The Sordid History of Pit Bull Fighting in 19th Century England

I have been critical of anti-pit bull legislation on a number of occasions, and have mentioned my opposition in at least five blogs here.  This has led to unpleasant—mostly anonymous—emails addressing me as or equating me to the orifice on my backside. (I do not post these accusations, not because I can’t accept criticism or don’t tolerate cussing, but because I hope that I am encouraging reasonably intelligent discourse and such emails vastly disappoint this expectation.)  In describing dog attacks involving pit bulls, I have also been accused of supporting breed-specific legislation by shining too much of a light on which breed of dogs is responsible for attacks.  

Recently I received an email arguing that because the pit bull was created to fight, and with a temperament and physical characteristics appropriate for this activity, it is inherently much more dangerous than other dogs.  That difference justifies, in the commenter’s mind, a certain legal separation of pit bulls from other breeds. It was recommended that I look into the history to satisfy myself that pit bulls are in a class by themselves and should be kept “on a shorter leash” than other dogs. 

This criticism is fair up to a point.  While occasionally adding bits and pieces concerning the history of pit bulls in pieces I write, I have largely remained focused on recent legal decisions and research on dog bites.  It is time to say something about the early history of pit bulls, which transpired not that long ago, and in England. 

Invention of the Pit Bull Terrier  

To understand the origin of the pit bull, one must go back two hundred years to a time when two dogs fighting to the death in an arena was as acceptable as two prize fighters punching each other in Las Vegas is today.  It was considered an advancement when dogs were no longer allowed to bait bears and bulls, though enforcement of the laws criminalizing these contests was probably lax even at the beginning of the 19^th century. 

Phil Drabble, writing a history of Staffordshire Terriers and baiting sports in 1948, says that when bull baiting was outlawed, fighting between bulldogs was used to replace it.  While bulldogs had the necessary aggressiveness, they lacked an appropriate level of agility, so various crosses were tried, the most successful being with terriers, eventually producing a group of bull terriers. 

Lt. Col. Clyn (1948), in his brief description of the Bull Terrier, elaborates:

“Bulldogs, though more active than the modern type, proved too slow in the fighting pit and breeders were concerned with increasing the Bulldog’s speed and agility without sacrificing his power to bite.  To achieve this end Terrier blood was introduced and the resulting cross-breeds were called Bull-and-Terriers or Bulldog Terriers.  These when bred together eventually produced a distinctive type which, early in the 19^th Century, became known as Bull Terriers.”

John Henry Walsh, writing as "Stonehenge," says in The Dogs of the British Islands:  

"The Bull Terrier, like his chief progenitor, the bulldog, is now without a vocation, dog fights being prohibited by law, and rat pits being equally out of the question. But, unlike the bulldog, he is an excellent companion for the male sex, being a little too violent in his quarrels to make him desirable as a ladies' pet. Careful crossing—said to be with the terrier, but also alleged to be with the greyhound or foxhound, or both-has produced a handsome, symmetrical animal, without a vestige of the repugnant and brutal expression of the bulldog, and with the elegant lines of the greyhound, though considerably thickened in their proportions."

The first plate depicts two show dogs that Walsh saw as excellent examples of the breed. As to the dog's behavior, Walsh states:

 

"The bull terrier is still judged by the fighting standard—that is to say, he must have all the points, mental as well as bodily, which are necessary to the fighting dog. If of pure bull parentage or nearly so, he is unfitted for the office; for, instead of laying hold and shaking his adversary for a time with great force, and then changing to a fresh place of attack, as the fighting dog should do, he keeps his hold tenaciously, and never changes it but on compulsion. The infusion of terrier, greyhound, or foxhound, or whatever may be the cross, gives activity of body in addition to the above mental peculiarity, and thus is created an animal calculated to take his own part in any combat, whether with one of his own kind or with any of our native larger vermin, or even with the smaller felidae of other lands. His temper is sufficiently under control to prevent his intentionally injuring his master, under the severest provocation, and he is admitted to be, of all dogs, the most efficient protector against attack in proportion to his size and muscular powers. He is a very cleanly animal in the house, and many years ago I had one which, being by accident confined in my bedroom surreptitiously for four days, under the care of a person who fed him, but neglected to let him out as directed, for fear of discovery, never once relieved himself of any of his secretions, by which he very nearly lost his life."

Genome research has put the Pit Bull Terrier, the American Staffordshire Terrier, and the Miniature Bull Terrier in the same group as the Bulldog.  See vonHoldt et al. (2010). A recent study (Larson et al., 2012), in a supplemental table S1, stated that the Bull Terrier was created "by crossing English Bulldogs with several breeds including Black and Tan Terriers, Spanish Pointers, English White Terriers, Dalmations, Greyhounds and Whippets in order to create a dog breed that would fight other dogs."

A Show Dog Has to Fight

Pit Bull Terriers were of various colors but a show dog, Puss, entered in a show at Cremorne Gardens near Chelsea was all white and was a big hit.  Part of Puss’s history is given by Clyn:

“On the day of the show there could be no question that Puss was much smarter and more graceful than her old fashioned rivals, but the old breeders were convinced she could never hold her own in the pit; tempers frayed, and heavy wagers were offered at odds against Puss till Mr. Hinks could bear it no longer.  Refusing to profit by his rivals’ ignorance, Mr. Hinks backed Puss at even for £5 and a case of champagne against the best known fighting dog present in the show.  The challenge was accepted and the contest took place immediately in an improvised pit just outside the show. Tradition says that within 30 minutes the old fashioned champion was being laid to rest while Puss, almost unmarked, was back in the show, where she received First Prize.”

Dog shows have apparently changed somewhat in the last century.

The older type of dog was re-crossed with the newer type in the earlier 20^th century because the white variety was prone to deafness.  The second plate shows a father and son, which Ash (1927) describes as “of the famous Paddington strain, never beaten.”  The caption says that the father had killed two dogs.  Ash relates an account that when a famous fighting dog gave birth to a litter, church bells were rung in Wednesbury. 

Dog Fighting in the 19^th Century

By 1860, according to Drabble, there were two preferred types of fighting dogs, the English Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, but the former was developed more for show than courage.  The Staffordshire Bull Terrier continued to be bred for the pit.  At the Westminster Pit, fights were held between dogs, cocks, dogs and monkeys, dogs and lions, and dogs that were required to kill large masses of rats. 

Drabble goes into detail:

“The pit itself was roughly 12-18 feet across, with a boarded surround about three feet high, over which the spectators could watch.  Each dog was handled by his second and, after the preliminary formalities concerning the stakes had been completed, each dog was weighed in the pit.  It is common for owners of bull terriers which develop a taste for fighting, to boast that their dogs will 'kill anything' and that this dog or that ‘killed an Alsatian’ (or something equally big) ‘in ten minutes.’”

Watching a dog being torn to pieces for ten minutes was apparently something some dog fanciers were then excited by watching and, unfortunately, some still are. Drabble says that in fights before spectators, dogs were usually required to be within a pound of each other. As to timing. Drabble says that “two dogs would sometimes take as much as two hours to decide which was the better and rarely less than 25 or 30 minutes.”

Trickery practiced by dog owners included rubbing a dog “with acid or pickle or pepper or anything to discourage his opponent from biting him.”  To prevent this, both dogs were often washed before the fight began, sometimes with milk, which was supposed to neutralize acid.  Also, “each setter was allowed to ‘taste’ (or lick) his opponent’s dog both before and after fighting.”  Clyn says that the taster was sometimes a third party who was given a shilling to assure that “no corrosive chemical or other poison had been rubbed into the coats of the contestants.”

The beginning of the fight was rather formal:

“When the preliminaries had been completed a coin was tossed to decide which dog should ‘scratch’ first.  They were taken to opposite corners of the pit where each second held his dog between his knees so that the other dog got a fair unobstructed view of his opponent’s head.  On a word from the referee, the dog wich had to ‘scratch’ first was liberated and had to go across the pit to attack his opponent.  A line was drawn cross the centre of the pit, which was known as the Scratch, and the opposing dog could not be loosed until the attacker had crossed this line.  When he crossed the scratch the other setter could loose his dog when ever he liked and it was judgment here that won or lost many battles.” 

Being held put a dog at a disadvantage, but Drabble says that if the setter kept holding and the dog that had been released did not attack the dog being held, the match was forfeited to the dog being held. 

Once the dogs began to fight, the setters could leave the pit.  They could encourage their own dogs but could not speak to the opponent’s dog.  Neither dog could be touched again until both stopped fighting.  If the dogs stopped fighting, a setter could pick up his dog and the round was counted as expired.  “One minute was allowed for sponging down and making ready for the next round, and the referee gave warning after 50 seconds so that both should be ready when the minute was up.” 

Rounds were not set times but were ended when both dogs ‘faulted,’ i.e., ceased to be engaged in fighting, so a round might go for 20 minutes or more.  “A battle of an hour or more might have twenty scratches, or one dog might be killed in the first scratch.”  Drabble notes that in old prize ring rules, fighters fought until one fell. 

A dog that failed to scratch in his turn lost.  “If a dog was killed in the pit the other had to stay at him for ten minutes at least and he could still not be handled by his setter till he faulted.” Thus, dogs were encouraged to continue to maul a dead opponent for the entertainment of the watchers.  Once the mauling dog finally faulted, he was taken to his corner.  The scratch rules had a curious result at this point:

“If it was the dead dog’s turn to scratch the battle was automatically lost.  If it was the live dog’s turn and he did not scratch, he lost the battle although he had killed his opponent.” 

Since the live dog would know by smell that his opponent was dead, it must have been a matter of training to get the dog to fake an attack at that point.  

Writing in 1948, Drabble says that the sport was rare in Britain after the turn of the century, “but game terriers are still bred and exported to America where the sport is still perfectly legal in some States.”  This, of course, was true even at the time Michael Vick was arrested. We have the British to blame for the preferred dog fighting breed in America.  

To get a dog in fighting trim, Drabble has a number of recommendations:

“The first considerations in getting a dog fighting fit are therefore his wind and the removal of all surplus fat.  He must be given constant hard exercise to get him muscled up and in dead hard condition, this can be best achieved by giving small quantities of highly nutritious food with an absence of starchy food during training.  The jelly from cows’ feet and an adequate supply of fresh green food forms a good basis. Plenty of hard walking on a lead with a wide collar so that he can lay himself down and pull helps to strengthen his back and loin muscles.  An old motor tyre or other piece of rubber hung up so that he can jump up, catch hold and shake himself about on it is simply vital.  The damage a fighting dog does is not so much by the sheer force of his bite as by shaking when he has got hold.  And his neck and back muscles are essential for this.  Plenty of running and jumping for a ball that bounces well strengthens all the muscles he uses in turning and twisting, and produces the required agility.” 

The advice rings a little too true.  One must wonder how Drabble came by it.  He describes the proclivities of the breed:

“Puppies will fight to kill at three months and bitches are as keen as dogs.  Yet some strains are remarkably friendly to other dogs and will put up with unusual insults before being goaded into fighting.  When once they get a taste for it, they would rather fight than do anything in the world.”

That untrained pit bulls will readily attack other dogs is demonstrated by a recent incident in Florida.  

As to those who participate in dog fighting, Drabble says they are general of “a low parentage” and “are usually as willing to fight each other as to watch their dogs.” 

Drabble recounts that efforts to ban dog fighting at first met little success:

“There was little initial interference from the law, since it was possible to fight two dogs in any hollow or shed without attracting much attention, for fighting dogs fight silently.  They were easy to get away afterwards, as they could always be carried in a sack if their condition was likely to draw suspicion. And dog-fighting had the advantage over bull- or bear-baiting in that at least both animals wanted to fight instead of the victim having to be fastened with a rope or chain with no chance of escape.”

Bull Baiting

Drabble says that Bulldogs “were developed for no other purpose” than baiting bulls.  See also R. and W. Livingston (1885).  This activity did not begin as a sport, but rather because of the belief that beef was more tender when cattle were excited by dogs before being killed.  The dogs were thus, at first, the same dogs used for driving cattle.  The sport—for it soon came to be one—was long popular in England and Drabble describes the devotion of Queen Elizabeth I to watching it as “anything but spinsterish.” 

The tide began to change with James I, who in 1620 refused to license houses for bull-baiting and it was forbidden altogether on Sundays.  Cromwell forbade the sport altogether, though this may have been because he saw the gatherings as having the risk of turning political in a way that would not favor his control.  The Restoration brought it back. 

Bulldogs used in baiting weighed under 50 pounds, and Drabble discusses the importance of their jaws.

“The object in bull-baiting was to grip the bull in a tender enough part of the face to hold him still or throw him.  Tremendous power of jaw was necessary for this and nostrils set far enough back to allow normal breathing without letting go.” 

As to the fight itself, Drabble states:

“When all was ready the bull was tethered to the stake by a rope about 15 yards long attached to the base of his horns…. [The dog] would not rush madly at the quarry but creep on his belly, stealthily, as close as possible.  If the bull was a ‘green’ bull, which had never been halted before, he would bellow and lower his head towards the dog but do little else, for he didn’t know what he’d got coming to him.  If, on the other hand, he was a ‘game’ bull, which had been baited before and proved his mettle in the ring, he would not get at the extremity of his rope but would leave himself enough slack to charge when necessary.  He would lower his head and keep his forelegs close to prevent the dog slipping between them and getting hold.  The aim of the dog would be to creep along and wait for an opening, when he would dart in and ‘pin’ the bull by laying hold of his tongue, eyepiece, lip or nose.  The bull would not try to impale him but slip his horn under his belly and toss him high enough into the air to suffer damage when he fell.  The dog’s owner was well aware of this and he would be ready to try and break his fall by catching him in his apron or deftly slide a light pole under him, in mid-air, down which he could slide in comparative immunity.  If the bull was successful and the dog not much hurt he was let go again since he was expected to be game enough to go back so long as he had still the strength to crawl.”

Some dogs were killed by the bull’s toss, and some dragged their entrails behind as they tried to find safety.  If the dog got a good grip, the flesh of the bull might be torn away by the dog as the bull shook to free himself. If the bull gave up, the dog’s jaws might have to be pried apart with a tool to get him off the bull. 

Drabble says that the last bull-bait took place about 1838. 

Although bulldogs were still a popular breed when Drabble wrote in the mid-twentieth century, he cautions against imagining “that the monstrosities wheezing at modern dog shows in the classes for bulldogs are like the animals” that baited bulls.  “Instead of being disproportionately squat and broad, like some great toad, the bulldogs which were used in the ring were finely proportioned dogs, little heavier in build than a modern Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and taller for their size.”

This is one case where breeding for show had the advantage of taking a dog away from its violent past.

Bear Baiting

Next to bull baiting in popularity was bear baiting, but Drabble says that “bears did not provide such good sport as the bulls.  For one thing too much manipulation was necessary to prevent the dog from being killed.”  The bears were “usually a mass of festering fly-blown sores which had resulted from the lacerations of earlier ‘baits’. They were led by a chain and ring in the nose and their muzzles were scarred or raw from the chafing of their chains.”

By about 1750, the sport had largely disappeared. Nevertheless it seems not to have gone away completely because, a depiction in Real Life in London from about 1821 shows men in the audience dressed in nineteenth century coats and leggings.

There is no end to the ingenuity of cruelty and we have only touched the surface. Drabble describes fights between groups of bulldogs and lions, dogs and monkeys, and many other horrors. When the contest was between a dog and rats, the sport was how many rats the dog could kill in a specified time. 

Guarding Function

Clyn relates a story that perhaps demonstrates there are occasions when a dog with the skills of a bull terrier might provide a legitimate defense function:

“The breed has a reputation for fighting which it does not really deserve; I think this is founded partly on the breed’s history as a fighting dog and also partly on the shocking efficiency of the few savage Bull Terriers about; the modern dog is but little less powerful than his ancestors, and a nice tempered White Bull Terrier bitch, well known on the bench, created something of a sensation in Burma some years before the War while defending her master who was attacked by an armed dacoit [bandit].  Within a few moments the dacoit was dead and the dog’s owner was paid a substantial reward that had been offered for the dacoit dead or alive.”

Conclusion

Bulldogs were able to escape their history as dogs used to bait bulls because the practice came to an end and no netherworld of gambling on fights between dogs and cattle lasted very long after the official ban.  Bears became too rare, and too protected, and, as described above, fights between bears and dogs were too difficult to manage in any case.  Unfortunately, dog fighting was only gradually outlawed in England and the United States and often not enforced when it was outlawed.  The sport had time to move underground, to develop a culture and venues where the morons that engage in it could meet with fellow enthusiasts.

Many of the potentially more dangerous breeds descend from war dogs, which probably means they descended from types of dogs that guarded the flocks. Outlawing a breed only means that other breeds including large dogs with powerful jaws will soon be preferred by those sick strains of humanity who feel that the suffering of animals is amusing.

The Michael Vick case brought public attention to the amount of dog fighting that occurs in the United States, and demonstrated that those who participate are often not gang members.  It also brought to everyone’s attention the frequent lack of enforcement of laws prohibiting dog fighting, and significantly changed enforcement patterns in most of the country. 

Despite the specific and violent purpose that explains pit bull origins, this is human history more than canine history, and I continue to believe that breed specific legislation will do little to diminish dog fighting or pit bull attacks.  It is serious enforcement of anti-dog fighting and dog bite laws that will accomplish that.  And despite the fact that this is already a trend, more effort is needed both in arresting and punishing those responsible for such inhumanity and stupidity.

Sources:

1. Alken, H. (1903). The National Sports of Great Britain. D. Appleton & Co., New York.
2. Ash, E.C. (1927). Dogs: Their History and Development.  Ernest Benn Ltd., London.
3. Clyn, S.H. (1948). Bull Terrier.  In The Book of the Dog (Vesey-Fitzgerald, B., ed.). Nicholson & Watson, London.
4. Drabble, P. (1948). Staffords and Baiting Sports. In The Book of the Dog (Vesey-Fitzgerald, B., ed.). Nicholson & Watson, London.
5. Egan, P. [writing as Anonymous] (1821). Real Life in London.  Methuen & Co., London.
6. Jesse, G.R. (1866). Researches into the History of the British Dog.  Robert Hardwicke, London (in the final chapter of Volume II, discussing the rise of the pit bull terrier in the early 19^th century).
7. Larson, G., Karlsson, E.K., Perri, A., et al. (2012). Rethinking Dog Domestication by Integrating Genetics, Archeology, and Biogeography. PNAS (doi/10.1073/pnas.1203005109).
8. Livingston, R., and Livingston, W. (1885). The Bull-Dog. In The Century Magazine, May 1885, 3.
9. Walsh, J.H. ("Stonehenge") (1859). The Dog in Health and Disease. Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, London. 
10. vonHoldt et al. (2010). Genome-Wide SNP and Haplotype Analyses Reval a Rich History Underlying Dog Domestication.  Nature, 464, 898.
11. Walsh, J.H. (1882). The Dogs of the British Islands (4th ed.). Horace Cox, London.  

Thanks to L.E. Papet for comments and corrections.  

1.       

Read More

Dogs of the Northeast Tribes in the Colonial Period

Indians of the Northeast used dogs for hunting, guarding, food, companionship, and in rituals.  Far to the north they were used for transport by pulling toboggans (until the use of sleds, as preferred by Indians to the west began to spread across northern Canada). Dogs appeared in myths and dream narratives of the Northeast Indians, as was true throughout the Americas.  Unfortunately, the cultures of the Indians and their dog cultures were largely destroyed by disease, war, and displacement, and the sort of detailed anthropological studies possible with Plains and West Coast tribes were not undertaken early enough to put a rigorous scientific face on what is known.  There were, however, many accounts of early explorers, missionaries, and settlers that preserved native memories, and often recorded Indian practices and legends with reliable accuracy. 

Unlike the Spanish expansion in Central and South America (and even Florida and the Southwest), the early New England and eastern Canadian colonists did not use dogs in military operations against the Indians, though they did bring some mastiffs for guarding and hunting and were soon aware of the terror the large dogs struck in the natives.  The natives also saw the advantages of the larger European dogs in guarding and hunting certain game, and among many tribes the European dogs began to replace the native animals.  Consequently, it is not always certain that the records describe practices that preceded European settlement, or the degree to which native practices evolved with the arrival of the European dogs. 

Types of Native Dogs

Rosier (1605) said the Indians near Pemaquid Point (Maine) used dogs and tamed wolves for hunting with bows and arrows. He described some of the dogs as looking like spaniels. Native dogs are often described as small in early accounts.  Livermore (1877) saw dogs on Block Island he believed to be a remnant of Indian dogs:

“They are below a medium size, with short legs but powerful broad breasts, heavy quarters, massive head unlike the bulldog, the terrier, the hound, the mastiff, but resembling mostly the last; with a fierce disposition that in some makes but little distinction between friend and foe.”

The description probably fits the picture of the dog of the Bersimis in Allen (1920) that appears to the left. The fright of the Indians on seeing the large dogs of the Europeans also suggests that the Indians were only used to relatively small dogs.  Of New Netherland (the coastal area settled by the Dutch, including what is now New York), Nicolaes van Wassenaer wrote in 1625 (Jameson 1909):

“Their dogs are small. When the worthy Lambrecht van Twenhuyzen had once given the skipper a big dog, and it was brought to them on ship-board, they were very much afraid of it; calling it, also, a sachem of dogs, as being one of the biggest. The dog, tied with a rope on board, was very furious against them, they being clad like beasts with skins, for he thought they were wild animals; but when they gave him some of their bread made of Indian corn, which grows there, he learned to distinguish them, that they were men.”

The dogs brought by the Dutch were probably brought for hunting and guard work, with their ability to intimidate only being discovered later. 

The Indian dogs are often described as looking like wolves or foxes, or containing the blood of wild canids. Wolley (1701), in his account of New York in the 1670s, said the Indians ate their dogs if they were very hungry, and said that the dogs “are but young Wolves stolen from their damms, several of which I have seen following them as our Dogs here, but they won’t eat our Dogs because they say we feed them with salt meat, which none or but few of the Indians love, for they had none before the Christians came.” Josselyn (1833) believed Indian dogs in Maine were wolf-fox crosses that were kept for hunting moose, which the Indians would lance if close enough.

Speck (1925), writing about the Indians of the Lake St. John and Gulf of St. Lawrence region, says that the real Indian dogs, i.e., the original strain, were known as “wolf dogs.”  They were used as trailers and in hunting.  Speck (1940) wrote that a half-wolf was known to be on Indian Island at Old Town, Maine, as late as 1912.

As for coloration, Butler and Hadlock (1977), who referred to many of the sources used to write this blog, summarize accounts of early explorers mentioning Indian dogs, particularly apparently the small ones, as being black and white, just white, red, and brown.  Skeletons, often partial skeletons, are all that is left of any of these dogs.  The photograph is of a dog cranium found in Maine that Allen included in his study of Indian dogs.

Tribes brought their dogs with them during migrations. Benjamin Basset, in the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society (1792), recorded that the Indians of Martha’s Vineyard believed that the first Indian who came to the Vineyard “was brought thither with his dog on a cake of ice.”  

Genetics of Native American Dogs

The dominant genetic argument at present is that “New and Old World dogs are derived from Eurasian wolfs.”  (Leonard et al. 2002) One study, however, has argued a separate origin for some varieties of North American indigenous dogs, thus positing separate North American domestication events. (Koop et al. 2000)

Castoviejo-Fisher et al. (2011) found mitochondrial DNA from two dogs living in Mayan villages in the State of Yucatan, Mexico, that might have been inherited from the pre-Columbian dog population.  The researchers observed that the impact of the arrival of European dogs on native dog populations was more profound than they expected at the beginning of their search for native markers.   

“The extent of this impact is unexpected because of the large historical population size of dogs in the Americas and the existence of potential refugia (e.g. isolated human groups) where native lineages could have survived. Several factors might have contributed to this replacement, including direct persecution, preference for the often larger newly arrived dogs, or susceptibility to introduced infectious diseases.”

The “extensive replacement of the native American dog population,” according to the researchers “illustrates that even cultural and biological elements that are not specific targets of invaders can be profoundly affected at a continental scale and in a short period of time.”  Needless to say, this makes finding evidence of original strains problematic in areas besides genetics. 

Care of Dogs

Sagard (1632) said the Hurons had numerous dogs that did not bark but which were useful in hunting.  He described Indian women using a mixture of corn mashed in water to feed puppies by putting it in their own mouths then passing to the mouths of the puppies, “but I found this very displeasing and nasty, to put their mouth in this way to the puppies’ muzzles, which are often not too clean.”

An account of a priest in the Jesuit Relations, Father Le Jeune, described the dogs living in Huron houses and being “held as dear as the children of the house, and share the beds, plates, and food of their masters.” He says that “a number of dogs” might be slaughtered to make a three-day feast. “During the feast there is much destruction, sometimes fires, and the dogs are knocked down.” Dogs might be sacrificed that a sick man could recover.  This might come to the sick man in a dream. Le Jeune recounted that when a girl died, her family wanted to bury her two favorite dogs with her, saying that “the dead girl loved them, and it is our custom to give to the dead what they loved or possessed when they were living." The Jesuits would not permit this.

Father Le Jeune appreciated the dogs as providing heat:

“As to the dogs, which I have mentioned as one of the discomforts of the Savages' houses, I do not know that I ought to blame them, for they have sometimes rendered me good service….  These poor beasts, not being able to live outdoors, came and lay down sometimes upon my shoulders, sometimes upon my feet, and as I only had one blanket to serve both as covering and mattress, I was not sorry for this protection, willingly restoring to them a part of the heat which I drew from them.  It is true that, as they were large and numerous, they occasionally crowded and annoyed me so much, that in giving me a little heat they robbed me of my sleep, so that I very often drove them away. “

Dogs were not to be fed bones of beavers and porcupines according to the priest, though there is no nutritional concept involved: 

“It is remarkable how they gather and collect these bones, and preserve them with so much care, that you would say their game would be lost if they violated their superstitions.  As I was laughing at them, and telling them that Beavers do not know what is done with their bones, they answered me, 'Thou dost not know how to take Beavers, and thou wishest to talk about it.' Before the Beaver was entirely dead, they told me, its soul comes to make the round of the Cabin of him who has killed it, and looks very carefully to see what is done with its bones; if they are given to the dogs, the other Beavers would be apprised of it and therefore they would make themselves hard to capture. But they are very glad to have their bones thrown into the fire, or into a river; especially the trap which has caught them is very glad of this.”

Naming Dogs

Giving personal names to dogs was likely widespread.  An Indian who had lost his dog said to Father Le Jeune:

“Ah! it is true " (said he,) "that I dearly loved Ouatit; I had resolved to keep him with me all his life; there was no dream that could have influenced me to make a feast of him,—I would not have given him for anything in the world; and yet it would be some consolation to me now if they had brought me a little Bear, which could take his place and carry his name.”

Names listed by Speck for dogs of the Algonquian tribes include: Baby, Little Pin, Sauce, Ask Him, Try Him, Who?, Where’s That?, Hoot Owl, Clown, Bear, Raccoon, Pigs, Frog, Wolf, Stingy. As in all cultures, dogs were named for traits, appearance, or to remind their masters of jokes.

Camp Guards

Butler and Hadlock say that settlers often killed the dogs of the Indians because they gave warning to the Indians when the settlers were preparing to attack.  Cotton Mather (1702) describes an incident in the Pequot War where an Indian camp was attacked:

“The Two Captains, with their Two Companies … for them to make their Assaults upon; and as they approached within a Rod of the Fort, a Dog Barking awakened another Cerberus, an Indian that stood Centinel, who immediately cried out Wannux, Wannux, i.e. English! English! However, the Courageous Captains presently found a way to enter the Fort, and thereupon followed a Bloody Encounter, wherein several of the English were wounded, and many of the Indians killed.”

Dogs in Hunting

Butler and Hadlock (1977) concluded that the use of native dogs in hunting was widespread among northeast tribes.  Father Sagard (1632) described the dogs tracking animals:

“When it is found, the men pursue it courageously and never leave it until they have brought it down, finally having wearied it to death they get their dogs to worry it so that it must fall. They then cut open the belly, give the quarry [curée] to the dogs, have a feast and carry off the remainder (Lors ils luy ouvrent le ventre, baillent la curée aux chiens, festinent, & emportent le reste).” 

Hind (1863) describes dogs of the Indians in Labrador being able to find bears when their hiding places are covered with snow.  Dogs were not permitted to touch the bones or taste the blood of the bears they killed. 

Alexander Henry saw raccoons hunted by the Huron in 1763 or 1764 (Drake 1844):

“As soon as a dog falls on a fresh track of the raccoon, he gives notice by a cry, and immediately pursues. His barking enables the hunter to follow. The raccoon, which travels slowly, and is soon overtaken, makes for a tree, on which he remains till shot.”

The photograph shows a hunting dog type from Labrador (Speck 1925). A painting reproduced in Schwartz (1997) shows a dog, probably having jumped off a canoe of a Micmac hunting party, retrieving a fowl that had fallen into the water. 

Dogs as Food

Henry Hudson (as quoted in Jameson 1909) saw a dog killed and skinned for a feast:

“On our coming near the house, two mats were spread out to sit upon, and immediately some food was served in well made red wooden bowls; two men were also despatched at once with bows and arrows in quest of game, who soon after brought in a pair of pigeons which they had just shot. They likewise killed at once a fat dog, and skinned it in great haste, with shells which they get out of the water.”

Wood (1764) reported an account of an Indian in Massachusetts eating a dog. Drake records that a captive of the Indian’s during King Phillip’s war was obliged to eat dogs, skunks, rattlesnakes, and bark, as they fled.  Father Le Jeune says the Hurons sometimes ate dogs.   Of another group in Quebec, which had abundant game, he wrote that they would not eat dogs even during a famine “because they said that, if the dog was killed to be eaten, a man would be killed by blows from an axe.”  Cotton Mather (1702) includes a narrative of Hannah Swarton, who was captured by Indians in 1690, describing eating dog flesh during a period of famine, which appears to be when dogs were most commonly eaten. 

Ceremonial eating, according to Butler and Hadlock, sometimes involved eating dog flesh.  John Gyles, a captive of the Penobscot Indians beginning in 1689, wrote:

“When the Indians determine on war, or are entering upon a particular expedition, they kill a number of their dogs, burn off their hair and cut them to pieces, leaving only one dog's head whole. The rest of the flesh they boil, and make a fine feast of it. Then the dog's head that was left whole is scorched, till the nose and lips have shrunk from the teeth, leaving them bare and grinning. This done, they fasten it on a stick, and the Indian who is proposed to be chief in the expedition takes the head into his hand, and sings a warlike song, in which he mentions the town they design to attack, and the principal man in it; threatening that in a few days he will carry that man's head and scalp in his hand, in the same manner. When the chief has finished singing, he so places the dog's head as to grin at him who he supposes will go his second, who, if he accepts, takes the head in his hand and sings; but if he refuses to go, he turns the teeth to another in the company. The Indians imagine that dog's flesh makes them bold and courageous. I have seen an Indian split a dog's head with a hatchet, take out the brains hot, and eat them raw with the blood running down his jaws!”

Dog Sacrifices

Dogs could be sacrificed without being eaten.  Alexander Henry (Drake) describes an Algonquian tribe on the great lakes tying a dog’s legs together and throwing it into a lake, “an offering designed to soothe the angry passions of some offended Manito.”

Father Le Jeune wrote of the Indians of Acadia that a dying man’s dogs were killed that he might have forerunners in the other world.  These dogs, if not eaten, were buried with him.  The priest also describes dogs being sacrificed to heal a sick woman:

“Many feasts were made for her recovery; and, among others, one day when she was very sick they made a feast of a dog, in consequence of which, according to their story, she felt wonderfully well,—and also, because she began to open her eyes while the dog was still half alive on the coals, they thought that this medicine was operating, and that she already felt some effects from it.”

He also describes a ceremony of a society during which a young man, having encountered a specter or demon, becomes insane.  “The remedy was, promptly to kill two dogs, and, among others, one which he held especially dear, of which a feast was made. In consequence of this he became better, and finally returned to his senses.”

Dog sacrifices were sometimes conducted to save someone from a prediction in a dream.  Another priest, Hierosme Lalemant (also in the Jesuit Relations), included the following story:

“A certain man had dreamed, while in the soundest slumber, that Iroquois had taken and burned him as a Captive, No sooner was he awake than a Council was held on the matter. ‘The ill fortune of such a Dream,’ it was said, ‘must be averted.’ The Captains at once caused twelve or thirteen fires to be lighted, on the spot where they were accustomed to burn their Enemies. Each one armed himself with firebrands and flaming torches, and they burned this Captive of a Dream; he shrieked like madman When he avoided one fire, he at once fell into another. In this manner, he made his way three times around the Cabin; and, as he thus passed, as naked as one's hand, each one applied to him a lighted torch, saying: ‘Courage, my Brother, it is thus that we have pity on thee.’ At the conclusion, they left him an opening by which he might issue from captivity. As he went out, he seized a dog that was held there ready for him, placed it at once on his shoulders, and carried it among the Cabins as a consecrated victim, which he publicly offered to the Demon of war, begging him to accept this semblance instead of the reality of his Dream. And, in order that the Sacrifice might be fully consummated, the dog was killed with a club, and was singed and roasted in the flames; and, after all this, it was eaten at a public feast, in the same manner as they usually eat their Captives.”

Cotton Mather describes the Indians of New England sacrificing a dog for the protection they believed this gave them:

“That the Indians in the Wars with us, finding a sore Inconvenience by our Dogs, which would make a sad yelling if in the Night they scented the Approaches of them, they sacrificed a Dog to the Devil; after which no English Dog would bark at an Indian for divers Months ensuing.”

Butler and Hadlock conclude that the “custom of feasting on dogs preparatory to entering upon warfare appears to have been widely distributed throughout the northeastern woodland areas inhabited by hunting nomadic tribes.”

Mather also mentions a demonic possession of some people in Plymouth who came under the spell of a woman named Mary Ross, who was possessed of “as Frantick a Daemon as ever was heard of.”  Mary Ross apparently convinced one of her followers to sacrifice a dog:

“That upon her Order Dunen Sacrific’d a Dog.  The Men and the Two Women then Danced Naked altogether; for which, when the Constable carried ‘em to the Magistrates, Ross uttered Stupendous Blasphemies, but Dunen lay for Dead an Hour on the Floor, saying, when he came to himself, that Ross bid him, and he could not resist.”

Mather does not lay blame for this incident on any Indians, but it seems to suggest that settlers at the time could also regard dogs as sacrificial animals. 

Dog Burials

Edwin Rogers (1943) described a dog burial on Indian River, near Milford, Connecticut:

“Isolated dog burials, and occasionally dogs associated with human remains, were characteristic of this site. Such a burial occurred near the center of the plot in a refuse pit five feet in diameter and thirty inches deep. The skeleton was placed in the bottom of the pit in the usual flexed position with the body laid about south and north on its right side, facing east. Parallel to, and resting within eight inches of the back of the human remains was the skeleton of a small dog the size of a fox terrier. The dog was completely covered with large sturgeon scales laid over him as shingles are laid on a roof.”

Rogers also mentions a burial of a child with a small dog. Claude Coffin (1939) describes a very carefully planned burial at Stratford, Connecticut:

“They were in the center of the pit, about one and one-half feet apart and in a triangular formation.

All were at the same depth, and in a flexed position. They were lying on their stomachs, feet folded under them, in upright positions, heads and necks extended; their tails also extended behind them. All had their heads pointing to the east. These animals were about the size of the average collie dog.”

The size would indicate the dogs were at least partially European. Hind (1863) describes burials on the Labrador peninsula:

"The Montagnais and Nasquapees bury their dead like the Swampy Crees, who dig with their wooden snow-shovels a hole about three feet deep, which is sometimes lined with pieces of wood. The body is placed on its side, as if sleeping, but sometimes it is put in a sitting posture. They wrap it in skins, or a blanket if they have one, with the gun, axe, fire-steel, flint, tinder, and kettle placed by its side. Sometimes the Indian's dogs are hung up at the head of the grave.”

Butler and Hadlock also summarize dog burials in Westbrook, Connecticut, near New York City, on Staten Island, at Port Washington, and Long Island.  Even dogs that had been eaten might be given a burial, rather than being left in scrap heaps. See Morey (2010) for an extensive account of the archeology of dog burials throughout the world.

Dogs of the Explorers and Settlers

Martin Pring (1603), writing about Maine south to Plymouth Harbor, describes how two mastiffs brought on the ship were used to terrify the Indians:

“We carried with us from Bristoll two excellent Mastives, of whom the Indians were more afraid, then of twentie of our men. One of these Mastives would carrie a halfe Pike in his mouth. And one Master Thomas Bridges a Gentleman of our company accompanied only with one of these Dogs, and passed sixe miles alone in the Countrey having lost his fellowes, and returned safely. And when we would be rid of the Savages company wee would let loose the Mastives, and suddenly with out-cryes they would flee away.”

In 1656, settlers of New Haven were required by law to keep dogs, preferably mastiffs, to be used against “wolves and in some other cases.” (Hoadly 1858)  Presumably the other cases included possible Indian attacks. 

The settlers were almost as afraid of wolves as they were of Indians.  Wolves could attack their dogs, but not humans.  As Wood (1764) noted:

"The Woolves bee in some respect different from them of other countries; it was never knowne yet that a Woolfe ever fet upon a man or woman. Neyther do they trouble horses or cowes; but swine, goates and red calves which they take for Deare, be often destroyed by them, so that a red calfe is cheaper than a blacke one in that regard; in Autumne and the beginning of the Spring, there ravenous rangers doe most frequent our English habitations, following the Deare which come downe at that time to those parts. They be made much like a Mungrell, being big boned, lanke paunched, deepe breasted, having a thicke necke and head, pricke eares, and long snoute, with dangerous teeth, long staring haire, and a great bush taile; it is thought of many, that our English Maftiffes might be too hard for them; but it is no such matter, for they care no more for an ordinary Maftiffe, than an ordinary Maftiffe cares for a Curre; many good Dogges have beene spoyled with them. Once a faire Grayhound hearing them at their howlings run out to chide them, who was torne in peeces before he could be rescued. One of them makes no more bones to runne away with a Pigge, than a Dogge to runne away with a Marrow bone.”

Thus, the American desire to eliminate wolf populations goes back well before the revolution.   

Settlers’ Attitudes towards Indian Dogs

A law of 1637 in Connecticut provided that if “any injurie or trespasse be offered or done by any Indian or Indians or their dogges,” the injured party can bring the Indian or Indians before a magistrate.  If members of a tribe “doe sett downe neere any English plantaƈons,” they are held responsible for any damage done by their dogs. 

An account from New Haven Colony Records of 1645 (Hoadly 1857) stated that a court having determined that hogs had been killed by Indian dogs, the settlers demanded damages but the Indians promised instead to kill their dogs.  Hempsted, Long Island, residents purchased land from Indians and required that the Indians agree to kill off their dogs.  The purchasers protested that some of the dogs were not killed, violating the agreement. The dispute went on for several years.  Easthampton, Long Island, records indicate disputes over Indian dogs bothering the settlers occurring as late as 1712. 

A New Haven law of 1650 stated:

“It is ordered by this Courte and Authority thereof, that no man within this Jurissdiction shall, directly or indirectly, amend, repaire, or cause to bee amended or repaired, any gunn, small or great, belonging to any Indian … nor shall sell nor give to any Indian, directly or indirectly, any such gunn, nor any gunpowder, or shott, or lead, or shott mould, or any millitary weapon or weapons, armor, or arrowe heads; nor sell nor barter nor give any dogg or doggs, small or great; uppon paine of ten pounds fyne for every offence, at least, in any one of the aforementioned perticulars; and the Courte shall have power to increase the fyne, or to impose corporall punnishment where a fyne cannot bee had, at theire discretion.”

Other municipalities that passed laws prohibiting sale of dogs to Indians included Easthampton, Long Island (1650), Southold (1659). Records of the town of Providence, Rhode Island, indicate that in 1661 two officials were directed to advise the Indians living near the town “to Take som Course with theire Dogges, to Keep them from ffalling upon the Inglish Cattell … Else they must Expect to have theire Dogges Killed.”

A Strange Incident

Henry Youle Hind (1863), a Canadian explorer and geologist, was an acute observer of human and animal behavior, and had a touch of the poet about him.  He tells a story in his Explorations in the Interior of the Labrador Peninsula that might belong in several of the categories above, or none of them.  He relates that in a dry goods store he encountered a Montaignais squaw buying a shroud for her husband, who was dying.  Hind followed her to the boat where her husband was lying on his side.  It was sunset and the woman got into the boat with her husband. 

There was also a dog in the boat.  Hind says: “A dog sat on one of the seats of the boat; every now and then he raised his head, and howled low and long as if he were baying at the sun.”  Hind rowed away from shore to give the small group their privacy, but wrote that he could for a long time hear “the long low howl of the apparently conscious dog bidding farewell to the sun, which at that moment dipped below the western waves.”  A painting of this scene is included in Hind’s book and is reproduced at the beginning of this blog.  Perhaps the dog's behavior was its reaction to the impending death of its master. 

Conclusion

As is true of an analysis of all native cultures and their dogs in the Americas, one must suspend modern sensibility in order to give a fair assessment of the evidence. The Stone Age cultures that preceded European, African, and Asian civilizations also engaged in eating and sacrificing dogs, and many practices we would now find repellant continued until the final triumph of Christianity ended animal sacrifice altogether. 

Also, the English settlers were determined to establish their moral superiority over the “savages” that lived so uncomfortably close to them, and their tendency was to emphasize the unchristian practices of their unappreciated neighbors.  Hind’s illustration of a Montaignais encampment shows dogs playing and people playing with dogs, much as happens anywhere at any time.  This must have been a far more common sight than sacrificing and eating dogs, or domestication would soon have lost the advantages it provided to the species, perhaps leading to feral populations that carved out niches on the edges of civilization.  This did not happen, at least on any large scale, and when the European dogs began to displace native dogs in the affections of the Indians, the native dogs found no place to go. 

Sources:

1. Allen, G.M. (1920). Dogs of the American Aboriginees.  Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 63, 429.
2. Anderson, V.D. (1994). King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England. The William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 51(4), 601-624 ("Indians who raised livestock overwhelmingly preferred hogs.  More than any other imported creatures, swine resembled dogs, the one domesticated animal that Indians already had. Both species scavenged for food and ate scraps from their owners' meals.... Like dogs, swine aggressively fended off predators, such as wolves. Roger Williams recorded an instance of 'two English Swine, big with Pig,' driving a wolf from a freshly killed deer and devouring the prey themselves. Hogs could also be trained like dogs to come when called, a useful trait in an animal that foraged for itself in the woods.").
3. Bennett, M.K. (1955). The Food Economy of the New England Indians, 1605-1675, The Journal of Political Economy, 63(5), 369-397 (describing period between Champlain's exploratory voyage along the Northeast Coast and the outbreak of King Philip's War notes: "Examination of differences in food economies among the Indians of New England and adjacent Canadian territory suggests the generalization that the true hunters and gatherers among them, such as Le Jeune’s Montagnais, may represent one of the very few primitive peoples of the world who, like the Eskimo, unquestionably derived the great bulk of their food calories from animal products (animals, birds, and fish)").
4. Butler, E.L., and Hadlock, W.S. (1977). Dogs of the Northeastern Woodland Indians.  Indian and Colonial Research Center.
5. Castroviejo-Fisher, S., Skoglund, P., Valadez, R., Vila, C., and Leonard, J.A. (2011). Vanishing Native American Dog Lineages. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 11, 73.
6. Coffin, C.C. (1939). Excavations in Southwestern Connecticut. Archaeological Society of Connecticut, Bulletin, 10, 33-49. 
7. Darwin, C. (1971). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.  John Murray, London.("There must be something special, which causes dogs to howl in the night and especially during moonlight, in that remarkable and melancholy manner called baying.  All dogs do not do so; and according to Houzeau, they do not then look at the moon, but at some fixed point near the horizon.  Houzeau thinks that their imaginations are disturbed by the vague outlines of the surrounding objects, and conjure up before them fantastic images: if this be so, their feelings may almost be called superstitious.”). 
8. Denys, N. (1908). The Description and Natural History of the Coasts of North America (Acadia). The Champlain Society, Toronto.
9. Drake, S.G. (1844). Tragedies of the Wilderness; or, True and Authentic Narratives of Captives.  Antiquarian Bookstore and Institute, Boston. 
10. The Early Records of the Town of Providence, Volume III (1893). Snow & Farnham, Providence.
11. Hind, H.Y. (1963). Explorations in the Interior of the Labrador Peninsula, vol.1. Longman, Green, Longman, Robers & Green, London. 
12. Hoadly, C.J. (1857 and 1858). Records of the Colony and Plantation of New Haven from 1638 to 1649. Tiffany & Co., Hartford. 
13. Jameson, J.F. (1909). Original Narratives of Early American History: Narratives of New Netherland 1609-1664. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York.
14. Josselyn, J. (1865).  An Account of Two Voyages to New-England Made during the Years 1638, 1663.  William Veazie, Boston.
15. Koop, B.F., Burbidge, M., Byun, A., Rink, U., Crockford, S.J. (2000). Ancient DNA Evidence of a Separate Origin for North American Indigenous Dogs.  In Dogs Through Time: An Archaeological Perspective (Crockford, S.J., ed.). British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. 
16. Le Jeune’s Relation (1639). In The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations ofthe Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 1610-1791 (Thwaites, R.G., ed.), vols.2, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, and 17. The Burrows Brothers, Cleveland (1908). Hierosme Lalemant’s relation is in vol. 23. 
17. Leonard, J.A., Wayne, R.K., Wheeler, J., Valadez, R., Suillen, S., and Vila, C. (2002). Ancient DNA Evidence for Old World Origin of New World Dogs.  Science, 298, 1613.
18. Livermore, S.T. (1877).  A History of Block Island from its Discovery, in 1514, to the Present Time, 1876.  The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Co., Hartford.
19. Mason, J. (1736). A Brief History of the Pequot War. Kneeland and Green, London.
20. Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections (1792). Munroe & Francis, Boston (1806).
21. Mather, C. (1702). Magnalia Christi Americana: or, the Ecclesiastical History of New-England from Its First Planting in the Year 1620 unto the Year of Our Lord 1698. Thomas Parkhurst, London.
22. Morey, D.F. (2010). Dogs: Domestication and the Development of a Social Bond.  Cambridge University Press, New York. 
23. Pferd III, W. (1987). Dogs of the American Indians.  Denlinger's, Fairfax, Virginia.
24. Pring, M. (1603). Voyage Set Out from the Citie of Bristoll, in Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly from Hakluyt, 1534-1608 (Burrage, H.S., ed., 1906). Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York).
25. Rogers, E.H. (1943). The Indian River Village Site, Milford, Connecticut.  Archaeological Society of Connecticut, Bulletin, 15, 3-78.
26. Rosier, J. (1605).  A True Relation of the Voyage of Captaine George Waymouth, in Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly from Hakluyt, 1534-1608 (Burrage, H.S., ed., 1906). Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York).
27. Sagard, G. (1632).  Le Grand Voyage du Pay des Hurons.  Paris, translated for the Champlain Society (1939). The Long Journey to the Country of the Hurons (Wrong, G.M., ed.). Champlain Society vol. 25.
28. Schwartz, M. (1997). A History of Dogs in the Early Americas. Yale University Press, New Haven.
29. Speck, F.G. (1925). Dogs of the Labrador Indians.  Natural History, 25(1), 58.
30. Speck, F.O. (1940). Penebscot Man, the Life History of a Forest Tribe in Maine.  Philadelphia. Reprinted, University of Maine Press, 1997.
31. Trumbull, J.H. (1850). Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut Prior to the Union with New Haven Colony. Brown & Parsons, Hartford.
32. Wissler, C. (3^rd ed., 1938). The American Indian. Douglas C. McMurtrie, New York.
33. Wolley, C. (1871). A Two Years Journal in New-York. London.
34. Wood, W. (1634). New-England’s Prospect.  John Wilson and Son, Boston  (1865, reprinting an edition from 1764).

Thanks to Richard Hawkins, Brian Duggan, Yva Momatiuk, and Eric Krieger for comments and corrections.  

Read More

Fort Bliss Adopts Draconian Measures to Enforce Army’s Service Dog Policy

The Army Medical Command’s policy with regard to service dogs, announced on January 30, 2012, stated a goal that, to the extent possible, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would apply to Army facilities and operations.  Interviews with Soldiers at Fort Bliss who have service dogs demonstrate that the opposite has been the case.  Before word of the new policy reached the post, Soldiers had been allowed by individual commanders, on a case-by-case basis, to keep their dogs in barracks, have them near during certain work assignments, take them into the Post Exchange (PX), and stay with them during most hospital visits—in short, to use the service dogs as they are intended and as the ADA regulations conceive of them being used.

Now, under the new policy as implemented at Fort Bliss, the dogs are being prohibited access to barracks and most places on the post, and thereby prevented from performing their functions for Soldiers who often depend on them just to be able to go out in public.  Fort Bliss has also imposed requirements that substantially lengthen the time before a Soldier can acquire a service dog, perhaps up to a year, assuming that a dog can even be made available, a period that a potentially suicidal Soldier may not survive.  The profile of an acceptable dog that the Army has adopted follows an ill-advised model first created by the Veterans Administration, which does not just misunderstand the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but entirely contradicts the logic of those Acts.

There are 48 Soldiers with service dogs at Fort Bliss, none of which currently satisfy the Army policy and all of which are being excluded from parts of their master’s lives.  Many more dogs would be present were those soldiers wanting dogs allowed to get them, but the discouraging practices implemented at the post are keeping the number from getting higher. Soldiers are suffering, unnecessarily. 

Why Does the Army Want a Restrictive Policy?

The actions taken by the Army must be seen in the larger context of dealing with massive levels of post-traumatic stress disorder and other physical and psychological injuries resulting from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Faced with thousands of Soldiers returning from combat tours—often multiple tours—in countries where the relentless tension of war takes a heavy toll, the Army healthcare system has been increasingly overwhelmed.  Left to deal with the manifestations of PTSD and other mental conditions on their own, some Soldiers have begun drinking, using drugs, and cracking under the pressure, sometimes with tragic tolls on themselves and those close to them. 

The Army’s favored method, according to many Soldiers, often appears to be to prescribe massive amounts of prescription drugs, coupled with occasional therapy sessions.  When Soldiers are paired with service dogs, their dependence on drugs is often drastically reduced as they find some semblance of normalcy and even return to performing useful tasks.  That this transition does not come through a therapeutic regimen that has been rigorously studied in perfectly controlled tests has always been a difficult issue for psychiatrists and psychologists, and some of the problem may come from an Army medical corps that is inexperienced in working service animals into an overall concept of how to approach PTSD cases.  Some doctors apparently feel that Army hospitals are being overrun by service dogs.  Perhaps a post commander or two saw a few too many dogs pass his view of the lawns outside his window and determined that not all Soldiers were picking up poop. 

Developments at Fort Bliss

Once having settled on paying lip service to the ADA while instituting a program that contradicts ADA philosophy and mandates, at least two posts—Fort Bliss and Fort Campbell—took the Army Medical Command policy and expanded its coverage post-wide.  At Fort Bliss the enforcement of the policy, which was formally implemented on April 4, 2012, has become draconian. 

Some Ft. Bliss Soldiers suffering from PTSD were given the choice of paying for off-post housing so they could keep their dogs, or living in barracks where dogs were not allowed. Soldiers are no longer permitted to keep their dogs with them at work, and some are being ordered to accompany their units on field training exercises lasting several days without their service dogs.  These FTXs include combat training, with situations simulating battle conditions similar to those that caused PTSD in the first place.  Some were told to attend therapy sessions at hospitals that did not allow service dogs despite the availability of other facilities that do allow service animals.  Treatment regimens were in some cases cut from five to three days a week, making Soldiers with PTSD available for duties at their units two or more days a week.  Those duties often involve training where dogs are not permitted and conditions which are likely to exacerbate PTSD reactions. 

Soldiers and others believe commanders are deliberately taking these actions to increase the likelihood that Soldiers with PTSD will speak disrespectfully, act out in frustration, refuse orders, or otherwise provide an excuse to discharge them for violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, rather than allowing them to complete the Medical Evaluation Board process and satisfy the requirements for a medical discharge.  Whether such practices reflect informal policy mandated at some level, or whether it is just the way some officers in management think, is hard to say, but the effect has a financial advantage to the Army in that a discharge for misconduct or failure to meet standards allows the Army to avoid paying for retirement benefits or providing post-discharge health coverage. 

(Soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder do not meet the Army standard for continued military service.   (Army Regulation 40-501, § 2-27.k; § 8-24.a(1), (2)(d))  Nevertheless, if a Soldier has not completed the process for a medical discharge, he or she can be discharged under Chapter 13 or 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (separation for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct), or for other reasons, which will involve the loss of pension and benefits.) 

One Soldier who spoke with me said when she first obtained her service dog, a female Rottweiler, in late 2011, the dog was allowed to live with her in barracks and accompany her to work, where she quickly became a favorite of the other soldiers in the unit.  “She was almost a mascot.”  (It would probably have been better had she been a mascot than a service dog since Army regulations include special provisions regarding mascots.)  Once the policy at Fort Bliss was implemented, the Soldier was told she could not keep her dog in barracks or bring her to work.  She applied for benefits that would allow her to get an off-post apartment, but was denied.  Faced with a horrible dilemma, she went to the press.  Suddenly the benefits were granted. 

This same Soldier began the process of trying to get the Fort Bliss recognize her dog under the new policy. Although she had obtained the dog with a prescription because of trauma suffered from a sexual assault by a superior in Afghanistan, she now had to have a mental health or medical official designate three tasks of the dog as necessary for the dog to qualify as a service dog.  The dog performs numerous tasks that should satisfy ADI service dog certification requirements and should satisfy post officials as well.  The dog searches rooms if the Soldier has any suspicion that somebody might have entered the apartment and returns to lie beside her when no one is.  The dog presses against the Soldier if she is walking with the dog and begins to panic because of the crowds or other circumstances that set off her PTSD.  When directed to “watch my back,” the dog sits behind the Soldier in a line and prevents anyone from getting too close to her.  If the Soldier has a panic attack, the dog lies across her until it passes.  If she cannot sleep because of the effects of the PTSD and then takes prescription drugs to do so, the dog wakes her up after the alarm clock rings by a series of progressively more effective nudges and barks, and makes sure the Soldier gets to assignments and appointments on time.  “I could not function without her.”  This is the definition of a service dog.  Yet post medical officials are afraid to go against the wishes of the post commander and acknowledge that her dog is, in fact, a service dog. 

Policy Affects More than Soldiers, More than Army Facilities

One Soldier who had spoken with the civilian landlord of an apartment building about his right to have a service animal live with him found the landlord refusing to allow him to bring his service dog into the unit, quoting the post policy with regard to service dogs.  It was apparent that landlord was unfamiliar with applicable regulations of the Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. (For a history of how the federal agencies developed regulations on service animals, see Service and Therapy Dogs in American Society.)  The landlord called up the post commander and said she had been threatened by the Soldier.  The Soldier was told that if there were any more incidents like this, he would be court-martialed.  Whether a court-martial could be carried out in these circumstances is doubtful, but there was a clear effort to deter any further attempt on the part of the Soldier to live with his dog in at least this building.  This means that some landlords may be using the Army policy as a means of restricting their obligations under federal law with regard to service animals.

Another incident involved a Soldier’s dependent husband who has a service dog.  The husband had been in the Army for 12 years and been deployed several times, was wounded in combat and suffers from PTSD.  He was medically discharged on a 40% disability for back injuries, but eventually persuaded the Veterans Administration to award 100% disability for PTSD.  His doctor had prescribed a service dog, which he obtained.  He had regularly taken the dog to the PX before the Fort Bliss policy was implemented.  On a visit to the PX with his service dog a few days ago, he was prevented from bringing the dog inside.  It seems that Fort Bliss officials would like to see Army policy supersede ADA requirements even for those not in the Army.

A Meeting in Washington

Reacting to substantial opposition from wounded Soldiers, on May 1 the Army Surgeon General’s Office assembled a group of interested parties in Washington DC to discuss and recommend revisions to the service dog policy.  The largest part of the discussion concerned the portion of the policy requiring Soldiers with PTSD for whom service dogs have been authorized to obtain their dogs from organizations certified by Assistance Dogs International (ADI).  (Guide dogs for blind Soldiers have to be trained by organizations under the International Guide Dog Federation, but this decision does not have a limiting effect.)  Since the Army insists on privatizing the recognition of dogs that qualify as service dogs, one issue that was discussed was whether an alternative to ADI recognition could be devised.  One practical suggestion made would involve dogs not trained by ADI organizations being accepted on passing the AKC Canine Good Citizen (CGC) test and receiving a Veterinary Health Certificate (DD 2209) from the Army Veterinary Command.  It must be hoped that the sort of practical treatment of service animal issues that has been demonstrated by the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development will now be taken by the Army, though recent experience gives little reason for optimism in this regard. 

Conclusion

I have found no evidence that ADI lobbied for or in any way sought the official status that the Army has given it.  Several trainers working with Fort Bliss Soldiers who provide training largely on a volunteer basis told me that it was suggested to them that they consider applying for ADI membership.  This would, according to ADI’s website, require paying a $1,000 application fee, something that would be a significant burden for many trainers who are charging little or nothing and often cannot cover their own expenses.  ADI, having been blessed (or cursed) by the Army’s designation, should be evaluating means by which it can satisfy the demand for service dogs at posts where it does not have nearby member organizations.  Indications that Fort Bliss officials are discouraging staff from authorizing service dogs may be a way of keeping the census of soldiers needing dogs, or needing approval for dogs they already have, as low as possible so that the insufficiency of the mechanism chosen for satisfying the Army policy does not appear any more impractical than it already is. 

The problem should not exist at all.  Aside from the legal and social reasons I have previously presented, history should be considered.  The first service dogs were military animals.  In World War I, ambulance dogs, also called Red Cross dogs, were trained to find he wounded on battlefields and retrieve medics for assistance. Even before the end of the war, some of them were used to pull what were then called “invalid chairs” of soldiers who could not walk.  After the war, some members of German training organizations began working with dogs that had been used to guide the wounded off the battlefield and taught them to guide those who had lost their sight from war injuries.  There was a clear recognition that dogs could help former members of the military return to civilian life.  The guide dog phenomenon became a movement and soon spread to the United States when Dorothy Harrison Eustis, who had seen and trained dog guides in Switzerland, founded The Seeing Eye. 

It is a shame that a use of dogs that began in a war a century ago, and then proliferated into many types of service uses, is now meeting so much resistance from the U.S. Army, particularly at Fort Bliss. 

Read More