It’s not just us that sees our dogs as family; apparently, dogs see us as family too. This may not be shocking news to many of us, but it is always good to look at our beliefs objectively. An interesting study was recently published on Plos One about whether dogs are attached to their owners in a similar way that children are attached to their parents. Done by Horn, Huber and Range, the study was based on the early work of ethologists Bowlby and Ainsworth, who argued that human infants require a “secure attachment base” to develop normally. Far beyond simple “affection,” what they called true “attachment” included voluntary close proximity between parent and child, distress from the child at separation, seeking out the attachment figure for contact and reassurance if stressed, and most relevant to this post, the use of the attachment figure as a “secure base for exploring the environment.” These formulations were originally done on children, but in the decades following, researchers have found similar patterns in the behavior of the young of many species.
In this study, the authors asked if dogs would show the same type of attachment to their owner, who is, after all, a member of another species, albeit the one they live with. Owners brought in dogs who loved food and were comfortable in novel environments. After some pre-testing to ensure the dogs would indeed try to get food out of an object, they gave the dogs food-stuffed items that required manipulation by the dogs to get a food reward. Each dog was given an opportunity to manipulate the object to get the food under three different conditions: owner absent, owner present but silent, and owner in the room and encouraging the dog. The experimenters recorded the time the dog spent manipulating the object (which required a lot of work to release food). They found that the simple presence of the owner, even if silent and blindfolded, had a significant effect on how long the dog tried to get the food out of the object. In other words, the dogs were more likely to “interact with their environment” if their owners was close by. One might argue that the dog’s behavior could be explained simply because distressed dogs sat at the door when their owner was absent (and thus didn’t work on the object), but that did not appear to be a significant factor. Even dogs who showed little or no visible distress when the owner was gone spent less time manipulating the object. (There was always a person in the room, although silent and never looking at the dog.) Nor was it related to a decrease in appetite when left alone; pre-tests had been done to determine if the dogs would continue to look for food even if left alone.
Interestingly, although the dogs did work harder when verbally “encouraged” by their owners, this difference was not significant. Thus, there might have been an impact of owner’s vocalizing some encouragement, but the only difference confirmed by statistics is that the dogs spent more time manipulating a foreign object when the owner was in the room versus not. This parallels the work in other species in which young animals interacted with their environment more frequently and for longer durations if their parent was with them.
You can read more details about the study here. I think it’s an interesting study, as much because it generates a conversation about how we perceive our dogs and how our dogs perceive us. I think of my dogs as “family,” and yet, do not think of them as children or furry people. I am 100% convinced that both Willie and Tootsie are strongly attached to me (and Willie to Jim, too), given that they fit three of the four criteria above: they choose to stay close to me in space, they appear to be distressed if I leave them in an unfamiliar place, and they each seek me out in times of stress.
What do we make of all this then? Can a member of another species really be a member of our “family?” If not, how would we describe them and our relationship to them? How might we describe their relationship to us?
I don’t have any pithy answers to these questions beyond what I’ve written in The Other End of the Leash, For the Love of a Dog and in blog posts about whether dogs really love us or not. What I do know is that I don’t think of Willie or Tootsie as children, and yet I do see them as part of my family. Certainly there is much about taking care of them that is similar to raising children: They are dependent upon me for their very lives, they are non-verbal, they can not think through problems like an adult human, and the love and affection that they elicit overrides the extensive amounts of dog hair, the smell of fox poop on fur, and an occasional day in which one does little but clean up diarrhea and vomit. I continue to be gob-smacked by this relationship that we have with members of another species. Surely it is one of evolution’s most miraculous results. It seems to be that perhaps we are broadening the definition of family . . .
What about you? How would you describe your dog? As a member of your family? A cherished guest? I look forward to hearing from you…
MEANWHILE, back on the farm: This topic is timely, because I’m leaving soon for a family vacation and have to, yet again, drive away from the farm as a victim of separation anxiety. I hate leaving my dogs, absolutely hate it, and it feel especially worrisome given Willie’s injury and need for careful management. I have wonderful farm sitters, who I know are extremely responsible, and yet, still, it’s hard not to worry. Clearly, I have attachment issues . . .
The great news, though, is that Willie is truly improving. He had his physical therapy session on Monday, his last laser treatment on Tuesday and acupuncture on Wednesday. I can’t possible say what is actually helping, or indeed, if anything is beyond time and exercise restrictions, but he is no longer “off-loading” onto his right hip when he gets up from a down, and has no discernible limp or leg restriction of any kind. Of course, soft tissue damage being what it is, he is still radically restricted: still on leash, still crated often, but now he gets 20 min walks twice a day (Eeeee Hah!) and more exercises on his exercise ball. I’ve entered him into a sheep dog clinic in October, and Courtney says that is more than realistic. I suspect that I may have to give up on getting back into trialing with him, he simply is not a sound dog and I will have to manage him carefully so that he can continue to work sheep on the farm. (And oh, have I missed him! Herding sheep is hard work if you’re a human!)
Here is Willie doing his ball exercise, absolutely one of the best parts of his day. Something to do, and lots of treats… what’s not to love?
It’s been brutally hot here, hot and humid and clouded with mosquitoes. I’ve never seen it so bad; clearly we are living through the results of a wet spring. Now, however, it’s been dry for too long, it seems we swing from flood (literally) to famine (metaphorically). There is talk it might rain tonight, so I’m watering the garden you see below in hopes it will increase the chances we’ll get some moisture. The day lilies are doing themselves proud, aren’t they? By the way, the white buckets in the background are to keep our new trees and bushes hydrated. The tall tree is a June or Serviceberry, the kind of tree we just had to remove from behind the house. That was a heartbreaker, because the tree is loaded with gorgeous flowers in spring and yummy berries in summer that attract flocks of one of the world’s finest birds, the Cedar Waxwing. We are truly happy to have a replacement, a wedding present from some dear friends.
glauber says
Glad Willie is doing better!
Emily says
Member of the family, definitely… It looks to me like one of the hallmarks of “domestic” animals is a lot of plasticity in their ability to bond with critters they get exposed to during their critical period. Somewhere, somehow, the division between “Us” (creatures we bond to and consider part of our group) and “Them” (creatures we don’t grant group-status to) lost “species” as a criteria. I don’t think of my dog as a child or furry person–I do think of her as “one of my people,” a group member I’m 1) deeply attached to and 2) obligated on some level of the heart to protect and nurture. I feel like she’s “mine” the way I have “my” mother, “my” brother, “my” friends. Not that she’s a possession, not that she isn’t an independent creature in her own right–but she’s “mine” like part of me.
The one that slays me, though, is my cats. In addition to my own to cats, I manage a feral colony on my property… their relationships, to each other, my dogs and me–goodness, what on earth? My darling Corgi Fox, may he rest in peace, was beloved by all cats–even the ferals would come up to greet him and rub up against him. He raised all my adopted kittens. I’m dying to know–surely beyond question, they must know the difference between cats and dogs and humans. What did the cats make of him? Did he somehow become an “honorary cat,” or an “honorary Mom/Dad,” and thus the object of their affection? What did he make of them–were they a “flock” he felt the urge to protect? All I can think of is that we–domestic animals–are powerfully inclined to bond and nurture whatever reasonable approximation lands in front of us. My head can tell the difference between persons and critters; my inclination to include, bond and nurture doesn’t seem to draw that line… and it doesn’t look like theirs does, either.
Marcia in NorCal says
No children of my own, but cannot imagine that any child would be more dear to me than our oldest dog, Starr (yes, sadly, I have a “favorite” but she changed my life in ways that the younger dog could not … and I try very hard to make it up to Jesse for being #2). There is no question that these animals — and Benjamin the Cat — are part of our family. If we had to evacuate due to some sort of disaster, I would find a way to take them with us come hell or (literally) high water, and if the choice was between taking dog food or my most cherished material possession, it wouldn’t even merit a coin toss. They look to me for safety, they look to me for reassurance, they try mightily to please me .
And I don’t doubt for a moment that “social interaction” is as necessary to a dog’s mental health as it is to mine. It’s why I volunteer at the local SPCA: getting the dogs out for walk is important, but I’ve had hundreds, over the years, crawl into my lap for the sake of security, or snuggle against my leg while I sit in the kennel. We’ll never know what emotions are really at work here, but if that doesn’t suggest a need for physical reassurance and interaction, I don’t know what does.
Frances says
I’m so glad to hear Willie is improving – even short walks must be such a relief to you both.
I think of my dogs and cats as family – and I have always felt that living with dogs is like living with children, while living with cats is like living with another adult. That’s not to say I think of my dogs as children – more that my family is multi-species!
Robin Jackson says
I, too, have never thought of my dogs as children. Maybe it’s because our family has usually had working dogs and I now have a service dog, but I think of my dog as my partner. The kind of partnership you see in buddy movies. It’s something like a familial relationship, but different, because it’s based on a commonality of goals and that whole “I’ve got your back” concept.
I would risk my life to save my dog, in that running back into a burning building way. But I would give my life unquestioningly for my children. If one of my kids needed a heart transplant and my heart was a match, I would find a way to make that happen. I would not do the same for my dog.
Moreover, I expect absolutely nothing from my kids (who are now all in their twenties). I never once thought they would put themselves between me and danger, although now that they are adults, they sometimes do. But it is wired in me to protect them.
My dogs are my partners. We protect each other, and have that expectation of each other. I might get hurt protecting him, he might get hurt protecting me, either would make sense depending in the circumstances.
We live in a semirural area. Lots of coyotes, an occasional bobcat or mountain lion.
If I were out with just a dog and we encountered a cougar, I would put the dog behind me and face off to the cat. I would take responsibility, and try to find the best way for all 3 of us to disengage. If the cougar attacked, I would expect to fight together with my dog.
If I were out with a dog and a young child and we encountered a cougar, I would put the dog in front. If the cougar attacked, I would take the child and get away, leaving the dog to draw off the cat.
I would never, under any circumstances, leave the child and take the dog.
The child is under my protection. Always. The dog is my partner, and while we both take risks to protect each other, and expect that of each other, it is a different kind of relationship than parent and child. At least for us.
btmom says
Family, definitely. In my case, given how dysfunctional my biological family is, I’m more bonded to my dogs than my blood family. They’re not exactly children, but there’s a similarity. Even when they are smart, they are not our equals. We have the responsibility to exhibit patience and restrain emotions like frustration and anger, because they will only damage the relationship (and whether intended or not, be experienced as abuse). We’re responsible for their care, safety and well-being as we are with children, versus being able to let an adult (or even young adult) look out for themselves on most things. I feel protective of them. There are a lot of parallels with children, and yet they are not children – though still much loved.
Paula W says
Love this post, exactly what I think and feel about my dogs: something non-dog owners (and some dog owners, even!) don’t understand, this distinction I make over ‘family member’ vs ‘my child’ which my dog is most decidedly NOT. I revel in the fact that they are animals, with their own particular set of behaviors and learning patterns (plus they are beautiful to me, of course). Thanks for always writing the real story!
Barbara Yeamans says
I am so glad Willie’s co diction is Improving daily. I believe our dogs are family. There is truly a magical connection between dogs and humans. There is an even more magical connection if the humans tune into their dogs needs and emotions. I, like you, Patricia have attachment issues when leaving my dogs ( I am away from them now and worry all the time). I retired from teaching a year ago. Since then my life has been dogs. I couldn’t be happier!
Julia says
I am so glad you wrote about this! I was already writing a blog post about “what do we call them?” when the study came out. I’m still working on my article (I got stumped and moved on to other posts) and I’m happy that I’ll be able to reference your musings as well, when I finally get the article completed!
I struggle because my dogs do feel like something similar to children, but different too. I still haven’t found a name for them that works – everything feels too anthropomorphic or too cold.
I am guilty (and will admit so in my blog) of referring to my husband as “Daddy” to the dogs and he vise versa, but only because we haven’t found a better option.
Carole says
My dog is my family. Not my child, more like my partner in crime. We’re pals. I do my best to honour and respect her, give her everything she needs, and in return I get the most devoted buddy. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, and feels like unconditional love, on both our sides. Although she’s not a child, I feel the same level of protectiveness that I feel towards the kids in my life, since she is dependent on me to keep her safe and to teach her how to function in society. It is a different relationship, but certainly very similar to that of parent and child.
Perhaps our relationships with dogs would be different if we didn’t tend to remove them from their mothers when they’re only 8 weeks or so, but by doing that, do we not substitute ourselves as ‘parent’ in their lives? Parents can be dictators, benign or otherwise, or can be loving leaders and friends; it’s up to us how we want to raise our families, no matter what type of critter those families contain.
Jacki says
Family but not children – and I think this is an interesting conversation as our idea of “family” evolves. Family is no longer mom + dad + child(ren). As our definition of family shifts and changes, why not include our pets too? I don’t have a partner or children, so I spend more time with my dogs than with any other beings. It’s beyond living in the same house and taking care of their basic needs. When one of us is sick, the other two are quick to try to comfort. We’re attuned to each other’s moods. We’ve achieved (I think) a fairly solid way of communicating with each other, esp. considering we’re different species. I don’t think of my two as children, and I love the things that make them dogs – but, yeah, I love them dearly and my life revolves around their needs, so seems like family to me.
Margaret McLaughlin says
Family–in many ways the only one I’ve ever had, since my family of origin is a hot dysfunctional mess. I don’t think of my dogs as human or (in that sense) equals, & since I’ve never had children I can’t make that comparison, but I understand some of what Robin Jackson is saying; I do think of them as my partners, both in obvious ways in the obedience ring or agility field, but also in the sense of “I will care for you, & you will care for me.” They have been the only ones who can protect me from my nightmares.
They have also been the key to increased human interaction for me–if I have a dog with me I can always talk to people.
Glad Willie’s better. It’s stinkin’ hot here too 95F right now, with a heat index of 101. I just noticed Lia resource-guarding the prime spot in front of the floor fan.
SarahA says
My dogs are my family, my friends, and my partners. I’ve got into the habit of referring to myself as “mom” because it’s so common in the pet world, but I don’t really think of them as my children. Though as you say, there are similarities, but I think it’s disrespectful to dogs to think of them as people (which they would be inadequate at), when they are so amazing at being dogs.
I do believe that they think of me as family, though, and “mom” might not be too far off as to how they perceive me. Certainly, they know we aren’t the same species, but I’m a benevolent leader who raised them, that is sort of “mom” territory.
LisaW says
I do not think of my dogs as children or even adults. They’re canis, I’m caucasian, and there you go. I do think of them as part of the family and have deep and sometimes overwhelming feelings for my dogs and worry about their health and well-being and if I’m up to the task of giving them the best life they deserve (I’m not always up to the task, I fear).
Recently, I had a chance to think about the dog/family question. A close friend came over for dinner, and there is a process for people coming into the house. Our anxious dog needs to “find it” which means calmly tossing treats on the floor until the person enters and our exuberant dog needs to wait and “look” and not jump. Two polar opposites requiring the same amount of management. Mostly it works. We ask people coming in to please ignore the dogs, don’t loom, don’t encourage, don’t do anything regarding the dogs. I have found that is impossibly hard to ask people to do nothing.
After the entering ritual, the dogs had settled down reasonably well and our friend said, “You know, I’d come over or pop in more if not for these shenanigans every time I come over.” I will skip sharing what I thought when he said that, but later I got to thinking about why is it so hard to accommodate requests and protocols when it has to do with dogs. If I went to someone’s house and they had a special needs child or an elderly adult that required a certain type of behavior or ritual or care, I would think that is part and parcel of visiting. It’s what makes up their family and is part of being in their lives and often enriches our lives. It made me sad that some people can’t extend the same appreciation for the uniqueness of the family unit when some members of the family are dogs.
Happy to hear that Willie is on the mend. Phew.
Brandy says
Definitely a family member. I have children, & I agree with Frances-they aren’t children. But in the same way that one “puts up with” a family member’s quirks and experiences profound joy from interacting with the people one loves, that is my experience with Rosie. She’s an adolescent right now, and last night at 4am as I dealt with the over-turned shampoo bottles in the shower (REALLY!?) and the puddle (I swear, you went out at midnight!), there was no question that she belongs with us and somehow we’ll get this all figured out. And then having her be so happy to see me this morning and giving me kisses when I let her out-such sweetness, she obviously cares for us (and especially my kids) very much.
Kat says
Delighted to hear Willie is improved enough for walks even if short, that’s great news!
My google+ tagline is that I’m the alpha bitch in a multi-species household; that pretty well sums it up. I have two kids, two cats, two dogs, and one husband. My dogs and cats are not my children but they are part of my family group and the dogs have a relationship with the humans that is very like that of children to parents in many ways but is equally the relationship of cross species partnership where each contributes skills the other lacks and together we can do more than we can alone. The relationship with the cats has less in common with parent/child interaction. There’s the saying that cats were once worshipped as gods and have never forgotten that. There’s an element of truth there as my cats condescend to grace me with their presence in exchange for care and attention.
What has always fascinated me the most is the relationships between the various parts of my household. When my daughter was an infant and would cry my then 9 year old cat who had never had any previous experience with infants would run to her and if I was there he’d immediately vanish but if I wasn’t there he’d track me down and yell at me until I went to her. Was he caring for the infant or did he just figure out that I could make the noise stop? I have no idea which it was. Often he seemed to look out for her and appeared to care for her but there was usually a discernible benefit to him in these instances as well. The only behavior I ever observed that was clearly caring for her came when my daughter had just begun to toddle around well and the cat was sleeping on the barstool. She was on the opposite side of a large room from the cat when I glanced away and when I looked up her hand was closing around the dangling feline tail. I watched him whirl around all claws extended intending to shred whatever was pulling his tail and when he realized it was her he managed to retract his claws before the end of his swipe. He smacked her hard enough she lost her balance and fell but he did not scratch her beyond a faint red mark that vanished as I looked at it.
It amazes and astounds me on a regular basis that I get to share my life with three different species and that despite all our myriad differences we, for the most part, manage to live together as a common group. I don’t have to carefully mange everyone so that we can share a living space. The cats and dogs and kids all have free access to one another and there are seldom problems.
Robin Jackson says
@LisaW,
You said: “After the entering ritual, the dogs had settled down reasonably well and our friend said, ‘You know, I’d come over or pop in more if not for these shenanigans every time I come over.’ I will skip sharing what I thought when he said that, but later I got to thinking about why is it so hard to accommodate requests and protocols when it has to do with dogs. If I went to someone’s house and they had a special needs child or an elderly adult that required a certain type of behavior or ritual or care, I would think that is part and parcel of visiting. ”
My youngest son, now in his twenties, had a very severe anxiety disorder as a child, so much so that he was never able to graduate high school. He needed a lot of special routines to feel safe, and I can unfortunately attest that most people, even relatives, found those annoying and boring also. So it’s not just dogs.
Indeed, that brings up another difference between partners and families. As partners, I expect my dog and I to like each other. To have some common balance point where we both, though very different, feel comfortable and companionable. If I had a dog who detested me, or just found me inutterably tedious, I would find the dog a home with a family he could like more.
Family, though, we’re stuck with. There’s no choice about it. I have a sibling who despises me and always has. We have nothing in common except parents. But 20 years from now if they need a place to stay, I’ll take them in. And vice versa. We would fight, and cry, and spit at each other–and hope for a separation in living quarters as soon as possible: but we are still there for each other, inextricably connected until one of us dies and the other arrives to say inappropriate things at the funeral.
As much as I love my dogs, and it’s a lot, they are part of my household by choice. I expect mutual liking and respect. If that doesn’t happen, the household breaks up and I move them on to someone they can like and respect.
I don’t have that option with my sibling. We are stuck with each other, however little we like each other. If you watch DALLAS, it’s like that.
My dogs, though, are a voluntary relationship. Easier, often more fun, but always based on choice.
Katy says
Glad to hear Willie is doing better!
My dogs are definitely family. Growing up I always thought of the family dog as another sibling. Now that I’m adult, my mom refers to my dogs as her “grandpuppies” and as my kids. Although I don’t think of them as human children, the parent-child relationship is the closest I can think of to describe the relationship – not that of a small child and an adult but more like the relationship between an older child and adult. They depend on me for certain things but also have a fair amount of autonomy and responsibility. The way the dogs act around the human children actually rather reinforces that idea, since the dogs often act like little babysitters, walking between the smaller children and the swimming pool if no adult is nearby, getting an adult if the baby is crying, stepping between the children and unknown adults on the street, etc. As the children are getting older, the relationship there is clearly shifting, with the dogs becoming a little less watchful and protective.
liz says
Oh the gratitude that this post inspires!
Given this prompt to reflect on my relationship with my dogs, the rest of the world has quietly slowed.
There is a certain combination of things that defines closeness to me. Time spent together, collective memories, and a degree of intimate knowledge among the qualities of my family.
There are so many moments and emotions woven together across the years that to me, segments or phases of life can’t be separated from the dogs. The dogs mark eras somehow. At the very least they create their own phases by virtue of their development and physical health and the overlap that it has with everything else I do.
I’m not sure it makes much sense but in some way, albeit sometimes small ones, we have been shared a bit of everything by virtue of our eventual togetherness. In their dog-like bliss of limited comprehension of life’s complexity, they have an unparalleled ability to ground me. So refreshing.
There is also no substitute for knowing another day in and day out. The facial quirks, the habits, the outlook are part of what defines each of us. The stellar observers that they are, perhaps my dogs know me better than I know myself sometimes. And I feel so thoroughly blessed for the opportunity to observe and know them as well as I can. However we have managed it, I think both species have lucked out, and I am so grateful.
Linda Trunell says
Really enjoyed reading the post and all the comments. I think of my dog, Max, as family but not as a child. He is more of a partner, friend, and companion. I feel a sense of responsibility towards him as I did to my children when they were young. Now my daughter has her own family and I do not feel the same kind of responsibility for her – but of course she will always be my “child”. Max will always need me to care for him no matter how old he is. We spend most of our time together – more than I spend with my daughter because we live in different houses. I even take Max to work with me frequently since I am a dog trainer. A lot of my leisure time is spent walking with Max, grooming him, training, or playing games with him. When I am reading or writing or watching TV he is always nearby. He sleeps across the foot of my bed. He is very much my family and I really believe he loves me as much as I love him.
Daniel says
Definitely family to me. That said, I enjoy an extended family that can include genetic relations, love relations, friends, other species, and basically anyone who hangs around my house for a week or more.
For me it is a matter of attachment rather than blood relation.
Right now we are enjoying having an adoptee we named Georgie, he is a hoot, very bright Lab/Shepard (we think) now 22 months old. We have had him for 4 months. He has issues…lots of them, some reactive and he was really insecure.
It’s been a real joy to see a lot of his insecurities melting away, and he turns to us for the most part when faced with something stressful instead of his earlier reactivity. The attachment that is forming is very tangible and I think he sees us as his family. He has certainly joined ours.
gayle says
Rather than “family”, I think dogs identify, understand, and recognize DNA relationships….there was a calm in my (highly anxious) poodle when she met my mother and we went for walks together with kin.
Mary says
Yes, my dog is family. She is very much attached to me. I don’t have children, so in some ways I tend to think of her as my “baby” but I got her as a puppy, and she’s going to be 2 in October…so our relationship is evolving and I am trying hard to let her become more of my partner in crime. But by virtue of being the “provider” for her safety, care, and happiness, it’s hard to not be in a maternalistic role. She is always happiest near me. Of that I am sure.
Rose C says
I affectionately refer to my dogs to my co-workers as ‘my kids’ or as ‘my babies’ but do I really see them as my children? I wouldn’t know because I don’t have kids. I know in my mind how it is to have children but I do not know that by experience. What I see parents do and provide for their kids, I do and provide for my dogs and in that sense, I guess my dogs are my ‘kids’.
Do I treat them as ‘family’? I’ve always been a person who enjoys (and prefers) my ‘me time’ and don’t mind being away from my own family as I have for a very long time. It doesn’t mean that I don’t love them, but I’m quite fine as things are. Having said that, I love and enjoy and always want to be with my dogs. So does that mean I consider my dogs ‘family’ when I don’t mind being away from my own (human) ‘family’? What does the word ‘family’ really mean to me? The group of people I was born into? Or a group of individuals whose company I seek and is a source of joy and comfort to me? Now this I have given some thought: what if my family makes me choose between them and my dogs (even as a joke or a challenge question)? My answer to them will be, “Don’t make me answer that 🙂 “. For me, it will all be depending on the situation. If it’s a matter of life and death, I will put any human before any non-human animal though even then, I will make sure it is ‘easy and painless’ for the non-human animal (whatever it is the situation calls for). But, that will only happen if I run out of options and ideas on how to make things work for both. So another question here, “What are ‘animals’ or ‘non-human animals’ to me?”
Would I give my life for my dogs? Again, hard to say. It depends on the situation. I know I will save them with all my might if they are in life-threatening situations. But I don’t think I will give up my life for my dogs because when I’m gone, who would take care of them? I wouldn’t entrust their care to other people who may not always be kind and patient with them. What if those people eventually give them up and they end up in the shelter and we already know how those stories could possibly end. Here’s one thing I have said to myself (and really mean it). If I am ever diagnosed with a terminal illness and am not anymore able to care for my dogs or that I know that I am nearing my end, I will have them brought to sleep (yes, even if they are healthy vibrant dogs — the only exception is that if I am confident and 100% sure that I will be leaving them in the hands of a person who would love and care for and be committed to them 100%).
Really hard to tell exactly what my dogs are to me. I guess depending on who I am talking to and the context of why and how we are discussing it, I can describe my dogs either as my family, my children, a domesticated animal, an animal that I purchased to be my pet, an animal being, and so on. As bonded as I am to them and they are to me (and as outrageously in love I am with them), I always go back to the basic fact that we are both animal beings who happened to have come together and cohabitate within the same space, each side trying to understand and communicate with the other, each side benefiting from the existing relationship, all these while boggling the minds of humans (me included) trying to understand exactly what drives this unique human-dog relationship.
Bobbie says
I wonder what the outcome would be if instead of the owner, another dog from the home (pack mate) were present. I imagine for some dogs it would be comforting, but others not enough, but for this group selected for willingness and calmness, I wonder. Is it about the human or familiarity of the “pack”? Could a blanket or familiar toy fill-in for the living being?
Among my own dogs, the “manager” is a 12 year old female who can tell the difference when I go away for the day (work) and when I go to the mailbox (minutes). Once she knows I am outside gardening or mowing lawn or something, she will sit in the window and howl. That will start the others howling. Doesn’t go on for a long time but if just a mailbox run, when I come in and they “see” me, it stops instantly. That said, howling is a strange thing and they can do it for reasons all their own. And of course each is an individual with some more independent than others. I work hard to raise them (as I did my daughter) to be secure enough to be adaptive to changes. To be confident and explore opportunities–and that means they are okay when I am not nearby.
A good dog person could care for my dogs to keep them happy and secure, but I don’t do so well without them. Likely a function of their “good” early attachment versus my not so good experiences. Well how did we get here? :))
Lorelei says
My pets are very much part of my family, but not the same as my human kids. I do refer to them as my furkids, but it isn’t the same thing. But I don’t feel that it takes anything away from my human family to consider the animals part of it as well. It’s not like I love my kids less because I love my dogs, cats, or whatever other pets I have.
I do believe that the dogs consider me and the other humans as ‘family’ as well, though obviously not in a human manner. But I’ve seen Krissie turn to Koshka for comfort in stressful times, and vice versa, in addition to each of them coming to me, so that makes me feel like they consider us a family. I’ve experienced similar things with my cats as well, and seen them protect each other in times of (their perceived) danger.
I’m truly happy to hear that Willie is improving, and I hope he keeps doing so in leaps and bounds (just not any that hurt him). It’s hard when our precious companions have to deal with things like that.
KT says
Definitely family! But I don’t consider them to be surrogate children. And I feel so sorry for the dogs whose “parents” do not consider them to be family. Those are the ones banished to the backyard and given very little in the way of social interaction or affection. It’s so nice to hear others say they absolutely hate leaving their dogs. My husband is constantly trying to get me to travel and I just don’t want to go anywhere I can’t take Tucker. I think it’s a mutually beneficial relationship between dogs and us. We get to nurture and they get to nurture, albeit it in a totally different way than we do. Do they sense that need in us, maybe?
Trisha says
I’m loving the comments, and am especially struck by a comment that the biggest difference between our ‘real’ family and our dogs is that if a dog is miserable in our home, or we just truly don’t like it (it happens, we all know that), we can find it another home. (Which is the kindest of all possible things to do in that circumstance.) On the other hand, we can’t “rehome” a dysfunctional family member. Good point… maybe that’s partly why we love dogs so much? 🙂
Mary Maruszewski says
I always give my dogs a first and last name, because we are not related and I am not their mommy. They are definitely members of our family. We have often had non- related humans as family members. “Family” is what you make it.
Sam says
My dogs are definitely part of my family, and although I call them my “babies”, I don’t think of them as real babies/children. In fact, the most likely time for me to call Inka or Starr “my baby” is when they need comfort and show that they want me (“oh, come here my baby, mam’ll look after/protect/snuggle you”).
A Different Situation says
Hi Patricia. Thank you for your work; it has been invaluable to me and my dog.
I rescued my sweet pup from the local shelter as a ‘family’ replacement, and she has been exactly that; I suffer from PTSD, from childhood neglect and abuse, not having had any safety or support from my home environment. Nurturing instincts/expectations always wound up inside out, with help offered ending disastrously, and help asked going entirely unfulfilled. It’s very difficult for me to feel safe, relaxed, or unworried.
With my dog I have a ‘family’ that needs and wants my care, and offers unmitigated loyalty and affection in return. She looks to me for food, comfy beds, treats and toys, but mostly my presence to reassure her that she’s not alone. I look to her for peace, calm, and her simple joy of life, to reassure myself that I am not alone.
My dog is non-optional. My human relatives have been professionally prescribed as entirely optional, to the point of exclusion if they don’t take the “act like a decent human being” option.
So in some situations, dogs can be more than family. There are tons of videos out there, showing dogs with their soldiers returning home, displaying what I can only describe as ecstatic love. The sheer number of veterans who have been, in their own words, brought back to life by their service dogs should prove that a canine is a special family member, deserving of their own unique place.
Chris says
I feel like my dogs (2 golden retrievers, ages 2 + 8) and I are a “tribe” or a “pack”. We seldom go places without the other 2 and we expect to live together until we die. Human children, on the other hand, (I have 2) were helpless at first, then, as they grew, became more independent, the final point (at least in our culture) being to move away and have their own independent lives. My dogs are my constant companions and all three of us seem to enjoy the same things: walking on the beach and trails, training, playing agility or just watching them run and interact. They, in their turn, are always within sight and always pleased to receive a pet or just a word and a touch in passing. We often go on vacation together and people are always surprised about that; they think that I’m missing something–I think they are, lol! I am somewhat of an introvert and find that interacting with dogs is much less stressful than with humans (my work gives me plenty of human contact) but I only have a few friends and family that I enjoy hanging out with–and my dogs come too, usually. I’d say I’m as dependent on my dogs as they are on me, perhaps in slightly different ways, but certainly for the sweet companionship of lives lived and shared together. They are irreplaceable in my life, especially as I age.
LK says
Great to hear that Willie is on the mend!
I share your dislike of having to leave my dog. I have to go on a family ‘vacation’ and am quite vexed that it isn’t possible to include her. I’ve put vacation in quotes because it truly won’t be much of a vacation for me. I will be thinking of my girl and wishing she were with me – my separation anxiety. Yes, she will be getting absolutely stellar care and I know I have nothing to worry about… and I will miss her.
Sweep is definitely family and not my “child” although I love her like a child. We are a team. She is my right paw. We work together and rely on each other. As you have said, it is hard work to herd sheep if you are human. I rely on her to tell me when there are coyotes or other wildlife “out there” where I, with my limited human senses, might not otherwise notice them. She tells me by her body language which is subtly different when she detects coyotes as opposed to other wildlife (bear or cougar). The single low wuff! that is almost more of a rumble is my clue to look where her nose is pointed. That nose is amazing! We hang together too. When I am engaged in some indoor activity she is never far from me – following me about or napping on her mat near the foot of the stairs (she dragged the mat to this preferred spot.) or beside my desk when I am on the computer. Whenever I have to go where she cannot go with me, I find her waiting on that mat at the base of the stairs. Other family members tell me that she takes up this station and remains there, watching the door, until I return. When I open the door she trots toward me and begins her happy circling dance. She performs this ritual regardless of whether I have been gone 5 minutes or 5 hours. I don’t know what I have done to deserve a friend like this!
Aurora says
My dog is definitely family, but she’s not my child. She’s my dog. Analogies are interesting and useful, but at the end of the day, my relationship to canine family members is unique. That’s why I want it and no human relationship can take it’s place. I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with the “pet-parent” formulation, not because it makes too much of the relationship, but it seems to obscure that uniqueness. Also because, paedomorphic or not, dogs are still adults for most of their lives. Of course, taking care of bogs certainly taps into some parenting instincts, but I’ve always been a little uncomfortable letting that aspect take center stage.
My current dog, Spring, (first dog who lives with me since I stopped living with my parents), is just eight months old. She’s part of a litter my mother bred and I helped raise until they were old enough to move on to their new homes. For me, that both highlighted the parent/child aspects of our relationship and put a real limit on it. I know her mother and one of her brothers, and even though she’s much more bonded to me now than to either of them at this point, in my mind, JoJo will always be her Mommy. I’m one of her humans, her people, her “Aurora.” At the same time, I remember rocking her and feeling her still and sleep, marveling that this thing that was instinctual to me had the same effect on this canine baby as it would have (hopefully) on a human one. And now, when she gets nervous or frightened she asks to be picked up and held. At those times, when she is needy and those instinctual human responses comfort her, I do think of her as my “baby.” I’ve thought of some of my family dogs that way too, especially Briar, the English Setter, who was much more emotionally dependent and needy than our family’s usual samoyeds. But Briar, like all of them, was an adult too, with his areas of independence and bringing his own unique, distinctly nonhuman skills and abilities to our relationship.
triangle says
Once again I can only speak to my relationship with my cats. The most important I feel I can offer is that my relationship and way of viewing my cats is not the same between individuals. Just as my relationships with various family members is not the same. I have family members I positively loathe, and others I adore.
My cat Nic, who passed away years ago after a long battle with kidney failure, was a partner. Our communication was flawless and I always felt that he was teaching me more than I taught him. He was diagnosed with CRF at the unbearably young age of seven and survived to fourteen (most likely due to daily SQ fluids for those seven years.) Knowing there was a death sentence over his head made my love feel hard-edged and fierce. I loved him intensely because I knew our time was limited. He was my family, but in the way a very close friend becomes family. I felt no ownership of him.
I don’t feel the same attachment to Robin, the cat we adopted after Nic passed. She’s funny and goofy, but harder to know in a way. After seven years, she’s only just started spending the night in my room and when I look into her eyes, I don’t sense the same connection. This doesn’t mean I feel my responsibility to her any less keenly, though. One thing I believe strongly is that animals don’t need as to ‘love’ them nearly as much as they need us to be responsible. Love comes easy, but responsibility requires actions and sacrifice. She’s still my family, but more like a beloved aunt or cousin.
Jonas…Jonas is my child. Perhaps because he was so very sick when he came to me and needed so much care. I feel a terrible, lovely ache in my heart when I look at him. If my love for Nic was hard-edged, my love for Jonas is soft and melting (though no less fierce.) If I could give up one of my own eyes to restore his sight, I would do in a heartbeat. I feel ownership, but as a parent does…he’s mine, but he’s also utterly his own. I feel pride when he struts his stuff and sick when he suffers. I’m honestly a little frightened of what will happen when he dies (which will hopefully be a long time from now.) There’s a song lyric that goes “where you invest your love, you invest your life.” That pretty much sums it up. He’s absolutely my family because he’s my *kid*, and my love for him is maternal and absolute.
I will say that these paternal feelings many have for their pets can be less than favorable for the animals. Jonas at eight is not the same as Jonas at 8 weeks. He’s still my child, but in the same way a grown adult is always their parent’s baby. That doesn’t mean I treat him as if he were still a kitten (and it drives me nuts when his ‘grandmother’ does just that and refuses to allow him to do simple things like jump down from a table). I think that’s less of a problem with cats, but with dogs viewing them as literal ‘children’ often means interfering with their growth. It means not letting them take responsibility for their own actions (in other words, failing to train them to get along in wider society) and not taking warning signs of problems seriously because “he’d *never* hurt anyone!” As the post says, you can view them as a family member while still viewing them as the animals they are. You can also view them as your babies with still recognizing when they’ve become adults.
Anne says
Have you read the article
“Dogs See In Color, Not Black & White; What This Means For Pet Owners” ?
http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/17542/20130718/dogs-see-color-black-white-what-means.htm
Isn’t it just as likely that the dogs found the food by smell?
Kendra says
What an interesting study! I was wondering the other day if someone had ever looked into doing something similar to the attachment tests with dogs instead of infants, and I’m glad to see that they have!
I would definitely consider my dog and I to form a sort of “family” – separate from my actual blood related family, though he certainly has his own place among my other family members as well (especially since he lives with my parents, sister, and their dogs/cats as well as myself). Maybe what I’m trying to say is that he and I form a sort of team?
@ Emily: I really like your thought about domesticated species being able to bond to other species! However, I’m not sure if it’s exclusively in domesticated species – perhaps it is more prominent in them though?
I was watching a National Geographic about an African Wild Dog (they called her Solo) who formed a sort of alliance/friendship with a hyena, which was pretty amazing since hyenas are so much bigger than African Wild Dogs and it would seem much more likely for the hyena to want to eat her than align itself with her. Eventually, Solo parted ways with the hyena and aligned herself with/adopted a family of jackals. The pups didn’t seem to care at all that she was an African Wild Dog, and after some time and defending the pups from harm, even the jackal parents came to accept her. It was really a remarkable show to watch, and I would certainly say that the jackals and Solo would consider themselves “family” despite being different species.
ABandMM says
I admit to introducing my dog as “My girl Abby”, and she is my parent’s beloved “grand-dog-ter” (as evidence by my Dad giving her extra meat from the table during dinner tonight and dog-sitting for me when I need to go out of town). Because I am horrible at remembering human names, I do refer to people as “Fido’s Mom”, “Rover’s Dad”, and I am informally known as “Abby’s Mom”. Sometimes it is just easier that way and it is with people who also consider their dogs “family” and being a “dog-mom, dog-dad’ represents the care-taking responsibilities we have undertaken.
As someone who lives alone with my dog and who is an introvert, my dog is definitely family, part of my small inner circle of people and animals that I want part of my life. I am very fortunate that my human family accepts her too. I know she is not a child or child substitute. I like the “Partner in Crime” description. I enjoy her company; I like that she gives me a reason to get out and about and go to dog-friendly places and try different dog activities. However, she will always be “my girl” and I will do my best to provide a stimulating life for her in exchange for her unconditional love and companionship.
Pike says
Hahaha- earlier today I thought about washing the windows tomorrow morning as we, too, need rain 🙂
I am very glad that Willie is on the mend!
As for the critters, they are certainly part of my family in the sense of us loving each other and living together. As family members they cover a whole wide spectrum:
In certain areas they are dependent like children (opening the fridge, crossing the road), in others we are partners (hiking, hanging out), then again they are my teachers (patience, acceptance), or superiors (using that nose, finding the way home). I find that some of the greatest joys of living with them, are the ever changing roles that we find us in. Endlessly fascinating…
Tekopp says
I refer to my dog as “my girl” not “my baby”. Our lives are bound together, and she’s a definitly a part of my family unit.
My parents dog, ten years old now, is reffered to as her uncle. They don’t seem to like each other particularly, but if threathened by outsiders, they stand togheter (both dogs). As parts of the same extended family would if outsiders threaten.
As someone else said, calling them children is diminishing their special place in our family and home. They are dogs, and individuals, and we love them for it.
Frances says
As an aside on the research into attachment, a BBC programme recently repeated it for cats. The cats in the experiment showed little difference in behaviour when their owner was/was not in the room, which the programme makers took to mean that, unlike dogs and children, cats do not “love” their humans. Which begged so many questions I nearly switched off! It does perhaps underline the difference in dependency between dogs and cats though – these were all indoor/outdoor cats, used to having the freedom to roam an outdoor territory.
Miki says
Growing up we always have had dogs with us. My grandmother raised poodles and rescued & rehomed stray dogs. I tended them and enjoyed them, but never felt a true affinity until much later in my life that one special dog found me after having been physically, mentally, and emotionally stripped of sanity and normality by an illness for over a year and continuing to decline I resolved to die. Until I met a six month old pitbull terrier who was being rehomed because he was too aggressive. His spunkiness turned into medicine and motivation for my healing and return to life.
Do I think of him as a child? No, more a champion a companion. A partner. He has now gone on to the Rainbow Bridge, but another dog “found” me while I was volunteering at my local animal shelter, he is now 4 yrs. And I hope we have many more together
thought I know sadly their life cycles are shorter than ours, thus now in my mind most precious and to be valued highly.
I do love my family, and must confess that I consider my dog as my adopted “fur-child” not over or above but an integral part and personage who will leave a great space in my heart when they are gone from this world.
Rose C says
Anne,
I read a different version discussing this study and I said the same thing to myself. In the first version I read, it was said that the dogs were to “make a choice between boxes concealing food. The boxes were each marked with a colored paper, and the dog had to learn which one indicated a piece of meat was inside.” The second part made me think that there was only one box with a piece of meat inside. So then I thought just like you did, I’m sure the dogs would still have chosen the correct box with the piece of meat inside even if the box was marked with a red or a green colored paper 🙂
But . . . the link that you shared above gives a different version discussing the study. In your link above, it says that all the boxes have meat inside and were each labeled with either dark or light yellow or dark or light blue colored paper. Only one box was unlocked (i.e., the meat was accessible) and that box was labeled dark yellow. The dogs learned that the ‘DARK YELLOW’ paper coordinated with the box with accessible food. The researchers then changed the label of the unlocked box to either dark blue or light yellow. If the dogs chose the box marked with dark blue, the dogs could be making the choice based on the paper being ‘dark’ (i.e., the brightness quality of the colored paper). If the dogs chose the box marked with light yellow, the dogs could be making the choice based on the paper being ‘yellow’ (i.e., the color qulaity of the colored paper). This version made me see what the researchers were actually trying to do.
*Please excuse the ‘all caps’, I just did that to use it as a reference point.
Kat says
This discussion is shedding light on something I constantly struggle with. I never know how to refer to the relationship between a dog and the person/people the dog lives with. Saying I saw the dog and his/her owners seems to devalue the relationship reducing the dog to mere property. Saying I say the dog and his/her parents is equally devaluing to me emphasizing the single dependent aspect of the relationship. I usually default to the description I saw the dog and his person/people today. S/he is their dog and they are her/his people is the formulation I’m most comfortable with.
I am definitely Ranger’s person but also his handler, his partner, his chauffeur, and his interpreter (although in all honesty I don’t have to do that very often he’s a genius at communicating with humans). I am his person, he is my dog and we belong together as a unit.
Roberta says
Part of the family, yes; children, no. Some dogs see ME first (Louie RIP, Penney RIP, and now Justus and Annie); others see THEM with ME – mostly the rescues…then they bond: Little Jumper (picture a Beagle featured Puggle), took some time to acclimate, then, a few moments ago, jumped into my lap as I sit in front of the computer and has become more vocal at meal times and separation; so ready for his home but clearly comfortable in mine.
Bonnie H. says
I’ve always considered my dogs as ‘family’. I do refer to them as my kidz (with a z), but I don’t see them as my children.
Saw this on Facebook today, thought it was pretty good (and close to what we’re all discussing):
“Family isn’t always blood. It’s the people in your life who want you in theirs; the ones who accept you for who you are. The ones who would do anything to see you smile and who love you no matter what.”
Only in this case, substitute ‘dogs’ for ‘people’.
Kim says
My dogs and cats are my family. Some I have more of a bond with than others, but all of them are family to both myself and my husband. I would love to know how they pick their special person though, that has always made me wonder 🙂
TC Hull says
My dogs are rescues. I have a Husky and a Basset Hound. My husband and I refer to each other (to the dogs) as Mom and Dad. My basset especially, needs the “attachment”, especially to me. They are so much part of my family. My son is grown and lives in Texas, has his own family, so the dogs are our child replacements so to speak. I feel they know they are part of my family. They do have feelings, they are happy, they mourn, they know when I am down and try to cheer me up. We as humans do not always give them credit for what they do feel and are able to discern about us. My basset is actually psychic, she finds things for me. It’s spooky! I had another dog that would find things, all I had to do was picture it in my mind and he would come to me with it a few minutes later. My basset is not quite that good yet, but she’s getting there.
JJ says
For me, the term “family” fails to fit, just like it’s a failure calling myself Duke’s “mom”. HOWEVER, I can find no words that do fit. I’ve tried. And tried. And tried. These words of “family” and “parent” come as close as the English language seems able to get to the crux of the matter. Can we make up some new words?
What Trisha’s post started that was new for me was trying to answer the question: Why doesn’t “family” quite work for me? And then the real question: “What *is* ‘family’?” I’m still struggling to come up with a definition of family that I like. If I had a definition of family that worked for me, then I would know whether my dog was part of my “family” or not. But if he isn’t part of my family, then once again, I am without a word to use and would probably have to use “family” as it would probably still be the closest word available.
I can say that I know one aspect of why “family” doesn’t fully work for me. It’s because it is too general. Parents,siblings,children,uncles,aunts,grandparents, etc. are all part of someone’s family. But those words/relationships are specific descriptions within the term “family.” If “family” is all I can use to describe the relationship between me and my dog, it still begs the question of what our specific relationship is. I want to call Duke part of my family, but also have a word that defines the unique relationship between a loving, educated human and her/his dog.
Why on early would I use “mom” to describe myself if I can’t even commit to the term “family” without a ton of discussion? Because I can easily define why “mom”/”parent” come close to working. There are a bazillion parallels between the parent/child relationship and the human/dog relationship. People have listed many of them above, so I won’t repeat the list. When I “do the math”, I find that there are far more similarities than differences when it comes to defining the relationship between adult humans and their child or dog dependents. That doesn’t mean that I think of my dog as a human child. What it means is that I recognize that my roles and responsibilities and challenges and joys are generally the same or close enough as to make no never mind. Not completely the same. Just a huge overlap.
Because it seems to help other people to begin to understand my relationship with my dog, I do often refer to Duke as my “family”. And many people seem to both respect and agree with the term. AND YET (yes, I’m shouting!), our society as a whole has not truly embraced this concept. I can’t tell you how much it bothers me that my co-workers can take sick leave when their kids get sick, but I have to take vacation leave when my dog gets sick. When my dog dies, my co-workers might sign a group sympathy card, but I won’t get to take any bereavement leave. Etc. It’s patently unfair and shows that our society does not truly understand the relationship involved. For example, when my dog dies, I will be as unable to focus at work and my world will be as turned upside down, as when a human member of my family dies. But this is not recognized.
One more thought: While I do occasionally refer to myself as Duke’s “mom”, (where I think the quotes when I say or write it), I rarely refer to Duke as my “kid” or “baby”. That just doesn’t feel right. And yet as I said, the parallels in healthy relationships between human/child and human/dog are huge. So, why would I refer to myself as Duke’s “mom”, but refer to Duke as “my dog”, not “my baby”? I don’t have the words to answer that right now. And in another twist: While I almost never refer to Duke as my “kid”, I do refer to Duke as my parents’ “granddog”. I think because it has the term “dog” in it, it works better for me.
Kat says
When we adopted Ranger we actually discussed what ‘name’ he should know my husband and me as–go to ____________. The kids were easy, he’d know them by their names. In the end we decided that since he would most often hear us referred to as Mom and Dad thanks to the children that would be his ‘name’ for us as well. In some ways it does put him on a parallel plane with the children–I’m “Mom” to all of them. I continue to struggle with a way to define my relationship with my dog(s). I only describe myself as their mom in jest, more often I say I’m their person. But in most ways I think the relationship is more like that of the dog(s) being like one of my limbs; they are as much a part of me as an arm or a leg and their absence feels like an amputation. Yet at the same time they are independent creatures that choose to be part of me. Words continue to fail.
Rose C says
TC Hull, with your previous dog, did you or did you ever thought of picturing a million bucks in your head? 🙂
Frances says
Very interesting – especially the way so many of us struggle to find a word that describes the relationship we have with our dogs. In UK law, I am my dogs’ owner, and legally responsible for any damage they cause. Parents and guardians of young children, on the other hand, are not (in England and Wales) – the only redress is to bring a civil case proving that damage occurred because of parental negligence. Nor are owners of cats – cats are classified as wild animals under the Act! Animal Welfare legislation refers to Owners and Keepers (and its coverage is similar in many ways to legislation about the welfare of children).
The definitions for “family” have changed over the years. Its earliest use was more analogous to our Household – a group of people living together under one roof, including relatives, servants, apprentices and other dependents. At it’s widest it can embrace a whole clan; at its narrowest the nuclear family of parents and children. My niece considers the friends with whom she shares a house to be family – my nephew, who also shares a house, sees his co-residents as transient acquaintances!
If I try to analyse my relationship with my dogs, I would say it is one based on mutual affection and respect, and mutual dependency – but one where the dependency is skewed. My dogs would be unlikely to survive without a human to feed them and – in Poppy’s case – to groom them, and they also depend upon me for opportunities for safe exercise and play, for shelter, and to guide them through the weird conventions of a world governed by human rules. Unlike most children, that dependency will increase as they get older, rather than be replaced by growing independence. I am legally and morally responsible for their welfare and behaviour, but also believe I am morally responsible for their happiness. And I will try to ensure that happiness even at the expense of my own content – which may be as good a definition of love as any other!
Rose C says
I myself like the ‘partner in crime’ reference. I also like and forgot that I am their ‘chauffer’.
Frances, glad you mentioned how dogs are seen by the law. I was about to point out the same thing.
JJ, I understand what you’re saying about not being given the benefit of using sick time or bereavement leave for our dogs despite them being our ‘family’. Truth is, our dogs are still considered ‘animals’ and not ‘families’ by law. Actually, in the US, they are considered property. We have heard of instances where a couple gets a divorce and both sides are fighting to keep the dog. The judge rules as to who was the original owner of the dog, or who mainly provides for the dog, etc. No such thing as ‘joint custody’ or ‘visitation rights’ and the likes. One of my co-worker’s dog collapsed and was rushed to the hospital and our manager let her go home. Of course, that was without using benefit hours but she was just grateful to be allowed to leave work in the middle of the day. Chances are, many of our co-workers have dogs and they do understand so they might accommodate things like these if they ever happen to us. But I would be hesitant to push it as far as expecting employers to give dog owners sick or bereavement benefit time for their canine family members because if they do, who knows what another person would come up with saying something (can’t think of an example right now but something quite trivial) is ‘family’ to him or her and should be given the same benefits as what ‘canine family members’ were given. There would have to be a clear distinction of what is defined as family and not just what we consider as family.
Frances says
(I should perhaps add that I love my dogs fiercely and completely, and will do so while there is breath in my body, and if possible beyond even that. And heaven help anyone who tries to harm them, or to part us! I was trying to be analytical in the last post, but it didn’t last beyond looking down to see them sprawled softly and sleepily at my feet…)
Marjorie says
I have to say I’m amazed by my dogs everyday. I do consider them family and I’m aware that they are not children, in that I cannot confuse them with or expect them to act/be like children (even though sometimes they do). However, there are many similarities in regards to children when it comes to my responsibility for their care and well being. I’m not surprised by the above study. We live in a world where the definiton of family has undergone many changes. I feel that now we as what I hope to be evolving, conscious expaning individuals are also expanding the family definition to include our meaningful relationships with other species. Family is becoming more about the nature and quality of relationship rather than actual blood ties.
Now, how about some news on Tootsie 🙂
jackied says
I have dogs and kids. The dogs are part of the family, but you are right, they aren’t children and I don’t think of them in the same way. Adult dogs are more independant than tiny children yet more dependant than older children.
Maybe we have co-evolved with dogs for so long that we have a ready made dog-slot in our definition of family! Humans do seem to have a very strong instinct to look after and tend non-human things dogs, goldfish, dahlias, classic cars…
Robin Jackson says
@RoseC,
You are absolutely right that dogs are considered property under the law in all US jurisdictions. However, just in the last few years, divorce court judges in the US have begun to consider dogs specifically as in a unique situation. There have been multiple real world cases where judges have taken into account the best interests of the dog (as they do with children). And even a few cases where courts have awarded visitation or the equivalent of joint custody. This is an evolving area of law.
http://www.animallaw.info/topics/tabbed%20topic%20page/spuspetcustodyindivorce.htm
JJ says
Rose: That dogs (or cats or ferrets or horses or cows etc) are not properly recognized by the law was exactly my point. Many people give lip service to saying that dogs are family, but our society does not follow up on that concept to the logical conclusions. (The animal food industry would have to desperately fight such laws.) No one should have to feel grateful just because they “get” to see to the emergency medical needs of their dog. It should be as big a right as seeing to the emergency medical needs of one’s kid. (I hope your co-worker’s dog was OK in the end.)
On the bright side: Readers may want to note that at least one area of the law has evolved some in some States. Because living creatures are thought of as (ugh) property, you could not normally set up a trust account for your pets when you die. However, some States have set up laws so that you CAN set up trust accounts for your pets. Oregon is one such State. I know so because I recently wrote my will and put in a generic trust for any non-human dependents who are around after I die. I can’t do that for my couch. I can only do it for a living being. So, the law (our society) is somewhat evolved in this area / beginning to recognize the difference between inanimate objects and living creatures. However, I believe that if I had not written my will, then my dog would still be treated as property. So, I encourage everyone with dependents (human and otherwise) to write their will.
I don’t share your concern about having employers respect family needs even if the family consists of our dogs. However, I’m sure you are not alone in such concerns. That’s one of the reasons that I strongly support getting rid of the old separate “vacation” and “sick” pools of leave time. If there is just one “leave” pool/account for each employee, then everyone can use that leave for those purposes that matter to them. We don’t have to judge or elevate some people’s choices over others. If I decide my dog is worth my leave time, that’s no skin off anyone else’s nose, and I don’t get penalized for my choice of family members. If someone else wants to use the time to take their kid to the doctor or their best friend in the world for a colonoscopy (sp?), good for them. I won’t judge.
I know that some employers have already set up single pools for leave time. I just wish more employers did so and that our society took similar logical and humane steps in other areas of the law.
Margaret McLaughlin says
Actually some employers do “get it”. Years ago, when Moggie, my first cat, died, I called our head nurse, told her what had happened, & said that I had been planning to come in but just couldn’t. I expected an ‘unexcused notified absence’. A couple of weeds later, when I got the absence slip, it said “excused. Death in family.” Since then, the policies have been formalized more, but I know of other employees who have been given bereavement leave when their animals died. I think this is (informally) at the discretion of the scheduling nurse.
The only real discrimination I feel is that I can’t claim them as dependents on my income tax or include them on my insurance. And no FMLA, either.
Margaret McLaughlin says
@JJ–Your comment had not been posted when I submitted mine. My employer has one pool of Paid Time Off, for vacation, illness, or family illness. Bereavement leave is separate, & does not draw from the PTO pool. You can give your true reason–I have–when electing to stay home with a sick family member of any species; the receptionist who took the call snarked a bit, but HR accepted it.
I could not agree more that our society & its laws needs a category in between “property” & “human”.
Nic1 says
Trisha – so happy to hear that Willie is on the mend! Yaaaay!
@Frances
I love your post!
It sums up how I feel about being fortunate to share my life with a dog. I think you got a BIG oxytocin boost writing that post and then watching your dogs lay at your feet. 🙂
Nic1 says
I would aspire to be my dog’s official oxytocin booster btw. She is without doubt mine…..
Rose C says
JJ and Margaret, I agree that having one pool of Paid Time Off for vacation, illness, and family illness allows an employee to use these benefits to attend to personal situations that may not been traditionally recognized by employers. Of course that varies by employer so exactly how these hours are given out to be utilized by employees still may or may not work for (or satisfy) everyone. But like JJ said, if there is some policy or something definite in effect, then we can use such benefits without feeling we have to explain ourselves and our situation in details. As in Margaret’s experience, the receptionist who snarked at her reason was reacting out of her own opinion while HR’s response was based because there is a policy that is in effect.
JJ, when I said that my co-worker was just grateful to be sent home for her dog’s medical emergency, that is considering that the nature of our workplace is such that we cannot easily downstaff in a moment’s notice because this could cause patient safety issues (though we do realize that a person who is distraught about something will not be able to function either). It is not a workplace situation where we can say we have an emergency and will finish our work tomorrow. Being allowed to go home and us, her co-workers, jumping in to cover for her patient assignment is actually a big deal. I guess, just like everything else, it is very situational and depends on where a person is coming from. What one may expect as her right based from one’s own situation, another person will see and consider it as a favor. By the way, my co-worker’s dog was in critical care for some days, went home for about a week but her symptoms came back and she eventually passed.
I am curious about this generic trust fund for non-human dependents and wonder how that works. I personally, as I mentioned in my previous comment, would rather choose to bring my dogs to rest than leave them if I die. The immediate family members I have remaining do not particularly love dogs so they are definitely not the people I want to leave my dogs with. As far as a trust fund, it would cover for the expenses of taking care of them but it will still not give me peace to know whether the people looking after them will be patient and kind to them when they become arthritic and blind and incontinent. I’d rather see them asleep and be at peace knowing that they are safe. My thoughts on this is that all dogs go to heaven anyway. Plus I work in an environment where d**th (not sure if it’s okay to use the word in this context) is a reality and my perception of it, in certain situations, is more positive than negative.
Rose C says
a workplace environment where d**th is an everyday reality, I should say.
JJ says
Rose : re: “I am curious about this generic trust fund for non-human dependents and wonder how that works.”
You can set it up any way you want. I set mine up this way (with all the legal wording that the lawyer did for me): I did not specify a particular person to take the depends. Instead, I specified that the courts (or whoever does the will stuff) find a guardian for my pets who want to provide all of the following in the same manner that I do: food, shelter, medical costs, mental stimulation, physical exercise, toys, emotional support, choices, daily routine as much as possible etc. It’s all spelled out, with proper wiggle room for a different lifestyle of the new human.
I don’t assume that the new guardian will be a family member. There are lots of good loving homes out there. And even though I have loving family members who are great pet people, they may not be able to take in a new dependent when the time comes. So, I allow the executor of the will to find someone who is appropriate (though I do give my mom first dibs if she is willing and able).
The formula I use for money to put into the trust goes something like this: Take number of years expected for the remaining life of each dependent(s) times an annual dollar amount that I specified that would be applied for each dependent. I was generous in my dollar amount, taking into account not just food, medical, treats and toys, but also things like training classes and trips to the beach, etc.
———————
I’ve been thinking about what *I think* you are saying about what you want after you die: that you want your dogs killed. I see no difference between you doing that and a human parent who kills her/his kids before killing her/himself. Or the old kings who had their wives and servants killed when they died. You are not alone in those feelings/desires and I surprised myself by understanding them when I gave it some serious thought. People still do such things today. However, such practices are usually considered wrong by modern human societies.
That sort of thought/practice assumes that a) the other people being killed don’t deserve or want a life after yours, and b) that the other people do not have an inherent right to live after you, and c) that they won’t be or can’t find happiness without you–even if you make provisions to provide for it, and d) since everyone dies anyway, it doesn’t matter if you make it happen early. (Why is murder bad? Everyone dies eventually.)
re: “I’d rather see them asleep…” Death is not sleep. Death is the absence of suffering, and thus sometimes death is a blessing. But death is also the absence of all joy, breathing, thinking, happiness, growth, contentment, humor, running, sleeping, peace, sniffing, chewing, stretching, barking, connecting, wagging, life. Early death of a person who still finds that the pros outweighs the cons is most decidedly not a blessing.
Life is not a guarantee of anything. Life is uncertain and contains various amounts of pain. And life is full of twists. How often does something seem bad at the time, but later you look back and see how it was for the best or made your life even better? You don’t know what will happen after you die. For all you know, your pets could end up happier. It takes courage to live with all that uncertainty. Why deny that experience of courage and potential to your dependents? How could you know for a fact that your pets would end up in a bad way?
Deciding to kill an animal just because it will make *you* feel peace right now is treating that animal like property instead of a sentient creature with her/his own thoughts, feelings, and deep desire to live. No matter how positive one feels about death (a general belief which I believe I share with you), your desire to kill your healthy dependents early just because *you* die seems deeply wrong to me. And yet, because we live in a society that usually treats non-human animals as property instead of “family”, I’m sure you could write that into your will and no one could stop it. It is your choice. And since you and your pets are still alive, it is still your choice…
Robin Jackson says
Pet trusts are becoming quite common, with most states now allowing them. They can even be set up to take effect if you become incapacitated rather than actually dying. You should consult a local attorney to make sure your state’s requirements are met. Another alternative is a Pet Protection Agreement.
http://www.legalzoom.com/planning-your-estate/estate-planning-basics/protect-your-prized-pet-create
The basic truth about life is that it’s unpredictable. If you die in an accident, there will be no time to create a
care plan for your pets. So planning ahead for your dog’s care when you are no longer there makes sense.
Frances says
JJ – thanks for setting out so eloquently my own thoughts about having healthy animals killed to save them from possible risk after one’s own death. I know my dogs – and cats – would miss me; equally, I know that within a few weeks they would throw themselves into a new life with someone else who loved them, even if that life were different in many ways to the one that I give them. Perhaps I am fortunate that the dogs are small, pretty, and well trained – and therefore not exactly difficult to place if it ever came to that, and the cats have a wide circle of friends who would compete to take them in. But for me there is comfort in knowing that when I die my dogs will still play in the sunshine, bark at the postman, and expect treats at 8pm on the dot, and that my cats will always have a warm lap and a place by the fire…
Kat says
It’s always so interesting the twists and turns that these discussions take. Re: the euthanizing of healthy dogs upon the death of their human conversation. I look at my two dogs and my two cats and Ranger and both cats should definitely be allowed to live out their lives as long as those may be regardless of my life or death. Finna on the other hand is a profoundly damaged dog with a bite history; her chances of being successfully placed in another home are slim and her dependence on me at this point in her life is such that if I were dead I think she’d choose to die also if she were capable of that degree of reasoning. I won’t write it into my will that she be euthanized upon my death, however. What’s true today may not be the case if the time comes. I choose the executor of my will with great care and intend to trust that person’s judgement should it come to that.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that not all furred, feathered, or finned dependents are the same. For some of them continued life without their person might not be the best choice. For Finna right now I don’t think it would be the best choice but I’m hopeful that I have many more years to work with her and that should the question arise she’ll be a different/better/rehabilitated dog by then.
Rose c says
JJ, thanks for taking time to post your response. I appreciate it, though I feel you might have taken what I said much way out of context. I’d say we simply have different perspectives and without knowing the details of the surrounding circumstances, it may be hard to understand how and why the other person comes up with his/her decisions (regardless of the subject). Let’s agree to leave it at that so as not to further weigh down the tone of the blogpost. Thanks for the info on the will and trust fund for non-human dependents. Robin, you are right in saying that we must plan ahead for our pets in the event that we end up in a situation where we cannot express our wishes. And thanks for the info on divorce court laws regarding custody and visitations. I didn’t know about that either.
jackied says
I’m with you, Kat. One of my dogs is happy, healthy and uncomplicated, and I would have no hesitation in her being rehomed in the event of my death. The other has a bite history and very long term behavioural problems. I’d rather see him go peacefully straight away than end up stressed out in a new home, hurting somebody and being put down anyway. (Of course there are some wonderful experienced dog people who could do a better job with him than I can myself – but they’re already up to their ears in damaged dogs.)
Katrina Anderson says
I always thought that it would be a bit insulting to think of all my dogs as “children.” Insulting to them, I mean. We are an interspecies family, no different in my mind than any other “non-traditional” family group.
I’ve been adopting dogs for my adult life, and they are the equivalent, in my home, of foreign exchange students, hailing from another culture. I commit to opening my life and my house up to them whenever I have room. They definitely “speak” a different language than mine, and bring different cultural traditions from “foreign” origins, but the dog and I must both commit to learning each other’s language, dialects, and ways.
My job, as their “host” and “surrogate parent,” is to protect and provide for them, helping them integrate appropriately into our culture, in order to learn about our world. They live under my roof, so they must learn my house rules, and what is expected of them. They must also learn to be respectful of my husband and me, and our world– as we are to them.
Simultaneously, I gain marvelous knowledge and understanding from their ways and language– becoming more and more fluent with each experience . Every adoption/exchange is definitely different, and never easy, but there are common, universal threads in each dog, just like in us. Being a foreign exchange sponsor requires commitment AND a good sense of humor. Slip-ups in communication are always cropping up, but that’s all they are: Slip-ups in communication.
The dogs participate in many, many things that we do (including vacations)– just as children would– and I, too, love accompanying them out into “their world,” seeing through their eyes– so much to learn!
Of course, there will always come a time when each beloved “student” must return to their home, in the guise of death. I like to believe that they take what they learned from us back to their kind, and I am certain that everything that I learn from each cherished student will be integrated into the next one. Each 4-legged being will become part of the legacy of our ancestors, guiding and accompanying us and each new family member.
Corny? Maybe. But really, like all other species, they’re just different than us– neither less nor more. The love is just as strong as it is with our own kind, but, indeed, what an extraordinary opportunity to be able to learn about other cultures in our own living room, too!
~&:)
Rose C says
Katrina A,
Agreed to everything. And no, not corny at all.
Claudia says
I am clearly a miserable failure from a Darwinian point of view. I have always wanted to care for and nurture members of other species, from newts to muskoxen, and have loved none more than my dogs. Juveniles of my own species, on the other hand, I find unattractive and I avoid them when I can. I think I was born that way. When I was about 4 years old, so goes family lore, they gave me a live-size doll in a crib for Xmas. Allegedly, I grabbed the doll by the hair and flung it into a corner, never to look at it again, and then lovingly arranged all my stuffed animals in the crib. I know I’m not the only mutation out there, as I have met other women whose mothering instincts were strong but aimed at a species other than their own. I do wonder what that tells us about human evolution. There must have been a strong selective advantage for loving and nurturing animals at some points in our history.
Authentic Joe Flacco Women's Youth Mens Jersey says
Dogs As Family, People as Packs » TheOtherEndoftheLeash
Dave says
My humble opinion?
Not speaking as a guy that loves dogs… this is the scientist in me speaking.
This model makes sense. The old, traditional, and now largely discredited model of everything a dog does is food motivation… just doesn’t hold water.
When you add in some other odd things about dogs, many of which coming our way from Anthropology, like physical evidence pushing dog domestication back to at least 36K years ago, genetic evidence like mitochondrial drift coming up with numbers ranging from 40K to 120K years ago, the fact that there is no such thing as a human culture without dogs, that they are as universal to our species as tool making and language… a think a new paradigm starts to emerge.
With the extended timeline, humans essentially genetically engineered a new species that is compatible with humans to an eerie degree. They understand subtlety of human communication, like gestures and pointing, that even Bonobos, our closest relatives struggle with. They can instinctively read human emotions better than any other animal… including humans (they beat toddlers in some studies that have been done).
But what about the other side of that? I am starting to question whether that extended timeline isn’t enough to skew OUR evolution. Imagine an ice age mammoth hunt. One group hunts with the assistance of dogs, one group does not have dogs. Which group will be more successful in the long term? Is it really much of a stretch to suggest that humans that had an innate compatibility with dogs had better survival odds and would pass that trait on?
In short, I think a ‘dog person’ is actually a thing. That a very large percentage of humans have a natural affinity with dogs because just as we altered them through interaction and breeding, dogs have in turn skewed human evolution.
No disrespect meant towards cats, horses and all of the other animals that humans can bond with, but I think studies like this and recent evidence is pointing towards dogs having a fundamentally different relationship with our species. It’s older, it’s deeper, both sides have benefited for dozens of millennia.
Humans and dogs have evolved into an unprecedented, natural, partnership.
I’ve gotten to a point where I sincerely no long believe the word ‘pet’ applies to dogs. Parrots are pets. Dogs are family.
Trisha says
Ah, but Dave, have you seen the relationship between some parrots and their people? Parrots are highly social, as social as dogs, and exceptionally intelligent. They form very strong bonds with individuals, so I’d definitely include them in the ‘family’ category!
Dave says
As I said, no disrespect to other animals that humans bond with… Parrots are cool, especially the Norwegian Blue (Beautiful plumage)… 😉
However, they simply don’t have the history of living and working with humans that dogs do. No other animal does.
I sincerely meant no slight to parrots nor to the humans that have bonded with them… but I really do think dogs are in a unique position with our species. It’s a very natural partnership that is nearly effortless for both species due to a long history and a lot of evolution.