Offering Better Care: Statistics on Bettering Our Communities with Dogs

By /

Data and facts on how dogs can help create a better community for humans.

Jump to:
Working Dogs

Highlights

Working Dogs

Jump to: Working Dogs and Handlers | Public Perception of Service Dogs in Canada

Working Dogs and Handlers

Jump to: End of Partnership

Handler’s Grief at the End of the Partnership

External link: 
Lloyd J, Budge C, La Grow S and Stafford K (2021) The End of the Partnership With a Guide Dog: Emotional Responses, Effects on Quality of Life and Relationships With Subsequent Dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:543463. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.543463

Fate of the the Dog
Dogs’ fate n (%)1st dog (n=36)2nd dog (n=19)3rd dog (n=8)4th dog (n=5)5th dog (n=4)6th dog (n=3)7th dog (n=2)
Retired–family2 (5.6%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Retired–friend7 (19.4%)1 (5.3%)1 (12.5%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (33.3%)0 (0.0%)
Retired–RNZFB home7 (19.4%)3 (15.8%)1 (12.5%)1 (20.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Returned–rematched*2 (5.6%)7 (36.8%)2 (25.0%)2 (40.0%)3 (75.0%)2 (66.7%)1 (50.0%)
Kept as pet by handler6 (16.7%)3 (15.8%)2 (25.0%)1 (20.0%)1 (25.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Returned–RNZFB’s home2 (5.6%)0 (0.0%)1 (12.5%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Returned–new career0 (0.0%)1 (5.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Deceased/euthanasia10 (27.8%)4 (21.1%)1 (12.5%)1 (20.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (50.0%)
Kept in touch – if possible (%)32 (88.9%)12 (63.2%)6 (75.0%)3 (60.0%)2 (50.0%)1 (33.3%)1 (50.0%)
Fate of the the Dog
Time “put off” applying for a replacement dog 1st dog2nd dog3rd dog4th dog5th dog6th dog7th dog
No time28 (77.8%)15 (78.9%)7 (87.5%)5 (100.0%)4 (100.0%)2 (66.6%)1 (50.0%)
Up to 3 months3 (8.3%)1 (5.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
3–6 months1 (2.8%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
6 months–1 year0 (0.0%)1 (5.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (50.0%)
2–5 years2 (5.6%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)
Indefinitely2 (5.6%)2 (10.5%)1 (12.5%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (33.3%)0 (0.0%)

Participant Intentions Regarding Future Guide Dog Use (N=36)

  • 26 participants predicted using another guide dog:
    • 8 preferred a dog solely for mobility over a long cane.
    • 16 preferred a dog for mobility (over a long cane) and equally valued the companionship and social interactions it provided.
  • 7 participants did not envision using another dog in the future, citing reasons such as:
    • Changed mobility needs (n=2)
    • Lack of trust in the guide dog school (n=2)
    • Considered retraining not worth the effort (n=1)
    • Felt no difference in life with or without a guide dog (n=1)
    • Unsuitable living environment (n=1)
  • 3 participants were undecided, with reasons including:
    • Enjoying a break from dog ownership (n=1)
    • Unsure about future need (n=1)
    • Under family pressure not to get another dog (n=1)

Participants’ Current Status Regarding Guide Dog Ownership (N=36)

  • 6 participants (16.7%) were currently on a guide dog school’s waiting list for a replacement:
    • 3 had no dog.
    • 1 had a temporary dog.
    • 1 had a poorly matched dog.
    • 1 had a dog due to retire.
  • 30 participants were not currently on a waiting list, comprising:
    • 19 who were happily using their current dogs.
    • 3 who were debating returning their current dogs (due to canine issues like distraction, aggression, or poor health).
    • 8 who had previously used a dog and decided not to get another, or were taking a break (as detailed in the previous section).
Feelings at the End of the Partnership
Feelings1st dog
(n = 36)		2nd dog
(n = 19)		3rd dog
(n = 8)		4th dog
(n = 5)		5th dog
(n = 4)		6th dog
(n = 3)		7th dog
(n = 2)		Total
(n = 77)
Grief – extreme22 (61.1%)8 (42.1%)3 (37.5%)1 (20.0%)1 (25.0%)1 (33.3%)2 (100.0%)38 (49.4%)
Grief – somewhat3 (8.3%)1 (5.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (5.2%)
Neutral1 (2.8%)1 (5.3%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)2 (2.6%)
Relieved1 (2.8%)4 (21.1%)1 (12.5%)3 (60.0%)2 (50.0%)2 (66.6%)0 (0.0%)13 (16.9%)
Angry with the guide dog school8 (22.2%)4 (21.1%)1 (12.5%)1 (20.0%)1 (25.0%)1 (33.3%)0 (0.0%)16 (20.8%)
Shocked to “fail”3 (8.3%)4 (21.1%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (25.0%)1 (33.3%)0 (0.0%)9 (11.7%)
Guilty11 (30.6%)2 (10.5%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (50.0%)14 (18.2%)
Accepting23 (63.9%)12 (63.2%)7 (87.5%)4 (80.0%)2 (50.0%)2 (66.6%)0 (0.0%)33 (42.9%)
Reassured re. Pet home16 (44.4%)6 (31.6%)7 (87.5%)2 (40.0%)2 (50.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)33 (42.9%)
Worry re. mobility3 (8.3%)2 (10.5%)1 (12.5%)0 (0.0%)1 (25.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (50.0%)8 (10.4%)
Resentful/denial1 (2.8%)3 (15.8%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)4 (5.2%)
No self-blame1 (2.8%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (1.3%)
Family devastated6 (16.7%)3 (15.8%)1 (12.5%)1 (20.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (33.3%)1 (50.0%)13 (16.9%)
Hoping for better next time2 (5.6%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)1 (20.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)0 (0.0%)3 (3.9%)
Relationship with Subsequent Dogs
  • Following the end of 71 guide dog partnerships, the subsequent relationships with new dogs showed varied effects:
    • Negative Impact (19 partnerships, 26.8%):
      • Handlers felt the old dog was a better mobility aid and/or generally less “puppy-like.”
      • Memories of the previous dog inhibited bonding with the new one. This factor alone was enough to deter some handlers from acquiring a replacement dog indefinitely.
    • Positive Impact (13 partnerships, 18.3%):
      • Handlers benefited from prior experience, knowing what to expect.
      • The new dog was perceived as an improvement over the previous one.
    • No Comparison Made (12 partnerships, 16.9%):
      • Despite feelings of loss, the new dogs were appreciated as individuals, without direct comparison to their predecessors.
    • No Effect (27 partnerships, 38.0%):
      • The largest group reported no discernable effect from the previous partnership on their relationship with the new dog.
Effects on Quality of LIfe
Effect on Quality of LifeN (%)
Reduced
Loss of independent mobility*31 (86.1%)
Loss of friend/companion**21 (58.3%)
Curtailing of social function/interactions***10 (27.7%)
Loss of self-esteem/confidence6 (16.7%)
Concern regarding when dog will be replaced5 (13.9%)
Feelings of failure re mismatch/guilt at giving up dog3 (8.3%)
Neutral
Handler’s decision—change in circumstances/mobility needs4 (11.1%)
No effect—good cane traveler and not very attached to dog3 (8.3%)
Increased
Appreciated a break from responsibilities of dog ownership3 (8.3%)
Return of unsuitable dog liberating2 (5.6%)
Long cane skills improved1 (2.8%)

Research Summary | Back to Top

Public Perception of Service Dogs in Canada

External link: 
Gibson M, Williamson L, Dell CA. Insights into Canadians’ Perceptions of Service Dogs in Public Spaces. Animals. 2023; 13(19):3091. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13193091

Public Perception of Service Dogs

PromptStrongly DisagreeDisagreeNeither Agree
nor Disagree		AgreeStrongly AgreeMean Value
Service Dogs should be allowed in restaurants1.24%1.65%3.09%25.77%67.84%4.579
Individuals who work in a factory should be able to bring their Service Dog with them3.09%10.31%20.41%26.80%38.35%3.879
Service Dogs should be allowed in airplane cabins with other passengers1.44%3.92%9.28%27.01%57.11%4.361
Service Dogs should be allowed in public transportation vehicles (e.g., bus transit, taxis, streetcars, ferries, etc.)0.83%0.83%3.12%24.32%70.89%4.636
Individuals who work in an office building should be able to bring their Service Dog with them1.03%1.65%6.60%25.15%64.95%4.523
Individuals who work in the food service industry should be able to bring their Service Dog with them5.15%19.38%27.63%20.62%26.60%3.444
Individuals who work in a healthcare setting should be able to bring their Service Dog with them3.71%12.16%25.57%23.51%34.43%3.732
Individuals who work in a school should be able to bring their Service Dog with them1.65%5.15%9.28%28.87%54.43%4.301
Individuals who work with children should be able to bring their Service Dog with them1.86%3.92%10.93%29.69%52.99%4.289
Individuals who work with senior citizens should be able to bring their Service Dog with them0.82%3.30%7.01%26.80%61.44%4.456
Predicted response on public access support (scale of 1–5)
AttributeNumber of RespondentsPredicted Response Given Attribute
Gender
Man2104.10
Woman2524.32
Other Identity144.45
Race / Ethnicity
Indigenous to North America/Turtle Island124.61
White or European4054.24
Asian154.02
Multiracial144.40
Other103.19
Current Pet Ownership
Yes2834.28
No1894.13

Research Summary | Back to Top

Scroll to Top