A man and his dog

On the unbroken longing for a dog, social insecurity, and our contradictory relationship with nature.

• 

• 

• 

Hardly a day goes by without me receiving inquiries from people wanting a puppy. There's a lot of interest in the Danish-Swedish Farmdog. Apparently, many people are still willing to take on significant financial and personal commitments to living with a dog.

Actually, I had expected something different.

We live in economically and socially challenging times. Wars dominate world events, democratic institutions are under pressure, and political developments seem increasingly unpredictable. Rising living costs and the rapid development of artificial intelligence are changing our daily lives. Much of what we long took for granted is now being questioned.

Owning a dog is no longer an inexpensive hobby. A responsibly bred puppy comes at a price. Veterinary treatments, food, insurance, and ongoing care all cost money. Anyone who decides to get a dog today is not only taking on responsibility for a living being, but also a financial commitment for many years.

I would therefore have assumed that this development would also be noticeable in the demand for puppies.

But at least in my own breeding program, I'm experiencing the opposite. The inquiries just keep coming.

Of course, no general trend for dog breeding can be deduced from this. But my observation has given me pause for thought.

Why is the longing for a dog apparently so unbroken? Why do people, in a time when so much has become uncertain, desire another living being in their family that demands money, time, attention, and responsibility?

Perhaps societal uncertainty is not just an argument AGAINST getting a dog. Perhaps, under certain circumstances, it even contributes to people longing for such a relationship all the more.

A longing for reliability, closeness, and security. A longing for someone who doesn't ask about social status, professional success, or material possessions. A longing for a relationship that is direct and not determined by major political and economic developments.

The idea that dogs can fulfill such needs is by no means just a romantic notion.

The dog as an emotional anchor in an uncertain world

As early as 2011, American psychologists led by Allen McConnell investigated the positive effects of pet ownership on human well-being in three studies.

The results showed that pets can be an important source of social support. They can strengthen the feeling of belonging and help to mitigate negative emotional experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic offered an insightful opportunity to examine the impact of societal crises on the desire for a dog: In 2021, scientists at the Royal Veterinary College in the UK investigated the motivations of people who acquired a puppy during the pandemic. Of the 4,369 puppy buyers surveyed in 2020, approximately 40 percent stated that the pandemic had influenced their decision. More than one in ten had not planned to get a puppy at all before the pandemic.

The study thus shows that exceptional social situations can influence purchasing decisions.

Numerous scientific studies have now described how dogs can have a positive influence on our physical and mental health:

Psychologist Deborah Wells summarized the research findings of the time back in 2007 and showed that dogs can be important for both physical health and mental well-being.

More recent studies also provide physiological explanations for this. A systematic review by Australian psychologist Jillian T. Teo and three other researchers from the University of Wollongong, published in 2022, found evidence that interaction with dogs can reduce stress. Among other things, lower cortisol levels, increased heart rate variability, and changes in the bonding hormone oxytocin were observed. These results suggest that contact with dogs can promote relaxation and emotional connection.

Studies from the war in Ukraine show how important animals can become, especially under difficult social conditions.

A study of Ukrainian families during the Russian war of aggression also revealed the importance animals can have in times of existential crisis. According to the parents interviewed, the presence of pets had a calming effect on 56 percent of the children. Some of the adults also reported that the animals improved their emotional well-being.

Dogs can offer us far more than just companionship. They can provide emotional closeness, reduce stress reactions, promote exercise and daily routines, and give us the feeling of being connected to another living being.

Whether societal crises actually lead to a general increase in demand for dogs has not yet been proven. However, research shows why such a relationship can be perceived as particularly valuable in stressful life situations.

I believe that the longing for emotional closeness alone does not explain why we feel so strongly drawn to dogs.

Perhaps something much more fundamental lies behind it: our relationship with nature.

"It's important to remember that we share our entire social brain with dogs – as with mammals in general. We share basic emotions with them. We may look different, but we are actually very similar." (Kurt Kotrschal)

Biophilia – the longing for the living

The desire to keep an animal stems from an ancient, fundamental motive – namely, the longing of civilized man for the lost paradise.” (Konrad Lorenz)

In 1984, the American biologist Edward O. Wilson published his book Biophilia .

In it, he developed the hypothesis that, due to its evolutionary history, humankind possesses a fundamental affinity for nature and other living beings. The term biophilia essentially means love of life. Wilson assumed that throughout its entire evolutionary history, humankind has developed in close dependence on the natural environment.

"Humans have a fundamental need to live with other animals. All children in the world are born with a strong interest in animals. Some people live this out, others don't." (Kurt Kotrschal)

However, an innate affinity for other living beings does not automatically mean that we correctly understand their behavior.

We can have a deep longing for the closeness of animals without necessarily mastering how to interact with them naturally.

And perhaps this is precisely where a fundamental contradiction lies in our modern dog ownership.

The dog occupies a special position in this context. For millennia, it has lived alongside humans. It is a domesticated animal that has adapted to our social world in many ways. At the same time, it possesses its own biological makeup, different sensory perception, and needs that cannot be fully derived from our human understanding.

The dog connects us to a vibrant world that we may experience less and less directly in our increasingly technological everyday lives.

Extinction of Experience – when nature becomes alien to us

In 2016, ecologists Masashi Soga and Kevin Gaston published a scientific review entitled Extinction of Experience: The Loss of Human–Nature Interactions .

In it, they deal with the creeping loss of direct experiences of nature.

In modern societies, many people spend a large part of their lives in artificially designed, technologically advanced, and digitized environments. Direct encounters with natural habitats and wild animals are no longer a natural part of everyday life for everyone.

The authors describe the consequences that such a decline in contact with nature can have: for well-being, for the relationship to the natural environment, and for the willingness to engage with and protect nature.

Those who experience nature less and less often may also develop less interest in seeking it out. This, in turn, can lead to a loss of further opportunities for direct experiences of nature.

Nature increasingly becomes something we consciously seek out: on weekends, during holidays, on walks in the woods, or together with our dog.

It is no longer necessarily a self-evident part of our lives, but is becoming a place of relaxation, longing and retreat.

In doing so, we may be forgetting something essential.

Nature is not exclusively beautiful, peaceful, and relaxing.

It is also unpredictable, dirty, loud, sometimes dangerous, and cannot be completely shaped according to our wishes.

Here I see a remarkable connection to our relationship with the dog.

Research on the extinction of experience does not prove that people interact less well with dogs due to a lack of experience in nature. This direct correlation has not yet been sufficiently investigated.

But it raises an interesting question:

Is it possible that while we have preserved our emotional connection with animals, we are simultaneously losing some of the practical experience necessary for a natural coexistence with them?

For many people today, dogs are family members, friends, emotional partners and an important source of security.

Their importance is no longer defined solely by a specific task. They don't have to guard a farm, herd sheep, or track game to have a firm place in our lives. A dog is not judged solely by the usefulness it provides to humans.

But perhaps this new emotional meaning also has another side.

Because a dog is simply not a human being.

It possesses its own perceptions, needs, and behaviors, which result from its domestication, individual development, experiences, and genetic predisposition.

He wants to explore his environment, follow scents, hunt, move around, play, learn, make social contacts, has a sex drive, and sometimes he just wants to be left alone.

In dogs, we seek closeness to nature, but at the same time we want this nature to integrate as smoothly as possible into our highly organized lives.

The dog should be lively, original, and individual – but ideally, not disruptive. It should be independent, but preferably not make decisions we don't like. It should take us out of our daily routine, but ideally not disrupt it. We want an emotional companion, but sometimes expect its needs to take a backseat to our own.

This is, of course, an exaggeration. By no means does every dog owner think or act this way.

But perhaps this contradiction contains part of the explanation for why some human-dog relationships become difficult.

When love isn't enough to understand the dog

"Dogs read human facial expressions and body language and can adapt accordingly. They know exactly how we are feeling and adjust their behavior accordingly. In this respect, dogs are sometimes better than humans. Many dog owners are not necessarily good at reading their dogs," (Kurt Kotrschal)

That emotional closeness does not automatically mean being able to correctly interpret animal behavior has been scientifically investigated. In 2018, Kerstin Meints, Victoria Brelsford, and Tiny De Keuster published a study on the ability of children and adults to understand canine body language. The researchers specifically examined whether people can recognize and correctly interpret stress signals from dogs.

It became apparent that this skill was not well developed, but both children and adults benefited from targeted training. After the training, they were better able to understand the dogs' signals.

We cannot understand a dog's language through mere affection or trained performance on the training field. Truly reading a dog does not mean making it technically obedient, but rather understanding its biology and signals as an independent entity.

Perhaps this is one of the biggest challenges in our relationship with dogs. We develop intense emotional bonds, but sometimes interpret our dogs' behavior from our own human perspective.

The dog seeks distance – and we may perceive this as rejection. He doesn't want to be hugged – and we don't understand why he doesn't reciprocate our affection. He follows an interesting scent trail – and we consider him disobedient.

None of these behaviors necessarily constitutes a problem for the dog.

It depends on our interpretation.

In science, this is referred to as anthropomorphism, i.e., the transference of human characteristics, feelings and intentions to animals.

A 2021 scientific review by Mota-Rojas and colleagues examines the potential impact of this anthropomorphization on the well-being of pets. The authors describe some positive aspects, suggesting that human attributions can foster empathy and nurturing.

However, they can also have negative consequences when human expectations clash with the animal's actual needs. The crucial question, therefore, is not whether we are allowed to consider our dogs as family members.

But whether we still adequately consider that they are not human beings.

When expectations and reality diverge

As a breeder, you constantly experience how many hopes are associated with acquiring a puppy.

There is the idea of walks together, a loyal companion, closeness, joy of life and a harmonious family life.

And then the puppy arrives.

He might not sleep through the night, he might need to be house-trained, he explores his surroundings with his teeth, he's energetic and needs attention, patience, guidance, and time. Later, he might develop behaviors his owners hadn't anticipated (e.g., aggression).

A long-term study published in 2020 by Esther Bouma, Lonneke Vink, and Arie Dijkstra examined the expectations of 183 people before acquiring a dog and their experiences living with their new companion. Before getting a dog, people often imagine things differently than they actually do in everyday life.

The researchers interviewed people before and after they bought a dog and found two important things:

• Expectations change: How one views life with a dog transforms over time through real-life experiences.

• Beginners aren't incorrigible optimists: You might think that people who've never had a dog before see everything through rose-colored glasses. But that's not true. Many beginners are actually particularly cautious and don't underestimate the tasks involved.

The study nevertheless makes it clear that perceptions of a human-dog relationship and actual experiences do not necessarily coincide.

I find a Danish study from 2020 even more revealing.

Scientists analyzed the documented reasons for the surrender of 3,204 dogs to a large animal shelter between 1996 and 2017.

In about 75 percent of cases involving dog license relinquishes, the main reasons were related to the owners' living circumstances .

Health problems of the owners, changes in living situation, and lack of time played a significant role. In 23 percent of cases, behavioral problems of the dog were cited as the main reason for surrendering the dog.

The study makes it clear that we must not look for the causes of a failed human-dog relationship solely in the dog.

For me, this brings us full circle back to our alienation from nature.

Perhaps we are increasingly underestimating what it actually means to live with an animal?

Not necessarily because we know less about dogs.

Never before have we had so much information available about training, behavior, health, and nutrition. We can read countless books about dogs, watch videos, and follow dog trainers on social media.

But knowledge and practical experience are two different things.

The ability to attentively observe a living being, to understand its signals, to react appropriately, and to endure an unexpected situation does not arise solely from theoretical knowledge.

It develops through actual coexistence.

The question is whether we can combine the findings of modern science with an experience-based, relaxed approach to animals?

Perhaps we need to relearn how to see a dog as a dog.

Therefore, when I talk to people today who want a puppy, I don't just ask myself whether they have enough time, space and financial means for a dog.

I am increasingly interested in what expectations they have for this relationship.

What do you want from your dog? What role should it play in your life? Are you looking for a companion, a friend, a family member, perhaps also comfort, security, or a counterbalance to an increasingly confusing world?

All these wishes are understandable.

But the more we make the dog the vehicle for our own desires, the more important the question becomes whether we simultaneously grant it the right to be an independent living being?

For us breeders, trainers and veterinarians, this means that we should not only concern ourselves with the characteristics and needs of the dogs.

We must also engage with the people who want to live with them.

Perhaps responsible dog breeding therefore does not consist solely of raising healthy, well-socialized puppies that are prepared for their later life.

It also begins by giving people a realistic understanding of what it means to live with a dog.

A good human-dog relationship does not arise from the dog meeting our expectations as completely as possible.

It arises where we are willing to adapt our expectations to his needs.

Bibliography

Bouma, EMC, Vink, LM, & Dijkstra, A. (2020). Expectations versus reality: Long-term research on the dog–owner relationship. Animals, 10 (5), 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10050772

Clark Cline, K.M. (2010). Psychological effects of dog ownership: Role strain, role enhancement, and depression. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150 (2), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903368533

Jensen, JBH, Sandøe, P., & Nielsen, SS (2020). Owner-related reasons matter more than behavioral problems—A study of why owners relinquished dogs and cats to a Danish animal shelter from 1996 to 2017. Animals, 10 (6), 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10061064

Kellert, SR, & Wilson, EO (eds.). (1993). The biophilia hypothesis . Island Press.

Martin, F., Bachert, KE, Snow, L., Tu, H.-W., Belahbib, J., & Lyn, S.A. (2021). Depression, anxiety, and happiness in dog owners and potential dog owners during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. PLOS ONE, 16 (12), e0260676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260676

McConnell, AR, Brown, CM, Shoda, TM, Stayton, LE, & Martin, CE (2011). Friends with benefits: On the positive consequences of pet ownership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (6), 1239-1252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024506

Meints, K., Brelsford, V., & De Keuster, T. (2018). Teaching children and parents to understand dog signaling. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5 , 257. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00257

Miliutina, K., Trofimov, A., Zelenin, V., Andrushchenko, T., & Karamushka, L. (2023). The role of pets in preserving the emotional and spiritual well-being of Ukrainian residents during Russian hostilities. Journal of Religion and Health, 62 , 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-022-01669-4

Mota-Rojas, D., et al. (2021). Anthropomorphism and its adverse effects on the distress and welfare of companion animals. Animals, 11 (11), 3263. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113263

Packer, RMA, Brand, CL, Belshaw, Z., Pegram, CL, Stevens, KB, & O'Neill, DG (2021). Pandemic puppies: Characterizing motivations and behaviors of UK owners who purchased puppies during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Animals, 11 (9), 2500. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11092500

Soga, M., & Gaston, K.J. (2016). Extinction of experience: The loss of human-nature interactions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14 (2), 94–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1225

Teo, JT, Johnstone, SJ, Römer, SS, & Thomas, SJ (2022). Psychophysiological mechanisms underlying the potential health benefits of human–dog interactions: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 180 , 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2022.07.007

Wells, D.L. (2007). Domestic dogs and human health: An overview. British Journal of Health Psychology, 12 (1), 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1348/135910706X103284

Wilson, E. O. (1984). Biophilia . Harvard University Press.