I don’t often praise social media, particularly in relation to the dog world and dog welfare, but one thing it provides us with is insight into the culture, particularly directed toward dogs, of various dog businesses, pages, organisations and individuals.

That is, these insights, usually videos and posts, provide so much excellent content for learning about canine behaviour, the language we use to discuss behaviour, and often, how not to do those things. But most of all, social media provides us with insight into the understanding, the awareness, the skills & the knowledge of those posting.

Yes, I’m a lurker and a spy. But I claim usage for educational purposes…

Experienced dog professionals, and those who represent themselves in a position of expertise (which on social media doesn’t mean a lot, much of the time), should be a buffer for the quality of the information they produce or share. Maybe someone has shared a clip with them but when they share inappropriate interactions, stressed dogs (without recognising it) or potentially harmful demonstrations, it’s apparent that they may not have a wonderful foundation in understanding canine behaviour.

I have higher expectations of, and hold them to a higher account, these social media content-producers, influencers, experts (or however they rank themselves). Those professionalising dog care, taking fees and charging guardians, those responsible for enforcing dog control legislation, those who care for vulnerable dogs and those advising guardians on “responsible dog ownership” must be unimpeachable in their knowledge and skill regarding canine behaviour, welfare, handling and care.

But our education on canine behaviour is not standardised and without accountability. And that means despite someone’s title, social media hype and postnominals, we might not be able to expect a whole lot.

Often through social media, or, at least facilitated by social media, professionals are drawn to the latest and greatest. I note who is reaching for the fads, noting that foundations in knowledge and skill must be lacking such is their vulnerability to the marketing and the hype.

Maslow’s hammer

The outcome of our interactions with dogs are a result of environmental conditions. This is a fundamental understanding of animal behaviour – behaviour is not in the individual, it’s in the environment. And as humans, we are largely responsible for the environmental conditions to which dogs are exposed.

During this past week, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women was marked. I can’t help relating any of the world’s goings-on to dogs, and our relationships with dogs. Dogs and humans are joined, intertwined, and separation and separate considerations are not possible.

Misogyny and machismo, and their impacts on violence, can be felt throughout dog training, behaviour & care. Our fields of work and study have not escaped violence, aggression, and cruelty inflicted on dogs in the name of “training”, “welfare” and “safety”.

The direct examples, of course, include deliberate abuse and violence suffered by dogs in homes and families affected by domestic violence, and the focus on companion dogs, and other companion animals, as tools for coercive control.

But our industry has been and continues to be shaped by tools and techniques, attitudes and advice, that presents violence, aggression and cruelty as a means, and first line option, for maintaining safety of humans. And that very idea of safety is weaponised against dogs who are victims of their circumstances.

As someone who works with dogs under stress, whose behaviour can pose serious safety risk to humans, and sometimes where there is urgent pressure to clear the way safely, I acknowledge that from time to time, direct action is required.

But, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When the foundation understanding of behaviour is incomplete, partially constructed, or lacking, it’s easier for these direct actions, most often acts of violence and aggression against dogs, to be implemented.

If this, a basis in coercion and suppression, is central to the education of professionals then it all too easily becomes normalised and accepted. Even more.

When I see professionals, on whom I have been spying via their socials, demonstrate lacking in these areas and a focus on education in those areas, I am very concerned that some of our most vulnerable dogs will suffer. And people won’t be any safer.
But machismo will have won again, begetting more violence, perpetuating more aggression, creating more macho-men who blame dogs, label dogs, persecute dogs.

What we do to dogs.