For the majority of dogs whose owners have chosen their names thoughtfully, caringly and lovingly, this is no issue. I have found the creativity and wit behind the christenings given to some dogs quite enchanting. Indeed, I have often wished that we could embellish the thinking processes behind the selection of names for our charges with equal originality. Despite being chosen with care, I am rueful that our abilities in this area are quite run of the mill, so I am always grateful when the etheric take over and tell us the name by which a new pack member should be known.
But a name can present a quite significant problem for those unfortunates in rescue whose monikers are stupid and inappropriate, to the point where they border on damaging. All too regularly I find myself reflecting that some unfortunates must have been named by severely misguided individuals. It is not merely a cliche to find dogs called Fido, Pooch, Butch, Doggie or Spot. They exist in abundance, and they are the harmless ones. Consider the following, all of which I have come across. Bruiser, Scab, Monster, Thug, Devil, Beast, Wretch,Tyrant, Demon, El Diablo, Punisher, Ugli, Cujo. The list goes on... Perhaps the mindlessness that went into their naming was considered to be humorous by their one time owners, but these names now stand as hideous brandings and indictments upon their character that these poor souls have to live down.
So why, you may well ask, do the rescues simply not rename their charges? Well, that's a good point. You would think it common sense wouldn't you? Yet I still see these stupid (and frankly awful) names on a regular basis. I always take it to imply a dearth of sensitivity on the part of the rescue staff. In fairness, more often than not these 'bad' names crop up in the urban shelters of large conurbations where the staff may well be there for a job alone, not because they love animals and want to help them. I know that these individuals exist. But perhaps I'm being unkind. Perhaps the staff just feel that it would be wrong to change the name of the dog when it's used to being called in that way and responds to the moniker, however off putting it may be from the average person's human perspective. Or maybe the staff just don't realise that for humans, a name carries with it an implication about the character of the being behind the title.
Your second supposition may well be that any right thinking prospective owner would not be put off by the ghastliness of the name. After all, they can simply change it, and therefore, it isn't really an issue. And of course, that's true. But ask yourself this simple question. Faced with two dogs of undetermined origin, similarly attractive in appearance and reported temperament, one called Bevan and the other called Destroyer. Which one would you be inclined to be more interested in? Be honest! Now do you see the problem?
Yet even when the dog does not have to bear the burden of its human's unthinking folly, and even when a pet is not experiencing the purgatory of incarceration in a shelter, the names they are given may still cause them issues. In the course of delivering the 'Pet Insight' sessions offered as one of services on this site, I am increasingly encountering dogs who do not wish to retain their given names. The explanation given is that the effect of being called by that name is jarring and uncomfortable in its impact. Initially, this came as a surprise for me. Then this week I was informed that the Akita we had happily named Lucy several years ago now, would prefer to be called by the name KiKi. Funnily enough, at the time we got her I had asked for guidance and proffered the name to Sharon as if it were a joke, only to dismiss what I was hearing because neither of us exactly warmed to the name. Of course, if you say them, Lucy and KiKi are quite similar in their sound, so it was easy enough to kid myself that I had misheard . But even I, with a direct and clear line to all the guidance anyone could ever want, was prepared to ignore input based on my own selfish version of what was acceptable.
So three days ago we renamed the big Akita with a name I will forever associate with an ugly looking frog from the naffest children's television programme ever made, 'Hector's House'. (If you're not from the UK you might be blessed with never having seen this!) And the funny thing is, she responded immediately and seems to love it.
What is quite clear to me now is that carelessness with choosing a pet's name is not really acceptable. Humans are able to make their desired names known to their parents in advance of their birth, and there is no doubt in my mind that dogs also wish us to know their preferences. If we can accept that dogs have feelings and that they can understand several hundred words of human language, which even learned scientists will now accept that they do, why should it be otherwise? Their wellbeing (or even their lives) may not always be dependant upon it, but it is important to them.
So what's in name? A lot.
I know this because an Archangel told me so.
NB. Sharon reprimands me and avers to have greatly enjoyed 'Hectors House'. It was, after all, about a dog called Hector. In my criticism of its appallingness, I am only speaking for myself!