Thursday, September 6, 2012

Sweat the small stuff

The little things do add up.  What is worse, having $50,000 stolen from you in one day, or $1,000 stolen every day for 50 days?  The outcome is the same.  Furthermore, the thief who steals $1,000 dollars is more apt to commit grand theft as opposed to, say, one who has never stolen anything.

There is a great anti-barking blog indicated on the right side of this blog page.  The author lives in a neighborhood where the quality of life has been completely destroyed by malicious dog owners and their dangerous, completely out of control dogs.  These offenses include:
-          Frequent dog at large and subsequent canine trespass.
-          Frequent aggression and hostile belligerence aimed at passerby and occupants of nearby properties.  This includes dogs chasing people, “Waylaying”, and at least one resident attacked on his own property.  My understanding is that the injury was minor.
-          Dog crap everywhere.  I’m not sure if this was indicated BUT if you have loose dogs all over the place, smart money says the dogs are not being picked up after!
-          Last, but not least FREQUENT BELLIGERENT USELESS TOXIC LOUD BARKING is heard throughout the day and night that is destroying the health of everyone in the vicinity.

Of course, authorities have been contacted, but the response was predictable:  Ignore the problem and discredit the victims!

As I have indicated in the past, the threshold for taking action against a dog and/or dog owner is incredibly high.   Indeed, MUCH higher than the threshold for action against human beings or any other animal.  If these acts were committed directly by human beings or by wildlife, the State would spring to action.  I am fully confident the State would ALSO spring into action if any of these beleaguered residents were to attempt to restore their civil rights on their own as this man did.  Of course, authorities would take action in FAVOR of the dog owner!   Keep those safeties ON people!

Why IS the threshold for taking action against a dog or its owner so incredibly high?  Well, I have said it before and I’m going to keep saying it over and over:  This “policy” is the result of decades of pro-dog propaganda that has wormed its way into the collective psyche.   So much so, that the “system” now operates on a philosophical foundation built with the following corner-stones:
-          Dogs are noble creatures.
-          Dog owners are noble people.
-          You don’t take action against nobles.  Therefore, it is OK for the dog to do whatever it is doing STRICTLY because it is a dog!
-          Anyone who takes issue with the nobility class, by strict definition, is a corrupt and evil person.

Now, on rare occasion, action IS taken against a dog and/or its owner.  Thing is, nothing is done until the dogs in question leave battlefield level injuries in their wake.  At that point, the State will grudgingly take action, and very little at that.  So, what you have is a situation analogous to my opening paragraph:  It’s illegal to steal $50,000 at once, but frequent petty thefts are completely ignored (metaphorically speaking).  So, what you have is a situation where assault by dog is legal up to the threshold of devastating, battlefield level injury.

Interestingly, I was reading my copy of the US Constitution the other day and I failed to locate the section that grants dogs and their owners all of these special powers they seem to be enjoying.  Additionally, I could not locate the section that recognizes dog ownership as a protected civil right.  It might be implied under the 4th amendment, but note that ownership of all kinds of things is restricted for various reasons.  Consider that just because you are allowed to own something doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with that thing.

All of that under consideration, it is WAY past time to hold dogs and their owners to the same standards as the rest of us.   We need to lower the threshold, and go after the “small stuff”.  As “Your Quiet Neighbor” indicated in a blog comment the other day, all of these problems should simply be recognized for what they are.  Extended loud barking is disturbing the peace and/or disorderly conduct; Destruction of property is vandalism; Leaving dog crap everywhere is destruction of the environment; Assault with ANY injury is precisely that; Threatening and intimidating behavior is exactly that and should be treated as such.

Taking affirmative action against “petty” doggy offenses helps us in several ways:
-          It improves the quality of life, health and safety of everyone in the surrounding community.
-          Penalizing offenders via stiff fines will improve the fiscal health of our local governments without general tax increases and/or spending cuts.
-          It gives us an opportunity to “arrest” the aggressive behavior before it becomes devastating.

I’d like to expand on the last point a bit.  You usually hear the same worn out, insipid, excuse given immediately after a dog attack (usually a Pit Bull attack):  “He never did THAT before”.   OK, sure, so you say he never ripped anyone’s head off in the past.  However, I am confident in most of these cases there had been some sort of aggressive behavior indicated in the past:  Chasing people, “Waylaying”, belligerent barking, aggression aimed towards other animals, escaping the home, etc… Again, “minor” incidents are currently ignored so it gives the Pit Nut an “out”.  It’s sensible to arrest the minor problem before it becomes a big one.

PS.  I am enabling anonymous commenting... play nice!


  1. Extremely valid, accurate and well written !

    1. Excellent Bill. I knew I wouldn't be disappointed in this article.


  2. I commented a long time ago about reversing this by first of all rounding up all pit-bull type dogs and PTS them (whether or not they have *yet* ripped off someone's head), also summarily PTS any dog that seriously injures a a way to KABANG! instantly impress on all dog owners that having the animal is a privilege, not a right.

    But I'll also agree wholeheartedly with AU's approach as described here. It's actually in accord with the laws of behavior and the best training techniques. It also takes into account how sociopaths and psychopaths usually operate -- they start small, testing what they can get away with, then increase by steps until they are committing mayhem.

    Whichever route, I just wish regulatory capture could be undone, and that our authorities would take one of them.

    Thanks yet again to Au.

  3. Once again, I was rousted out of a sound sleep by aggressive barking from the next door neighbor's pit bull. Oh, how I despise that mutant of a dog. And I hate the fact that the owner family includes three small children.

    Well, family next door, I have news for you. I have a call in to a local attorney. What happens next will not be fun for you -- or your landlord.

  4. "Why IS the threshold for taking action against a dog or its owner so incredibly high?"

    Because the “dog agenda” has infiltrated into the green movement so if you don't want to be labelled as a conservative (in your case Republican) you have to support the dog lovers. This whole thing is much more than a mere nuisance it has became political many years ago.

  5. Hello Professor,

    Interesting comment. I enjoy reading your blog "Munchers of Doom". Where are you from?

    Do you know if the "Green" parties have a formal policy position on pet ownership? If they were *consistent* I'd think they'd actually be anti-pet, as pet ownership consumes a lot of resources and puts a lot of stress on the environment. That said, I would not be surprised to see that they were Pro-Pet as that would not be the first time a party platform had irreconcilable policy positions.

    A while back I blogged that a large dog consumes more resources and puts more stress on the environment than a mid-size SUV (Toyota Landcruiser).

    I find that when you attempt to curb any of the dog related offenses, dug nuts will accuse you of being a communist, a nazi, etc... as they see even the most marginal restrictions on their behavior to be equivalent to being thrown in the gas chamber at Auschwitz.

  6. Well, it is a mixture of multiple things, historical,economical,political and social factors. Personally I believe that the “New Dog Order” is a sign of entropy, that accrues when one civilisation loses its energy to advance. It stagnates and than falls apart. The dog itself is a sure fire sign that this process is well under way, since as the organism, the dog is a scavenger, it feeds on corpses. So the more dogs you have within the society, the more rotten the society is. For a long time I thought that this is just a poetic way of saying, “we have a problem” but now I don't think that way. I think that it is for real. I live in Serbia now and since it is a country that has been going trough multiple crisis and hardships and the tail tale sign of every new round of decomposition is the ever increasing number of dogs. They simply always follow the destruction of one society.

    As far as green movement well, that is a different story. The main problem with it lies in the fact that pet is not the same thing as the wild animal. Your socks have more connection with the nature that any pet animal. The pet is an animal that is excluded from the ecosystem, cause it lives with humans, in the human setting, it does not participate in the ecosystem. Cause it is a pet not a wild animal. However this bizarre logic somehow managed to push itself trough, that since pet is an animal the animal is a pet, therefore all animals are pets. So you end up with the people that understand the nature as their back yard or a garden and wild life as pets. Which is insane by default. So they think that bonding with the pets is bonding with the nature, which is also insane.

    I mean I could go on and on about this, and I will in depth on the Munchers cause it really drives me nuts and also I see how damaging it is to the human, urban setting as well as it is to the nature.

    Thanks for reading the blog I really hope that it can at least clarify some things and guide people to understand how deeply degrading and damaging this whole thing is.