENDABLE tool to protect the officer and to
get the bad guys.
I was once reprimanded for going into a burglarized building to check it out
before sending in my dog. Yes, I was protecting the dog, and in that
function, that was a reversal of rolls that was not justified. But, I loved
my dog more than life and, well, my sister would understand.
In your article, the officer is quoted as saying, "Dogs have no loyalty,
they don't really bond with humans," Frost explains, saying that "we tend to
anthropomorphize our relationship with them. Instead, dogs respond to
whoever feeds them and takes care of them. To a dog, the entire world is a
pack, or a sub-group of a pack, and they respond accordingly."
I certainly would not argue with the fact that we ascribe to our animals
characteristics of our human frame of reference. That is our perceptions,
not just of ourselves and our animals, it is an inescapable reality that we
not only have, but 'are.' But I will argue with the conclusion that, the
simple fact that we do that, (ascribe to our animals, human characteristics)
does not mean that our conclusions are wrong. To draw that conclusion would
argue that animals do not have human characteristics; they do not reason,
think, love, feel similar emotions and cannot comprehend our thinking,
feeling or motivations.
Your article did make that conclusions in the statement, "Dogs can't think;
they don't have problem-solving skills. They don't do anything they haven't
been trained to do or haven't seen before."
That is certainly a convenient position when your animal is an expendable
tool of your trade, but when it is your best friend or your surrogate child,
that is simply unacceptable. But, even if we choose to make the dog our
child when in reality it is not, and it is only responding to stimuli that
we cannot comprehend, our ascribing to it our emotions and thought patterns
would be none-the-less wrong. So, what is the truth and how shall we find
it?
Most of we animal lovers will respond with our observations and our
experience. Scientists would set up experimentation to study the behaviors
and document their observations. Certainly arguing from experience is flawed
if our observations are not objective and our 'realities' going in are
stained with biases that we cannot see. So let me argue as best I can from
my own frame of reference: I am a professional with some education and
training and over 50 years of experience. Biased: Yes! Objective: Somewhat.
A social scientist: Yes! An animal behaviorist: Only in the sense that my
experience might have some value. So, here goes..
Meet Khi. Khi is a German Shepherd Dog from American Show Lines. His father
was an AKC Select Champion and Schutzhund III titled dog, Sel. Ch. Deanson's
On Broadway SCH III. His mother was our seemingly very smart, "Baby!" Khi
never ceased to amaze me. But if I conclude that he did not have human
characteristics, then what shall I conclude???
1. Khi did not like to be confined, or, OK, so, if I am wrong, he did not
have likes or emotions like that, but he would not stay in his yard
none-the-less. He would open the gates of the 6' chain link fence and go
into the front yard and lay on the grass awaiting our return. Scolding did
not work, so I padlocked the gates. He then opened the doors, went into the
house, opened the front door and went into the front yard to await our
return. So, I put dead bolts on the doors, locked them when we left and when
we returned, yes, you guessed it, there was Khi awaiting our return. So, I
left, drove around the block and conducted dog surveillance, only to watch
him jump up, grab the top of the fence and pull himself over, then into the
front yard to await our return. Next I ran a strand of wire around the top
of the fence, on insulators, and then plugged it into an electrical fence
charger. I knew I had finally won. I left in confidence, knowing this was
the final act of human mastery over this dumb animal. When I returned, there
was Khi, lying on the front lawn.
I discovered that the fence had shorted out, so I reset it, put Khi back in
the back yard and then again, did dog surveillance to see what was
happening. Sure enough, Khi went to the fence, stood on the fence, placing
his nose very close to the electric wire, then stood back down on the
ground, put his right foot on the fence and started rocking it until the
fence came into contact with the electrical wire and shorted it out. Then
again, he placed his nose near the electric wire, and apparently sensed that
it was off and then over the fence he went.
If I am wrong about my assessment of his reasoning ability, intelligence and
emotion, then I can only conclude that he had been trained to do this by
some phantom that snuck into our yard while we were gone. I could talk about
his antics forever. He never ceased to amaze me.
2. Meet Mandy. Mandy is also a German Shepherd Dog from American show lines.
She is probably the most stunning German Shepherd I have ever seen, and it
appears that she loves my wife, Linda. Since love is the emotion we assign
to our bonding with our dogs, and since, according to this article the dog
does not bond, then how do I explain Mandy and Linda. When Linda goes
somewhere, Mandy sets at the door awaiting her arrival and appears to be
sad, which of course she would be incapable of if this article is correct.
When Linda returns, she jumps for joy, or at least that is what we thought,
and talks to her is tones that make us both think that Linda is the focal
point of her life. But who feeds her? Must be Linda right? Wrong!. For years
Linda had her own business and would leave early, while I would get up later
and feed the dogs. It didn't matter who fed, Mandy belonged to Linda. It was
her choice and there was nothing anyone could do about it. My own conclusion
was and still is, that here was a highly unusual bond of love that came from
some dimension outside of our natural earth. Heaven had determined a
relationship of Woman and dog that was stronger than life itself.
Again, I could give endless observations about this relationship and the
sense that Linda did not have to tell Mandy what to do; Mandy knew
intuitively what Linda was thinking and responded accordingly.
And I could go on with experiences with the now hundreds of dogs that have
been in my life and under my observation. I can only conclude that those
social scientists who propose the line of reason that is reflected in your
article are far smarter than I am, or have never lived with a German
Shepherd Dog, at least not one like mine.
Do they think? One of the basic tests of the dog's soundness as a puppy is
to show it a piece of food and then hide in under a can or bowl and watch
its reaction. The reason for the test is to determine if the dog can reason
that the food, although not visible is still there. I've never had a German
Shepherd fail to conclude that the food is somewhere to be discovered even
though it is no longer visible.
Do they feel? We have many characteristic we assign to our emotion of love.
Loyalty, trust, passion, - you name it; love is a powerful force for we
humans and makes our world go around. If our dogs do not bond, and are
incapable of the passions we understand as love, then what are the
characteristics of our relationship? How do we explain the historic 'bond'
between the dog and humanity? Is it simply that we have the emotions and the
bond, but the dumb animal is simply trained to make us think that they are
feeling something similar, all the while just securing their food supply?
Sorry, I do not buy it. In fact, I have concluded quite the opposite: That
the dog is capable of a greater form of Agape (unconditional) love than we
humans are. They will love and be devoted to people who are incapable of
returning the commitment. In fact, I wonder if God did not give humanity the
dog to allow us some reflection of Him.
Now, you have probably already received enough letters on this one to fill
up a small room. And mine does not fit into your word count guidelines, but
I just felt like responding. I am a dog lover as you can tell, and I have no
reason to believe that my dogs do not have a similar emotion toward me. To
the contrary, I have several years of experience telling me quite the
contrary. I'll bet I have a lot of support also!
Thanks for listening,
David E. Fritsche Th.D.
High Sierra Shepherds Ranch
3755 Bacon Rind Rd.
Reno, NV 89510
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues
============================================================================
Other related posts:
