Dixie and I had a walk in Bol Park this evening, to visit the donkeys and wade in the creek and admire the wildflowers. Dixie's a fan of all water except oceans. Sadly for me, she's incredibly distrustful of waves thus depriving me of the opportunity to cavort on the sands with her, tossing a frisbee (which admittedly she wouldn't catch anyway), and being classically dog-and-ownerish. There's been quite a lot of press about dogs and owners lately. On June 14th, Glen Martin wrote an article in the San Francisco Chronicle about how dog owners and their pets were part of a Cult of the Dog, and this was tied to Baby Boomers being spoiled losers. He objected to the idea that some people feel strongly attached to their animals and treat them as pets instead of working animals. Hey, as far as I'm concerned, in a city the only work animal is a Guide Dog. What did he expect? The problem with his position was he opted to denigrate the caring relationship between pet and owner as a way of "humorously" proving that all dog lovers are sentimental Baby Boomers who don't realize dogs are not people, want to abolish leash laws, and protest having to keep their pets away from where a group of snowy plovers is nesting this year.
Unfortunately for him, he's a bit tone deaf, and he got a few facts wrong. He referred to Ocean Beach as "one of the truly wild habitats left in San Francisco." That would be wrong; it hasn't been a wild habitat for over a hundred years. Ocean Beach had public swimming pools by the turn of the century, and an amusement park called Playland-at-the-Beach, and the Cliff House Hotel has been there all that time as well. He also chose to misconstrue the dog owners' objections to the City forbidding pet access to certain Golden Gate National Recreation Areas. According to John Ewing, Co-Vice Chair of the San Francisco Dog Owners Group, what the association specifically objects to is closure of GGNRA parklands to off-leash recreation without the public hearings required by law. His article reminded me of how easy it is to figure research isn't necessary when one is writing "opinion" pieces. Since he's a staff member of the respected Chronicle, I don't know where he got that idea.
This Sunday's Chron has an article on the concept of larger dogs actually making better tenants than small dogs. The sizist attitude of landlords (which we ourselves have experienced since Dixie weighs 70 pounds) is based on pretty spurious concepts of what kind of dog makes the most trouble. The fact is, most smaller breeds are more excitable and bark much more than the larger dogs. Larger dogs have larger poop, yes, but they are generally less prone to separation anxiety during the day and so less likely to mark their territory as a sign of distress, and no matter what size the poop is you just can't tell by the size of the dog whether or not the owner is a responsible person who will clean up after their pet.
This business of larger dogs being a better tenant is certainly true in my experience. Our miniature poodles were always barking insanely at any incursion upon their territory, which apparently extended to within hearing distance. Our Kerry Blue Terriers were somewhat high strung and destructive of furniture, liking to chew chair legs during the day because they were bored without people around. Dixie, on the other hand, has never bitten anyone or any thing in her life. She never barks unless a dog sniffs her butt too long. She chewed two shoes when she was a puppy and has never done anything like it since. She loves everyone without exception, and would certainly welcome a burglar into our home with several licks. Dixie, and most big dogs like Great Danes, Labradors, and Retrievers, are a much better bet, Mr. or Ms. Landlord. Believe me, my cats are doing the only damage to our current rental by shredding the curtains, no matter what I do.
Er. Forget I mentioned that.
