Abstract
The utility of the dog as a mine detector has divided the mine clearance community since dogs were first used for this purpose during the Second World War. This paper adopts a historical perspective to investigate how, why, and to what consequence, the use of minedogs remains contested despite decades of research into their abilities. It explores the changing factors that have made it possible to think that dogs could, or could not, serve as reliable detectors of landmines over time. Beginning with an analysis of the wartime context that shaped the creation of minedogs, the paper then examines two contemporaneous investigations undertaken in the 1950s. The first, a British investigation pursued by the anatomist Solly Zuckerman, concluded that dogs could never be the mine hunter's best friend. The second, an American study led by the parapsychologist J. B. Rhine, suggested dogs were potentially useful for mine clearance. Drawing on literature from science studies and the emerging subdiscipline of “animal studies,” it is argued that cross-species intersubjectivity played a significant role in determining these different positions. The conceptual landscapes of Zuckerman and Rhine's disciplinary backgrounds are shown to have produced distinct approaches to managing cross-species relations, thus explaining how diverse opinions on minedog can coexist. In conclusion, it is shown that the way one structures relationships between humans and animals has profound impact on the knowledge and labor subsequently produced, a process that cannot be separated from ethical consequence.
Highlights
The utility of the dog as a mine detector has divided the mine clearance community since dogs were first used for this purpose during the Second World War
Beginning with an analysis of the wartime context that shaped the creation of minedogs, the paper examines two contemporaneous investigations undertaken in the 1950s
Despite having played a prominent role in the First World War, on the outbreak of the Second World War both the British and American military had come to view the use of war dogs as antiquated
Summary
Despite having played a prominent role in the First World War, on the outbreak of the Second World War both the British and American military had come to view the use of war dogs as antiquated. Military training regimes presumed that dogs orientated their behavior predominantly through their superior olfactory sense This principle was adapted in the making of minedogs; training was designed to build an association between the odor of meat, the odor of a landmine, and a food reward. Dogs were habituated to wearing a four foot leash and “working harness,” which served as a material means for the handler to communicate to the dog that they were at work At this stage, dogs were expected to learn to explore a predefined area where deactivated landmines had been strewn each with a piece of meat (or “chappie”) placed on its top. Landmines were first rubbed with meat so as to pick up the scent before being fully buried (the reward was carried by the handler and given if the dog sat by a correct burial point). For Richardson, the maintenance of a positive relationship between human and dog was the guarantor of successful communication and cooperation. The introduction of a negative association between handler and dog would serve only to prevent the formation of a productive working relationship
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
