Policies, People and Dogs

Policies, rules, laws - whether you like them or not, they're part of the human condition. These societal elements can help groups work more efficiently, families live more peaceably, and communities live more safely. I spent more than 2 decades writing policies in a prior profession. To me, best policies have 3 characteristics: 1) they're crafted by someone personally experienced with the issue. 2) they're dynamically adjusted based on ongoing assessments, and 3) they're implemented fairly by an authorized party. When one or more of these characteristics is lacking, things generally don't go well. Today I'd like to offer some examples of well-meaning human policies, that have problematic fallout for dogs.

Policy from the Inexperienced

10 Years ago Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) was all the rage. A dog of breed X would injure (or worse) some member of the community, and lawmakers would feel the need to "do something". The "something" was BSL, where the offending breed in the specific case was banished from that community. BSL is an example of politicians (people with no first-hand dog experience) reacting to a complex problem. BSL, even with all its political popularity for many years, was NEVER able to demonstrate in ANY community, ANY reduction in dog attacks. Useless policy!

Policy that is Never Assessed

For decades many have advocated for Spay/Neuter (S/N) programs as a solution to dog overpopulation. Even with decades of strong implementation in many parts of the world, this "policy" has NOT curbed the problem. S/N advocacy has also lead to many shelters/rescues (even many locally) adopting policy to S/N all pets before they are adopted - even pets as young as 12 weeks of age. This extreme adherence to policy IS NOT in the best health interest of many individual pets (those too young). I support S/N, I understand things would likely be worse without S/N, but it's not a final solution. It's time to be assessing how this policy is working, and looking at some of the dark turns it can be taking.

Unauthorized Parties

In our information age, it's easier than ever for people to form very strong opinions. Being people, some like to force those opinions on others. Some rescues and breeders have begun implementing contracts that require owners abide by certain S/N wishes, and/or specify what method of training a dog must receive. Aside from the fact many of these policies are crafted by persons without credible experience (see #1 above), who owns the dog? Is it fair for a shelter to force an owner to spay a dog earlier than a Veterinarian recommends? Or for a breeder to specify the type of training a dog can attend? What happens when those policies result in health issues or behavioral issues for an owner's pet? Will the shelter or breeder step up to help with Veterinarian bills, or liabilities when a dog injures someone? IMO these groups or individuals have NO AUTHORITY to compel an owner to do anything, once they are no longer the LEGAL and responsible party for the pet.

I hope this world can be a better place for people and our dogs. For those who care about such things, I challenge you to look at policies with a critical eye. I understand the need for policy, rules, and law. But we also need to make sure they're having intended results, not unintended consequences. Our dogs have no say in those human policies affecting them, but we do.