“We always let the dog choose the person who needs it most.”
This idea is often presented as a great quality in animal-assisted intervention.
It’s touching.
It gives the impression that the dog instinctively knows what to do.
But an essential question deserves to be asked:
Is it really the animal’s role to decide who it should work with?
At Synergie Plumes et Poils, we believe this responsibility belongs first and foremost to the professional.
The most common mistake
Some consider that a dog spontaneously taking the initiative to approach a beneficiary demonstrates great competence.
However, this initiative can also place the animal in a situation it is not able to assess.
The dog does not know the person’s history.
It does not know their fears.
It does not know if they like animals.
It does not know if they exhibit unpredictable behaviors.
It does not know the intervention objectives.
All this information belongs to the professional.
The SPP methodology perspective
At Synergie Plumes et Poils, we want the animal to be able to take initiative.
But we distinguish between two realities.
A structured initiative and an initiative left to chance.
We encourage a dog that returns to its handler to obtain a reference before approaching a beneficiary.
This return is not a sign of dependence.
It’s a collaborative behavior.
The dog learns that its human partner has information it does not have access to.
By checking in with its handler, it is then directed toward a safe interaction.
This way of working protects everyone.
An everyday example
Imagine a young educator entering a new classroom.
Without knowing the students, he spontaneously decides to pick up a crying child.
His intention is probably excellent.
But does he have all the information?
Does this child like being touched?
Is he experiencing trauma?
Is he in pain somewhere?
An experienced professional will first take the time to observe and understand the situation.
Why would we ask a dog to make such a complex decision alone?
An example in helping relationships
A handler is working with a group of people living with different challenges.
One of them is showing great distress.
The dog notices this agitation.
Rather than rushing spontaneously toward this person, it returns to its handler.
It makes contact.
It waits for a reference.
The handler quickly assesses the situation.
Is this the right time for an interaction?
Does the person want contact?
Is the context safe?
She then invites the dog to approach… or chooses another strategy.
The dog has not carried the responsibility for this decision alone.
It has worked as a team.
Professional practice protects the animal from decisions that do not belong to it
We want animals capable of taking initiative.
But we never want them to carry the responsibility of analyzing complex human situations.
This responsibility belongs to the professional.
It is the professional who knows the intervention objectives.
The characteristics of the clientele.
The risks present.
And everyone’s limits.
The animal’s preparation therefore consists of teaching it that it can observe, explore, return to ask for a reference, and then go when its partner invites it to do so.
This approach is based on a methodology of human and animal interactions, rigorous selection, assessment, progressive preparation, and certification that allow the human-animal team to intervene safely.
Because a good partner animal is not one that makes all the decisions.
It’s one that knows when to return to its handler to make them together.