Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Countering Pro-Barking Propaganda, Part II

The laundry list of excuses pumped out by pro-barkers, authorities and apologists is extremely long and as such deserves a "PART II".   Numbering scheme picks up where the last post left off....

6)  Its not bothering anyone else.  This implies a few things, 1) The pro-barker is able to definitively prove a negative, 2) They are not lying, and 3)  An offense requires at least TWO victims to trigger a violation.

Counterpoints:  First, there is no way they can possibly know that their dog is not bothering anyone else.  They can't prove a negative.   Offenses of all types go unreported for a variety of reasons:  Victims are afraid of either the perp or authorities, for example.

Second, YOU don't know if the perp is telling the truth.  He may have gotten ten complaints about the dog in the past hour for all you know.   The perp does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Third, what crimes/code violations require more than one complainant?  Are families of murder victims told "hey, he hasn't killed anyone else (yet)?"  Of course not.   If you are, in fact, the only person harmed by the dog, that is STILL one person too many.

Note that variations of this excuse drive the "multiple household law" and even "multiple bite laws", which are both a clear violation of our right to equal protection.

7)  This complaint is false and/or malicious or personal in nature.  Their point being,  You are making this up because you don't like me or you are a bad person in some way.   This excuse is often used by authorities in an attempt to evade doing their jobs.

Counterpoints:   This may actually be true in some cases... false reporting of offenses is a serious matter.  However, the number of offenses dwarfs the number of complaints, therefore the number of FALSE complaints is relatively small.  Further, whether or not you "like" the perp is irrelevant.  Where does it say we have to like everyone that offends against us?  Nowhere.  The only thing relevant is whether or not the offense actually occurred.  Your best bet is to build a portfolio of "evidence", video with sound is best.

8)  Its not bothering me.   This is probably the stupidest thing ever said by anyone.  However, pro-barkers use this from time to time.  Their point being, since their dogs behavior (barking all night, killing the next door neighbor, etc...) does not bother the DOG OWNER, the act is perfectly acceptable and legal.

Counterpoints:   This is an absurd argument that could be used to excuse anything.  I could blow up the Empire State Building and make the same claim.  I don't think I would get away with that, however.  Whether or not the offender is offended by the act in question is irrelevant.

9)  Just Get Used to It.   Their point being, their dog's behavior can not be restricted in any way and everyone else should be forced to endure the endless barking, trespass, dog crap everywhere, and dog on human attacks.   They feel that dogs and dog owners are empowered to do anything, to anybody, without any reprisal.

Counterpoints:  This is another absurd argument that could be used to excuse anything.  Again, if I am a terrorist blowing up buildings, can I merely state that everyone else should "Just Get Used to It?"   I can say that, but I seriously doubt I would be excused.

Dogs and their owners are, technically, not in a legally protected class.  They act like it, but they are not.  They should restrict their behavior in the same manner as everyone else.  Our right to equal protection, use of our property, etc... should not be automatically voided when there is a dog in the vicinity. 

Its probably noteworthy that authorities in many jurisdictions act as though dogs and dog owners ARE in some sort of protected class.   Multiple household laws, multiple bite laws, etc... are proof of this.  Those type of laws need to be defeated and we should demand equal protection of laws from authorities in all cases.

10)  There is nothing I can do.  Their point is, they are helpless/powerless to control their dog or ameliorate the problem in any way.

Counterpoints:  There is plenty they can do, they can:
- Train the dog not to bark.
- Confine the dog in such a way that it brings discomfort to no one.
- Surgically debark the dog.
AND, last but not least...
- They can choose to NOT have a dog in the first place!

If you can't control your dog, DON'T HAVE ONE!


  1. Quality comment like the above is worthy of far more public dissemination than that via a blog, and I suggest the consistently high standard is worthy of a full website.

  2. Another concern that needs to be addressed is bringing dogs into super markets and other businesses and stating they are a service dog without having any proof of same. I see lots of them sitting at coffee shops and not being a fan of feces eating animals with fleas, I don't appreciate it.

  3. Some owners are pushing for dogs to be allowed to sit at table in restaurants.

    A deputy commissioner of police told me that on his recent trip to Europe he'd actually seen the waiter pull out the chair so the dog could jump up and sit on it near its owner, then push the chair and dog towards the table in the usual way so it could be fed there - and it was.