Laws of Human Behavior

Hugo Martin wrote about dogs off leash in the LA Times and, like many such articles, painted a sensible, well-written, wrong-headed picture that completely missed the point about people and dogs in public spaces. Nowadays, people do not love their dogs as they love their cars or even homes. The behavior of humans with their possessions is receptive to collective rule making and responsive to group pressure on behavior.

Nowadays, people love their dogs as they love their children. A dog becomes an ally who can be depended on in a very messy and confusing world. Dog people break the law because they experience a bond being in nature with their dog that their moral center tells them must be good and all the park rangers and dog experts in the world will not convince them otherwise. Seemingly wise pronouncements on rules for training to some sound like so much "spare the rod and spoil the child" dogmatism to such people and they will ignore it. Laws that groups of people agree are unjust simply will not be followed, and strict enforcement only will raise anger on both sides.

Thirty-nine percent of homes in America have dogs People need activities where they can enjoy the company of their dogs as equal companions, and that means no leash. A dog off-leash is a different creature than a dog on a leash. Fenced off-leash parks are okay, but only the dogs get exercise. For the humans, it feels like a daily visit to the prison yard. Runyon Canyon is the only local off-leash hiking area where both and it is overburdened in the extreme. Huntington Beach is another, but it is a long haul. Not something that can be done every day. The only solution is to have many, many more places such as these. Enough areas for people to hike and play alongside their dogs in the mountains and beaches, so that the scofflaws can both serve the demands of their hearts and obey the law.

Room needs to be made for everyone at the table, yet more room is made for people and their off-road bikes and dune buggies than is made for people and their dogs. Does this seem right or fair. Do dogs do more damage than dirt bikes?

We need to figure out how to integrate dogs more safely rather than figure out how the scofflaws are wrong. When such a large segment of the otherwise law-abiding population tosses all respect for a law aside, that usually indicates an obsolescent worldview that requires revisting by the community as a whole if the community truly wishes to solve the issue.

How to Lie While Telling the Truth

Read the following opening paragraph of a Letter to the Editor of the Ocean Park Gazette in Southern California a while back. Note your reaction to the content. You will have a fundamental misapprehension of the situation without a lie actually having been told.


"Other Species May Pay Price for Dog Beach

"May 11 - Small vocal groups are pushing for unleashed, unfenced dog beaches in Santa Monica and Dockweiler (in El Segundo). Both of these locations include areas designated by the U.S. Government as protected for the snowy plover, a small bird that nests on the sands of certain west coast beaches. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classifies the bird as "threatened" and the California Department of Fish and Game classifies the bird as a "species of special concern." "


Okay. Forget the "small vocal groups" dismissal of the proponents of the dog beach. (Note: Over 36% of American households include dogs. Not small and to my mind not vocal enough.) It's the second sentence I'm interested in.

The author says both of "these" places have snowy plovers. This is a true statement. But which places are 'these?" The proposed dog beach areas? Or the miles and miles of beach with the official names "Santa Monica Beach" and "Dockweiler Beach" See? Both Beaches-with-a-capital-"B" have snowy plovers on parts of them, not all over them, and not at all on the same part of the park as the beaches-with-a-small-"b."

This is a lie that is 100% true. Because English allows for pronouns like "these" without anybody but a composition teacher caring that 2 antecedents exist that could be confused and therefore require "the former" and "the latter" to clarify which is meant. So people reading this letter figure that selfish, thoughtless dog lovers are planning their doggy playground right in the middle of the habitat for a threatened species.

Innuendo is much more powerful than logic because it invites the collusion of the hearer's or reader's imagination. But it is a cheap shot by a small vocal group of selfish, thoughless dog haters who think a pluralistic society means making themselves into the royal "we."

Let me just say, representing 36% of the households, that we are not amused.