THE FUTURE OF THE WORKING DOG

Gary Patterson

As we now have passed the 100^th year marking the birth of the modern working dog, the picture for most breeders and trainers could not appear more promissing. All the early goals of the developers of the working dog have been met, even surpassed. We know more about breeding, training and finding even more jobs for the working dog. The demands from security forces, police, sport trainers and search and rescue workers are now outstripping our ability to supply quality dogs for all of these tasks. This demand may be our biggest problem in preserving the working dog.

Several years ago, I wrote a tongue in cheek article about a future world championship for working dogs, called “SuperSchutz”, in which genetically engineered 200 pound Bouviers (with racing stripes in their coats) performed Herculean tasks such as following ten mile tracks and jumping over 15 foot hurdles. Well, take your tongue out of your cheek Gary, the brave new world is upon us.

Working dogs to the professionals and governmental agencies have always been love-hate relationships. Dogs are expensive and troublesome to maintain. They have the bad habit of getting sick or injured and have even been knownt to grow old and die. They need training and people to train them. Then there is the problem of even trying to find a good dog in the first place. The only reason they are still around is because they always added a dimension to law enforcement, security and search and rescue that was unique. Like the great war horses of the middle ages, there was no substitute and their role was a noble part of our history. But, how many war horses do you see now? In truth, there may be more going on with working dogs in the laboratory than on the training field or in whelping boxes.

Let's first examine the most important characteristic of the modern working dog, scenting. This year, the Nobel Prize was awarded to Richard Axel and Linda Buck for their work in studying olfaction, from the molecular area to the organization of cellular systems that process scents. It seems axiomatic that once proven, any science starts looking for applications. If we understand olfaction now, as we never did before, can't technology develop a scenting device that does a better job than a dog? If you think I am moving away from reality, consider that private industry and government are now developing machines that “scent” explosive and other chemicals, such as drugs. AND these machines, while primitive, do work. As an example, such a machine can detect nitrates, but it cannot distinguish nitrates in one context from another—a task that dogs are particularly good at. So, at present, a machine can sniff and detect a nitrate, but it cannot yet distinguish that scent in fertilizer from a similar nitrate compound in a bomb. But, they are working on it. Imagine, in the future, a portable, even hand-held, device that any law enforcement officer can carry that is absolutely reliable and costs about the same as an untrained working dog. No need to shelter, feed, train, entertain or take out to poop these mechanical sniffers. Further, no worries about having a case thrown out of court for lack of probable cause in an arrest, as has happened with a dog's indicating a forbidden substance, because of the “high tech” aspect of the arrest, a subject that courts lovingly embrace. Look at the history of radar speed detectors if you have doubts.

For more information, see

http://www.hhmi.org/research/investigators/axel.html

http://www.cf.ac.uk/biosi/staff/jacob/teaching/sensory/olfact1.html

It doesn't stop here. We are now starting to monkey around with the dog's genes, or at least taking the early, first steps. The Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center has taken up the goals of the Human Genome Project and is now applying it to dogs. Within the foreseeable future, we should have a complete map of the dog's genes. While altruistic and with a totally solid scientific purpose, I have to pose the question of what can this mean for those of us who breed, train and work dogs? If society has opposed the idea of cloning other humans, there has been no similar reluctance to apply these ideas to other species, such as cattle, pigs, plants and insects. This, by itself, is neither good nor bad as science has no sense of morality. We should be able to foresee the elimination of many diseases and genetic faults that have plagued dog breeders in the past. Further, the program is helping us to better understand the history of the dog by tracing its DNA.

But, moving outside the box, what does this mean for breeders and dog trainers? Can we come closer to developing the perfect working dog from white tiled rooms, rather that the breeding kennels that we have worked so hard to develop? Will we lose the often amazing art of understanding pedigrees by yielding to a more objective process of gene manipulation? What is the point of even having Schutzhund or IPO if their purpose is one of discovering the dogs that are genetically superior?

If you are interested in this, look at http://mendel.berkeley.edu/dog.html

As an adjunct to these questions is the last one about where our future working dogs will come from. It is now a given that good working dogs are not being produced in numbers that satisfy the current or anticipated future demand. This is the reason that mechanical devices are now being developed. We can also count on having more genetically superior dogs in the near future, helping to create a better supply. But, even today, there is a more immediate threat to the traditional breeding approach for working dogs, sperm banks. For decades, cattle and horse breeders have increasingly relied on sperm banks and artificial insemination to produce more and better stock. Is this now becoming a probable alternative for working dogs? Apparently so.

Britain, while only one example, has faced such a dearth of working dog candidates that many jurisdictions are now embarking on programs using sperm banks and artificial insemination. To understand the conflict between the government and traditional dog people, see http://geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/dogs/tn040829.htm. The more important point is that given the current circumstances, why shouldn't such a program be adopted by every major law enforcement and military K-9 program in the world? The thoughts of such development stir the imagination. Imagine, two thousand working dogs that are all the progeny of the 2003 SV Bundeseiger.

All of this is not a Chicken Little argument, an alarmist voice which has no realistic merit. It is coming and there is nothing we can, or perhaps even should, do to stop or change what is happening. But, notice, the one thing that science still cannot do is train a dog. To preserve the modern working dog, we, as dog trainers, should do everything in our power to keep pace by developing new and creative ways to make these dogs valuable to our society. If the general population is dazzled by all of this science, we should work equally hard to dazzle the public by showing the ongoing value and performance of dogs in a more complicated world.