Working dogs are those that help humans with a wide variety of “professional” tasks. They are different from assistance dogs in several ways, including their overall purpose and the fact that working dogs generally “work” for groups of people, not individuals. Examples of working dogs include police and military dogs. Generally speaking, working dogs are highly trained by experts to perform specific tasks, whether it be sniffing out bombs or drugs. However contemporary research shows that it may not be necessary for “experts” to be the ones to evaluate the behaviour of working dogs, and that laypeople may have equal rates of success in evaluating dogs that do highly specialized work.

In two studies conducted at military bases in the U.S., researchers examined if “minimally trained non-experts behavioral ratings were reliable and valid in working-dog populations.” They found that the non-experts were capable of “reproducing expert ratings of behavior in dogs at several different ages.” This is crucial, the researchers say, as it could “significantly reduce the burden on the expert assessors,” meaning that the whole process of training becomes more efficient. Whether or not that means a better experience for working dogs is an open question.

For animal advocates, this study underscores the complexity of our relationship with companion animals, and “working animals” in particular. Although many advocates understandably have mixed feelings about working dogs, these findings could also have implications for how shelters choose who will train and assess dog behaviour. If laypeople are able to reproduce “expert assessments” in a field as highly specialized as training dogs to detect bombs, it suggests that laypeople can also be trained to assess behaviour of dogs in different contexts that are relevant to advocating on their behalf.