As changes have occurred in academia and we have witnessed the development of understandings of animals as more than mere objects, there has arguably been a focus, as so often in research, on the exotic. Academics by and large seem to have, just like the general populace, an obsessive interest in the exotic, whereas interest in the everyday, the mundane, tends to be limited. It is into this latter category that the most popular pets, including the dog, fit. Indeed, McConnell (2005: xxvi) has stated that dogs have: ‘been proof for decades of the saying “Familiarity breeds contempt”. Scientists could study right whales or Serengeti lions or scissor-tailed flycatchers, but heaven forbid you tried to make your name as a researcher studying dogs.’ Yet, as McConnell (2005) noted, this situation is changing. Indeed, Hare and Woods (2013: 125) have noted that: ‘From being thought of as an unremarkable animal made stupid by domestication, all of a sudden dogs have become one of the most popular species for animal researchers to study.’
The field of leisure studies, as broadly defined, has similarly tended to ignore pets in general (Norris et al., 1999) and dogs in particular, focusing instead on the more exotic, wild animals in the tourism context (e.g. Coghlan and Prideaux, 2008; Markwell and Cushing, 2009; Duffy, 2014). Limited number of studies that have examined dogs in leisure have tended to focus on dog sports such as flyball and agility (Gillespie et al., 1996), as discussed in Chapter 3. Yet, while they are focused on a dog-related activity, the attention in most of these works has been on humans (e.g. Kemp, 1999; Baldwin and Norris, 1999; Gillespie et al., 2002; Hultsman, 2013). In contrast, the limited work undertaken in the veterinary sciences field on dogs in sport has focused exclusively on the mechanics of the animal (Pfau et al., 2011; Payne, 2013a, b; Birch and Leśniak, 2013), ignoring in the process the role of humans and the social construction of these dogs and the sport in which they are involved. This view is supported by Atkinson and Young (2005), who identified a lack of research by sociologists into blood sports in general and the sport of greyhound racing in particular. As will be discussed throughout the book other works, though small in number, have looked at dogs in a variety of settings but have generally failed to do so through a leisure studies lens, despite the activities the dogs and their owners are engaged in being clearly identifiable as leisure. More often than not they have focused on humans rather than the dogs. Even where attempts have been made to look at the dog and human as subjects, the data have tended to stem exclusively from the latter group (e.g. Kuhl, 2011), in the process arguably devaluing the voice of the dog.
History of the Dog and its Relationship with Humanity
Dogs have had and continue to have a complex variety of relations with humans. At one extreme there are people who harbour a deep-seated dislike, fear and even hatred of dogs; at the other extreme we see a strong bond of love and affection between people and dogs. Any examination of the nature of the position and experiences of dogs in the leisure environment needs to recognize the conflicting emotions that dogs can generate within the human population.
The relation between humans and dogs is complex and constantly evolving; it is also one that is specific to a given place and culture. Despite this, it is important to recognize that today dogs are more accepted as a ‘member of the family’ than at any time in history (Reichmann, 2000; Katz, 2003; Power, 2008). Or, as Rudy (2011: 29) said: ‘we have never in history been closer to our pets than we are today’. Indeed, Sanders (1999: 9) pointed out that most people who own a dog today identify it as a person or something with ‘person status’. Consequently, he stated that: ‘Studies show that somewhere between 70 and 99 percent of pet caretakers define their animals as members of the family, and from 30 to 83 percent consider the pet to be a “special” or “close” friend’ (p. 10). Indeed, reporting on a study in Australia, Power (2013) noted that 90% of Australians recognize their dogs as members of the family. Although not quite reaching the levels reported by Sanders, it is still important to note Herzog’s (2010: 9) claim that ‘Over half of dog owners think of their pets as family members.’ The result is that as Racher (2005: 11) stated: ‘dogs have become a major element of many families’. This view was echoed in an interview undertaken with one of the management team at the Hilton Hotel in Whistler in 2008 when he stated: ‘Time and time again you see families come up [to Whistler] and the pets [dogs] are their children.’ Such is the closeness between many people and their dogs that owners are said to form intimate and emotionally close and strong relations (not just bonds) with their animals and to even engage in conversations with them (Sanders, 1999). Indeed, it is not uncommon now to see it being claimed that owners place as much, or even more, value on their dogs and rely on them more for emotional support than they do on human members of their family (Sanders, 1999; Katz, 2003).
The move towards the positioning of the dog in the centre of the human family has arguably been an ongoing one throughout the history of the relationship between humans and dogs, but has become prevalent since the Industrial Revolution and the urbanization of formerly rural populations, and even more so in the last 100 years. Yet this trend can be traced back even further in its origin to the Renaissance era in Europe when the urbanized middle and upper classes began to keep pets; prime among which was the dog (Kalof, 2007). Indeed, Borsay (2006: 142) has stated: ‘what underpinned the increasingly sentimental attitude towards the animal kingdom was industrialization and urbanization, which drew more and more people away from direct contact with agriculture and the associated rearing, deployment, and killing of animals’. While there is clearly a long history associated with the pet dog in Europe it is important to note that Hare and Woods (2013) have identified that the pet dog existed in China in as early as the 1st century BC. As the quotation from Borsay suggests it is not just that humans have been positioning dogs as an ever more central component of the family, but that the meaning behind the dog has also been changing; shifting from an animal to be used by humans in the process of their work and even survival (a tool or object) to a pet. Indeed, Serpell and Paul (1994) noted the adoption of first the word ‘pet’ and more recently the term ‘companion animal’ as signs to show the changing nature of how we view animals such as the dog. These terms shift the emphasis away from the economic value of the domesticated animal and its overt use as a tool of work towards a recognition of the social and emotional value of the animal, and