Could "Service Dog" Programs Be Good for Both Dogs and Veterans?

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