It's not the dog's fault

Often we inadvertently train dogs to act more like humans than dogs. Dogs do not walk right up to each other, looking one another in the eye when they meet. This is considered an act of aggression. When allowed to progress naturally, without human leash intervention, they will approach each other at angles, eyes averted. But what do we do? Puppy is taken from his littermates at 8 weeks of age or less; much too young to have gotten the full advantage of socialization with his brothers and sisters. Then for the rest of his life, we lead puppy straight up to other people and dogs for a greeting.

When does this become a problem? When someone's dog comes charging up to my dog head-on. What happens next? My dog reacts defensively to this perceived act of aggression, but the other owner thinks I have a poorly-behaved, aggressive dog. I do not. I have a rescue dog who has learned to be hesitant to trust other dogs. When we rescued Emmie at 3 years of age, she was emaciated, had been neglected and abused. What little exposure she had to other dogs was probably in the shelters she wound up in, stressed and scared. She had never been walked on a leash. She had to be taught what to do with a ball and a dog toy, most likely because she never had any. Emmie has since been in numerous settings- on and off leash; with behaviorists, in kennels, classes and playdates. She has been socialized and she has been trained. She is not an aggressive dog, and never once have I been told that she is. But even with her regular playmates, she becomes defensive when she perceives herself to be at the disadvantage; when they are off leash and she is on. Even more so when she is being told to stay. To her, that is equivalent to being cornered with no way out.

I shouldn't even have to write about the experience I had at the park today. There were multiple signs at the entrance and throughout the park reminding dog owners that their dogs must be leashed. But a girl jogs past me, leash coiled up in her hand and her Chocolate Lab running loose about 5 feet ahead of her. The Lab starts heading straight at my dogs. Then they react (my dogs' reactions are almost always completely synchronized because they take cues from each other in that doggie way that appears almost psychic): barking, fur up, stiff posture. I am frozen at the side of the path, putting them in a sit/stay even though this only adds to Emmie's feeling of disadvantage, but I am unsure what the Lab will do so I want to have my dogs under control. This girl makes no attempt to call her dog closer to her. But fortunately, the Lab is wise enough to change directions away from my dogs and continue past.

She is probably thinking in her head that my dogs are aggressive and shouldn't be out in public. Maybe you are thinking that too. But if she had followed the law clearly posted, the incident would never have happened. I have walked past an untold number of leashed dogs in the years I've had Emmie without a single problem. The only problem we have ever had is being approached by an unleashed dog. Yes, the off-leash dogs all had a friendly manner, but it's akin to someone smiling and getting right into your face at the same time. You don't know what to make of it.

Coincidentally, today I ran across this story of Brandie, a 10 year old Siberian in Broward County, Fla. This dog was involved in a similar scenario, where a dog ran loose from its front door and lunged at Brandie, who reacted in defense and bit the small dog. The bite was ultimately fatal, so Brandie has been take from her owners and is scheduled to be euthanized. Brandie's owners state that this because the ordinance “automatically assumes that Brandie was unprovoked because of the death of the dog. It does not take into consideration that the other dog may have been the aggressor. It does not take into consideration that we were responsible pet owners having leashed our dog, while the other owners allowed their dog to run around unattended. Our Brandie had been PROVOKED by the other dog running straight at her and lunging at her. Brandie has lived in our home for 7.5 years: with two cats, another smaller dog and a baby. She plays well with other neighborhood dogs and loves all children big and small.” But now Brandie will pay for the other owners' irresponsibility with her life. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/help-save-dog-from-unjust-ordinance

Let's replay today's scenario in the park with a responsible dog owner. A girl and her dog are approaching. Her dog is on a leash AND under control. If her dog looks directly at my dogs, she corrects with a “Leave it,” as do I. The dogs walk past each other without incident, heading in the same direction as the owner, not charging this way and that. The dogs look at each other sideways as they pass. Nobody has acted rudely or aggressively. Nobody gets defensive. Maybe this dog owner is looking for a socialization opportunity. The owner asks first, at a good distance. If we agree, we allow the dogs to approach each other.

I'm sure many pedestrians would agree with my best-case scenario of a dog BOTH leashed and under control. A dog lunging at the extent of its leash is NOT under control. I'm not sure if the owners of such a dog just expect that both humans and animals would welcome aggressive approaches by their dog. But this behavior would be totally unacceptable coming from another human. Why should it be acceptable coming from a dog? Perhaps the passerby has a strong aversion to dogs, as my mother does, and does not want to be approached or sniffed. Just days ago I heard a radio DJ complaining that at a recent outdoor festival, he was quite upset by the number of dogs that stuck their noses into his child's stroller.

Ironically, those off-leash owners probably pride themselves on having their dog under control. And I might agree if the dog stays within a foot of the owner, paying attention to its master and keeping in step (known as “heeling”). I do not consider the dog we met at in the park today to have been under control because he was too far from his owner and changed direction without instruction from her. I always have my dogs in a very tight heel at my side when passing others in close quarters, and only allow them to approach a human or animal if the other party requests it. This is a matter of safety and common courtesy.

It is not that I question whether my dogs are safe. I walked them in the St. Patrick's Day parade, and they were petted by hundreds of strangers, tails wagging all the while. They maintained their composure when assaulted by an inebriated reveler, who put his hand over their muzzles and shook. This is an extremely aggressive act to a dog, especially by a stranger. But this man probably knew some dog who had been conditioned to accept this kind of handling, and assumed he could act thusly toward any dog. This is a common mistake. We tend to attribute human characteristics to our dogs because they are our family members. We forget that they are, in fact, still animals who cannot tell us whether our interpretation of their behavior is correct or simply anthropomorphizing.

People need to understand that dog behavior is different from human behavior, regardless of how their individual dog may have learned to act under their care. Out of safety and courtesy, dog owners have a responsibility to have their dog leashed AND controlled in public places. Too often, dogs pay the price for the ignorant and careless behavior of those around them.

The impossibility of "Imagine no possessions" within our society

Recently I began riding my bicycle to work. Remembering being the one behind the wheel, I began by riding on the sidewalk, keeping out of the way so the cars didn't have to be inconvenienced by me. Then I realized, "Hey, I'm one person on this bike, and that is one person in that car. There is no more value to that person than me for being surrounded by a greater mass of metal, glass and plastic". But this concept is completely ingrained in us- the more stuff you have, the more you're worth. Then I thought maybe that's why we gather all these items to ourselves. The bigger our accumulation is, the bigger we feel we are in terms of impact and import. We want to stand out, be noticed. We want to drive a big vehicle so people get out of our way. We need to feel we are set above and apart from the masses.

Back when we lived in smaller scale communities like tribes, when communities numbered in the hundreds and not in the millions, we could be recognized for our talents and deeds. Everyone knew everyone else personally. The status symbols were feathers in a head-dress. We still send universally-understood signals of our status. But now our possessions signify our status. What do I mean by signals? Here are some assumptions made about the owners of an SUV and a McMansion: they must have some minimum level of intelligence or cunning since they must earn a pretty decent paycheck. Similarly, assumptions are made about the person riding the bike. They might be quite poor; homeless even. Maybe they've gotten too many DWIs and lost their license. Now if you want, you can buy expensive specialty gear to identify yourself as a "cyclist" versus a lowly bike rider. Assumptions you might make about a "cyclist" include that the person has some minimum level of athletic ability and motivation. And most likely they belong to a higher socioeconomic status because those people tend to do something like cycle during their leisure time as opposed to, say, selling crack on the streets. Please understand that I am not trying to validate these assumptions; only point them out.

My car is another example. To save money, and because I am trying to reduce the number of miles I drive for environmental reasons, I decided not to lease another new car. Having to drive a 16 year old Pontiac Sunbird is its own deterrent. I am not saying that anyone is wrong for making these assumptions. It is an excellent deduction that no one would voluntarily choose to drive a rusted-out car. Safety, reliability and comfort are qualities woefully lacking in such a vehicle. We do own one safe late model car for those reasons.

The point I am making is this: we have become a consumerist society because we have this fundamental human need for recognition and validation by others. We tend to identify with a group or type, and align our outward cues accordingly: dress, possessions. This is universally understood whether were are conscious of it or not. What signals am I sending here? In my concert T-shirts and sweats, I will probably never be mistaken for a "cyclist." And I will never be mistaken for a college graduate with a good job while driving my car. I know I am sending signals that cause people people to underrate my intelligence, ambition and ability to succeed. This bothers me to some degree, so I frequently find myself talking to those around me about the car and my bike riding to call attention to the disparity. I can take comfort from the fact that the people who know me have me categorized somewhat correctly. Since my "rides" and manner of dress are a matter of choice, not necessity, my self-esteem can remain intact. And I know that the times I've been stranded and locked out by rusty locks would have been dealt with with a lot less equanimity and good humor if I had no other choice but to drive a car like this.

I am not suggesting that I am an exception. I make my own assumptions about "yuppies," which is why I choose not to be identified with them. I think of them as materialistic and lacking depth. Over and over again, I have been surprised by how different someone is than I assumed once I get to know him or her. But that has not yet stopped me from making these assumptions.

The second reason that our societal structure contributes to excessive resource consumption is that we do not receive the support we need from our society. Once, the community cared for children and elders. Now most of us work at things which have little or nothing to do with food acquisition, shelter constuction or dependent care, all so that we have enough money for food, shelter and dependent care. AND we have to drive far from our homes to do it. When times get tough, our support comes from impersonal social programs rather than from our neighbors.

So in summary, the major problem is the difference in environmental and societal impact between a feather and an SUV. Between a tribal hunter and a VP of marketing. We are not more inherently flawed and destined to ruin the earth than a tribal culture. Humans of all sorts have the same needs. The problem is the system we happen to live in. This is also not necessarily anyone's fault. Those involved in the agricultural and industrial revolution did not set out to ruin the earth. It is called progress for a reason, and I for one could not imagine living without the comforts and medical advances we enjoy. And like Quinn, I am not suggesting that we go back to living in caves. I am just pointing out that we need to at least recognize this as a problem and find ways to solve it within the context of our "modern" civilization.

I could end this by saying that I will no longer measure my worth by the things I've accumulated. But it's too late for that now. I have already gotten to the top of the mountain. Achieved the house and 2 cars and 2 kids and 2 dogs. I struggled for 9 years with the feelings of inferiority from not having a house. Even if I were inclined to give it all up now, that may affect the way I am perceived by others, but it will not affect the way I perceive my self for having attained those goals. It is very true that the bigger our accumulation is, the bigger our impact. But the impact is leaving a crater-sized footprint on the earth

I would like to credit Daniel Quinn and Bill McKibben for many of the ideas here.
Books by Daniel Quinn: Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization
By Bill McKibben: Global Warming Can't Buy Happiness Published on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 by The Los Angeles Times
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0321-22.htm