The Politics of Identity in Hunting Dogs

A critical inquiry into the relationships of hunting dogs with humans.

Posted Aug 17, 2020

This guest post is by Teresa Tyler, Ph.D. candidate and director of TheDoGenius. It was originally printed in the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants Journal.

Teresa Tyler, used with permission
Source: Teresa Tyler, used with permission

My insights into the hunting dog’s world begin with my own experiences of Cypriot hunting dogs and engagement with data that exists in my home and workplace in Cyprus. It makes its presence known to me continually and is not to be ignored. Indeed, the beliefs and values I have about hunting and the dogs involved are influenced by these dogs’ stories, which are woven into my professional self and personal scenarios.

Arguments about the difference between hunting and pet dogs are used to justify the legal and moral standing of the dogs, and where and how they fit into the Cypriot life. The demarcation of hunting dogs is vague. They exist in a liminal space, being neither companion, working, or farm dogs, with the closest definition I can conclude being an accessory to a leisure pursuit. 

A Brief Cultural History of Hunting Dogs

Dogs have been modified by humans to fill their many roles, either aesthetic or utilitarian, yet the role that appears to have the most longevity is that of a hunting partner, with Downs (1960) suggesting that wolves were domesticated for a symbiotic hunting role,1  although this has since been disputed. The use of dogs by subsistence hunters has been recorded in a wide variety of locations and habitats dating back to Paleolithic times.2

Literature tells us that humans benefit significantly from their relationships with dogs.3-9 Humans’ hunting ability is more successful when assisted by dogs than by humans alone.10,2 In his ethnographic book about the hunter-gatherers of the Andaman Islands, Cipriani describes how the Onges acquired dogs for hunting purposes in the mid-1800s in order to capture pigs. Before this, the group survived on a predominantly fish-based diet, and the introduction of dogs revolutionized their lives.11

Similar relationships have been noted in other areas of the world. In Indonesia, the Matinen people hunt wild pig and buffalo, accompanied by dogs. “In the hunt, locally bred dogs play an important part. During the hunts, but also at home in Makatian, hunting dogs are affectionately cared for by their male masters.”12

The Swedish explorer Carl Lumholtz spent four years with Aboriginal communities in Queensland, where he discovered an affectionate relationship between the humans and dingoes that were used for hunting purposes. He said:

The dingo is an important member of the family; it sleeps in the huts and gets plenty to eat, not only of meat but also of fruit. Its master never strikes, but merely threatens it. He caresses it like a child, eats the fleas off it, and then kisses it on the snout.13

Teresa Tyler, used with permission
Source: Teresa Tyler, used with permission

Modern Hunter-Dog Relationships

Members of the hunting community across Cyprus—where hunting is a leisure pursuit, not a necessity for subsistence—vary in their connectedness with their dogs. For some, the bond appears to be strong, ultimately resulting in a good working partnership in the hunting field and an appreciation of “personhood”14 of their dogs. Five hunters told me they keep their dogs inside their homes or in kennels attached to or on their property and share in their daily lives. However, having seen many more just in my own locality that are kept away from residential areas and in cages, I presume that the majority do not have such a close attachment. It is these caged conditions that spark controversy amongst non-hunting groups and animal advocates, who deem them to be poor in terms of welfare.

James Jordan described similar dichotomies with hunting dog value and treatment in the rural South of America. He notes the appreciation of the dog within that society, yet identifies what he calls a serious objection that arises out of the callous and cruel treatment of the dogs, and rightly states that “this apparent schizophrenia of the rural white Southerner in his relations with his dog is not without parallel elsewhere.”15 He debates the ability of humans to turn their canine companions from subjects that are handled humanely to objects where no care is given. He provides three possible reasons, all of which I can agree to a certain extent with from my observations of hunter-dog relationships here in Cyprus. Firstly, economic constraints and financial hardship may elicit the indifference to their dogs’ welfare. Secondly, he proposes that a masculine ethos of toughness that enables people to endure such hardship may be applied equally to the dogs. By doing so, the masculinity could be an unconscious defense against loss of the dog through straying, disease, or accident. Finally, he claims that the dog having a subordinate status becomes an outlet for the men’s dominance, power, or displaced anger in communities where men tend to feel displaced and powerless themselves.15, 16

Teresa Tyler, used with permission
Source: Teresa Tyler, used with permission

Welfare Concerns

Three days a week, I work in a local veterinary clinic as a nurse. Hunting days often bring business from hunters whose dogs have been bitten by snakes, poisoned allegedly by rival hunters, or, on occasion, accidentally shot. Outside of the season, pregnant bitches used to produce new generations of hunting dogs are frequently brought in sick or having difficulties giving birth. The dogs are transported to the clinic in metal cages built into the bed of the pick-up trucks, or metal boxes welded onto the tow bars of 4×4 vehicles. Dogs are carried in at arm’s length by the scruff of their necks and the loose skin on their backs, as they are not leash trained and are usually dirty and smelly. Most are covered in ticks. Many are in poor condition: underweight, lacking muscles, and having overgrown nails, as they are kept caged except for when used for hunting.

What strikes me about these dogs is their lack of interaction with me. They are vacant, avoid eye contact, and show no behavioral clues of connection, like a fleeting look, lip lick, or tail wag.17,18 They avoid touch and affection, however kindly it is intended, and I am intrigued by the apparent learned helplessness demonstrated by their behavior.19 An observer might argue that the behavior is a result of lack of socialization20,21,22 or fear of being at the clinic, and these are possible; however, I have seen other under-socialized dogs during many years of veterinary work that presented with a variety of behavioral issues, but none consistently demonstrated learned helplessness like the hunting dogs brought to this clinic. I consider that it could be a breed trait influence, but am more convinced that it is an experiential process that produces this behavior as its functional purpose fits with learned rather than innate reasons.

Possible Causes of Learned Helplessness in Hunting Dogs

Hunting dogs are not pets in the way many describe.23-26 They are also not free-ranging, as they are restricted by human activities; they are mostly not under direct human supervision, but total human control.27,28 For hunting dogs, the practice of caging means that the dogs are not able to behave in ways which free-ranging dogs would—traveling, scavenging for food, often alone or in pairs, and so on—but they are also not given the opportunities for enrichment and attachment that pet dogs typically are (although of course, the way owners treat their pet dogs should also be subject to scrutiny, especially in terms of how much we restrict their opportunities for choice and how human behavioral norms around keeping pet dogs causes behavior problems like separation anxiety).

Cypriot hunting dogs do not typically share a bond with their human owner in the same way that companion dogs might. For them, the daily routine may be nonexistent, and training might be confined to one month a year where the dog can roam so far as their owner will allow, before shocking them with a remotely controlled electric collar to prevent them disappearing over the horizon. They may see their owner once a day, to be fed, watered and cleaned, but the rest of the time they have only canine companionship in their caged environments.

How Caging Is Stressful for Hunting Dogs

Free-ranging dogs have physical space, which allows time for solitude, but the forced closeness of caged dogs can contribute to territorial behaviors rarely seen in free-ranging groups, as well as other issues like sleep deprivation. The inability for hunting dogs to behave normally due to their housing, I suspect, is one of the main contributors to stress indicators that I have observed. Beerda et al. (1997) state: “Poor housing conditions, harsh training sessions, and uncontrollable or unpredictable social environments are examples of situations that may lead to reduced welfare status in dogs. Individuals that suffer from poor welfare presumably experience stress and may consequently exhibit stress responses.”29

I have seen dogs displaying repetitive behaviors such as pacing, wall bouncing, excessive licking, continual barking—stress behaviors that have been documented for decades.30-33

Yet, for many hunting dogs, boredom appears to manifest itself in a lethargy or even apathy, particularly in the Beagle and hound-type dogs, something identified by Corson and Corson (1976) who noted Beagles’ stress responses were absent or described as a withdrawal response compared to terrier-type breeds, that showed a more usual flight-or-fight response.34 I question whether hunting dog breeds hide their stress responses so that to the observer they appear to be content with their environments when in fact they are not. This is not necessarily a correlation to breed, more a response to the environment in which hunting dogs live. 

Even though some hunters claim to treat their caged dogs well, the mere practice of caging many dogs without sufficient space (4 square meters per dog as per Cyprus welfare protocol) is in itself abusive.

Teresa Tyler, used with permission
Source: Teresa Tyler, used with permission

The long periods of confinement in cages, lack of stimulation, and socialization, combined with poor husbandry, seemed to have the most detrimental impact on the dogs. The dog’s basic needs were not met mentally, emotionally, and sometimes physically, and they suffered as a consequence. However, many much-loved companion dogs are left confined in training crates within the home for long periods, while their guardians are out. Pierce and Bekoff (2019) explain how this type of captivity can be detrimental to millions of dogs suffering from boredom, loneliness, anxiety, and frustration.35 These feelings can manifest in behavioral problems, such as excessive barking, destructiveness, or overeating. 

Other contributing factors to overall poor welfare are more evident. Irregular food, lack of fresh water, minimal mental and physical stimulation, and lack of preventative medical care are, to passing visitors, grounds enough for complaint, yet the fundamental ethological needs are often missed even if the dogs do have food, water, and shelter. Indeed, I suspect the happiest times for those dogs are when they are hunting and free to experience normal behaviors, can express themselves physically, and are stimulated mentally.

Canines are a species that can form communities, find niches for themselves, and live a life more appropriate with their own, within varying degrees of proximity to humans. They are not lost souls waiting for human saviors. They exhibit agency and free will.

Throughout my time spent with these dogs, I encountered and bore witness to the dogs’ presences, experiencing a deep intersubjectivity and honoring them, both in life and death. I explored my role as an advocate for them, and I invite others to do the same. I hope by raising awareness of the physical and mental impacts enrollment into hunting has, the needs of the dogs in this context will be better met.


1. Downs, J.F. (1960). Domestication: An examination of the changing social relationships between man and animals. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 22, 18–67.

2. Koster, J.M. (2008). Hunting with dogs in Nicaragua: An optimal foraging approach. Current Anthropology 49:5, 935–944.

3. Barker, S.B., and Barker, R.T. (1988). The human-canine bond: Closer than family ties? Journal of Mental Health Counseling 10:1, 46–56.

4. Barker, S.B. et al (2018). The relationship between pet ownership, social support, and internalising symptoms in students from the first to fourth year of college. Applied Developmental Science 1–15.

5. Baun, M.M., Oetting, K., and Bergstrom, N. (1991). Health benefits of companion animals in relation to the physiologic indices of relaxation. Holistic Nursing Practice 5:2, 16–23.

6. Bernstein, P.L., Friedmann, E., and Malaspina, A. (2000). Animal-assisted therapy enhances resident social interaction and initiation in long-term care facilities. Anthrozoös 13:4, 213–224.

7. Esnayra, J. (2007). Help from man’s best friend. Psychiatric service dogs are helping consumers deal with the symptoms of mental illness. Behavioral Healthcare 27:7, 30–32.

8. Herzog, H. (2011). The impact of pets on human health and psychological well-being: Fact, fiction, or hypothesis? Current Directions in Psychological Science 20:4, 236–239.

9. Marino, L. (2012). Construct validity of animal-assisted therapy and activities: How important is the animal in AAT? Anthrozoös, 25(sup1), s139–s151.

10. Koster, J. (2009). Hunting dogs in the lowland neotropics. Journal of Anthropological Research 65:4, 575–610.

11. Cipriani, L. (1966). The Andaman Islanders. F.A. Praeger.

12. Broch, H.B. (2008). Gender and Matinen dogs. Asian Anthropology 7:1, 57–77.

13. Lumholtz, C., and Anderson, R.B. (1889). Among cannibals; an account of four years’ travels in Australia and of camp life with the aborigines of Queensland; New York, C. Scribner’s sons.

14. Hurn, S. (2012) Humans and Other Animals: Cross-cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions. London: Pluto Press

15. Jordan, J.W. (1975). An ambivalent relationship: Dog and human in the folk culture of the rural south. Appalachian Journal 2:3, 238–248.

16. Blouin, D.D. (2015). Are dogs children, companions, or just animals? Understanding variations in people’s orientations towards animals. Anthrozoös 26:2, 279-294.

17. Miklosi, A. (2007). Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

18. Rugaas, T. (1997). On Talking Terms with Dogs. Wenatchee: Dogwise Publishing.

19. Seligman, M.E.P., Maier, S.F., & Geer, J. (1968). Alleviation of Learned Helplessness in the Dog. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 73:3, 256-263

20. Howell, T.J., King, T., and Bennett, P.C. (2015). Puppy parties and beyond: the role of early age socialization practices on adult dog behavior. Veterinary Medicine Research & Reports. 6, 143-153.

21. Seksel, K., Mazurski, E.J., and Taylor, A. (1999). Puppy socialisation programs: short and long-term behavioural effects. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62:4, 335–349.

22. Udell, M.A.R., Dorey, N.R., & Wynne, C.D.L. (2009). What did domestication do to dogs? A new account of dogs’ sensitivity to human actions. Biological Reviews 85:2, 327–345.

23. Bradshaw, J. (2017). The Animals Among Us: The New Science of Anthrozoology. London: Penguin Books.

24. DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press.

25. Horowitz, A. (2016). Being a Dog: Following the Dog into a World of Smell. New York: Scribner.

26. Taylor, N. (2013). Humans, Animals, and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Lantern Books.

27. Berman, M., and Dunbar, I. (1983). The social behaviour of free-ranging suburban dogs. Applied Animal Ethology 10:1, 5–17.

28. Cafazzo, S. et al (2010). Dominance in relation to age, sex, and competitive contexts in a group of free-ranging domestic dogs. Behavioral Ecology 21:3, 443–455.

29. Beerda, B. et al (1997). Manifestations of chronic and acute stress in dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 52:3, 307–319.

30. Hetts, S. et al (1992). Influence of housing conditions on beagle behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34:1, 137–155.

31. Hubrecht, R.C., Serpell, J.A., and Poole, T.B. (1992). Correlates of pen size and housing conditions on the behaviour of kennelled dogs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34:4, 365–383.

32. Mason, G., and Rushen, J. (Eds.). (2006). Stereotypic animal behaviour: fundamentals and applications to welfare (2nd ed.). Wallingford: CABI.

33. Solomon, R.L., Kamin, L.J., & Wynne, L.C. (1953). Traumatic avoidance learning: the outcomes of several extinction procedures with dogs. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 48:2, 291–302.

34. Corson, S.A., and Corson, E.O. (1976). Constitutional Differences in Physiologic Adaptation to Stress and Distress. In Psychopathology of Human Adaptation (pp. 77–94). Springer, Boston, MA.

35. Pierce, J. & Bekoff, M. (2019). Unleashing Your Dog: A field guide to giving your dog the best life possible. California. New World Library.