Ithaca e-Conference
Postings are archived at the IthacaConference Google GroupWeek Two (Feb. 22 - Feb. 28): Dog-Friendliness as an Issue
The issue of dog-friendliness is one to which some of us have not given a great deal of thought. Instead, we have been focusing on our most pressing need -- namely, a safe, secure and pleasant place to exercise our dogs off-leash. I believe that this is like focusing on your need for a good square meal without thinking about the underlying need for a decent job. It is important to prioritize, but at some point we need a strategy that looks beyond the next days and weeks. We need to acknowledge the fact that, whatever our small victories, dog ownership in our society is an endangered right. Like cigarette smokers, we can be squeezed and stigmatized until we wish we had never gotten a dog in the first place.
A campaign for dog-friendliness is not a matter of balancing a biscuit on our noses until everybody else says "Good dog!" and lets us eat it. That might be necessary if we were really a small minority with an ethically questionable bag -- like gun owners. But the paradox is that we are under seige despite our numbers and despite the scientifically established value of our fixation.
So, if biscuit-balancing is not the answer, what is? First of all, we need to come out of the closet in a very big way. Even the largest of our dog owner groups represent a miniscule proportion of local dog owners. We need an umbrella organization to help us pool our ideas, share our resources, and expand our agenda, just as the AFL and CIO turned a lot of feeble local labor unions into the single greatest force for reform in our history.
Secondly, we need to scent-mark our hydrants. By telling the world exactly what is going on in our communities, we identify our liabilities and capitalize on our assets. Between now and April 22, I hope that we will be able to continue to refine (or recast) the dog-friendliness survey and ranking system so that we will be able to announce results from our communities in our conference-closing press release.
Third, we need to start thinking off-leash. Dog phobias begin in childhood, and we should make it a priority to come up with instructional materials that can be adopted by school boards. We need to develop dog-based tourism so that residents and visitors in every community begin to think about vacation as a time to enjoy with our dogs, not as a time of guilt and financial burden when we are forced to consign them to the desperate boredom of a kennel. We need to bring together the groups that focus on no-kill shelters and tethering and breed-specific legislation and dog "sports" and veterinary health and service dogs (for search and rescue as well as assistance to disabled people); we need to realize that all these agendas are parts of a larger whole, which is to make room in our communities for the species that for thousands of years has been our best friend.
"Dog-friendliness" is not a novelty issue, a clever spin, a marketing gimmick, a new trick for an old demographic: it is the clear and obvious solution to our problem. Everything else is just a shortcut, and the results will be short-lived. Fortunately, the "dog-friendly" response to the "no dogs allowed" signs is already out there. We don't have to invent the wheel; we just have to get it rolling.
The topic for the second week of this e-conference is "Defining the dog-friendly community." This is not intended to be a semantic exercise; the goal is to formulate a protocol for rating communities, to be used in a carrot-and-stick strategy. That is, if a community is responsive to the needs of dog-owning residents and visitors, it might benefit economically from a positive rating (i.e., in competing for new businesses, tourism, and residents). Dog-owners in communities with low-ratings would have a convenient talking point in their efforts to improve conditions. I thought it might be useful to take a stab at a full draft, so that we can think about the application of the definition at the same time as we work out the definition itself. What are the necessary attributes of the definition (and the protocol)?
- It should be comprehensive in the range of factors considered -- but not necessarily exhaustive.
- It should be flexible; over the years to come, we must be able to adapt it to a changing agenda.
- It must be objective where possible, but it must embrace some measure of subjectivity.
- It should be as simple as possible, so that local dog groups can apply it without technical supervision.
- It should produce dispersed d-f values. That is, there should be large numerical difference between scores that are exemplary, mediocre, and catastrophic.
With these points in mind, we should try to group d-f factors into logical families, and think about their comparative importance. To a certain extent, this weighting of factors will depend on our agenda. For example, the presence of restaurants that feature dog meat on their menu may be a much greater negative factor that the insufficiency of off-leash recreational areas, but how can we justify assigning 50 points out of 100 to a factor that applies to so few communities?
Here is an off-the-cuff draft structure for the d-f assessment protocol:
Factor families:
- Interpersonal issues
- Commercial services
- Access to public spaces and facilities
- Public policy (other than what is covered in III.)
The weighting of these families should be set not by the real importance, but by the extent to which lobbying might result in improvements. It is a lot easier to prevail on the mayor to make a change in public policy than it is to get private individuals to change their behavior. Accordingly, I would assign these point values:
Total: 100 points
- 15 points
- 20 points
- 30 points
- 35 points
Now, what factors belong in each family?
- Interpersonal issues
- A healthy and active dog owners association
- Networks of friends willing to dog sit, pinch-walk, search for lost dogs, and give moral and practical support
- Commercial services
- Top-notch veterinary services
- Sufficient dog day-care, kennels, spas, pet supply shops; availability of accommodations, restaurants and basic facilities for people accompanied by dogs
- Availability of rental housing for families and individuals with dogs
- Canine blood bank
- Access to public spaces and facilities
- Adequate opportunities for off-leash recreation
- Accessibility of all public outdoor spaces to leashed dogs
- Accessibility of all public outdoor spaces to leashed dogs
- Down-town poop bag dispensers and dog-friendly water fountains
- Public policy (other than what is covered in #3)
- Special municipal programs to recognize the importance of dogs in the community
- Public school programs to inculcate respect and affection for pets, as well as responsible pet ownership
- Absence of breed-specific legislation
- A municipal ordinance against continuous tethering and confining of dogs
- A municipal "fair value for cats and dogs" ordinance that sets reasonable compensation level for wrongful death or injury (instead of the "replacement value" dictated by English common law, which treats dogs and cats like any other chattel)
- Public art and public events recognizing dogs
- A dog-friendly evacuation plan
- No-kill shelter, and fostering program
- Municipal government espouses the Dog-Friendly Community Pledge: [eg, "On behalf of the City of Blah-blah, I recognize our great debt to dogs as companions and allies. I ask every official, agency, group, business, and individual citizen to do what you can to make ours a truly dog-friendly community."]
