End petlessness? Are you kidding?
September 12th, 2007
Billboard at Sandy and Burnside… where’s the Oxford comma!?
Have you seen the big new billboards from Oregon Humane Society tongue-in-cheek urging that we “end petlessness” with “a pet for every man, woman, and child”… jeez! Just what we need, more dogs in dense urban areas!
Portlanders need to realize that we don’t live on a farm. Nor are we in the country.
We live in an urban environment.
And, as such, ownership of dogs needs to be carefully considered. As it is, dogs are one of the leading causes of polluting bacteria in local waterways:
But unlike those sources, dogs generate disease-causing bacteria that can make people sick. Studies done in the last few years put dogs third or fourth on the list of contributors to bacteria in contaminated waters. “Dogs are one of our usual suspects,” says Valerie Harwood, a microbiologist at the University of South Florida. “At certain sites, we find their effect to be significant.”
[...]
Those numbers add up to a lot of kibble. That wouldn’t matter if all dog owners also owned a pooper-scooper. But several studies have found that roughly 40% of Americans don’t pick up their dogs’ feces (women are more likely to do so than men).
And how many times have I been in Forest Park to come across dogs playing in Balch Creek. I always politely ask, “do you mind leashing your dog”. Almost always, a rude response results.
And now we know WHY it is so vital to leash dogs when in habitat (or, better yet, keep dogs out entirely)… because dogs, even on leashes, result in fewer species:
Regardless of the type of area, dog walking led to a 35 percent reduction in the number of bird species and a 41 percent reduction in overall bird numbers, compared with the control. (People walking alone caused some disturbance, but less than half that caused by people with dogs.)
The study, published in Biology Letters, provides support for park managers and others on the same side of what can be a heated debate over dogs in natural areas.
“The problem is there are other uses for an area” besides dog walking, said Dr. Banks, who described himself as “not a dog hater.” “If dogs walk throughout an area, you’re just not going to get the same bird-watching experience or ecotourism experience.”
Tanner Creek Park in the middle of the Pearl is one of the only parks that I know of that does not allow pets, even on leashes. Isn’t about time we export that philosophy out from the Pearl and to areas of more significant habitat… say a few areas in Forest Park? Perhaps one day we will see little “no dog” zones much like there are “no fishing” zones along the ocean.
Meanwhile, Oregon Humane Society needs to rethink their campaign. What’s the point of it anyway? To get more people adopting pets? Okay, fair enough. But by urging everyone to have a dog, regardless of that dog’s source or the fitness of its owner, aren’t they simply going to contribute even more abandoned pets in the future?
(And don’t even get me started on the problems with cats and impacts to local bird populations! Put bells on your cats people!!!)
10 Comments Add your own
1. Kari Chisholm | September 12th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Interesting take, but let me suggest that dogs do good things for urban development patterns as well. A dog-friendly population leads to streets with sidewalks, parks, and other amenities that make density livable. It also gets people out of their houses and onto those sidewalks and into those parks. That has effects on crime, public health, and community support for sidewalks and parks and such.
Do we need to worry about dog populations? Absolutely. In fact, I’d argue that we should have a substantially higher licensing fee for un-neutered dogs - and the enforcement to match. Breeders wouldn’t have any trouble paying, say, $50 a year - but it would be enough to get many more people to neuter their dogs.
2. gerry | September 12th, 2007 at 9:39 am
I agree there’s an irresponsible tone to it. A city is no place for many breeds of dogs. But people are lonely and scared and they need their kitties!
3. Jack | September 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Interesting post. But you’re kind of railing against a straw man. OHS’s billboard campaign is not literally going to result in every human being in Portland having a cat or dog. Besides, I have yet to see one of these billboards, and I drive around the entire eastside of Portland as part of my job. I drove all day today all over North and Northeast Portland and didn’t see a single one.
Your post did get me thinking more about the ecological impact of pets, though, which is certainly a valid concern. But it also completely ignored the MASSIVE pet overpopulation problem (i.e., the irresponsible people problem), which OHS is trying to tackle. We need more solutions for that. How about mandatory sterilization of pets AND irresponsible people? (just kidding, sort of)
Kari, interesting comments about urban development. Never thought of that, but I can see how there might be a connection—I live in a very “walkable” neighborhood, and a large percentage of the people I see walking by have dogs. Would they be walking around otherwise? I think the psychological benefits of pets are even greater, though. “Livability” is about individual people being happy. Pets are a bit part of individual happiness.
And you are absolutely right that we do need more enforcement of our animal laws in the city. I think that’s the number one problem. Where is animal services in the county and city hierarchy of priorities? Near the bottom? AT the bottom? No doubt well below the city-financed shelter for illegal aliens and their tax-evading employers. How many animal control officers are there in Multnomah County? And why allow breeders and commercial pet sellers to operate here at all when they’re the problem? We don’t need their taxes, we need them to stop flooding the “market” with animals. They are operating in an extremely irresponsible manner, and they need to either be severely regulated or better yet, eliminated entirely.
4. Peter Bray | September 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Before I get to other comments, I’ll just point out that there’s a billboard at Burnside & Sandy as well as NB I-205.
5. Marvin Clonkey | September 14th, 2007 at 1:46 am
There’s also an End Petlessness TV ad I saw last night.
6. Ben Mall | September 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
I don’t really think they’re talking about bringing a whole batch of new pets into the Portland area and making every citizen adopt one.
If they were, your point would be valid.
Rather, I think that they’re just trying to get people to adopt pets that ALREADY EXIST AND NEED HOMES.
And the whole dog-walking-vs-bird-species thing? Oh please. Who cares?
7. MuddyClogs | September 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I believe the Oregon Humane Society spays or neuters every animal before it gets adopted, so they aren’t actually encouraging or supporting the overpopulation of pets.
It’s our job as a community to make sure that we are responsible for pets that are homeless due to other people’s neglect and irresponsibility. I agree that irresponsible pet-owners need to due a better job of keeping pets on-leash and disposing properly of animal waste, but the Humane Society’s mission is to find responsible homes for unwanted animals. It’s our job as citizens to take care of them in a responsible way.
And in regard to the comment about punctuation, I believe that is the AP style of punctuation. It’s the standard style for Journalism. Or at least it was when I was in Journalism school… Here is more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP_Stylebook
8. Peter Bray | September 19th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I applaud OHS’ goal of finding homes for abandoned pets. However, I don’t agree that promoting pet ownership in general, even if in a tongue-in-cheek manner, is the most responsible means.
9. Blue | October 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am
This has got to be the most ridiculous response I’ve ever seen to a positive commercial. It makes me wonder if you have some sort of social or cognitive disability that prevents you from understanding simple concepts the way other humans do.
The Oregon Humane Society found that less than one third of Oregon’s population has pets of any kind. Since the Humane Society exists to protect the welfare of abandoned and unwanted animals, it is their job to find homes for those animals, rather than kill them.
Nowhere in the commercial is it suggested that lazy, irresponsible people should become pet owners. “Every man, woman, and child” is hyperbole any person over age 7 should understand. They are promoting pet ownership to the people who are responsible enough to take it on. If you had ever adopted an animal from them, you would know it’s not easy. They require you to make all sorts of investments and commitments to the animal, and answer questions to show you’ll be responsible. If you try to adopt soon after another pet has died, they suggest you wait. It’s nothing like what you’re suggesting; that they just want to toss animals out to people like beads at Mardi Gras.
You’re also clearly obsessed with seeing dogs as detrimental to society. I’m not a dog person, but you should seek therapy for your dog issues! I don’t think dogs belong in small apartments, but there are large houses here with lots of land, and I don’t see any problem with people owning dogs if they provide for and look after them properly. Your references are rather ridiculous as well: the first is one of the over generalized, dumbed-down articles of USA Today; and if you read further, it suggests that dog feces likely only accounts for 20-30% of the pollution in a stream, and that’s only in an area where dog owners don’t pick up their feces. If you compare New York and Portland, you’ll see that not only are we much further from the “urban” center you claim, but also that people here do a really good job picking up their dog’s feces—without fines. As for your second article, it focuses on research done on woodland trails in Australia. If Portland is “not the country,” as you claim, how are woodland trails relevant? Not to mention that the results could only be noted as lasting in the short term, and that people walking alone caused at least half the level reduction anyway.
As or cats and birds, tough for the birds—cats aren’t some alien species. If people didn’t keep them in their homes, they would be roaming wild, and there would be even more of them out eating birds, their natural prey.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed