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 4^th 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!

Is the bark worse than the bite?

Is the bark truly mightier than the bite?   The number of citizens killed directly by dogs and other animals is well known and generally easy to document.   I had the thought a while back that the number of people killed indirectly by same due to related health issues and sleep deprivation may indeed be MUCH higher.

A couple of years ago when the barking nuisance on my street was at its peak, it was not uncommon for me to be awakened prematurely by the useless yard-barkers across the street.  I never blamed the dogs as the owner was 100% responsible for creating the situation.   I was disrupted for prolonged periods, it was difficult to get back to sleep, and I would be seriously sleep deprived the following day.  This is addition to the fact that abrupt loud noises, such as barking, affect the body’s autonomic systems thereby raising heart rate, blood pressure, etc…

I’d like to examine the potential outcomes of situations such as these, particularly in how they may cause premature death.

There have been several studies done that indicate that sleep deprivation can impair motor skills, judgment, etc… in a manner similar to consumption of alcohol.  In other words, driving while sleep deprived is roughly equivalent to driving drunk.   Here is a CNN study and a US News article with more information.

It is well known that sufficient sleep is key to good health.  It is this simple:  When you deprive others of sleep, you are making them sick.   As I noted above, loud noises projected into people’s homes can also cause health issues during waking hours as well.

I anticipate that the number of premature deaths attributable to “nuisance” barking is higher than the number killed in dog attacks.  I am contemplating the following:

-          Motor vehicle, industrial, and other accidental deaths due to barking induced sleep deprivation. 

-          Heart attacks, strokes, and other potentially lethal health issues due to barking induced stress.

Of course, with driving you can make the choice not to drive.  I like to think of myself as a responsible driver.  If I’m at a party and have a few too many, I grab a cab or stay over where I am at.  Returning to the topic at hand, impairment due to barking induced sleep deprivation is difficult to measure.   It puts me in a bad situation that was not entirely of my making:  First of all, I did not choose to have those loud noises projected into my living space, the anti-social dog owners made that choice for me.  Second, must I abdicate my responsibilities and thus create a larger hardship on myself and others?   I now have a choice to either drive tired (endangering myself and others) or surrender a day’s wages?  Do I instruct colleagues that they must pick up my work load due to a nuisance barker?  Perhaps even lose the work assignment?   Thanks a LOT, neighbors!

As a follow up to “Prejudice” and a pre-cursor to another article I am working on, the above is just ONE reason we need to go after the “little” stuff.  Small offenses can and do add up over time.  What is worse, stealing $50,000 in one day, or stealing $1,000 per day for 50 days?  The mauler is the former, the nuisance barker is the latter.  You have the same outcome either way.

Prejudice

Word for the day is PREJUDICE.  From Websters:

“Definition of PREJUDICE

1

: injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights; especially : detriment to one's legal rights or claims

2

a (1) : preconceived judgment or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge b : an instance of such judgment or opinion c : an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics”.

Is discrimination against certain animal species, or breeds thereof, truly prejudicial?  It may meet 2a(1) above.   We have preconceived notions about all kinds of things.  I like chocolate ice cream better than strawberry… is that unfairly prejudicial?  How can those strawberries get through life knowing that I don’t like them simply for who they are?   Personally, I don’t give a crap about the attitudes of individual fruits.   Fruits do NOT have rights!  Strawberry lovers can likewise kiss my butt.

A repeal of the Miami-Dade Pit Bull ban was recently defeated (again).  Ownership of pit bulls in Miami remains illegal.  That said, I am confident that Florida Pit Bull aficionados are going to continue suing until they get the outcome they want.   They believe that the law is unfairly prejudicial.  They say, “Hey, MY “pibble” never hurt anyone.  What’s the problem?”

Well, the problem I have is, when it comes to dogs not only is there no judgment before the fact, there is none AFTER the fact either!  If their “pebble” attacks someone, the dog is usually returned to the owner, all set for another attack.  Lather-rinse-repeat.  For instance, the Roy McSweeney murder would have been prevented if the dogs involved had been euthanized and the owner jailed after the first attack.  The McSweeney murder was the THIRD known incident of violence and subsequent injury against human beings on the part of the 2 dogs.   I am confident that if McSweeney had survived, the 2 maulers would still be among us.

It appears that there is no happy medium here.  It seems that the policy swings wildly between to vastly divergent viewpoints:

1)      Discriminate (prejudice) by breed history alone.

2)      No action taken against dogs or their owners for any reason, ever.

I have posited in the past that we have gotten to this point due to the general “policy” of putting dogs and their owners on a pedestal.   We are told it’s a given that dogs are noble creatures and that their owners are likewise noble.   With that philosophical foundation firmly set, it follows that no action can be taken against a dog or its owner for any reason, ever.  Victims of dog related offenses are by definition to blame:  Since it’s a given that dogs and their owners are, by definition, always absolutely wonderful you HAVE to blame the victim.  There is no one else TO blame.  They MUST have done something to deserve what happened!

There are several obstacles to Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) that are obvious to me.  Note that these are not all necessarily objections on MY part, simply observations on my part.

1)      Hoist by (y)our own petards.   Proponents of BSL are shoveling against the proverbial tide of pro-dog propaganda that we have ALL been drowning in the past 50 years.  They are working against the same talking points, attitudes, policies, cultural norms, etc… to which victims have been exposed for decades:  These creatures exist among us and we simply have to “get used to” whatever they do.  Everyone must absolutely and unconditionally love ALL (each and every) dogs.  There are, by STRICT definition, NO bad dogs. ALL dog behavior is by definition acceptable strictly BECAUSE it is dog behavior.  If you speak out, or take a stand against any individual animal (or group thereof) you are by definition an evil person.  The interests of individual dogs ALWAYS take precedence over the rights of human beings and other animals, PERIOD.  Dogs and dog owners must NEVER be restrained for ANY reason EVER!  Conversation OVER!

2)      Discriminatory.  Proponents of BSL are pushing an agenda that would be apparent to most as fundamentally and unfairly prejudicial.   While I do believe that discrimination (prejudice) against certain species and/or breeds of animal is completely legal, even sensible, many will not see it that way.

3)       It is wildly divergent from current policies.  Pursuant to (1) if I can’t take action against a dog (and by reference, the owner) AFTER the fact, how the HELL can I restrain it BEFORE the fact?  I mean, I’m not allowed to take action against a dog because of what it is currently doing, or did, but I *can* based on what I think it *might* do based on its physical appearance?   That does not appear to be very sensible.

4)      Apparent double-standard.   Pursuant to (3) attempting to restrain dogs based strictly on breed history and not observable behavior is a rather tough sell.  Essentially, it seems that the updated policy will be:  “Kill or banish the well behaved Pit Bull on sight, but the Labrador that bit you absolutely MUST be allowed to do so again as he’s a wonderful doggie and you absolutely must love and accept him no matter what he does to anybody”.  Now, many BSL proponents may want a general “dangerous dog law” in addition to BSL, but they certainly don’t promote that.  Giving other breeds a pass on bad behavior is a no-go IN MY OPINION.

5)      It is arbitrary.  Is there a “one drop rule” being considered?  Where do you draw the line regarding mixes and other breeds?  And, more importantly:  What is on either side of that line you are drawing?  IOW’s if my golden retriever is 1/16^th Pit Bull must I surrender him to be euthanized?  If my next door neighbor has 10 “labs” that are 31/32^nd Pit Bull must I be forced to endure that?  When Pit Bulls are gone, Rottweilers then become the most dangerous breed… do we then ban them?  How about wolf-hybrids and akitas?   Point is, As long as dogs exist there will ALWAYS be a “most dangerous breed” of dog. 

In my opinion, it is WAY past time to drain the proverbial swamp.  If your dog sends someone to the hospital, YOU are going to prison, and I don’t give a flying ---- WHAT breed it is!  No more free passes for ANY pet owner.  They have the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us.  The only reason that BSL is even being considered is a direct result of the ongoing “policy” of nearly ALWAYS giving dogs and their owners a pass. If there had been equal protection of laws from the outset in ALL doggie related cases, the whole Pit Bull “problem” never would have erupted in the first place!

With all of that said, I still support BSL efforts.  In my opinion, the current situation is SO unbelievably bad and absurdly unfair that ANY policy that limits the actions of dogs or their owners (even flawed policies) is a GO!  Pit Bulls and their owners are among the worst of the worst, and they are guilty of all kind of pet related offenses that include:  Bites, dog at large, nuisance barking, destruction of property, "Waylaying" and other threatening behaviors, dog crap everywhere, and so forth.  Furthermore, housing any pet in a human city is a citizen PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT.   If the citizens of Miami, or any other place, collectively decide to purge their city of Pit Bulls (or any other pet dog) they have every right to do so.  Pit Bulls are NOT natural, they are NOT demonstratably useful or necessary, and Pit Bull ownership is NOT recognized as a core civil right anyplace that I know of.  Q.E.D.